Cries for Gun Control Following Colorado Shooting Massacre

Here's the almost unbelievably over-the-top editorial at the NY Daily News, "Blood on hands of Obama, Mitt and NRA!"

Glenn Reynolds calls it a "disgraceful piece of blood-libel agitprop..."

And see Doug Ross, "The Geniuses Who Think You Can Ban Evil." (Via Memeorandum.)

More at the New York Times, "Colorado Gun Laws Remain Lax, Despite Some Changes." Mentioning James Holmes, who purchased guns legally, there's this:

The guy basically had normal guns,” said Eugene Volokh, an expert in constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Unless some new evidence of documented psychiatric disturbance emerges, Mr. Volokh added, “there’s no indication that, from his record, he is someone whom more restrictive screening procedures would have caught.”

Yeah, and read the entirely reasonable editorial at the New York Post, "Colorado Shootings Sparks Gun-Control Calls":

...individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

Surely, no reasonable person would argue that “The Dark Knight Rises” be banned, and the 1st Amendment savaged, because it might have sparked yesterday’s shootings.

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Respect it.

More at Memeorandum. It turns out New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg announced he'll introduce gun control legislation to the Congress. Lautenberg's a Democrat, so it figures.

IMAGE CREDIT: Yahoo News "Colorado shooting: How the world's newspapers covered the 'Dark Knight' massacre."