June 26, 2008

So, Citizens Should Not Enjoy the Rights of Violent Criminals?

I've seen a couple of references to Colbert I. King's column today wherein he writes:

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.

Operating under the notion that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, our shooters long ago decided not to wait for the high court's thoughts on the matter. They simply arrogated to themselves the right to keep and bear arms and, with that right, license to shoot and kill, with impunity, whatever and whenever the evil spirits moved them.

Set fazers to stun. But wait, there's more:

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.

That's almost funny in a sad sort of way, though I missed his column last week about how terrorists around the world are pleased that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way.

Still not enough for you? Well, Billy Mays has nothing on Mr. King, he's not through by, pardon the pun, a long shot:

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!"

See how easily Mr. King goes from Justice Scalia writing that a complete prohibition on handguns in the home is invalid to implying that Justice Scalia would be down with gang bangers having machine guns? What an ass.

Mr. King finishes with:

So now it has come to pass that D.C. residents can keep handguns, as well as rifles and shotguns, in their homes. A well armed, informal militia we shall be -- ready to fire back in self-defense at the shooters who believed they had the right to their guns all along.

Flush with victory, a giddy National Rifle Association has announced its intention to file lawsuits in other jurisdictions with tough handgun laws. For starters, the NRA has taken aim at San Francisco and Chicago. See what we have unleashed, D.C.?

America, more body bags, please.

If the body bags are for Mr. Colbert's precious thugs, I won't be shedding any tears. Maybe we can just use the body bags for them that have been used for citizens up to this point. Mr. King's apparent ignorance of actual crime statistics where guns are allowed and refusal to consider the deterrent factor of armed citizens speaks poorly of the Washington Post's decision to allow him to beclown himself on this issue with an op-ed as full of emotion as it is devoid of reason.

Posted by Charles Austin at June 26, 2008 07:18 PM