Persistence in ideology

The gun wars in Washington D.C. provide an example of just how difficult political dialog has become, Federal Court Upholds D.C. Handgun Laws describes how the right to have weapons for self defense is still being argued despite a court judgment.

In the wake of Heller, the city set to craft regulations to comply with the ruling. The result was a labyrinthine process that would test the patience of all but the most Job-like. … Meanwhile, MSNBC reports that D.C. has the highest gun homicide rate in the country – five times the average rate. Obviously, the city government’s “compelling interest” in safety is not working.

Michael Barone labels the two points of view “Founders” and “Progressives” in regards to the Tea Party movement. “The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government.” That is the issue at hand. The Progressives believe guns are a public safety hazard and should be controlled by the government. Founders believe personal weapons are a means to defend liberty and self.

The facts of the matter tend to refute the Progressives on several fronts. The Heller case was on the Constitutional front. The actual measures of crime are on the street front. None of this reality makes any impact on the ongoing and continual effort to promote the government control of personal weapons. That is one reason why the ideological battle is so costly in so many ways.

Comments are closed.