Instapundit is cataloging the responses to today's wacky editorial from the New York Times in which the paper's editors expose their complete ignorance of the United States Constitution--mainly that they think it somewhere guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Writing on Senator Coburn's (admirable) effort to prevent any infringement upon the rights of American veterans, the Times writes:

As the Army’s suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there’s small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government’s record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

Ah, the craven gun lobby, cravenly protecting rights that actually are guaranteed by the Constitution. My own reading of the Constitution, and admittedly I'm neither a lawyer nor an editor at the Times, has failed to turn up an exception to the Second Amendment for veterans who fail to meet some psychological standard set by--who exactly? Best response yet, from Charlie Foxtrot:

My only question would be, how does having government "specialists" tracking people that they consider to be "high risks" fall under the category of "Liberty"? Hmm? Just so long as were are not tracking people with terrorist ties via the Patriot Act, right NYT? Only the stressed out soldiers need to be tracked as risky.....