I like the word “pernicious.” Webster reckons it means “highly destructive or deadly.” When I hear the word, I think of a mustache-twirling bad guy tying some defenseless babe to railroad tracks. Of course, Nell wouldn’t have depended on Dudley to save her from Snidely’s bondage fetish if she’d had, say, a Glock. Which may be an obscure reference, but it’s plenty apt (IMHO). Check it: “Congress is poised, finally, to give the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia what they have been so long and so unfairly denied: a representative with the power to vote, today’s New York Times op ed opines. “But the gun lobby has extracted too high a price: the scuttling of vital local gun controls intended to keep the capital city’s residents safe.” There’s another excellent word: “intended.”
While the District’s violent crime rate has dropped precipitously, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone attributing the decrease to existing gun laws, which were in place during the worst of the capitol’s violent crime wave. And there are some who consider the ability to own and carry a firearm the best way to keep themselves safe. Not to mention (literally) the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down D.C.’s gun ban.
Anyway, the Times is not happy with democracy. You know; in this case.
As usual, bipartisan majorities stand by to do the gun lobby’s bidding. It has already been endorsed by the Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. It is a cynical, sickening compromise.
Welcome to our world.