Defending Porno but Not Rifles

One could probably surmise that the authors of the Constitution, were they alive today, would say they had no more intention of including assault rifles under the Second Amendment than pornographic material under the First. The Times, however, somehow manages to defend the “rights” of bookstores to sell such trash while hotly condemning stores selling assault rifles.

Under the guise of freedom of press, The Times excuses “consenting adults who come to the store seeking it (pornographic material) out,” while lambasting anyone who would purchase or sell an assault rifle.

The real issue, despite The Times’ allegation, is probably not the procedural attempts on the part of the city of Stanton. The real issue is that any attempt to restrict even something like pornography strikes close to the nerve of the press. In the case of The Times, however, it seems that nerve is an economic and not a moral one.

MICHAEL HAMILTON

Laguna Beach