Home > Opinion > A Capital View > When You Think About the Election, Think About Guns and the Supreme Court

When You Think About the Election, Think About Guns and the Supreme Court

Reader Comments
Back to blog

As the old saying goes "one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel", so it goes with a "Gun Control Mentality". Of all the untold millions of guns in the USA, it's a select few of mentally defective criminal sorts that ruin it for the millions who use guns as they were intended, for protection of human life and property and recreation. Instead of condemning the whole, condemn the few who use the gun for unlawful reasons.

outspoken2 of CA 11:49AM August 05, 2008

What do states' rights have to do with DC?

John in MA of MA 9:28AM August 05, 2008

If Mr. Mashek did the research that a journalist is supposed to do, he would know that the relationship between the safety of law-abiding citizens and lawful gun ownership is just the opposite of what he imagines. DC had draconian gun control and was still the murder capital of the country.
And if he had had my 8th grade English teacher, he would be able to understand the plain English of the second amendment (not to mention the concommitant literature of the period).
England has banned guns completely and now has a "knife crime" problems. The problem with liberals is that they think crimes are committed by inanimate objects, not people.

Lew Flagg of MA 9:07AM August 05, 2008

Actually, the author's point is the only reason I'm voting for McCain.
People who lack the will or self-control to refrain from committing murder are intolerably dangerous with or without a gun. If the government removes such people from society, gun control won't be necessary. If the government will not or (for whatever reasons) cannot keep such people off the streets, the rest of us have a legitimate reason to be at all times armed.

fsilber of TN 8:25AM August 05, 2008

Another one issue writer. I suppose he is favor of killing babies in the womb.
Ken Romenesko

Ken Romenesko of WI 8:07AM August 05, 2008

Mr. Mashek:
And the point of your anecdotal stories is ... ? If you are to have relevancy, you need to connect the dots on issues, not merely present "just-so" stories.
The second amendment mandates that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by government (even government of the majority). It in no way authorizes individuals to use firearms to commit crimes. Your stories are testament to reprehensible criminal behavior, not the second amendment.
I might remind you that all 9 justices agreed that the 2A protects an individual right. But it's flatly reprehensible that 4 of the 9 justices viewed DCs law, which was a complete ban, as not in violation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Those four (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) are truly out in left field to believe that.
The four dissenting justices will go down in history, on this issue, for attempting to twist the second amendment to the US constitution into meaningless by invoking linguistic sophistries, while flatly ignoring history, precedent, and the will of the people. Those four justices understand Article V of the constitution. They just wanted to short-cut around it. History will not view their dissent kindly.

Carl in Chicago of IL 8:07AM August 05, 2008

Home rule? since when does the state or government have the right to legislate away my rights? Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. The constitution is supposed to protect us from this kind of criminal.
I visited DC a few years ago and had to leave my gun in a motel across from DC. These DC morons made it impossible to defend myself while in MY nations capitol. It IS my business when these sleazeballs commit the crime of taking away my constitutional rights.
It is a felony to deprive a citizen of his rights "under color of law". Put these scummy bastards in jail where they belong.

CC Ryder of AR 5:10PM August 04, 2008

I don't know how long it will take for anti-gun enthusiasts to realize that people kill people, not guns. How about banning knives, then we can be certain that some mentally ill knife-wielding individual will not sit next to us on a Greyhound with the intent of decapitation.

Gary of WI 4:25PM August 04, 2008

This author chooses to connect crimes that were probably carried out with guns that were not legally owned, with guns that are legally owned by millions of responsible citizens. In none of the cases that he cites can we assume that those guns would be among those whose ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Really, this was one of poorest thought out editorial opinions that I can remember reading.
I am pro-2nd Amendment, but I have no problem with those who disagree with me, but at least do it with some logic and some validity. Fortunately for them, our 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment rights of those who choose to write trash like this.
I think it's too bad that US News would publish such an opinion.

John Hofstetter of CA 3:22PM August 04, 2008

When the founding fathers ratified the 2nd Amendment their understanding of "milita" was defined in the 1771 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica. "Militia denotes the trained bands of a town or country, who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defense." The militia in 1776 achieved our independence with their own guns, not their pitchforks.

Richard J. Stegemeier of CA 2:34PM August 04, 2008