One Editorial Per Month
Posted by EdFriedman2, Mar 1 2010, 04:25 PM
In today’s Washington Post, the esteemed editors of the obsolete fish wrap have decided to incoherently attack the recent Virginia legislative effort to repeal the Commonwealth’s one-handgun-per-month law. The paper’s editors demonstrate a contempt for Constitutional rights, saying they “are not aware of any big problems that resulted from buyers being able to obtain only 12 handguns a year.” Well, for one thing, if a buyer wanted to buy a handgun for home defense the day after he bought a Luger at a gun show, he couldn’t, and that’s a big problem. I mean, come on Washington Post, are not the rights of the individual paramount? Apparently not when it comes to part 2 of the Bill of Rights.
The editorial also makes the claim that, “Research has shown that the gun a month limit has reduced by as much as half the number of Virginia firearms recovered in cities such as New York.” Let’s assume that the unidentified and uncited “research” actually does show these statistics. Why, then, is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg constantly attacking our great Commonwealth for being a source of guns used in NYC, long after the law became effective? Could it be that gun traffickers, like all other criminals, are not dissuaded by laws? That, perhaps, by their very intention to violate the law, laws making that violation illegaler merely infringe on the liberties of the law-abiding?
Here’s a thought experiment: How would the esteemed editors of the once-influential Washington Post react to a law only allowing them to publish one editorial per month? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, which makes it more dangerous, right?
