NY Times: Ipso Same-O

NY Times does it again.

Jim Webb beat George Allen, and that's that... right?

Uh, no.. courtesy of Extrememortman blog, we learn that the NY Times is ridiculing Allen for trying to push through a bill allowing concealed carry in National Parks.

If any of you question why I hold the 'educated informed' in such contempt... you might think about this little gem.

For those who look up to the 'Collich Eddicated' and 'intelligent informed' as somehow 'smarter' let this be a warning.
Whoever wrote this is an idiot or a liar or both.

Key Words:
2nd Amendment: Concealed carry is only BASED on the right to keep and bear arms. For decades concealed carry for the populace was uneccessary and prohibited almost everywhere. The various states must make their own law on it, which is only proper.
Only the New York Times could link proposed laws to allow carry as a 'perversion' of the amendment. They must have the issue confused with how LIBERALS obtain their rights... by suing for them.
-Just to be PERFECTLY clear: If the NRA had sued for Concealed Carry Rights under the Second Amendment, then THAT would have been a "perversion"! They didnt ... they are lobbying for it the PROPER way. Unlike some that argue Abortion Restriction is a violation of right to 'Privacy..but hey, that right isnt even IN the constitution, but I quibble.

Strong Public Disapproval: Meaning a certain 'informed' segment disapprove, usually the same segment that looks to or wants the government as the cradle of protection for everything. Implies a majority but almost always not.
The same segment that would like to outlaw private gun ownership altogether... might want to read some George Orwell to see what that's all about.

Armed paranoia Interesting... seems to me a lot of advocates lose their paranoia once they carry. Not to mention the statistics of one-one violent crime in states, before and after concealed carry is invoked. Could actually be that people who DONT carry in those same states also lose some of that paranoia.

Of course the Times brings up Park Funding issues.. as if that's germane in any way shape or form.
Someone with common sense would know that even tripling park service patrol would have little effect on the type of crime concealed carry affects.

Naturally the writer cites no statistics, because there are little or none to support the stance taken.

Nor does the Times bother doing any research... to do so might ruin the chance to take the pot-shot at Allen in the first place.

Because, if Allen cant get it passed, Jim Webb just might introduce it again next session.

And no...I dont own a gun and have only handled a firearm maybe twice in the last thirty years.