Once again the New York Times presents an editorial in support of the continued stripping of Americans of their Second Amendment rights. At issue is a recent law proposed that would lift the ban or restrictions on guns in national parks. U.S. Senators opting to sign onto this bill say that this ban infringes on the rights of American citizens to arm themselves.
What the New York Times fails to understand is that the Second Amendment was not written for hunters.
There is nothing confusing about the distinction between federal lands where hunting is allowed and national parks, where hunting is not. (Nor should someone who is confused by the difference be carrying a loaded weapon.) It is also no burden to unload a rifle and slip it into a case before, say, driving through Yellowstone.
If the Second Amendment applied only to hunters and hunting was prohibited in Yellowstone Park, then it might be deemed “no burden” to unload a gun and “slip it into a case”. Again the NYT misses the content of the Second Amendment. The text of the Amendment doesn’t say that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms only in places our government determines that they can. This goes against the intent of the Second Amendment which is to insure that our government will never have tyrannical rule over its people.
The NYT also does what most anti-rights groups do. They blame the NRA for all gun problems.
They also try to turn the rights issue around by stating that granting people the right to keep and bear arms infringes on the rights of others who choose not to arm themselves.
As so often happens when guns are in question, the senators have forgotten to insist upon the rights of the vast majority of citizens, who choose not to carry guns.
If this is true than by all means we must rip up the Bill of Rights and toss out the entire U.S. Constitution. The only thing I can imagine that the NYT is referring to that would somehow infringe on the rights of those not choosing to arm themselves would be that they take offense to anyone carrying a weapon. We should then eliminate any and all rights granted us under the Constitution because we can all find offense to some extent for everything.
The NYT sums up their thoughts by attempting to convince readers that allowing people to exercise their right will turn the parks into a combat zone of violent crime.
They also appear to have forgotten that national parks and refuges are federal lands, set aside as peaceful preserves for all the species that enjoy them, including humans. Ready-to-fire guns have no place in them.
They got to do better than that. Eliminating the restrictions on guns in parks isn’t going to open those areas to hunting and allow the NRA to come in and set up shooting ranges. As an American, I should be able to exercise my right to arm and protect myself even on public lands and by doing so, I am in no way infringing on somebody else’s rights.
What amendment is it that guarantees us the right to never be offended or frightened?
Tom Remington
Related Posts
- Interior Department Acted Correctly To Honor “Right To Carry” Firearm Laws In National Parks & Wildlife Refuges
- National Parks Hunting
- Two Montana Senators Want Gun Rules Changed For National Parks
- Should All National Parks Be Considered For Hunting Seasons?
- Dept. Of Interior To Propose Changes To Gun Laws In National Parks
