No one who’s been paying attention will be surprised to learn that the editorial board of the New York Times is calling for confiscation of “weapons of war,” guns that are “barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” The small penis, violent insurrectionist epithets have been applied to America’s gun owners by the more avant-garde members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex for quite a while now. The difference is that, with a dedicated anti-gunner in the White House and Hillary feeling the Bern and tacking ever more to port, the bien pensants at the Times finally feel they have the political cover to toss their masks aside in their first front page editorial since 1920 . . .
What about the Constitutional hurdles that prevent grabbing Americans’ firearms? Mere inconveniences on the path to government-mandated gun safety.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
From their Eighth Avenue perch, “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition” is what now passes for reasonable regulation. You have to break a few enumerated eggs to make a gun-free omelet.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
So this is really just a public-spirited, communitarian sacrifice that all right-thinking Americans should be happy to make. It takes a village, after all, to raise an elite-dominated society of modern men. And besides, we’re only talking about confiscating the scariest weapons. Right?
For now, maybe. But gun control has always been a long game. Textbook incrementalism. The vast majority of “gun violence” has nothing to do with ARs or AKs. As awful as it is to contemplate, there will be another Seung-Hui Cho, someone who doesn’t use a long gun at all. If you think the Times and those who slavishly worship at their alter will be satisfied with eliminating only modern sporting rifles, we have a financially failing dead tree daily we’d like to sell you.
Never mind that California already had the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation. Never mind that the guns used in the Friday the 13th and Charlie Hebdo massacres had been illegal in France for decades.
(Gun right supporters) point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
Obviously, something must be done.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
So the gloves are off, which is probably for the best. While readers of this and similar sites have always known where those who would deprive us of our rights stand, by splashing it across their front page, the New York Times has done us a favor. They’ve put it out there, for all to see, literally in black and white.
As a reader recently wrote, the Second Amendment has never been more important to the security of our free society than it is now. San Bernardino (and Chattanooga, Boston, Ft. Hood…) has made that abundantly clear to all but those who refuse to see it. Make no mistake, the efforts of those who would degrade or destroy our right to defend ourselves with the best tools available will never stop. But as America’s gun owners have shown, time and again, we’re a pretty resilient lot, too. May it ever be thus.