Common Sense Political Thought

Thanks to Brian, I saw this editorial from The New York Times:

Lock and Load

Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.

What, I wonder, is the position of the editors of The New York Times to anything they see as violations of the right to due process by detainees at Guantanamo? What would they say if it was proposed that freedom of the press be limited because such could cause our country actual harm?

Oh, wait, we already know, don’t we? The New York Times was so concerned about the FISA wiretaps that they exposed the previously secret program. And just two weeks ago, the Grey Lady’s editors said:

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Viewed together, these are interesting editorials. On June 13th, the editors told us that the right of habeus corpus was so vital that enemy combatants, captured on the field of battle, warring against the United States, and held away from our territory, must nevertheless be granted this right. The men imprisoned at Guantanamo would, for the very greatest part, if freed do whatever they could to kill American soldiers and civilians. It doesn’t matter how dangerous they are; they must enjoy all rights extended to anyone else under the jurisdiction of the American government.

Yet, today, just fourteen days later, The New York Times makes a complete turnaround. They described habeus corpus as:

so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution.

Yet, where the right to keep and bear arms is concerned, a right so central to our liberties that it has not just its own clause in the Constitution, but an amendment dedicated solely to it, somehow the editors don’t seem to think that the clear words of the Constitution are very important.

Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.

The lack of perspective demonstrated by the editors of The New York Times is amazing. The gun control laws that the Court overturned did not stop criminals from obtaining firearms; only law-abiding people were prevented from owning a handgun in any condition to use for self-defense. When the issue was Guantanamo, the editors found no compelling public-safety interests sufficient to keep foreign fighters who had already taken up arms against the United States imprisoned.

The Times ended today’s editorial with a plea to elect Barack Obama, because they are afraid that if John McCain becomes president, he’ll appoint more justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. That, to me, is the most important reason to vote for Senator McCain! When the editors think that constitutional rights are so very important that they must be extended to enemy soldiers who want to kill us, but completely unimportant when it comes to law-abiding citizens being allowed to defend themselves, I have to have serious questions about the quality of their judgement.
____________________________
Cross posted on Red State.