No Right Is Safe, Or Real, "Privacy Clause"

The NY Times is all for extensive regulation of one enumerated right in the Constitution, the Second Amendment.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

A nation where there is such a thing as law must bow to reason if it is not to descend into violence, and reason requires CONSISTENCY, something certainly flown from our nation's discourse.  How would the NY Times react to their own statement if you put "abortion" rather than "guns" in as that "no right"?

Abortion is a "right" that is not found in any wording in the Constitution at all -- "peculiar" or otherwise. It is said to be based on "the privacy clause" of the 14th Amendment, but alas, "privacy" is not mentioned there either. You can link off to a few pages of legalese here  that define which batwing and eye of newt was thrown into the conjuring pot to find "privacy",  but it real base is in the "penumbra" of the Constitution -- meaning "rights that can be inferred".

To put it in common terms -- rights that are not present in the Constitution, so they were MADE UP to suit liberal justices!

If we were reasonably law-abiding people that understood the logical and rational requirements of freedom, we would have had a Constitutional Amendment to attempt to define ACTUAL RIGHTS -- like "privacy", or "abortion", or "gay "marriage"". If they passed, we could point to what those new rights included -- and did NOT include. But we are no longer that kind of people.

In fact, we are a people so supremely inconsistent that a paper like the NY Times can do a column like this relative to the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time holding the position that no state may regulate abortion in any manner at all, and in fact, it may not even restrict FUNDING of abortion! (The fact there is a 2nd Amendment would require that you pay for my guns if the 2nd was treated like abortion!)

They can favor the killing of 60 million babies for mere convenience, yet claim that those that believe in law, reason and consistency, lack "decency" -- which after law, reason and consistency have been removed is merely "power", "popularity", or "mob rule".

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.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

As Nietzsche stated so well, once God is gone, "decency" is only a matter of WILL! Whomever can impose their will can define "decency".

The NY Times, BO and "The Party" DEFINITELY want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL, and the 2nd Amendment is an obstacle in their way.

As is covered extremely well in the video of this post, OUR MURDER PROBLEM IS CULTURAL, and it was created post 1960!!!

If you factor out our large violent cities, our murder rate is like SWITZERLAND! Our large cities have 3rd world murder rates, and our little Plano Texas like towns have murder rates like Switzerland. What is more, our crime rate precipitously went up, then down, now up again since the 1960s, and as the NY Times laments, our GUN POLICIES DIDN'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE!

We broke the murder rate, we can fix it, but the big problem is that what broke it is "The Party", and they have no desire that people realize that, let alone that they change their policies to save lives -- if they did, we would never have had Roe v Wade, nor the government programs that encourage single female head of household, and consign young black males to shooting each other in the streets.