Previous Post
Next Post

The New York Times took one look at the Supreme’s McDonald decision, striking down Chicago’s handgun ban and said what me worry? “The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.” The Boston Globe, like most left-leaning media mavens, is similarly reassuring: Supreme Court ruling to have little effect on Mass. gun laws. The BBC is, of course, self-referentially bonkers: “Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.” You mean BBC correspondents? The Huffington Post is (as always) huffing glue, its headline writer implying that the ban wasn’t tough enough, as I predicted in this morning’s videotorial . . .

Chicago Gun Ban Axed After Violent Weekend: At Least 29 Shot, 3 Dead In Weekend Shootings

As gun rights were extended throughout the country by SCOTUS, Chicago was recovering from another violent weekend that left at least 29 shot and three dead.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT! But perhaps not for the same reasons. OK, back on the symbolic victory train. The Atlanta Journal Constitution rides in the first class compartment, right next to their best buds from the Times.

Symbolically, the ruling is a big victory for the gun lobby. But its practical effect is another matter. A decade or two ago, when hot political battles were still being fought over gun control, rulings such as these would have had significant impact. But the truth is that the single-minded passion of gun-rights advocates long routed their opponents in the political arena, making gun-control arguments in the political arena all but moot. In that sense, the Supreme Court is merely following the election returns . . .

As opposed to, say, protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as they’re bloody well supposed to do. Never mind. The point is: don’t give up on gun control! Newsweek:

The good news for gun control is that this new-found right [?] may not restrict gun-control laws very much . . .

No statewide gun-control law appears to be in immediate jeopardy, because nothing in Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion appeared to undercut the court’s assertions in a 2008 decision striking down a similarly strict handgun ban in the District of Columbia that a wide range of less stringent gun-control laws could be upheld as reasonable public-safety measures.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Do you really believe that anyone on staff at the New York Times, Boston Globe, BBC, Huffington Post or Newsweek read all 214 pages of this decision before they began telling the world what it means? Or are they regurgitating bullet points faxed to them by anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign, DNC, Move On, etc.? My money is on the latter. Heaven forbid that anyone in the press think for themselves.

    And "new-found" right???? I suppose that if you have been educated in a modern collegiate school of journalism that you might find that something clearly written in plain English in the U.S. Constitution a couple hundred years ago is new to you.

    Hey, Stewart Taylor Jr., there is more than one amendment! Keep reading. You'll be amazed by what other "new" things you'll learn.

  2. Wow, Robert, William just handed you your ass lol. Right on William, couldn't say it better myself!

Comments are closed.