The Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional today. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, DC essentially made it illegal to own handguns and it’s difficult to reconcile that with the second amendment without some pretzel-like contortions. What I don’t understand is all of the angst about this. This article seems pretty typical in its idiocy. He even entitled it “The Thugs won.” As he pointed out, the people who have been using handguns in DC will not be affected by the new ruling. But maybe the people that are afraid of the “thugs” will breathe a little easier now. I have read a half dozen articles saying that this decision will lead to shoot outs in the streets and that gun violence is bound to increase. None of them have mentioned the fact that the people causing the gun violence were (in many cases) in violation of the gun laws that were in place. The really restrictive gun laws didn’t save all of those people that were killed in DC since this law was in effect. If the police in DC, LA, Chicago, etc. weren’t going to save them (and they didn’t), why not let people defend themselves? It seems to me that the people who want to stop people from owning guns need to come up with a way of protecting people, the police are doing a pretty bad job of it.
I understand not liking guns, but there are some people (like the ones that brought the case against DC) that need them for protection. If you want more restrictive gun control you need to do two things. First, you need to get the second amendment repealed. The second thing you need to do is to find a way of protecting the people that are getting killed while waiting for the police. Good luck finding solutions to those things…
Technorati Tags:
gun control, supreme court, 2nd amendment, NRA