The Supreme Court Makes Gun Owners' Day

The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the ongoing gun control debate, deciding 5-4 (that's conservatives on the bench to "liberals") to overturn a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., assuring every American the right under the Constitution to lock and load in the name of self-defense. What they didn't say is how it should be done.

The immediate impact will be felt in the cities and towns where gun bans are already in place. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association plan to file legal challenges to get them overturned.

The long-lasting impact will be felt by anyone who has ever been robbed, raped, randomly shot, had a heated argument, ended their own life, had curious kids, etc. Not much self-defense going on, is there?

The Second Amendment of the Constitution, vague and open to interpretation as it is, reads: 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. Since most of that militia happens to be fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, and there are never enough police, ordinary folks are on their own.

Gun control sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. In reality, anyone who is desperate enough to want a gun usually finds a way to get one, whether it's stealing or fibbing on your background check. The end result can usually be found on the police blotter of your newspaper, or leading the late local news, to be followed by coverage of the funerals and the criminal trial.

Of course, Supreme Court justices and most elected officials have round-the-clock protection, so they seldom have to worry about nutjobs who want to do them harm. Do they really care about the fact that some neighborhoods in America now resemble Baghdad or Kabul instead of Mayberry? Any plans for a "surge"?

Most of all, are we willing to confront the conditions that make lethal weapons necessary in the first place? We don't want a police state (though some might say we're already in one), but we do need to establish that just because you have the right to own a gun, it doesn't mean you have to use it.