Ladies and Gentlemen, Load Your Guns!

As every first year law student learns (I know, I was a first year law student once), a basic rule of statutory construction is always to interpret the language of a law or regulation so as to give meaning to all its words. Or, to put it another way, if a particular interpretation would render some of the language meaningless, go back and try again. Only if you’ve exhausted the possibilities and the words still can’t be made to make sense can you conclude that the “meaningless words” were slipped in as a practical joke by some guy named Biff down in the printing room.

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 landmark decision striking down a District of Columbia hand gun ban made a mockery of this basic rule of statutory construction. If, as the majority ruled, the framers intended there to be a private run to gun ownership the second amendment would simply have read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But, that is NOT what it says. It says: “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.”

Apparently, that guy named Biff in his wire-framed glasses and ink-stained smock who was charged with printing the Bill of Rights pulled a fast one by inserting that first part because the Supreme Court just ruled that, for all practical purposes, those words were never written and are not a part of the Bill of Rights. But those words place a clear qualification on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms: that they be part of a "well-regulated Militia," and this doesn't mean a bunch of extremists in Montana because those guys aren't well-regulated at all.

Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia, the same justice who wrote that giving detainees at Guantanamo the right to challenge their detentions in federal court would cost American lives, claimed that the Court did not have the power to render the second amendment extinct. What he meant to say, I’m sure, is that the Court only had the power to render PART of the second amendment extinct. And if he thinks giving detainees access to the courts will cost American lives, wait ‘till he sees how much more carnage there will be now that he’s virtually declared the entire country a free fire zone. What next? If this Court is asked to define "arms" hold on to your hat because five justices might just conclude that "arms" could include your own cruise missile, Bradley armored fighting vehicle, and suitcase nuke. After all, the founding fathers couldn't conceive of some of the modern weapons that are, apparently, part of the right to bear arms. So, where do we draw the line?

Which brings me to another point. All you Hillary supporters who are thinking of voting for John McCain? Get over it. How long do you think it will be until this Court overrules Roe v. Wade? Are you really prepared to bite your nose to spite your face and extend the Bush legacy for four more years? OK, John McCain would have to really put his mind to it to f__k things up as badly as Bush, but are you willing to give him the chance?

This is what it has come to. A large swath of Americans, including some who were actually viable presidential candidates (i.e. Mike Huckabee) don’t believe in evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence. They believe, instead, in Intelligent Design, which is supported by exactly zero scientific evidence. (By the way, if there were an Intelligent Design to the Universe would George Bush be president?) Republicans in Congress bring a halt to the nation’s business and the President flies to Washington all the way from Texas to try and keep one brain dead woman, Terry Schiavo, on life support (it’s the “culture of life”) even as they fight to put more guns on the street, guns we know are being used by Americans to kill Americans in horrifying numbers. How, exactly, do they square this "culture of life" with the gun violence that accompanies easy access to guns in this country? Did you know there are politicians who think the answer to gun violence is more guns? Seriously. I saw some of them on TV. They argue that if students and faculty on college campuses were armed they could have prevented the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. These people apparently don't know much about college life which is a combustible mix of drugs, alcohol, testosterone, and the occasional philosophy course. Great idea. Let's throw a bunch of guns in there and see what happens! And, this is what it's come to in this country: we can’t have life-saving stem-cell research because we need to protect the life of an embryo, but we think nothing of sending young men and women, many who have actual children, not to mention embryos of their own, to their deaths in a wrong-headed, unnecessary war. Those embryos we're saving from stem-cell research apparently have more value than the 35,000 actual people who will die gun-related deaths this year. Go figure.

But, you know, George Bush says he sleeps well at night. Good for him. But I wish he would, just once before he rides off into his multi-million dollar retirement sunset, show one brief moment of self-doubt; just one tiny glimpse of remorse. I wish he’d just get up there and say, “I’m sorry.” I mean, it’s no small feat to bring a country to its knees, especially your own.