I'm talking about John Mashek and this lovely diatribe of his

The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the District of Columbia can restrict handguns in a city with a big murder rate problem. Don't be surprised if the court doesn't go along with gun zealots and declare the ban unconstitutional.

I'm a zealot. He's reasonable. Isn't it always like that? And how can DC have a murder rate problem if they don't have guns?

Conservatives are supposed to be for states' rights. While D.C. is not a state, the city council is a ruling body and it has stood behind this law for over three decades. But the court showed in the Gore v. Bush case in Florida seven years ago that states' rights don't mean much with this group.

Ah yes, when the vote doesn't go your way, cry about the grapes being sour.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution does give citizens a right to bear arms. However, it also mentions state militias as a potential controlling force on weapons.

No, it's a separate clause. But don't let your lack of reading comprehension get in the way of a little PSH. If you need help, why don't you go read the founders' personal views on arming the public. Be careful, each and every one of them believe it to be an individual right and that we should be armed with the same weapons as any standing army. If it makes you feel any better, you can just ignore that fact and pretend the 2A means what you want it to. You'd be a fool, but that's to be expected.

The National Rifle Association is euphoric that the court has decided to hear the case. The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns, and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere.

Yup. That's the NRA's goal. To put guns in every hand (both left and right!). I always thought their plan was to make sure those who wanted to own guns could. Little did I realize that they were actually planning on forcing Americans to own guns!

The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes.

There's that crazy little acronym again. NRA. To the mental midgets in the media NRA stands for "All Gun Owners". 4 million NRA Members, ~100 Million gun owners.

The right-wing Washington Times wants the court to make sure all of us in D.C. have those weapons. The paper framed the issue this way, as a question: "Whether [the D.C. law] violates the Second Amendment right to individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but wish to keep hand guns and other weapons [my emphasis] for private use in their homes."

Right wing? Whatever. However, notice the continual utterance of the concept that everyone will practically be required to own firearms. Repeat it often enough, I guess.

Perhaps the other weapons mean automatic weapons, machine guns, mortars, and even an artillery piece if it fits in the living room.

First, Mr. Mashek shows that he's in over his head and writing about something he knows nothing about by saying "automatic weapons" and "machine guns" as if they're two separate entities.

Second, many people own just such things (under heavy regulation) and so far there's not been a spate of neighborhood mortarings or shelling of playgrounds that I know of. Maybe Mr. Mashek can point out some examples.

Allow me a personal note. One of my mother's brothers literally shot the leg off an older brother in a hunting accident in North Dakota, where shooting pheasants is a time-honored tradition. He thought the safety catch was on and never got over causing the amputation of a sibling's leg.

So I was raised to fear weapons. It wasn't until my service in the Army that I learned to respect, rather than fear, weapons.

Allow me a personal note, John. Once I had two men determined to harm me in a fit of road rage. My ability to defend myself with a handgun reinforced the idea that only I can be relied on to provide for my safety. Your fear or respect doesn't change that fact.

A shooting accident is rare. You should look up drowning statistics if you really want something to worry about.

The Supreme Court should respect D.C.'s right to ban handguns, as a strong majority in the city feels that way.

A strong majority used to feel blacks were inferior, thank God we don't live by a rule of majority like that. Here's a crazy notion - Every person who doesn't want a gun in DC can simply not buy or own one!

John, you've been a lovely contestant and while you didn't score a single point, allow me to give you this small award for your effort.