Physician, heal thyself

Predictably, the editors at the anti-gun New England Journal of Medicine are all boo-hoo about the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller ruling nixing Washington, D.C.'s draconian gun ban.

BOSTON, July 9 -- The landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns "has launched the country on a risky epidemiologic experiment," according to the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The editors, who have long been on record as supporters of gun control laws, published the editorial online today ahead of the journal's July 31 print edition.

"If there is a widespread loosening of gun regulations, we learn over the next few years -- in a before-and-after experiment -- whether the laws we had in place had a significant impact in mitigating death and injury from handguns," wrote Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D., editor-in-chief of the journal, and colleagues.

They added, "In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result."
...
The Constitution, they wrote, has no language "that would limit regulation" of firearms. In fact, they noted, "the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase 'well regulated' in reference to the use of firearms by militias." [emphasis added]

Sometimes, I think you have to go to (medical) school for a really long time to get that stupid.