A Shot in the Arm for the GOP (overturning of DC gun ban)

Real Clear Politics ^ | March 18, 2007 | George Will

[Clintonfatigued]

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."

[oldfart]

Back when JFK had just won, a woman was asked why she voted for him. She replied, "I like the way he combs his hair."
That's democracy in action.
No matter who is running or who is in office, we can always find something to complain about; their stance on the WOT, on the WO(S)D or the WO__ (insert favorite cause here.) Just as with religion where no Church completely mirrors my views with respect to God, no candidate sees all issues exactly as I do. Therefore, if I really wanted to vote for the person who best represented me, I'd have to vote for myself... and so would a hundred million other voters.
So I use the L. Neil Smith test to decide which candidate I should support. As Mr. Smith pointed out, once you clear away all the crap, the only real test is his/her stance on gun ownership.

I'll stick with Ron Paul.

[2harddrive]

Let's all put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!!

[Psycheout]

Amen.