As we suggested at the time, the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald decision was something of a Pyrrhic victory. In that case, the Supremes struck down Chicago’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment (i.e. ruled that the right to bear arms trumps local and state law). BUT the Court’s “reasonable restrictions” caveat opened a can of worms clearly labeled “gun control.” At the Washington Post, editors ask themselves, can we do the can can? Yes we can!
Eighteen-year-olds can and do fight for their country. And they are able in many instances to vote and partake of the full rights enjoyed by much older citizens. But there is nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government determining that a few more years of maturity – and the discipline and wisdom that hopefully come with such age – are needed before such a youngster is allowed to carry a lethal weapon on the streets. It takes some kind of gumption – or blind ideological fervor – to challenge such reasonable limitations.
Who’s accusing whom of blind ideological fervor?WaPo editorial writer blows a hole in his whole”discipline and wisdom” argument by adding the word “hopefully.” Hopefully? Is hope a sound basis for public policy, especially as it infringes on an American citizen’s constitutional right? Can we change that? Yes we can!