In yet another anti-gun rant, the Times has once again sounded the good liberal mantra: Got a problem? Throw money at it.
Apparently, outgoing Senator George Allen (R, Vir.) has introduced one of his last bills in the waning days of the 109th sitting of the Senate, a bill allowing concealed carry of firearms inside our National Parks.
Naturally, the New York Times is not amused. (A Parting Shot From George Allen)
After informing us that the bill has passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, they emotionally proclaim that they "hope it will die the miserable death it deserves". Then they go on an interesting rant on how the gun lobby has:
- "co-opted the civil rights movement"... bet they have never said that of the Gay lobby who has made a specialty of "co-opting" civil rights rhetoric.
- nationalized the "armed paranoia that the NRA" stands for... bet they have never equated the pro abortion lobby to "paranoia" when Femenazis shrilly yell that women's "rights" are being violated if they have no access to abortions.
The Times also imagines that it has divined the minds of the Framers and proclaimed the 2nd Amendment a "collective right" instead of an individual's right, despite the easily proven fallacy of their claim -- which is why the law has, in the Times' words, "been misread in one legislature after another" bringing them to pass concealed carry laws.
At this time 48 states have some form of allowable concealed carry law. That being the case, it's hard to believe that 98% of the country has merely fallen for "paranoia". Worse, it is curious that the New York Times seems to be so against majority Democracy. After all, when 98% of the people agree to something, wouldn't that make the Times' point of view among the smallest of minority opinions?
How do they explain their way out of being so far from the mainstream position? More of their own brand of paranoia. The Times presumably feels that concealed carry laws have passed in so many -- no nearly ALL -- of the states by some conspiracy. It must be, because nearly every state has passed a concealed carry law "often in the face of strong public disapproval" in their estimation.
How it is that nearly every state in the Union can so blithely ignore this "strong public disapproval" for concealed carry is not explored. Apparently the Times imagines that just saying it makes it so. Kind of like when John Kerry says he really does love the US military, despite all his actions that shouts the opposite.
Their denial is amazing.
But the howler of the piece is the claim that throwing money at crime, as opposed to allowing citizens to protect themselves, would make us all safer in our National Parks.
If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding...
It is hard to type while I am laughing so hard.
Now, remember they called the NRA paranoiacs? Try THIS paranoia on for size...
To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by “lonely wilderness trails.” But make no mistake. Senator Allen’s bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.
Riiight. Being able to protect oneself makes everyone more "endangered".
Is that why every stuffed shirt Democrat in Federal government and state government, along with their friends in Hollywood, have armed bodyguards? Is it because they wish to "endanger the public"?
I report, you laugh until you can't breathe.
