DC and gun control
Second Amendment advocates would find it much more convenient if the DC sniper was a terrorist. But they know perfectly well he's probably some gun nut. When that emerges, we'll hear a lot about the regulations that didn't stop him, and some disingenous statistics about crime rates in Europe and the US.
But the gun lobby is about as convincing as the tobacco companies which pretended cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes. Crud. Easy access to firearms *is* associated with higher murder rates. Dunblane -- the Scottish shooting spree -- was an exception rather than the rule. The Second Amendment obsessives, if they are ever going to speak to concerned Prince George's County soccer moms, need to acknowledge the facts.
And there is still an honest case to be made for the Second Amendment. It goes something like this. Guns do result in more fatal crimes, but that is a small price to pay to guarantee freedom. The balance between the individual and government is ultimately determined by force. All the rights -- to privacy, a fair trial, of free speech, to property -- are underpinned by the power of individuals to organize against overmighty government, demonstrate, and ultimately take up arms. At a time when we are giving central government more powers, the counterweight of a people's militia is more important than ever. Even as a madman runs amok in the DC suburbs.
