Gun Rights: The Right but Not the Means.

The New York Times decided that gun control is so imperative that an editorial (12/05/15) belonged on its front page, which hasn’t happened in nearly a century. I really don’t care about the content of the hackneyed piece. They and their kind always say the same things, use the same, tired worn out arguments, and tell the same lies about gun ownership and use. What I do have a problem with is the stunning lack of logic in their argument.

Although some folks don’t like it and would change it if they could, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This is indisputable, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed keeping and bearing a firearm is an individual right. This is because the framers recognized a human being’s right to self-defense.

Once this is established in the conversation, this is where logic leaves the conversation. I’ve yet to meet the anti-gun liberal who doesn’t believe Americans have the right to self-defense. However, according to the gun control crowd, Americans don’t have the commensurate right to the most efficient means to that control: the gun.

The New York Times says, “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” Let me ask the New York Times, if a well-armed terrorist is coming after you with a modified “combat” weapon, as they did in California, would you rather be armed with a tin can-plinking .22 or, perhaps, a Daisy BB gun–paint ball? Wouldn’t you be better off with a weapon effective enough to actually defend your self?

The means of self-defense go hand in hand with the right to self-defense. It’s not enough to recognize that human beings have a right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and other innocents, but, at the same time, declare people do not have the right to use the most practical tool to accomplish the task.

Apparently, the last time the Times placed an editorial on its front page was to lament the selection by the Republicans of Warren G. Harding back in 1920. Though I’m not a huge fan of President Harding, let’s hope this works out as well for the Times as that effort did. Harding won.

 

 

Express your thoughts