After Armed Officers Save Congressmen From Shooter, NYT Just Can’t Understand Why Republicans Don’t Support Gun Control
Yesterday's horrendous attempted massacre in Alexandria prompted a series of outrageous opinions about guns in America. The shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, an Illinois native, used a rifle and a pistol to shoot at unarmed Congressional Republicans, and it took officers with guns to neutralize the far-left terrorist and prevent additional casualties from occurring. The New York Times, as Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro pointed out, has brought forth a wide variety of asinine views that would better suit Teen Vogue than one of the most widely-read newspapers in the world.
One of the articles, penned by Jonathan Martin, found it completely baffling that Republicans refuse to support the gun-grabber agenda in light of Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) being shot and seriously injured in the attack. Here is how Martin began his piece:
Shaken and angry, Republican members of Congress seized on the brazen daytime shooting of their colleagues on Wednesday to demand that existing restrictions on gun access be loosened so that people facing similar attacks are able to defend themselves.
Past shootings have brought calls for more gun control, especially for restrictions on the kind of rifle used in Wednesday’s attack. But the ardent supporters of gun rights who came under fire this time were not about to change their views.
Of course Republicans are angry. Every sane American is furious that an angry psychopath with a criminal record managed to get his hands on not one but two firearms that were used to injure one of their colleagues. However, Republicans understand that the Second Amendment is codified in the United States Constitution and protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Martin continues:
The emboldened response on the right illustrated how much the center of gravity has shifted in the gun debate. As Republican lawmakers grow more uniformly conservative and centered outside urban areas, few prominent voices in the party are willing to support gun control measures.
This is a striking departure from recent political history, when clashes over gun rights often fell along regional rather than partisan lines. The Republican majorities on Capitol Hill have blocked every attempt to enact significant gun control legislation, most recently after the massacre of 49 people in an Orlando, Fla., nightclub last June. Measures to block people on the federal terrorism watch list from buying weapons and to close background-check loopholes failed in the Senate.
Martin continues to express his frustration that Republicans refused to cave to the demands of Democrats who sought to revoke Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights following the Pulse massacre and to revoke gun rights for people placed on arbitrary and flawed lists by the deep state. Even the American Civil Liberties Union vigorously opposed Senator Susan Collins' (R-ME) measure barring Second Amendment rights to those on No-Fly Lists. Part of the reason why Republicans refused to vote for these liberal suggestions is that they give the middle finger to the Constitution. Of course, Martin does not recognize that as a legitimate excuse.
Following the shooting and witnessing his friend getting medically evacuated, Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) summarized the issue between balancing rights and risks:
As with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.
Yes, freedom comes with risks. We do not always like hearing certain types of speech; we do not like to see individuals who are unsuited to own firearms using them to kill innocent people, and we do not like seeing the government attempt to take private property outside of the traditional realms of eminent domain. However, what separates the Right from the Left on issues of constitutional rights is that the Right historically does not believe that constitutional rights ought to be negated based on feelings or the outrage du jour. These rights were never conditional on such malarkey.
The Founding Fathers understood that and expected the structure of our republican government to protect those rights. The Democrats do not share that vision and The New York Times would rather project a left-wing agenda than protect the very rights that protect them from the very tyrannical government the Left would love to establish.
Follow Elliott on Twitter and Facebook