THE BLOG
11/21/2007 12:27 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

Second Thoughts and Second Guessing: Second Amendment and the Supreme Court 2008

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.

So the Supreme Court of the United States - the same crowd who imposed Bush, Cheney, et al on America in 2001 - is going to take up a second amendment case. They are going to determine whether the virtual ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia is constitutional.

Anyone care to bet which way the 2008 Supreme Court (now with even conservier Conservatives) will go on this one? Antonin Scalia shoots ducks with Cheney, for God's sake.

Given the right wing wackiness that prevails in The Chamber, it's entirely feasible that the decision will make it legal for stem cells to conceal and carry machine pistols in order to fend off researchers and abortionists.

And isn't it convenient that somehow the court has decided to take up the issue in an election year? No reason to suspect collusion with the NRA there. Nope. None whatsoever. Not a bit.

How hard will the mainstream media fall for this one? How much time, energy, and effort will they crap away trying to corner Democratic candidates on this polarizing issue this campaign cycle? Time and effort that might be better spent having the candidates and parties address Iraq, the economy, and the burgeoning tsunami of global ecological crises, among other things?

How much fear and loathing will the issue inspire on both sides? How much lip service will the Democrats pay to hunters and gun ownership? How much money and anti-Democratic campaign literature will the NRA infuse into scaring the crap out of their membership?

Can you see the "Pro-gun Democrat" hunting photo op if Hilary wins the nomination? Hilary in a camo pants suit, kneeling beside a dead 12-point buck, the dead animal's tongue lolling, a still-smoking 30-06 in the crook of Hilary's arm.

I can't determine the gun ownership intent of the Founders. Given the absolute lack of wisdom the Supreme Court exhibited in Bush v Gore, I doubt they can either.

I do know that the Second Amendment was written in an era when "rapid fire" meant three shots a minute tops - and when the majority of the population lived in a rural environment. I just Googled "Uzi rate of fire" and found asset of specifications that say a "Micro Uzi" has a rate of fire of 1700 rounds per minute.

Maybe the best compromise would be to allow the people of the District of Columbia to keep and bear weapons that the Founders would recognize - flintlocks and dueling pistols - that sort of thing.

Had they known it would be possible to fire 1700 rounds per minute from a handgun, the Founders might have worded the second amendment more precisely. But they didn't know, and the wording is what it is.

And the same folks who brought you George W. Bush in the first place are about to smear the gun control issue all over the 2008 election cycle.

Gosh thanks, Supreme Court. You really shouldn't have.