If You Needed Another Reason to Hate the NYTimes....

You know I saw this at QandO and had to read it a couple of times. It really couldn't say what it does. Are these people really that clueless?

America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public. And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote.

Yeah the emphasis is mine. You should really read the whole article.

The topic is on Senator Allen's bill to allow firearm carry in national parks. The old gray corpse appears to think that safety in a national park would be better provided by better funding the parks rather than allowing citizens to defend themselves.

If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office. To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by “lonely wilderness trails.” But make no mistake. Senator Allen’s bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.

Well, if you can't use logic, use really bitter rhetoric. This editor of the old-gray-corpse appears to miss the point that the "gun zealots" want to be able to defend themselves anywhere. Seeing that I can carry a concealed weapon on the busiest streets of any city where I can legally be licensed, why is it I can't carry when I am least likely to benefit from any police protection. (Not that I could profit from that in the city either, but they are a lot closer.)

I have no problem with this editor not wanting to be capable of defending themselves, but I take serious offense when they state I shouldn't have the right to defend myself.

Bloody idiots.