Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal Wrong on the Gun Issue

From Where I Sit points to this anti-gun editorial. He was too pissed off to say anything, so I'm gonna give it a shot.

First off, the subtitle of the piece:

Two wrongs don't make a right: Washington, D.C., overreached in banning handguns; a federal appeals court overreached in striking down the ordinance.

This makes absolutely no sense on its face. If one thing is wrong, how can eliminating it also be wrong?

First, we have the "guns have evolved" argument:

But what if these agrarian, 18th-century thinkers had gotten a glimpse of today's urban warfare in America - made possible in part by guns far more accurate, speedy and deadly than the single-shot, muzzle-loading firearms around when they wrote the Second Amendment?

Actually, I thing The Founders would be unhappy that our military has better weapons than our citizenry.

James Madison might say: Hey, we'd better clarify that amendment so it won't hamper government in enacting sensible regulations for these future weapons of much destruction.

James Madison would more likely rise up and kick you in the balls for saying that.

Indeed, the ordinance goes too far in that it effectively bans handguns at home. Another defect is that it does not specifically permit the use of long guns for self-defense. But the court went too far, too. It should have left to the democratic process any correction of these defects.

Someone help me out, please. I've been out of high school for 30 years now. I thought the democratic process consisted of laws being written by one branch of the .gov and the courts deciding their constitutionality. Has something changed?

The three-judge panel was too activist. It departed from mainstream jurisprudence, which is to regard the Second Amendment as safeguarding more the right of states to form militias than the right of individuals to carry arms.

The only thing I have to say is: Show me where this is written. Miller? Not hardly.

Here's more absurdity:

The dissenting opinion even argues that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to D.C., since the amendment's focus was on protecting states from the standing army of the federal government. It makes no sense to give the federal seat the right to defend itself against itself.

Fine, then just go take a walk down the streets of DC. Day or night, doesn't matter to me. Sounds to me like you advocate disparate treatment to DC dwellers.

While the author does make some points in an effort to present both sides of this, referencing "activist judges", putting words in James Madison's mouth, and the assertion of the collective right tells me which side of the debate the author is on.

And here is the rest of it.