I agree. The point is that it also disarms folks who have been. By not distinguishing, Coors opened himself to unprincipled ads by Salazar that mischaracterize his position (what other kind do rats run?). Though Congress had no authority to do that either. Ex post facto legislation and all that. The notion, however, that someone's rights should be taken away without them even being accused, much less convicted, of any crime should be chilling to anyone worthy of being called an "American".
BTW, I also wish some politician (let me know if Ron Paul has--I'd be impressed) would come out and say that the Founders recognized that it would be necessary from time to time to amend the Constitution, and provided two means for doing so:
- Both branches of Congress approve the change by supermajority vote, then 3/4 of the state legislatures approve the change by whatever method their individual constitutions direct.
- A constitutional convention is called by 3/4 of the state.
I don't think they intended to allow what is my now the most common method:
- Have the President and a simple majority of Senators appoint at leat five men to the Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution says what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says.
The Constitution was written in plain language so that ordinary people could read and understand it. The people who claim that it's an intricate document that can only really be understood by the Men in Black Robes are
lying. Unfortunately, their lie has been so often repeated that it's become accepted as truth.