Let's start off with some full diclosure here. I don't own a gun. I've never owned a gun. Neither one of my parents owned a gun. I've never held a real gun. I have no interest in owning a gun. I've never met a guy named Gunnar. I honestly believe that there are some people in this country who have an unhealthy obsession with guns. For instance, I saw a bumper sticker that said that it was my duty as an American to own a gun and learn how to use it. That's even dumber than the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bumper sticker.
With that said, I'm pretty suspicious of anti-gun laws. I guess I'm a bit of a libertarian on some issues, especially this one. You can throw out all sorts of statistics to make a case for stronger gun laws and an equal number that make a case for more relaxed gun laws. While I hate to use a cliche, I think that there's a bit of truth to the "if we outlawed guns, only outlaws would have guns." I mean, if people want something bad enough, they'll figure out a way to get it.
On the other side of the debate, I think that there are some people on the pro-gun rights side of the issue who get their panties in a bunch any time anybody even suggests any kind of regulation at all. I mean, we have regulations on cars, don't we? Figures that there should at least be some sort of a process to owning guns. While I think that the average law-abiding citizen should be able to get one, it shouldn't be like going to the store and buying a jar of pickles either. I'll leave that to smarter people than me (and people who actually want to own a gun). I mean, there has to be some restrictions. Do we really want people to be able to buy rocket launchers? We need to use a bit of reason in this whole thing, which I'm sure most gun users are willing to do.
As for the 2nd Ammendment, I've read up on this and let's be honest - it's not as clear as the 1st Ammendment, is it? Again, I'll leave that up to smarter people than me. But the bottom line is, even if the Constitution didn't allow for private citizens to own guns, that's a right that I think they should have.
So, this brings us to the recent story where the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. I realize that there are probably some passionate people on both sides of the issue, and I realize that D.C. is a city that's plagued with gun violence. However, I think that getting rid of guns attacks a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself.
But my question is this: Are these "activist" judges? After all, they overturned a law, didn't they? I'm not certain of the circumstances that brought about this law, but I imagine that it had the support of the people. If the court went against the will of the people, then is this any different than what happened in California regarding same sex marriages?
I'm going to guess that nobody's going to level this accusation at them. It'd be funny if the anti-gun crowd did though. It'd give a lot of people a dose of their own medicine - don't address the issues of Constitutionality, just slap a negative label on the issue and call it a day.