The New York Times has not run an editorial on its front page since it opposed the Warren G. Harding presidential bid in 1920.
The San Bernardino rampage has changed that.
On Saturday the so-called newspaper of record placed an anti-Second Amendment editorial on its front page.
“End the Gun Epidemic in America” is collectively written by the newspaper’s editorial board.
The editorial staff argues it is the job of the state to protect citizens and the existence of firearms makes this difficult.
The courts have ruled on numerous occasions, however, that the police are not duty bound to protect the public.
Prior to the mid-1800s citizens were expected to protect themselves and others. After the establishment of police forces in America beginning in the 1830s, this idea eventually fell by the wayside and citizens began to expect and demand protection by the state.
The New York Times editorial board aptly demonstrates the peculiar mental illness many liberals suffer. “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency,” they write.
It is true. Guns are designed to kill. Lost in the argument is the fact that on occasion an individual must “specifically” kill a criminal perpetrator. Statistics show, however, that the possession and brandishing of a firearm—what the NYT editorial board calls “tools of macho vigilantism”—usually deters a criminal. States and municipalities that forego restrictive gun laws like those in effect in California, New York and Chicago experience less crime.
For the NYT the mere existence of the Second Amendment and politicians defending it “abet would-be killers by creating gun markets.”
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,” they write. “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
In fact rights are natural, inherent or God-given depending on your perspective. The first Americans understood what the NYT and liberals are incapable of understanding.
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature,” Samuel Adams wrote in 1772.
For the NYT it is up to the state to determine what sort of firearms are acceptable to assuage the irrational fear and paranoia of the modern liberal. After the political class, exemplified by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have decided what is permissible, the state “would require Americans who own [combat rifles] to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”
In other words, Americans exercising the natural right of self-protection—what our forefathers considered a duty—must submit to a state that has no legal obligation to protect them.
And if they refuse, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein arrogantly demanded, to “turn them in”? The government will use its “combat rifles” (as the NYT erroneously calls semiautomatic rifles) to attack and kill those who refuse to submit.
Lost in the discussion is the primary reason for the existence of the Second Amendment—to resist government tyranny of the sort advocated by The New York Times.