Court Overturns DC Gun Ban
Most significant ruling for gun ownership in 70 years
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed ..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
I went on a high school senior trip to Washington DC almost forty years ago. We stayed a few nights in a tall hotel in the heart of the city. Across the building was a large park and each night, all night long there were screams, gunshots and sirens. I remember we were surprised and shocked at all the commotion and this was a bunch of young people who came from a town just outside of New York City. That was one place where people should be armed and DC's super strict gun ban never made any sense to me, except perhaps to protect politicians from outraged citizenry in the center of their criminal enterprise.
This ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is long overdue and points to a glaring failure by the Supreme Court - a direct ruling on private gun ownership. All during the twentieth century debate raged on about whether the second amendment applied to groups like militias or private individuals. It's led to a bewildering array of state and local laws that can contradict one another. Put an unregistered loaded pistol on the car seat beside you and drive around the country and see what happens. It's way past time for the court, in no ambiguous terms, to lock in the inviolability of owning and carrying weapons in the US, period.
As a side issue, it's been interesting why progressive/liberal politics have determinedly been tagged with being antithetical to gun ownership and firearm rights. Why should that have ever happened? Liberal anti war views, environmentalism, anti corporatism, what do any of those things have to do with owning weapons for self protection and sport?
They don't. It's my opinion that men from the opposing viewpoints seized the gun issue as their own and tried and succeeded in painting their political enemies as soft liberal wussies. It's true that liberals/progressive men as a general rule don't have the sick compulsion to identify their dicks with what caliber they shoot at the gun range, but no one group has a lock on being either fainting pushovers or manly dudes. As a matter of fact, obsession with dominance and feminizing your opposition only displays a need to cover up personal ambiguities and fears. See Iraq war+chickenhawks.
The gun issue attracts them like flies on a gut wagon in August. But I think it's a myth that rightwing authoritarian types own the subject even if they take the high road on it. It's high time for the progressive left to embrace weapon ownership both as a political tactic (if politics still mean anything anymore) and practical necessity. Face it, we're living in increasingly volatile times, we should welcome rulings like the one in DC with open arms, pun intended.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed ..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
I went on a high school senior trip to Washington DC almost forty years ago. We stayed a few nights in a tall hotel in the heart of the city. Across the building was a large park and each night, all night long there were screams, gunshots and sirens. I remember we were surprised and shocked at all the commotion and this was a bunch of young people who came from a town just outside of New York City. That was one place where people should be armed and DC's super strict gun ban never made any sense to me, except perhaps to protect politicians from outraged citizenry in the center of their criminal enterprise.
This ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is long overdue and points to a glaring failure by the Supreme Court - a direct ruling on private gun ownership. All during the twentieth century debate raged on about whether the second amendment applied to groups like militias or private individuals. It's led to a bewildering array of state and local laws that can contradict one another. Put an unregistered loaded pistol on the car seat beside you and drive around the country and see what happens. It's way past time for the court, in no ambiguous terms, to lock in the inviolability of owning and carrying weapons in the US, period.
As a side issue, it's been interesting why progressive/liberal politics have determinedly been tagged with being antithetical to gun ownership and firearm rights. Why should that have ever happened? Liberal anti war views, environmentalism, anti corporatism, what do any of those things have to do with owning weapons for self protection and sport?
They don't. It's my opinion that men from the opposing viewpoints seized the gun issue as their own and tried and succeeded in painting their political enemies as soft liberal wussies. It's true that liberals/progressive men as a general rule don't have the sick compulsion to identify their dicks with what caliber they shoot at the gun range, but no one group has a lock on being either fainting pushovers or manly dudes. As a matter of fact, obsession with dominance and feminizing your opposition only displays a need to cover up personal ambiguities and fears. See Iraq war+chickenhawks.
The gun issue attracts them like flies on a gut wagon in August. But I think it's a myth that rightwing authoritarian types own the subject even if they take the high road on it. It's high time for the progressive left to embrace weapon ownership both as a political tactic (if politics still mean anything anymore) and practical necessity. Face it, we're living in increasingly volatile times, we should welcome rulings like the one in DC with open arms, pun intended.
posted by nolocontendere at 8:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home