Gun Rights: Media Armageddon 2008

The Supreme Court ruling on gun laws last Thursday created media frenzy. Editorials, columnists, anchors and pundits predicted it would result in an American Armageddon.

According to the major media outlets in the nation, innocent lives will be lost, the Supreme Court justices have joined forces with city criminals and life as we’ve known it is over.

Who knew upholding the Constitution would have such disastrous effects?

In the 5-4 majority vote, the Supreme Court’s ruling reversed the liberals’ longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it was a right of the state, not the individual, to keep and bear arms. For the past 70 years, America’s elites viewed the right to bear arms as a collective right. Applied in the District of Columbia, the law prohibited the ownership of handguns and made it a criminal offence to have an operable weapon in  the home ready to defend self and family from intruders. While these laws intended to curb gun violence, they failed in that and made it nearly impossible for people to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense.

While Americans should celebrate this law for its perpetuation of individual freedoms, the media instead perceives disaster.

“This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country,” said one New York Times editorial. “It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.”

The editorial went on to criticize the Supreme Court, saying it “all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.”

Who knew the founding fathers intended such malice when protecting the individual rights of citizens?

And not only are the founding fathers conspiring against the innocent but according to the Washington Post the Supreme Court is as well.

“You thought D.C. stands for "District of Columbia? ‘Dodge City’ is more like it,” said Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Colbert I. King. “If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it’s probably the fact that five of the justices — a slim majority, but that’s all it takes to win — have come around to seeing things their way.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Five of our finest Supreme Court justices are in league with common street criminals. Not even your cats and dogs are safe.

The Post column ends with a final plea, emphasizing the pure chaos in store for the country – “America, more body bags, please.”

Not all the media outlets are quite so dramatic when judging this ruling. Some just chastise the court for their decision.

The LA Times says that the ruling is “disappointing” because it secures “an individual right to keep and bear arms…Fortunately, even though the decision endorses the individual-right explanation, it may have limited impact… it could have been worse.”

Other media outlets just view the decision as a conservative agenda and the judges are activist and partisan.

“Thursday’s decision is a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda,” said the LA Times.

“It was interesting to hear the chorus of praise for Thursday’s ruling from conservatives who otherwise condemn "activist" judges,” said the San Francisco Chronicle.

According to the media, the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” should be interpreted differently.

Only a person with conservative leanings interpret that phrase to mean that people deserve the right to own guns.

However, the Boston Globe really presents the most intelligent argument.

“Some Americans may feel safer owning a gun for self-defense. But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won’t change that.”

Yes, guns can still kill.

America — prepare for the worst.  At least the Supreme Court now allows your right to do so.