Once again, as is so often the case, The New York Times is lying getting it wrong. Their April 11 editorial lambasting the South Carolina legislature for working to pass constitutional carry (Standing Ground Against the N.R.A.) is their usual mishmash of logical fallacies, unsupported assertions and outright falsehoods.

They start with a classic guilt by association fallacy:

Two years after nine churchgoers were shot to death in a horrific gun spree in Charleston, S.C., tone-deaf state lawmakers are considering a measure to allow South Carolina residents to carry guns — openly or concealed — without the need to obtain a state weapons permit.

Before skipping over to a good old ad hominem arrack:

Representative Bill Crosby supports gun rights but felt obliged to warn the House … “all it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

The fact that a lunatic racist perpetrated a “gun spree” (i.e. mass shooting) is completely irrelevant to whether or not people should be “allowed” to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable, human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to carry the self-defense tool of their choice without let or hindrance, and most especially without kowtowing to the unfettered whim of some official. But the Times’ editorial board’s bowels are turning to water “because guns” and they’re hoping that bringing up this mass murder will instill similar fear in others.

Furthermore, classifying all those who prefer to take responsibility for their own self-defense as “good ol’ boys” who like to go strapped, diminishes and marginalizes the many men and women who have very real reasons to believe that they or their loved ones may face the threat of deadly violence. People who have violent ex-partners, have a stalker, live in bad neighborhoods, routinely carry large amounts of cash…any and all of these people have legitimate cause to “have guns strapped to their hips.” But more importantly, as all nine Supreme Court justices agreed in Heller v. DC, the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

This means that you don’t need a reason to carry a weapon, just as you don’t need a reason for why you go to church on Tuesday, you don’t need a reason to pull out a soapbox and start orating in the town square, you don’t need a reason to assemble with a bunch of your friends and express your pleasure or displeasure with what the government is or isn’t doing.

And all that is in just the first two paragraphs! The fourth paragraph is where the editorial board really polishes up the B.S.:

The carnage at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church against African-American worshipers was carried out by a racist gunman who was able to buy his weapon because of shoddy enforcement of gun control laws.

And this is where the outright falsehood comes in; the racist loon shooter arguably was not a prohibited person, and two years after the fact is enough time for the Times editorial board to have figured this out. Said loon was arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge (not a disqualifying factor) which was mistakenly reported initially as a felony, which would have made him a prohibited person.

Finally, we have the unsupported assertion:

Yet, rather than focus on tighter gun safety, lawmakers yielded once more to the National Rifle Association’s agenda to freely arm the public and enrich the gun industry. …

Despite decades of uncritical acceptance, the fact remains, there is no evidence that stricter gun laws improve “gun safety” in the sense the editorial board uses the phrase. Even the CDC has said that it is impossible to say that restrictive gun laws have any effect on criminal gun use. The only law I can think of which might actually improve real gun safety is a requirement for all public-school children to be taught the four rules of gun safety, but somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Gray Lady has in mind.

27 Responses to The New York Times: Standing Ground Against the Truth

  1. Liberal-Progressive legislation over the last 50 years is the primary reason coconuts are protected from exposure and confinement and allowed to run free creating mayhem.

  2. Not only did “all nine Supreme Court justices agree[] in Heller v. DC, [that] the Second Amendment protects an individual right,” but the court’s liberals signed onto an opinion which said that any other interpretation was ridiculous.

    I’m still not sure what right the minority (i.e., those outside the mainstream) held exists under the 2A, other than that it has something to do with militia service. So, that means a right to assault rifles* for all able bodied men,** right? I mean wouldn’t they be the most useful weapon for the common militiaman?

    *An assault rifle being “a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine” per wikipedia.

    **Sure, sure, the 14A’s equal protection means that able bodied women get assault rifles too. Maybe, only intermediate scrutiny is applied in gender cases, and we’ve seen how that works when the courts apply intermediate scrutiny to firearms.

    • The dissent suggested that the right was inextricably linked to the prefatory clause about a “well-regulated ,militia”, and that therefore the right existed only as to those serving in the militia–and not the rest of us. This is an argument based on grammatical construction, but to be fair, so was Scalia’s explanation of the meaning and purpose of the prefatory clause.

      • It’s an argument based on poor understanding of grammar. Or purposefully misconstruing it. Scalia knew what he was talking about, grammatically and legally.

      • “… that therefore the right existed only as to those serving in the militia–and not the rest of us.”

        Yeah, but they didn’t go into what a militia was. If the militia is only those in an exclusive government organization, then the right is a power and not a right. It’s nonsensical.

        My main point is that if the militia language is controlling of anything in the 2A it is controlling as to the type of arms protected. Those would be the arms useful in armed combat because the militia is for suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion. (Also fighting “a standing army,” but that’s not going to be a central holding of a Supreme Court opinion).

        A secondary point is that the minority ruled that you have a right that doesn’t mean anything. “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia” whatever that means, which they don’t bother to explain.

        Stevens goes on to say “[s]uch text should not be treated as mere surplusage, for ‘[i]t cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.’ Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803).” The minorities opinion that the 2A enshrines the people’s individually enforceable right not to firearms, but “to maintain a well-regulated militia” is a right to nothing making the entire 2A “mere surplusage.”

        How can one have an individually enforceable right “to maintain a well-regulated militia?” That’s nonsense. Also, it takes the right protected, “the right to keep and bear arms,” and makes the right an afterthought. It makes the right a component of another right that isn’t explicitly in the Constitution. (The right to be in a militia exists as a right of free association found in the 1A and the right to keep and bear arms in the 2A).

        Just as an aside, you ever notice how the due process clause of the 14A includes (basically) all the rights in the Bill of Rights? Since the Bill of Rights has a nearly identical due process clause, doesn’t that mean that the rest of the Bill of Rights is mere surplusage?

      • “JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

        The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” The second sentence is not dicta because it is necessary to the conclusion reached. It is part of the holding.

        Five voted that the 2A protected the right to have a handgun for self defense in the home. Four voted that it did not. Five joined an opinion holding that the 2A protected an individually enforceable right. Four joined a different opinion holding that the 2A protected an individually enforceable right. 5+4=9. Nine joined an opinion holding that the 2A protected an individually enforceable right.

    • Re a couple of points mentioned in the above letter, the correct definition for Assault Rifle is Selective Fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration, chambered for intermediate cartridge. Other features, folding stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, detachable magazines being much beloved by Anti Gun Know Nothings amounting to wind in the trees. See the U.S. Army, Jane’s Small Arms of The World, Britannica, unless the latter have changed their minds.

      Concerning judicial review of firearms issues, nothing less than Strict Scrutiny should even be considered, let along applied to a case.

      • I don’t disagree with anything you said. My point in defining assault rifle was to make clear that I was not referring to a semi-automatic rifle. I went with the wikipedia definition because I believe it to be correct and cited five sources for the definition, which I did not check. Britannica was one of them. A U.S. military document or two were cited as well.

        On the matter of strict scrutiny, I kind of agree with Justice Breyer that “adoption of a true strict-scrutiny standard for evaluating gun regulations would be impossible. That is because almost every gun-control regulation will seek to advance (as the one here does) a primary concern of every government–a concern for the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens. The Court has deemed that interest, as well as the Government’s general interest in preventing crime, to be compelling, and the Court has in a wide variety of constitutional contexts found such public-safety concerns sufficiently forceful to justify restrictions on individual liberties.” (internal citations and quotations omitted). The problem is he ignores the “narrowly tailored” to the “least restrictive means” portion of the test.

        My view is that most gun control would pass the first prong of the strict scrutiny test and fail both the second and third prongs. The 9th and 4th Circuits likely disagree with me.

  3. ‘…the National Ri fle Association’s agenda to freely arm the public and enrich the g un industry.’

    If making the public free to arm causes the gu n industry to be enriched, then obviously it’s the will of the people to be armed.

    Oh yea, commies aren’t real big on democracy.

    • ONLY PEOPLE AGAINST BEING ARMED ARE STUPID LIBERALS / DEMO RATS & A FEW OTHERS THAT DO “NOT KNOW” WHAT THE “REAL WORLD” IS ABOUT. A POLITICIAN THAT IS AGAINST ARMING “TRUE AMERICANS” SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF OFFICE IMMEDIATELY !!! THEY VALUE THEIR –OWN OPINION— MORE THAN THE PEOPLE THEY ARE LEGALY BOUND TO “SERVE” & NOT LIKE CALIFORNIA AND A FEW OTHER STATES WHERE THEY “ONLY SERVE” ILLEGALS– & MUSLIMS !!! A TRUE “PATHETIC SHAME” !!!

  4. Standing outside the New York Times is a “Good ol’ boy with a gun strapped to his hip”. No doubt there to protect the editor vagina boys with soft hands from the masses.

  5. “The Republican-controlled House passed the dangerous laissez-fair gun bill only after limiting debate. They thereby demeaned lawmakers’ First Amendment rights in the rush to further enshrine the Second Amendment.”

    Does anyone recall the NYT complaining similarly when the NY SAFE act was rammed through as an “emergency measure” to limit debate?

  6. So is SC pushing to get open carry with constitutional carry? Or constitutional concealed carry with no open carry? Or did they get open carry already and I just missed it.

    • BESIDES “NOT KNOWING” THE DIFFERENCE BILL, MAYBE “YOU” SIR SHOULD NOT BE EVEN NEAR A FIREARM !!! YOU SOUND A BIT CONFUSED OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIBERAL / DEMO RAT WHICH MOST CERTAINLY WOULD EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER & VIEW. IF YOU SIR ARE ONE OR BOTH OF THE AFORMENTIONED THEN JUST “KEEP AWAY” FROM NOT ONLY FIREARMS BUT ALSO ANYTHING ELSE DANGEROUS & ESPECIALLY ON ” YOUR” LIFE OPINIONS TO BE SURE !!!

      • The “Caps Lock” key toggles between turning the capitals on and off, so you can just hit it again to turn them off. Just in case you were wondering why there’s no “Caps Unlock” key….

  7. As columnist Andrew Klavan usually says: the New York Times, a former newspaper. He also says that he reads the NYT, so you don’t have to.

    C’mon TTaG-ers, Big Brother/Bid Daddy is all the Leftists have, um, left to cling to as more people get “woke” to the fact that they have a responsibility to take care of themselves and their families. Eventually, there will be little pockets of Progs huddling together waiting to be taken care of while the rest of us put spare change in their cups.

  8. Anyone from New York calling snyone from Georgia a “good ol’ boy” is clearly a bigot, a racist and a damn Yankee.

  9. “The carnage at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church against African-American worshipers was carried out by a racist gunman who was able to buy his weapon because of shoddy enforcement of gun control laws” NYT

    Where the NYT’s outrage over “racism” when an SUV full of armed Black men, convicted felons each and every one of them, descended upon the suburban Short Hills Mall in N.J. and made a vehicle’s owner, a White male, get down on his knees before executing him in front of his wife with a bullet to the back of the head?

  10. The NYT has a good crossword, so I;ve heard. Probably has a good food editor and the cartoons may be full. But they may also have censored the cartoons and the facts to fit their mental aberrations.

  11. As for the New York Times and firearms, The Times never saw, read or heard anything attacking firearms, the use and or possession of by the law abiding that they didn’t fall instantly in never ending love with. Perhaps someone brighter than I could explain this situation, one that continually flies in the face of facts, facts being things that some might value.

    • The explanation is implicit in your statement “facts being things that some might value.” Clearly, some do not value facts. One of those some is the NYT.

  12. Let’s see, this rag represents a city that has one of the strictest gun controls so half of the illegal population can prey upon the other half. They lost the Twin Towers to illegal immigrant terrorists and thousands of citizens, what did they learn? Apparently nothing. I’ve never bought a copy and never will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *