Scourge?
Your welcome to read through the NYT's idiocy. Concealed carry is only implicated in the Sandy Hook massacre in as much as the school was a "gun free" zone where none of the staff were allowed a weapon. That gave the shooter 20 minutes of free fire time once he entered the school to accomplish his carnage. He could have done it with a couple of muskets in that amount of time. All of those critical relevant facts are simply ignored by the NTY.
So what is it that the NYT's want? They certainly don't hide it. The NYT editorial board is using Sandy Hook to request that Obama use federal law to trump those 39 states that either have laws allowing concealed carry without permit (4) or those with "shall issue" permitting (35). They want concealed carry permits to be rarely, if ever issued. They want a re-institution of the
Though we still await further Supreme Court decisions, if the right to "keep and bear arms" means anything in terms of self defense, then it means that the right to possess arms in defense of self and others travels with the person. It means they should not be unilaterally disarmed by the designation of
The left's reaction to Sandy Hook is anything but a measured one. They are unhinged and unleased. For the left, the 2nd Amendment simply does not exist, and the Heller decision is to be devoutly ignored. Sandy Hook is nothing more than an excuse for them to stop people from being armed. Guns are simply too dangerous to be allowed in the possession of the unwashed masses, and every trick that can be used to disarm them should be used. The mind numbing hypocrisy of those calling for disarmament is surreal.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment