Looking Forward to Reading This One

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.

You Might Be a Gun Nut If.....

The first group of gun nuts lack the cajones to say what they really think...that the second amendment is a historical artifact no longer relevant in today's world. They choose to pussy-foot around this by constantly trying to chip away at it, neutering the protection a little at a time.

The other gun nuts prefer to live with their collective head in the sand...or tucked somewhere else.

"The NRA promotes gun safety programs" and "I need my guns to prevent government tyranny" are two statements that, while not demonstrably false, accomplish practically nothing in the real world.

• If you believe that more laws, holding all else constant, would have prevented this massacre, you might be a gun nut.
  
• If you think that a Saturday morning NRA-sponsored gun safety event would have prevented this individual from shooting his targets as intended, you might be a gun nut.
• If you think that packing a pistol is the way you're going to avoid government tyranny in the 21st century, then you really are a gun nut.

Societies, just like people, don't make big changes until they feel enough pain from their current ways.

We can talk all we want about band-aid solutions that sound good to the idiots who eat this kind of crap out of CNN's hands, but small laws, safety classes and acting as if we still live out on the frontier don't solve a goddamned thing. They demean both the speaker and the listener.

Both sides need to finally get honest and talk about the modern meaning of the second amendment and not hide behind things that simply act to rile people up without illuminating anything.

Or, those who like to lead the nation in talking about guns constantly, can continue to flap their gums with all their high-minded talk and act as if these things are an aberration or someone else's fault.

If you want to know my opinion, I think we'd better buckle up our government-mandated seatbelts, kids. We still have some rough road to cover before we get to the point where people want to be honest about all of this.

Statement from the NRA on Today's Events

Surely the regular actors are taking their places behind the curtain, waiting to enter, from stage left and right, to exploit today's tragedy to meet their respective agenda (or agendas depending on how old school you are.)

Here's the NRA's statement.

And the Brady Bill folks.