There will be blood (and I will be the one responsible)
As many of you know, I have refrained from living inside the District of Columbia for the last 26 years because of its un-American policy of violating my Second Amendment rights. No more.
My sole regret is that my good buddy Charlton Heston is no longer around to stockpile guns and ammo with me in the District. For our readers in Poland and Malaysia who may not be familiar, I am speaking of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a 30-year-old ban on handguns in our nation’s capital.
The Second Amendment of course reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This sentence says a lot. One: our founding fathers struggled with the use of the comma and capitalization. Two: Handguns are necessary for the paramilitary organizations that are vital to the existence of our state.
Sure, one could argue that times have changed over the last 200+ years, and that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, as we have a giant fucking professional military. But maybe we need to be able to protect ourselves from our government should it ever turn into a police state (and I know this is unlikely, but just try to imagine if say, our government started spying on people or holding them in an offshore torture camp or something like that. Just really suspend your disbelief, you can do it). In that case, our only protection against our well-run state military would be for all the drunken hicks, members of alarmist separatist groups and the dope-pushers to be able to legally purchase guns that are intended to kill other people. Thank goodness the Supreme Court has finally freed the good people of DC from bullshit restrictions.
I mean, studies show that handguns kept at home are almost always used solely to ward off robbers and assailants. What’s that you say? Of the nation’s 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, about 55 percent were suicides? 40 percent were homicides, 3 percent were accidents and only 2 percent were legal killings. Well, whatever. The Second Amendment, bitches.
Just look at Japan, where there’s only .02 firearm deaths per 100,000 people (it’s at just over 10 in the U.S., still disgracefully low considering all the people here who need killin’). I think there’s a reason Japanese people have tiny apartments and drive small-ass cars. Legalize handguns, maybe introduce crack…there’ll be a lot more room to go around for everybody.
Give me two Berettas, six clips and a fifth of Jack and we’ll see if we can’t just increase that legal killings figure. The Second Amendment guarantees me that right. Watch out, DC.


Oh man. That was excellent.
you better read that opinion a little more closely. Scalia basically said the entire first phrase was a throw-away line, adding virtually nothing to the interpretation. he thinks the amendment actually means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” and then he rationalizes that this means any arms that our forefathers might have thought of as defensive weapons are covered. how that interpretation extends to the revolver (invented 1836) or the semi-automatic handgun (1892) scalia doesn’t bother to address. i love how these “strict constructionists” are only strict when it justifies the outcome they want.