College Republican Federation of Virginia

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
- Mahatma Gandhi -

Today in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the Washington D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. Hot on the heels of this decision came an op-ed piece from Colbert I. King of the Washington Post - one so mind-numbingly silly that it inspired me to come out of my blogging retirement to destroy it. My apologies to the current bloggers for taking the story of the day.

This editorial is entitled “The Thugs Win the Case.”  As a responsible weapon owner, I was intrigued by the thought that I might be included in a group of thugs.  However, I’m usually a fair-minded guy - I wanted to make sure I was not misinterpreting the title, so I kept reading.  I was immediately greeted with this gem:

 ”There’s one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District’s strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.”

Hmm.  So far, it seems that we agree; criminals tend not to be overly concerned with such irritating things such as laws.  There even seems to be a bit of dark humor mixed in (”You thought D.C. stands for “District of Columbia? “Dodge City” is more like it.”) - could it be that the WaPo has accidentally produced an intelligent editorial? Let’s keep reading:

“If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it’s probably the fact that five of the justices — a slim majority, but that’s all it takes to win — have come around to seeing things their way.”

Now THAT’S the WaPo we all know and love!  This one sentence set off every one of my highly-developed stupidity detection senses.  Throw in a hefty dose of elite-style arrogance, and we’ve got ourselves a typical Post editorial!

But in the interest of actually making an argument, let’s examine the above claim from a first-person perspective of a “thug.”  I used to rob, pillage, and murder with confidence.  Within the fraternity of gun-owning criminals, we decided not to attack people we knew were probably armed (other criminals).  See, it makes no sense for me (a bad guy) to attack other armed people when there are scads of unarmed (and decidedly more wealthy) citizens roaming the street.  Why risk my life in robbing an armed person?  I’d rather have those awesome gun laws keeping my risk to a minimum.  (On another, somewhat related note: If I’m injured by an armed citizen, can I draw workman’s comp for job-related injuries?)

But the real pinnacle of pinheadedness (shout out to Papa Bear O’Reilly) is contained in the following two paragraphs:

“Scalia also wrote this hymn to the handgun: “The American people consider the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.” He went on to argue: “There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: it is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

And if machine guns one day should become the weapon of choice for home protection — what say ye then, Justice Scalia? With the exception of that reference to dialing the police, D.C. street thugs’ response to Scalia’s ode to the handgun was undoubtedly, “Hear, hear!”

True; perhaps escalation will happen.  Perhaps criminals will now start wearing body armor and carrying submachine guns.  Thus, it is conceivable that necessity will require law-abiding citizens to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their bedrooms.  This, of couse, would cause criminals to escalate to hand-grenades and Stinger missiles.  The upside to all of this is that if you see an unusually stiff-looking fellow with a briefcase-sized bulge underneath an oversized coat, there would be little doubt that he’s packing - unlike today’s preferred weapon of compact handguns, which can easily be concealed at any one of five points on the human body.  Again, as a responsible gun owner, I feel it may be necessary to point out the logistical problems associated with concealing a TEC-9 (roughly 10 inches by 10 inches, or the size of a sheet of copier paper).  Of course, that particular weapon is still banned for everyone except criminals.

But the most interesting portion of the editorial was the following:

“Writing for the majority, Scalia said that the Constitution doesn’t allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” Folks have a right to keep and bear arms — and, by golly, a right to use ‘em, too, if necessary. “

Could it be, just maybe, that I’m detecting a note of (gasp!) bitterness?!

I thought only religious, racist, gun-totin’ hicks were bitter…

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
- Barack Obama -