Really Quickies: The Masks Are Off

     The New York Times no longer pretends to honor either rational thought or the Constitution. Consider the absurdity of the following passage:

     Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

     But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

     That guns are easily acquired even in places that have the most extreme imaginable prohibitions on private gun ownership didn’t faze this editorialist in the slightest. Her point – and if the writer isn’t a biological female, I’ll bet he’s eagerly awaiting acceptance for gender-reassignment surgery – is that we’re not “trying.”

     The Constitution of the United States does not “grant” a right to keep and bear arms; it recognizes that right, which is inherent in the right to life. But the Times’s editorialist seems to feel otherwise:

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

     Dear Miss Editorialist: Does that include “reasonable regulation” of freedom of the press? And how would you define “reasonable?”

     I shan’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.