« Liberal vs. conservative wings of the Court | Main | FBI director on Heller »
A piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer
By the co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence. It's not what you'd expect, tho.
"never felt so good about a decision rendered by the court's conservative majority. I never thought that I would agree with Associate Justices Scalia or Thomas. (I generally despise the two, on the basis of their legal renderings.)
But Thursday's ruling makes perfect sense to this Democrat. (Alito and Roberts were spot on as well.)
The court's conservative majority decided to ignore the liberals who believe that the only way to make our communities safer is to impose further gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans."
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Wow, did I really read that?
Somebody'll probably lose their job for letting that article see the light of day.
Mr Williams said: "And this ruling will force liberals to focus on the real reasons for gun violence."
Clearly, this guy doesn't know his own people. I've met many liberals who are intelligent yet adamantly refuse to consider the reality that their type of gun-control (gun-banning) is a failure.
If this hadn't come from a verifiable source, I would think it was a work of fiction from a conservative in liberal's clothing.
What's stark is the contrast with the statist view that more government control, from the highest level, will cure what ails.
Having made such a mess of the liberation of persons of color with Federal control of nearly everything, the only thing left to blame has been the gun people, whom, we've been assured, have bought off legislators in droves, enough to prevent the state from absolute control in that area, too.
The better moment in the Heller debate is having the statists being ceaselessly pounded with actual facts. While it takes a very long time and a lot of pounding, some of the reality may be seeping through.
Imagine a world in which the statists, and even some of the fascists, start to concede a crack in the totalitarinan Utopia.
That could be a watershed far beyond just getting some folks to actually read the words in the law.
And then I woke up... in Chicago.
Well, it's a surprising article considering the source. And good for him.
But... what's with this:
***
"In my opinion, the National Rifle Association has always been right (pun intended) on this issue. Wrong on most others, but right on this one."
***
Now, regardless what one thinks of the NRA, what in the billy hell are these "most others" issues this man is talking about?
Training programs for our military and police?
Firearms safety programs for children and the public at large?
Technical programs for gunsmiths?
What am I missing here?