This makes me retch. If there is a God, may he damn these people to the lowest reaches of hell.
Mass murder is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wonderful Second Amendment, according to an inhouse editorial in one of America’s leading conservative magazines.
snip
[National Review editorial:]
The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns…Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.
On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much.
Think Progress: Top Conservative Magazine: Newtown Massacre Is The Price We Pay For The Second Amendment
Dylan Byers of Politico made the following observation regarding the editorial:
Deconstruct that caveat: "We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment." Or, preventing more tragedies might be possible, but it is not possible unless you repeal the Second Amendment, which you cannot do. Thus, therefore, ergo: The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., is a price that is paid for protection of the Second Amendment.
How do the people at the National Review live with themselves?
We cannot normalize such violence. President Obama last night was right:
"No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society,” he said. “But that can’t be an excuse for inaction.” He added that “in the coming weeks I’ll use whatever power this office holds” in an effort “aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.”
“Because what choice do we have?” he added. “We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”
NY Times
The Second Amedment DOES NOT demand the sacrifice of our children.
Comments are closed on this story.