Wednesday, April 14, 2010

How many editors did THAT make it past?

From the Washington Post, by way of the Houston Chronicle:

...the right of self-defense is inherent and may be exercised against current and future enemies that pose an imminent threat...
Right of self-defense is inherent, eh? I know I'm not the only one who sees the contradiction here with only God knows how many of this paper's past editorials and columns advocating various and sundry gun bans. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: If an entity is denied the means of self-defense, said entity is effectively denied the right of self-defense. Why does the Washington Post apparently think that self-defense is an inherent right of nations but not an inherent right of individuals? Must the "Second Amendment protects collective rights" myth be advanced at all costs? Apparently so.