By John Feinstein, writing in the Washington Post on the Plaxico Burress incident, seems a bit confused.

The easiest thing in the world today would be to focus on what a moron Burress is. He’s a moron for allegedly carrying an unlicensed gun into a crowded bar, endangering himself and others. He’s a moron because he signed a five-year, $35 million contract at the start of this season and then was suspended for one game for failing to show up for practice and team meetings — and not bothering to tell anyone.

But that really isn’t the issue.

Okay, John, tell us what the real issue is.

The real issue — once again — is athletes and guns.

Surprise, surprise.

This isn’t about safety, it is about arrogance. The fact that Burress, according to Giants General Manager Jerry Reese, hadn’t returned his phone calls, tells you how arrogant he is.

Wait a minute. Just a couple sentences ago it wasn’t about Burress, it was about guns. Now it’s about arrogance. Who is it that’s arrogant, John? Is the gun arrogant? Or is it the moron?

He brings up Sean Taylor, the former Redskins player who was killed by home invaders with a gun.

One year ago it was written here that if [Redskins owner] Dan Snyder and [coach] Joe Gibbs really wanted to see some good come from the tragedy, they would use their money and influence to lobby for stricter gun laws.

Ah, see the incident where two morons invaded someone else’s home and shot him to death wasn’t about morons or crime (or even arrogance, I guess) but it was, instead also about “athletes and guns.”

Except, of course, that if the athlete in this case had had a gun instead of a machete he might be alive today.

John seems to think that two criminals breaking into a house and shooting the homeowner is grounds for stricter controls on law-abiding citizens.

His solution, of course:

The owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns.

And he’s ready for those whiners who think a God-given right is some sort of God-given right:

Now, let’s not start screaming about the Second Amendment. To begin with, the amendment should be abolished — a sensible interpretation of the amendment is that it was written to allow the people to raise a militia for protection and to hunt for food.

Get that? John thinks the Second Amendment “should be abolished” because a “sensible interpretation” means that it was about government militias and hunting.

Got news for you, John. Your common sense has failed you. The Second Amendment is not about either hunting or government militias. Until earlier this year your point was up for debate. No longer.

It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the Second Amendment

Ah. There we have it. John wants us to listen to his arguments about whatever it is he thinks the real issue is and whatever it is he thinks the solution is. But the foundation of everything he’s saying seems to be his personal belief that part of the Bill of Rights needs to be repealed.

How about another article that goes something like:

1. John Feinstein is a moron
2. But that isn’t the real issue
3. The real issue is arrogance
4. Something needs to be done about this
5. It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the First Amendment

Make much sense?

Cam Edwards observes that Ignorance Is Bliss when pointing out an op-ed written by a college student. The piece by Sally Sanderson in the Michigan Tech Lode:

The bottom line is this: the Constitution ensures that United States citizens have the right to bear arms, yet it does not define for what purpose. Therefore, it is left for those of us following today’s laws to decide how to interpret the words written over 200 years ago.

She uses Wikipedia(!) as her first reference and includes this:

Though [the Second] Amendment seemingly does reserve the right for individuals to bear arms, it is confusing in the way it is written. The beginning of the sentence causes one to infer that an individual can bear arms if part of a militia, which should be used to ensure “the security of a free state.” However, the second part of the statement could be interpreted differently, as: individuals’ rights to bear arms will not be taken away. According to a Web site sponsored by the United States Senate, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html, “there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.”

As Cam writes, she seems to be unaware of the Heller decsion.

Now, Michigan Tech is located in the near-wilderness of the Upper Penninsula, but I guess if she’s getting published on the internet, she should be able to do some research and follow a bit of news on the internet, too. (via Sebastian)

How the Second Amendment Was Restored

Brian Doherty at Reason:

In retrospect, D.C. v. Heller seems almost inevitable, because of shifting public and academic attitudes toward gun rights. But victory came only after a protracted struggle, with many pitfalls along the way. It was pulled off by a small gang of philosophically dedicated lawyers—not “gun nuts” in any stereotypical sense, but thoughtful libertarians who believe Second Amendment liberties are a vital part of our free republic. Together they consciously crafted a solid, clean civil rights case to overturn the most onerous and restrictive set of gun regulations in the country. In the process, they set the stage for further legal challenges to other firearms restrictions from coast to coast.

South Carolina will waive all sales taxes on firearms purchases made on November 28 and 29. That’s some post-Thanksgiving shopping Murdoc could get excited about.

Looking for something to read? Check out the latest Second Amendment News Roundup at the Liberty Sphere.

Over at Sebastian’s: New Jersey Gun Ban Up For Vote

On Monday, November 17, the New Jersey Assembly is scheduled to vote on A2116 — legislation banning most firearms over .50 caliber. Though previously amended in an attempt to address gun owner concerns, the legislation still bans many popular hunting guns, historical firearms, and large bore target firearms, based on alleged public safety concerns. Ironically, the legislation bans many of the guns that won the very freedoms the bill seeks to destroy, including some Revolutionary War and Civil War guns and their replicas.

What I find ironic is that we always hear about how the Founding Fathers would never have meant the Second Amendment to mean things like assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. What they meant was that firearms in use at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights were protected.

And now New Jersey is looking to ban those very weapons. It would be interesting to look through the long and storied history of New Jersey gun bans to see how many times the “we’re just trying to ban the guns criminals use” argument was used. Now that practically everything else has been banned or very heavily restriced in the state, they’re turning to muzzle loaders.

How many crimes are committed with muzzle loaders?

Earth to NY Times: People Already Have Guns

Marie Cocco is confused when she writes that the Supreme Court

reversed the historical interpretation to discover an individual right to bear arms.

In fact, that’s not what it did. But it makes her feel better to tell the story that way, and who ever let a lie get in the way of gun reporting, anyway?

Via Soyer.

Glenn Reynolds writes something that sums up what I’ve seen as significant result of the Heller decision:

What’s most striking about Heller is that absolutely everybody — majority and dissents — says the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

It’s true that the dissenters’ view of that right is somewhere between “minimalist” (to be charitable) and “incoherent” (to be accurate). But nonetheless, all nine Justices specifically said the right is individual, and thus rejected the “collective right” position on the Second Amendment, a position that’s been the mainstay of gun-control groups, newspaper editorialists, and lower federal courts for decades, and one that was presented by those adherents as so obviously correct that those arguing for an individual right were called “frauds” and shills for the NRA.

Yet the collective right theory could not command a single vote on the Court when actually tested. It was, it seems, a paper tiger all along.

Decades of “collective right for the militia” arguments evaporated in the sunlight.

This needs to be remembered, because we’re going to be hearing dozens of new “common sense” arguments about what “keep and bear” means or if certain types of restrictions and regulations are “infringing” on rights. They’re going to argue that it’s clear that the framers never meant this kind of gun or that it was okay to carry it there or use it for that purpose.

They’re going to tell us that it’s obvious that the 2nd Amendment means one thing, when a trip down memory lane to June 26th, 2008 will remind everyone that what they had previously told us it meant was completely and totally wrong and had been all along.

Yesterday I posted on Chicago suburb Wilmette suspending its gun ban, and now another one, Morton Grove, has done the same thing.

This seems good, but beware Chicagoland politicians bearing gifts. Rivrdog writes Gun law “Moratoriums” will outflank Heller and there’s no reason to think that the banners will go quietly into the night.

The battle has not ended. It’s merely changed.