Every Democrat in the country better be ready for a barrage of gun control questions between now and the general election next year.Â Why?Â The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that goes to the core of the Second Amendment, which reads:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Vastly oversimplifying things, it’s about whether the “right to bear arms” is a right that you – as an individual – have, or whether the right to bear arms is only as part of a “well-regulated Militia” (which is then up to the States to define).Â If there is an *individual* right to bear arms, then many of the existing restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership may well be found unconstitutional.Â I think it’s a perfectly valid question, and something that the Supreme Court has been avoiding for years.Â So I’m happy to see that it will be sorted out.Â As a lawyer, anyway.
But the real harm here is going to be the reinsertion of the “Democrats want to take your guns away!” canard into the political sphere.Â If ever it was true, it certainly hasn’t been true for decades.Â Yet it remained a regular (and effective) rallying cry for the GOP (a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA, for the purpose of this issue).Â It had faded, in recent years, and I was glad to see that.Â But look for this case to put it front and center again.Â Democrats need to prepare to ready, aim, and fire back.
Another Concerned Citizen
Are you serious?
Democrats have given up on gun control? I guess nobody told Maryland and New York that when they have already announced their intentions of weighing in on behalf of the defense.
Wow, I just can’t believe it. So you’re saying you agree with the plaintiff in this case?
Because otherwise, you and the rest of the Democrats are out to get people’s guns, and Republicans are going to make sure that the people know about it.
Well, I’m not sure why you felt the need to say you can’t believe something I didn’t say in the first place.
Reading comprehension. It’s useful on the web.
I’ve got nothin’ about gun control, but thought I’d mention that I stalked–er, followed–you here from a recent dKos thread in which you fought the good fight.
Gun control. Okay. Am I wrong in thinking that the vast majority of people who would call themselves ‘pro-gun’ support -some- sort of limit to access to, say, SAWs and RPGs and such? Ignoring the political stuff (which is kinda begging the question, as my point is that this is almost -all- political stuff), isn’t the question just, ‘where do we draw the line?’
The NRA wants people to believe that the Democratic Party draws the line at sporks, of course, but that’s purely political and wholly lying.
Heh, thanks. I suspect it’ll get worse before it gets better, over there.
No, I don’t think you’re wrong at all. Which is what frustrates me to no end – *no* one is trying to take anyone’s guns away. There is a huge middle ground (as in probably more than 80% of the population) with your usual outliers on either side. Yet somehow the Democrats got successfully labeled as gun confiscators. But no elected Democrats of any consequence are trying to do any such thing.
But FWIW, I would support a ban on sporks . . .
Corn Syrup and Automobiles both, individually, kill more people than guns do…
So gun-control is pretty much a non-issue.
And heart disease kills more people than cancer, so shall we take that off the table?