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?
If you like it, link it | 1 Comment:
What amazes me is that they can't see the parallels with Roe V Wade.
In that case it wasn't even an enumerated right, but SCOTUS felt justified in, and the press and other liberal establishments supported, forcing it on all states, regions and localities...even if it flew in the face of their "established norms".
But this time...even though it is a right clearly enumerated in the Constitution, the fact that SCOTUS is "forcing" it on the city government is an egregious assault on democracy.
I have to wonder: are liberals born this contradictory and hypocritical, or do they practice in front of a mirror?
Post a Comment