NY Times Editorial Questions SCOTUS Ruling

Leave it to The New York Times to offer its share of sour grapes in response to this week’s Supreme Court ruling. The paper’s editorial only painted the dark side of guns:

“Rather than acknowledging Chicago’s — and the nation’s — need to end an epidemic of gun violence, the justices spent scores of pages in the decision analyzing which legal theory should bind the Second Amendment to the states.”

We could say the same thing about this reporting. Rather than acknowledging that guns have been used in self-defense in Chicago, the Times only notes that criminals are all too often armed. Likewise, we wonder why the editors at the old gray lady seem to believe that criminals will somehow have more guns because of this ruling?

But here is another spin from the Times that we seriously question:

“Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, close gun-show loopholes.”

This is about the Second Amendment, so how would the editors feel if mayors and state lawmakers would have the rule for adopting rules that restricted the First Amendment, namely the one guaranteeing a free press? But back to our original point: this law promises to maintain the rights of law-abiding citizens. This is the part that just amazes us.

Why does anyone think that laws aimed at law-abiding citizens will affect anyone else? Criminals already aren’t following the rules. No amount of background checks, limits to bulk gun purchases, regulation of dealers or so-called gun show loopholes are going to stop criminals intent on getting guns. Bank robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is, and criminals who use guns will find ways to obtain said guns because it is a tool of their trade. Why should law-abiding citizens continue to be punished?