As usual, the Washington Post attacked the Second Amendment today, urging more limitation on the right of the people to keep and bear arms – you know, the right that the Bill of Rights says shall not be infringed. This time they argued that one reason for banning guns in National Parks is the lack of crime there.

But I am particularly fond of this retort to that argument from k_romulus, one of those who took the time to comment on that absurd argument.

And I love how the Ed Board complains that guns should be banned in "urban areas" like DC because of "too much" crime, and also banned in remote outposts like National Parks because of "too little" crime. Sounds like Goldilocks to me, but without the "just right." LOL!
4/16/2009 10:04:49 AM

So you see, banning guns is the all-purpose answer for the Post. Too much crime? Ban guns because they are the cause of it. Too little crime? Ban guns because they aren’t needed. I wonder – is there anyplace where the Washington Post feels there is just the right amount of crime to let the American people fully exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Posted by: Greg at 09:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.