Quote of the Day

This comes from the Wall Street Journal’s Op-Ed on the shifting of Barack Obama. I’m not sure the editors picked up this double entandre…but I did. It’s good for a cheap laugh anyway:

“This is one more gift from President Bush to his successor, who won’t have to spend political capital beating off the anti-antiterror left to protect this war-fighting ability.”

Which hand will he be using? Thank you WSJ for my laugh for the day.

Is it right to bear arms?

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.

As some may or may not know, the Supreme Court in its final ruling of the season struck down DCs prohibition on gun (particularly handguns) ownership. I took the liberty of reading the decision, and I find myself agreeing mostly with Justice Scalia’s opinion. Although I did not agree with his Gitmo opinion, this one is more in tune with my ideals.

Scalia took great pains to examine each statement of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The key difference between the justices’ opinions was whether gun ownership was appropriate for the individual, or if it was strictly in a military sense. Since the justices’ job is to translate the Constitution, a little historical perspective was necessary. And since the Second Amendment has been skirted around for so long (last decision was in 1939), I think it was time to give this a healthy discussion.