Tomorrow, the SCOTUS is expected to hand down its decision on the constitutionality of Washington DC's law which prohibits ownership of handguns in the District.I don't come down purely for or against the NRA...while I think they are an honorable civil rights group, both poles in this debate practice a certain amount of other- and self-deception when it comes to their public arguments.
As I believe I've posted here before, the whole 'sportsmen' argument, made by people residing on many parts of the spectrum, is one of the phoniest crocks of shit I've ever heard taken seriously and I'm disappointed that it's not scrutinized more by the mainstream press.
The founders were not talking about duck hunters or target shooters when they inserted this language into the Constitution so let's stop pretending that protecting the Elmer Fudds of this world is some kind of Gandhi-like mission worthy of our attention, let alone admiration.
It's a damned shame that the press lets the NRA as well as those who offer hunter-protection provisions as some kind of compromise to the restrictions they'd like to place on gun ownership off the hook.
While we're never going to unanimously settle whether the founders intended the right as an individual or collective one, it's high time someone treated the Constitution as a living document and had an honest discussion about the costs and benefits of honoring it as written today. You might decide that it's worth keeping, but you might also find, when pressed, that the cost of honoring it as some interpret it makes gas look cheap.
Here's the wiki entry on District of Columbia v Heller.
1 comment:
I think the funny part is how they claim that they need guns to protect the constitution, and to overthrow the government if needed.
What are they waiting for? Or is it because the government has tanks and they have a rifle?
Didn't Maher do a bit on this?
Post a Comment