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.
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.