The New York Times (NYT) is whining about the recent Supreme Court decision allowing citizens to protect
their homes from intruders with legally purchased and owned firearms.
Apparently, the NYT doesn’t believe Americans should have constitutional
rights, as evidenced by its July 9 editorial:

Thirteen days ago, the Supreme Court undermined Chicago’s ban on handguns by applying the Second Amendment to the states, ruling
that people have a right to protect their homes with a gun. Four days
after that, Chicago passed another handgun restriction that edged right
up to the line drawn by the court. And on Tuesday, a group of gun
dealers and enthusiasts sued the city again to overturn the new law.

Bullets are flying on city streets, but the vital work of limiting gun use has become a cat-and-mouse game. Beleaguered citizens deserve
better from both sides.

We strongly disagreed with the reasoning that led the court to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, ending handgun
bans in Washington, D.C., in 2008 and everywhere else last month. Nonetheless, the law of the land is now that people
have a constitutional right to a gun in their home for self-defense.

Conveniently, NYT readers are not given the opportunity to post their comments on this hot-button issue. Send
the NYT editorial staff an email blasting them for advocating
limitations, if not a total ban, on Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

http://nannystateliberationfront.net/2010/07/12/nyt-doesnt-want-you...