The New York Times talking head Bob Herbert is taking offense to being labeled as anti-gun. Check out this passage from his latest column where he attacks the NRA for naming names.

All of the groups and individuals listed are supposed to be anti-gun. I can't speak for the Kansas City Chiefs or Moon Zappa, but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed.

Bob's denial is laughable. He claims that he's not anti-gun, and then backs it up with his supposition that the government should have unfettered access to firearms, whereas the general populace should be strictly regulated or prohibited. What part of "shall not be infringed" does Bob not understand? Bob thinks that gun owners should have to justify their reasoning to the government prior to owning a firearm. Herbert doesn't let on just who he thinks should get to decide if my reasons for owning a firearm are good enough.

Perhaps we should institute similar restrictions on freedom of the press. The Times should only be permitted to publish Bob's column after the government has approved it, and he's justified his reason for wanting it published. I mean, why should the Second Amendment be the only one we ignore.

By the way Bob, wiping out the First Amendment and taking away all that freedom of the press that you enjoy every day will be much easier once the government is the only one with the guns.