Predictably, the New York Times whines about the Supreme Court's decision yesterday affirming Americans' prsonal right to keep and bear arms. The Times would have you believe that guns are the problem rather than the people who misuse them. It's all but certain the Times would sponsor confiscation of firearms. Guns don't kill people, people do that.
The Supreme Court was right to affirm the Second Amendment, albeit the left wing of the court would reinterpret the Constitution.
Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, they had this to say:
"Justice Scalia shreds the collective interpretation as a matter of both common law and Constitutional history. He writes that the Founders, as well as nearly all Constitutional scholars over the decades, believed in the individual right. Many Supreme Court opinions invoke the Founders, but this one is refreshing in its resort to first American principles and its affirmation of a basic liberty. It's not too much to say that Heller is every bit as important to the Second Amendment as Near v. Minnesota (prior restraint) or N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (libel) are to the First Amendment.Which makes it all the more troubling that no less than four Justices were willing to explain this right away. These are the same four liberal Justices who routinely invoke the "right to privacy" – which is nowhere in the text of the Constitution – as a justification for asserting various social rights. Yet in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a right to bear arms that is plainly in the text adheres to an individual only if he is sanctioned by government."
No comments:
Post a Comment