It's about what you'd expect from a left leaning rag, but then it gets worse, much worse:
The big change, rather, is a spiritual one. Washington has been the American jurisdiction most willing to dream of a gun-free society. For Washington, a Second Amendment that means something would end an existing experiment. It would impose a national norm on a dissenting local political culture. I'd be more sentimental about the end of that experiment if its results over three decades had been more encouraging. Still, whenever a right goes from a norm to a matter of actionable law--something the courts make sure "shall not be infringed"--it does so at some cost to popular sovereignty, a cost that Washington residents seem fated in this instance to bear. [emphasis added]Wow. I guess a right that "shall not be infringed" is cool when it's just a norm, just part of a political culture, of which others can dissent from. But when you give meaning to the "shall not be infringed" part, suddenly the American spirit, American democracy, dies a little.
Maybe I read too much into it, but who would have thought that being unable to opt out of the Constitution, excuse me, the norm, would be such a freakin tragedy?