It took a while for the authors to stop beating around the bush and get to the point but, to their credit, the New York Times is finally being honest…They want an all out ban on guns. Actually, they are only being half honest. They don’t go so far as to state a total ban on ALL guns but, “large categories” therein. Certainly, any modern firearm meant for serious defensive purposes. Let’s be honest…This really shouldn’t be “news.” Objectivity in the media has been a myth since before Walter Cronkite signed off for the last time from South Vietnam.
What is interesting is that in building up to the singular point of the editorial, they admit that all the bans and other legislation they desire has utterly failed to prevent tragedies like San Bernadino from happening throughout Europe. Whether it be the recent events in Paris, today’s stabbing in London, or suicide bombings, these incidents still happen. While I am not among those who would say, “Oh well, nothing we can do…” I am not willing to be vilified, made scapegoat, and stripped of the right to self-defense or the means I choose to effect said self-defense.
“…It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
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.