Supreme Court Gun Decision Shows Democrats Have Surrendered on Issue

June 28, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (58)

The Supreme Court's decision, taking away important local rights to control gun ownership, marks another sad day in America's now seemingly endless political appetite for increasing the number of privately owned guns in this country.

By 5-4 the justices overturned strict gun ownership rules set by Chicago and one of its suburbs.

As Politico put it:

Both parties have, by a kind of mutual consent, been very quiet on guns for the last few years. Democrats have lost their energy for the fight, and Republicans--particularly in the absence of a real push to take anyone's gun--don't see it as a winning issue at a moment dominated by economic worries.

It is indeed true that Democrats no longer try to put meaningful gun restriction laws into effect. But it is not new. It started with the second Clinton term some 14 years ago. Right after President Clinton took office and within a few years of the almost-successful attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life, the Clinton administration was able to pass the Brady Bill (which imposed national restrictions on handgun ownership) and a ban on private ownership of assault weapons.

[See which members of Congress get campaign funds from gun rights groups.]

Ever since then, there has been no news event that has spurred the nation into support for more gun control. In fact, the opposite has been the case. Even though mass shootings have occurred most recently at Ft. Hill in Texas, before that at Virginia Tech, during the Washington sniper killing spree, in Amish country and even at Columbine High School, the nation has yet to see renewed interest in controlling gun ownership.

Perhaps the general lethargy that has caused many Americans to lose faith in government has crept into our philosophy on law and order, feeling hopelessly that even our local police and sheriffs can no longer protect us from harm. Vigilantism reigns supreme and with it a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the powerful gun ownership lobby has interpreted to mean anyone can essentially own any weapon or weapons of any caliber.

 

Tags:
NRA,
gun control and gun rights,
Bill Clinton,
Ronald Reagan,
Supreme Court,
Second Amendment

Reader Comments Read all comments (58)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Your freedom-hating agenda has finally gone down in flames, as has the support of the majority within your own party... deal with it!

James Steele of PA 3:46AM July 16, 2010

It is good that ultra libs like this spew their crappola. firearm statistics are readily available for all to see, legally owned guns are almost never used in the comission of a crime. the mere presence of a firearm has been estimated to thwart 50,000 criminal acts per year. I am a firefighter and know many police, they all say the same thing, why cant you be trusted with a gun? Well why can't you? Do you think thugs pay attention to gun bans? Do you think? What a moron.

Dan of KS 9:26PM July 12, 2010

just ask them... most I have asked tell me they prefer the people to be armed.

James of SC 2:33AM July 04, 2010

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

advertisement