Run for Cover

It may be 93 degrees and sunny in Washington, but it is a dark day for the city and the nation as the Supreme Court ruled that the DC ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

The shame of Georgetown University, Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote in the majority opinion that "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." Almost all of the supporters of the decision talked about the need for "self-defense in the home" (or some variation of that). The plaintiff, Dick Heller, said he was "very happy" that he would be able to protect his family "in my own home." But let's be honest. What's keeping these weapons in the home and not out on the street where they can destroy lives and communities? It's not as if you can put something like an electric dog collar on these weapons and zap a gun owner if they take it out of the house. It is time for our country to have a serious, far-reaching debate about this issue - one that goes beyond the slogans and banner waving.

If you are on the fence as to who to vote for in the 2008 general election, just think of three words: Supreme Court appointees. Presidents and congressman may come and go, but justices are there for life and make decisions that affect us in ways that politicians simply can't.

***UPDATE - Apparently a "serious, far-reaching debate" may be out of the question if commenter "philippine lottery" (see comment below) is any indication of who's out there.