Say Anything Blog

NRA News

“The New England Journal of Medicine isn’t too happy about the Supreme Court decision affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the journal has a new editorial out criticizing the decision. In it, three doctors write that “closer regulation promotes the public health.”

The doctors say that there is no constitutional impediment to any kind of “regulation” of firearms. And the doctors believe “logic tells us that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death.”

Let’s take these three arguments one at a time. First of all, can you imagine doctors in charge of doling out First Amendment “privileges”? Perhaps a study from the CDC on the dangers of increased likelihood of heart attacks after listening to (or calling in to) talk radio shows? 

Americans would be outraged, just as they should be outraged at these doctors calling for restrictions on your Second Amendment rights as a matter of “public health.” 

The doctors misread the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision when they say there’s no impediment to any kind of regulation of firearms. There’s the little matter of “shall not be infringed,” but there’s also the Court’s decision striking down D.C.‘s gun ban. 

And finally, logic does NOT tell us that increased gun ownership leads to increases in injury and death. As a matter of fact, accidental firearm fatalities have plummeted in this country, even while legal gun ownership has increased. 

I have no idea how good these doctors may be when it comes to saving individual patients, but when it comes to diagnosing the Second Amendment, they’re a bunch of quacks.”

Listen In…