The mass media's boot-licking enthusiasm for "gun control" is an old story, and one to which CNN is no exception, even without Piers Morgan. As if to quash any doubt about that assertion, CNN legal analyst Mark O'Mara chose yesterday to uphold the long, proud tradition in forcible citizen disarmament circles of exploiting a high profile mass shooting (and mass stabbing, but that's generally conveniently ignored) to call for yet more oppressive regulation of guns.
Never mind that the killing ground was Santa Barbara, California--"gun control" model state, according to the Brady Campaign and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence--and that the killer was in full compliance with California law until the moment he embarked on his mission of mass murder--we are to blame "craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA."
So O'Mara uses this shooting (and again, this stabbing, but when he mentions the "[s]ix dead," he does not bother to mention that half of them were stabbed to death) to segue into his call for more "gun control."
We have a problem with gun violence in this country. I think this much is not in dispute. The real debate is this: What do we do about it? Unfortunately, most answers to this question involve greater governmental regulation and intrusion into our lives.
Americans are fiercely independent, sometimes to a fault, and we bristle at any effort seen as trampling our inalienable rights. But the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have never been unfettered.
Here, he entirely predictably parrots the old, hackneyed, "Can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" line as an example of legitimate restriction of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, seemingly oblivious to the weaknesses in that argument. But he's on a roll now, quite pleased with his contention that restriction of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights is not only permissible, but highly desirable:
Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms.
It's as if he believes that saying there has been no "erosion of fundamental freedoms" magically makes it so. And now he ties it into the Second Amendment:
Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.
Ah, so that's his standard--as long as the government's recognition of the right to keep and bear arms does not "vanish altogether," we're golden. In an instant, shall not be infringed has become "shall not vanish altogether," and that's supposed to be good enough for us.
It's not, O'Mara, and it's not good enough for the brave men and women we celebrate today who died upholding their oath to defend the rights you are so casually willing to toss away, as long as it's done in small enough pieces.