[img]http://www.newsandopinion.com/cols2/coulter.jpg[/img]
All the news we heard from a guy at Handgun Control, Inc.
from [url]http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com[/url]
Having been cheerfully assured by "Handgun Control Inc." (aka the Brady Campaign) that the Constitution protects only kiddie porn and says absolutely nothing about guns, The New York Times has been viciously denouncing Attorney General John Ashcroft for having the temerity to suggest that the Second Amendment protects the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." (In an eerie coincidence, the Second Amendment actually says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")
This, the Times proclaims, is "radical," "ominous" and a "betrayal of (Ashcroft's) public duty."
In its inimitable Stalinist style, the Times claims Ashcroft's position is "contrary to longstanding and bipartisan interpretation of the Second Amendment." This is always how liberals engage in obvious jabberwocky: They smugly announce a "broad consensus" among "respected academics" -- meaning one of their interns went to the trouble of calling "Handgun Control Inc."
First of all, any journalist who is completely unaware that there is debate about the Second Amendment ought to be fired. But more preposterously, though a "bipartisan consensus" has begun to develop, it has gone heavily against the Times.
For over a decade now, liberal law professors keep setting their minds to disproving the "pro-gun extremists" -- as the Times calls people who disagree with the Times. Gleefully intending to establish that the Second Amendment refers only to the right of state militias to have guns, the professors invariably conclude, with great lugubriousness, that the gun nuts are right.
By now, the growing roster of law professors who support the "radical," "ominous" Ashcroft position includes Larry Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas. (In happier circumstances, these professors are known as "respected" at the Times.)