A Shot in the Arm for the GOP

By striking down the District of Columbia's extraordinarily strict gun control law, which essentially bans guns, a federal appeals court may have revived gun control as a political issue. It has been mostly dormant since autumn 2000, when Al Gore decided he was less interested in it than in carrying states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania: "Gore Tables Gun Issue as He Courts Midwest" [New York Times, Sept. 20, 2000]. The appeals court ruling appalls advocates of gun control laws and should alarm the Democratic Party.

The court ruled 2 to 1 that the D.C. law, which allows only current and retired police officers to have handguns in their homes, violates the Constitution's Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"But I know, factual reality is far too difficult a concept for the 100%ers. So much easier for them to just come here and spend all their time sniping their own side in the back then ever bother to THINK about the political consequences of their feverish demands for dogmatic purity."

Conversely, I find the intellectual contortions of GOP apologists to be most entertaining. Conservatives are the battered spouses of American politics. They will endure the defeats and fecklessness at the hands of the GOP, but for the most part they will never get up the gumption to leave and try something else.

As for sniping, I simply prefer that my political adversaries be in front of me rather than behind me. It's a personal preference. I just never picked up the highly refined taste for being betrayed by my alleged allies.

Conservatives tend to forget that the GOP is a political party. It exists to get it's members elected to political ofice. Hard stop. It is not an ideological or philosophical construct. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

My gunnies are rare amongst conservatives circa 2007 in that they've been largely successful in making forward progress in relation to the effort they've expended. Most states now have concealed carry laws. The so-called assault weapons ban is gone. With regard to gun freedoms, America is far better off than it was 15 years ago. Could the same be said for fiscal conservatives? For pro-life activists?

Interestingly enough, it's been precisely due to their mischaracterized "dogmatic purity" that the gunnies have been so successful. This so-called "dogmatic purity" is really nothing of the sort. Don't confuse a strong bargaining position with a refusal to deal. Gunnies have always been willing to make a deal. They're just not willing to sit pretty and and roll over for the political table scraps. This is in marked contrast with some other conservatives who have not only been been willing to accept the table scraps, they've been willing to close their eyes and call them "filet mignon."

And I thank you for the opporunity to debate.

>>>George Will wrote: "When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship."<<<

George misstated the history of the 1st and 2nd Amendments (it is a common mistake). The founders considered all the Amendments equally important. During the ratification debate the proposed Amendments were call "Articles". The 2nd Amendment was originally the 5th Article. Later it became the 4th Article when the 3rd and 4th were merged into the 3rd Article. The 4th Article became the 2nd Amendment by default when the states failed to ratify the 1st and 2nd Articles. For the same reason the 3rd Article became the 1st Amendment by default.

For the record, the two proposed Amendments that failed ratification were as follows:

Article I. After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Art. II. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.