Platitude attitude

Indiana's biggest newpaper seems mostly unimpressed with the Supreme Court's pro-Second Amendment decision in the Chicago case. It will barely affect us here, since, you know, this is such a gun-nut-friendly state anyway:

In Indiana, much of the pro-gun work already has been done. Indeed, the state has been a counter-example of virtually every gun-restriction measure even the conservative Supreme Court approves.

[. . .]

Cities have been less gun-friendly, and more homicide-conscious. A proposal this year to drop the firearms ban in city parks went nowhere in the Indianapolis City-County Council and faced a mayoral veto threat. At the state level, however, government consistently has tilted against practical safety considerations in favor of platitudes about individual rights. Business owners, emergency room physicians and police officers have decried the imbalance, and the Supreme Court has not contradicted them. It would be unfortunate if the court's call for moderation became ammunition for the other camp.

There you have it, The Indianapolis Star, zealous guardian of the Bill of Rights. "Platitudes about individual rights"?  Would the Star be so flippantly dismissive over a First Amendment issue? Let's talk about curbing the right to a free press -- not doing away with it, you understand, just putting in a lot of restrictions to prevent the well-known abuses by propagandizng provocateurs -- and see where the Star comes down.