Uh Oh: NY Times Shows Their Disdain For The 2nd Amendment

On the 7th of July, the NY Times loved the Constitution, at least as far as Obama and Co. suing Arizona over their immigration law (which mirrors federal law) using the “supremacy clause”. But, see, there is a problem with the Left: they pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they like, often depending on the day and situation. (Note to liberals: the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution. You’re welcome) Which leads to this bit of Constitution hatred from the NY Times editorial board, Internet version on Saturday, print version in today’s grand Sunday edition, a bunch of folks who don’t have the cajones to put their names on their work: The Hard Work of Gun Control

Thirteen days ago, the Supreme Court undermined Chicago’s ban on handguns by applying the Second Amendment to the states, ruling that people have a right to protect their homes with a gun. Four days after that, Chicago passed another handgun restriction that edged right up to the line drawn by the court. And on Tuesday, a group of gun dealers and enthusiasts sued the city again to overturn the new law.

Bullets are flying on city streets, but the vital work of limiting gun use has become a cat-and-mouse game. Beleaguered citizens deserve better from both sides.

Nowhere in this craptastic bit of an editorial will you find out that the majority of those bullets are flying from illegal guns by criminals, who could care less what Chicago’s, or any other cities, gun laws are. They don’t care that one couldn’t purchase a gun legally in Chicago, nor that the law allowed only one handgun per household, nor the requirement to receive training, but, not in the city limits. The only people put in danger are the citizens of Chicago. There were 50 homicides in June alone, up from 46 last year, including a police officer. If I were a betting man, I would bet that most involving handguns were caused by illegal handguns, ones owned by criminals. Harsh gun restrictions hurt law abiding citizens.

We strongly disagreed with the reasoning that led the court to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, ending handgun bans in Washington, D.C., in 2008 and everywhere else last month. Nonetheless, the law of the land is now that people have a constitutional right to a gun in their home for self-defense.

And there you have it: the NY Times liberals put in print their disdain towards the Constitution, since, in this case, it doesn’t support their feelings. They do not like the 2nd Amendment, which was meant for all people. The 1st was the only Amendment meant specifically for the federal Congress (something which is copied, for the most part, by every State constitution). They do see, sort of, what the law of the land is, so, what do they want to do, since they hate the law?

Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns, but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago ordinance.

Fortunately, Liberals aren’t as smart as they think feel they are, otherwise, they would call for massive restrictions on the sale of bullets.

The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller.

So, the Times wants every legal gun owner to be constantly tracked, like they were a criminal? That would seem to violate the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments, not to mention that part which says “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd.

As flawed as the Chicago regulation is, the lawsuit challenging it is entirely over the top. It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that everyone needs a gun…….

The gun lobby is going to attack virtually every gun ordinance it can find, if only to see what it can get away with now. (Last week, the same lawyers who brought the Chicago and Washington cases sued North Carolina, challenging a law that prohibits carrying weapons during a state of emergency.)

And what is the answer by the Time editorial board to these pesky folks who support the Constitution? Why, more restrictions! They just want the cities to enact them in ways that will stand against lawsuits. That way, it will mostly be criminals roaming the streets with handguns, putting the citizens who follow the law in danger.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend