Posted on 04/17/2015 4:49:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I understand that to many people who work at the New York Times, guns are frightening animistic objects. But Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of the Times, just took the following swipe at Ted Cruz, under the headline "Ted Cruz’s Strange Gun Argument," and it is his argument, not Ted Cruz's, that is strange to say the least:
Americans who believe the Second Amendment gives them an individual right to own guns (as opposed to a more general right to bear arms, as our editorial board argues) often make cogent arguments for their position. I believe that allowing people to own guns is not incompatible with imposing reasonable restrictions on their ownership, but I have heard sensible people strongly argue the opposite side.
But there are ridiculous arguments against gun control, perhaps the silliest of which is that the framers of the Constitution wanted to preserve the possibility, or even encourage the idea, of armed rebellion against the government. It’s a particularly absurd argument when it comes from a member of Congress who is running for president.
So, if we're tracking this argument here, Rosenthal thinks it's mystifying that the American founders who just successfully fought an armed rebellion against their own government and felt justified in their cause, would preclude the possibility of a future generation doing so? Let me direct Mr. Rosenthal to the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Certainly, we can all agree governments should not be "changed for light and transient causes." But if, per America's founding document, it is our right and duty to cast off tyrannical governments, how does Rosenthal think that happens? Pillow fights? The founders's own example suggests a lot of guns would be involved. And the fact that these same men would later declare firearm ownership a God-given right should be an unsubtle clue to help connect the dots here. Rosenthal may find the prospect of armed insurrection horrifying to his urban liberal sensibilities, but it's almost impossible to argue allowing for this possibility was not a significant part of the historical rationale behind the Second Amendment -- and it's a rationale Americans would be foolish to stop believing in.
What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” do these idiots not understand?
I know “infringe” is a tought word for idiots to udnerstand, but really, they should look it up, just once.
Being a very smart man, I am sure that Cruz has already thought of this response to what a liberal LSM hack thinks would be a gotcha question.
the right to keep and bear arms was well understood by our Founders, based on the experience of King George trying to confiscate individuals’ guns, muskets, rifles...
And it is a settled matter in the law.
the NYT can smoke all the Weed it wishes, its editorials are usually not worth a damn anyway in the Real World (without hallucinogenic drugs).
Indeed, for all its staff talent, the NYT has managed to auto-destruct its newspaper (excepting only perhaps for some of its theatre and other local NYC cultural coverage .. and its crossword puzzles).
My dog wouldn’t stoop to Krap on the NYT “news” section.
All they know how to do is lie and infringe. What do you expect?
Most liberals think “Infringe” was a decent sci-fi program from a few years ago.
Further, it is quite clear from the founders' public statements.
They fully intended that the populace be able to defend itself from and successfully confront a tyrannical government.
LOL!
You’re probably right.
I’d like to find an honest lefty, once.
“What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” do these idiots not understand?”
They know exactly what it means and they’re avoiding the meaning by calling anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment a knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, Christian moron.
They’re scu*bags to the core and itching to get total control for the purpose of imitating Pol Pot.
IMHO
Settled law. Deal with it.
We give arms to ISIS, Libya and Mexico. Rockets, machine guns and grenade launchers. For the average American according to the NY Times weapons are for sports and must be firmly controlled. I wish a top tier Republican candidate would ask what is more dangerous, guns in the hands of Americans, or nuclear weapons for Iran? Do a background check of every leader in Iran, see what comes up.
They sort of existed about 1900 or so. The became sparser and sparser as the obvious failures of leftism became apparent.
Alynski despised them (honest leftists) because he said they could not win. Think of that.
Pushing a failed meme, by deceit, to win. Pure power politics.
Progressivism at its core depends on deceit. If you claim that most people are too stupid to make good decisions, and that the founding legal document for the country is obsolete, your only option to win political power is deceit.
.
Mark Hemingway = MORON
.
Actually, fighting broke out when the regular attempted to confiscate supplies of the colony's militia, not those of individuals.
The British troops were also going home to home trying to confiscate arms
“Settled law. Deal with it.”
Yes, Comrade Commissar!!!
/s/
IMHO
If you say “New York Times” the “dumb” part is implicit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.