Skip to comments.Safer Streets 2010: The L.A. Times gets an 'A'.
Posted on 03/02/2010 4:07:24 AM PST by marktwain
Go to the head of the class. Wow, what a piece this time.
This week's gun ban case McDonald v. Chicago will be, as I pointed out last week, a case where self-rule itself is on trial. Last week, I said, at its heart, McDonald is about self-rule v. city rule.
Today's Los Angeles Times has an Op-Ed piece A Bill of rights battle. It's a headline aptly named. The editorial board writes, "For us the choice is clear: The Bill of Rights should apply to the whole country."
But it is the last line that says it all after a well articulated background on the case;
"But if the court would identify an important individual right -- in this case, the right to bear arms -- and then deny that it applied to the states, those who never accepted the incorporation doctrine might try to "de-incorporate" other rights. That's not a risk worth taking."
It is what gun owners have been trying to say to the electorate for generations. Thank you, L.A. Times. You get an 'A' not just for effort, but for accuracy and content.
The second amendment protects all the others, not at gunpoint but at counterpoint by showing courts, policy wonks, legislators, youth and the electorate how billions in certain anti-gun policies are pure redundancy, purely a predatory redundancy, as long as the United States has a second amendment and the affirmed right to keep and bear arms.
Truly, the health of the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...