Saturday, November 25, 2006

New York Times is at it Again

Alphecca points us to one of the New York Times classic anti-gun editorials. It laments a bill that Senator George Allen of Virginia is introducing in his last few weeks in office. Allen wants to force the National Park Service to allow concealed carry in National Parks where state law allows the practice. If passed, this will be a victory for law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, the New York Times doesn’t think much of this idea and goes in full attack mode. Let’s dig a little deeper into their arguments. The editorial features Allen’s name several times especially the fact that he is an outgoing senator. It doesn’t mention that his successor, James Webb, promised to introduce just such a bill if elected. Therefore, it’s likely he will support Allen’s bill in the next Congress.

So much for politics. The editorial dives right into fiction when it says, “America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public.”

There is so much wrong with this statement that it boggles the mind. First off, if America is confused about the Second Amendment it’s only because anti-gun media and scholarly people have tried to cloud the issue.

There was no confusion about the Second Amendment through well over 170 years of our history. It’s only recently that a “collective right” model was introduced. Even so, this model is now shot so full of holes that an anti-gun legal scholar like Laurence Tribe agrees the Second Amendment protects an individual right although society can establish some limitations.

On another level; what the hell is a collective right? Do we have a collective right to vote? If so, does that mean individuals can not vote and that only the body politic can? How would that work? It’s a contradiction in terms.

And speaking of voting, the editorial’s very next sentence illustrates anti-gunnies’ anger at gun owners’ recent victories over concealed carry. It says, “And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right [public carry] has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote.”

Of course it’s a civil right. It’s embodied in the Bill of Rights. The right to defend oneself is possibly more basic than the right to vote itself. If you take self-defense away, you're left with citizens who must rely on government to keep him or her from harm and more importantly to hope that the government will not harm that person. I guess creating such creatures is the point after all—silly me.

The editorial ends with a paragraph that embodies all the sneering elitist mentality that gunnies have heard over the last thirty years. In a nutshell:
--if you want to feel safer, increase government spending;
--concealed carry supporters gin up irrational fear, so that they can carry their guns in parks, schools, and churches of our lands; and,
--Allen’s bill, if passed, would only make us less safe.

Why is it that anti-gunnies can’t see that concealed carry has not turned states into Dodge City? Why is it that they will never give credit to the man or woman who lawfully protects his or her life or that of another with a gun? To answer my own questions, such independence doesn’t fit into their mentality and it doesn’t fit into their paradigm of increased government. It's not part of their vision for America.

Maybe there's another way to look at this editorial. When your foe stoops to such blatant disregard for truth and ignores facts contrary to their argument, they realize they are losing. One can hope anyway.

No comments: