How About Supporting The Second Amendment For Once

Opinion/Editorial

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

   Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

   These are two very fundamental GOD given rights that we cherish in a free and open society in this great country.Media outlets especially the New York Times under the freedom of speech/press clause of the first amendment not only cherish but take full advantage of this right.Some may say too much or not enough it depends on one's political view.
   In their lead OPED this morning the New York Times doesnot fullly respect nor as always correctly interpret the blessings and rights under these two amendments."Violent, Drunk and Holding a Gun" is the title of their mindless rant this morning.
   The dirty little secret is that liberal socialist members of the biased lame stream media like the aforementioned NYT don't want anyone including sound minded individuals (no one for that matter) to own guns.God forbid that we violate the rights of the NYT though they could careless about other Americans rights unless they fall under their corrupt political and ideological views.

 It begins "Multiple mass shootings by deranged young men have made keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people a big part of the gun debate.Given the enormity of those crimes, that is understandable. Federal law does, in fact, prohibit gun ownership by mentally ill people if a judge has found them to be dangerous or they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. President Obama has also issued executive orders to ensure that federal background checks include complete information on people barred from owning guns for mental health reasons and to clarify that federal law allows health care providers to report patients’ credible threats of violence to the authorities. But a focus on mass murder, while critical, does not get at the broader issue of gun violence, including the hundreds of single-victim murders, suicides, nonfatal shootings and other gun crimes that occur daily in the United States. And focusing on the mentally ill, most of whom are not violent, overlooks people who are at demonstrably increased risk of committing violent crimes but are not barred by federal law from buying and having guns.
  The NYT here means everyone don't be fooled by their intentions.So only criminals would have weapons.
  Here is the rest of their BS rant "These would include people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors including assaults, and those who are alcohol abusers. Unless guns are also kept from these high-risk people, preventable gun violence will continue.

VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS Federal law prohibits felons from buying and possessing firearms; it also bars people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. But it permits gun purchase and ownership by people convicted of other violent misdemeanors, defined variously under state laws, including assault and battery, brandishing a weapon or making open, credible threats of violence. Many people convicted of violent misdemeanors were originally charged with felonies but then convicted of lesser charges because of plea bargains. And research shows that people who have been convicted of any misdemeanors and who then legally buy a handgun are more likely to commit crimes after that gun purchase than buyers with no prior convictions.

California provides a case study. It changed its law in 1991 to prohibit individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors from buying guns for 10 years after the conviction. Before that, a study showed that gun buyers with even a single prior misdemeanor conviction were nearly five times as likely as those with no criminal history to be arrested for gun-related or other violent crimes. After the law was enacted, a significant decrease in arrests was attributed to the denial of gun sales to people with misdemeanor records.

ALCOHOL ABUSE Federal law prohibits the purchase and possession of guns by anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” But the statute ignores alcohol abuse. That is also a mistake. The evidence linking alcohol abuse and gun-related violence is compelling. One study found that subjects who had ever been in trouble at work for drinking or were ever hospitalized for alcohol abuse were at increased risk of committing homicide and suicide.

Other studies also suggest that alcohol abuse is a factor in the association between gun ownership and the criminal justice system. The difficulty in policing alcohol abuse for purposes of gun control is that there is no precise definition of abuse. Pennsylvania, however, provides a useful example. It bars gun purchases by those who have been convicted of three or more drunken driving offenses within a five-year period. That criterion identifies drinkers with demonstrated tendencies toward recklessness and lawbreaking.

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to review the federal prohibitions on gun ownership and to make legislative and executive recommendations “to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.” The answers are already out there.

 So the intention of this President and the rest of the lame stream medias agenda rid society and LAW ABIDING citizens of their rights.

 But wait the NYT has never ever been accused of lying or of a liberal leaning bias in their reporting (not opinion/editorials we all know where they stand as COMMUNISTS) no not the NYT thats fit to print.GIVE ME A BREAK!