So unless you’ve been living under some sort of judiciary rock, then  you know the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of overturning the  28-year-old Washington D.C. ban on hand guns. This, of course, is a wonderful day for gun enthusiasts, proud NRA members, and the  generally ornery. As for the rest of us, it seems much remains to be  seen. While the NRA begins filing law suits all over the country to  overturn past judicial rulings which imposed limits on gun rights, it seems worth considering, just from a general common sense perspective, exactly why the court ruled in this manner, and just what it means.

First of all, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Without  delving too deeply into the history books, we can, at least, recall that a number of realities of daily life have changed significantly since that time. Most notably, perhaps, the fear amongst individual  states that the Federal government would overstep their bounds and violate the basic tenets of Unification. This stark reality was reason enough for Americans to seek and secure the right to own guns in some manner, whether or not you understand the Second Amendment to be referring specifically to a militia or not. Desperate times demand desperate militias.

In 2008, the above seems at least overly romantic, if not downright  preposterous to my lily-livered arse. The government has systematically overstepped it’s bounds a legion of times in the intervening 207 years, and yet the only offense ever deemed worthy of revolt was when they tried to put a stop to slavery.  Props to the North for having some guns of their own lying around!

Still, since the Civil War ended in 1865, most of us seem to have  begun expressing ourselves through political mechanisms or largely  peaceful resistance. Though we certainly faced our share of struggle throughout the late 19^th, 20^th and now 21^st centuries, that  revolutionary spirit now seems, for the most part, like something from  a bygone era.

The difference today is that there are now two types of gun owners: 1) Hunters and enthusiasts who live largely in the south and the west (this also includes bourgeois politicians who are predisposed to accidentally shooting their friends in the face).  

2) Criminals.

Everyone who doesn’t fall into the above two categories, which by current estimates amounts to roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population, for some reason fails to arouse the sort of fundraising enthusiasm evident in the National Rifle Association (or even your average criminal defense lobby). The experience for this population at the center is a rather murky one, and it is sadly rather hard to quantify the effect of the American love affair with guns as it relates to them.  

Certainly gun deaths affect family members and friends who don’t fall into categories 1 or 2 above. Certainly the facts support the notion that guns make violent encounters more violent and more potentially life threatening. Certainly in neighborhoods where gun violence is prevalent, the climate of fear for non-gun-owning residents is also a very real phenomena, though it is probably one of the toughest realties to quantify. Given this, it’s no surprise that average folks will opt to draw some anecdotal conclusions about the recent Supreme Court decision. My conclusions follow:

1) Washington D.C. is and was a very violent city. 2) Between 1976 and yesterday, it was, at least, safe to assume that anyone carrying a gun in D.C.  was a criminal. 3) Many other cities throughout  the country have not outlawed handguns, yet they continue to enjoy demoralizing crime rates. In most of these cities, by my last check, the gun-owners, have not mobilized and brought their firearms to the aid of the innocent citizenry in their municipalities. 4) D.C. will now join those cities where it is NOT safe to assume that a person carrying a gun is a criminal. Also, it will be safe to continue assuming that there will not be an armed citizen revolt against criminals in any city. 5) Maybe this all adds up to a net wash, but I think policing gun crimes just got a little more difficult, and it will just get worse.

To sum up, while I would love to pick a fight with the NRA, that is not my intention. In fact, based on my recent NPR listening, it sounds like the guys (yes, only 10% are women) who love their hunting rifles and home protection pistolas, are really not the key problem. Still, while I’m no Antonin Scalia, I find ZERO resemblance between the current pro-gun movement and the early Americans for whom the Second Amendment was written. Instead, the public face of the NRA appears to pursue their agenda with a dogged selfishness which seems to come at the expense of the safety of ALL Americans. 

To co-opt a little quote from George W. Bush, I say, if you’re a gun  owner who is not part of the solution, then you are either anecdotally or implicitly part of the problem. I say, the Second Amendment  addresses the rights of militias, so why the hell aren’t you guys mobilizing your guns and man-power and working for us? I say, as long  as your Second Amendment rights are being re-affirmed and expanded,  then you owe the rest of us something in return.

You’ve been granted a great victory on this day, so get moving! Get out there and kick some ass with those awesome  guns of yours! I’m sure we’ll all feel safer knowing you’re out there.

Either that or I suppose we can dredge up the tired-old argument that a conservative Supreme Court might actually have some dilatory effects on society as we know it.