Palm Beach Nonsense

Unc points us to another convoluted, anonymous editorial. Looks like the Anonymous Editorializerer has picked up and moved to Palm Beach:

By a vote of 5-4, the court ruled that firearm ownership is an individual right, even though the Second Amendment links that right to service in a militia.

You say "links", I say "provides an example of".

Though not strictly a Second-Amendment case, the lawsuit seeking to block Florida's new take-your-gun-to-work law provides a flavor of what's in store.

[snip]

That's what happens when the Legislature simply rubber-stamps whatever the NRA sends up. You'd like to think that politicians would be more careful, especially when declaring that gun rights trump private property rights.

Here I thought it was a case of property rights. My car, my property. Granted, there is still a big debate over where those rights begin and end, but it was about property rights and not about gun rights.

And, I bet the NRA wishes it had half the power you think they do.

Gun-rights groups say that the Second Amendment's meaning granting individual rights always has been clear. If it's so clear, why did it take Justice Scalia more than 50 pages of tortured explanation to arrive at that supposed clarity?

Beats me, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that he's a lawyer, and nothing a lawyer does is simple. Probably in an effort to keep bedwetters like yourself from finding "loopholes" or something.

The ruling says that individuals have a right to defend themselves in their own homes. But do they have the right to defend themselves with a fully automatic weapon? If they need a machine gun to feel safe at home, are they allowed to carry one on the street or to work?

Actually, if they were in lawful possession of said fully automatic weapon, then I'd say yes, they do have that right.

Carrying one in public? Somehow, I think most local laws prohibit such things. Nice to see you can whip out the hyperbole though. Although, I don't see why you feel the need. If your position were "reasonable", won't most people see it as such? Just asking.

Now, please, someone tell me what the hell this next sentence means:

As noted, the strict-interpretation majority loosely interpreted the Second Amendment.

So, they strictly interpreted loosely? Mercy.

Felons and the mentally ill will not be able to buy AK-47s from vending machines.

Like that had been up till this ruling?

You twit.

Again, it's no wonder they're anonymous.