It didn't take long for the Washington Post to weigh in on the wrong side of the Second Amendment issue, did it? The Post's Colbert I. King could not contain the disgust he feels for at least one part of the Constitution more in his response to the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling today. He flipped his top and went so far off the deep end that he seemed to imagine that Justice Scalia just gave the nod for citizens to get "machine guns" to indulge their newly affirmed ability to indiscriminately fire their loaded guns "at will" in D.C. In fact in this op ed, King was so unhinged that he seemed to utterly dispense with logic as he penned his newest ode to the wild-eyed phobia that is his inordinate fear of guns (yet, curiously, not of criminals).
King's very first few paragraphs seem to be written without the slightest bit of reflection of how illogical his position on the concept of gun laws is because it looks as though he imagines that criminals might obey a draconian anti-gun law, or any gun law for that matter if only it is enforced. One wonders why Mr. King thinks criminals are called criminals if laws would prevent them from doing anything? Worse, King can't seem to tell the difference between a law abiding citizen using a gun in self-defense and a criminal using it for evil. It seems as if to King criminals and citizens are indistinguishable.
King begins his spittle-speckled rant with some informal colloquialisms.
There's one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District's strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.
Excuse me, Mr. King, but these "dudes" have been thumbing their noses at your 32-year-old gun ban, too and for the entire 32 years. The new SCOTUS ruling is certainly initially meaningless to them, but so is your three decades old gun ban that was supposed to fix it all, sir. How hard is that to understand?
I reiterate, criminals do not obey laws, sir. This is why we call them criminals.
But, what might happen to your "dudes" is, now that citizens will be able to shoot back at them instead of having only the option of uselessly cowering and waiting for the police, your "dudes" might find reason to temper their criminality. Criminals don't like consequences much and if they begin to find they are out gunned, some of the stuffing might be knocked out of their swagger. But, if that doesn't happen, abiding citizens can at least fight back and protect themselves for a change. Why do you want D.C. homeowners to be slaughtered like sheep, Mr. King?
With his inability to see a dividing line between law abiding citizens protecting themselves and the lawless violence by "street thugs," King reveals his contempt for those law abiding citizens. After all, it seems he cannot tell the difference between them at all. Merely holding a gun makes one a "street thug" to King.
Then we get this bit of witless banter:
If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way.
I see. So, the five justices just intellectually signed on to gang activity? Can you read, Mr. King? I am having my doubts about your ability at reading comprehension if you saw anywhere in their decision the Justices in question condoning street violence, drug dealing, and murder. They didn't even condone irresponsible treatment of guns, much less express a desire to make D. C. into "Dodge City."
Then King's medication really wore off. After recounting what he claimed was Scalia's "hymn to the handgun" where the justice gave reasons why handguns were legitimate for self-defense, King decided that Scalia was also saying that machine guns disseminated about the neighborhoods would be OK with him.
And if machine guns one day should become the weapon of choice for home protection -- what say ye then, Justice Scalia? With the exception of that reference to dialing the police, D.C. street thugs' response to Scalia's ode to the handgun was undoubtedly, "Hear, hear!"
A leap of illogic by King, for sure. But, he isn't done. Next King goes on to show how dangerous he thinks the average D.C. citizen is. After saying how upset he is that "D.C. gun owners are free to fire their loaded handguns at will," King then spits out in disgust his feeling that a war is about to erupt between criminals and citizens.
So now it has come to pass that D.C. residents can keep handguns, as well as rifles and shotguns, in their homes. A well armed, informal militia we shall be -- ready to fire back in self-defense at the shooters who believed they had the right to their guns all along.
I do have one little question here: what is wrong with citizens killing violent criminals in self- defense?
Finally, King goes for a lurid capper to his screed.
America, more body bags, please.
This last brainlessly, emotional quip has no standing in fact. If, perhaps, King might show us all where more "body bags" have been needed in states that have instituted Constitutionally justifiable guns laws (such as concealed carry, etc.), why then the fear that gun battles erupting re-doubled in the streets of D.C. as a result of this ruling might have a ring of truth to it. But since states that have more liberal gun laws have not erupted in undue violence after such laws were put into effect, King's outlandish admonition is naught but senseless fearmongering.
King's absurdities abound in this rant. Unfortunately, logic, common sense, respect for the citizen and the Constitution are all foreign ideas to Colbert I. King and the Washington Post, and most who hold their anti-Constitutional and anti-American position on the right affirmed by the Second Amendment.