Courtin' Politicians?

NBC likes to bill themselves as "must-see TV." I think if David Codrea's blog, The War on Guns, is "must-read blogging." A recent post on his blog really ticked me off. Not at David, but at "conservative" or Republican politicians in general. It is something I've complained about before in the few months 2 Valuable has been around. The faux-2nd Amendment candidate.

David linked an AP article about Wyoming State Representative Dan Zwonitzer (Republican). Basically, Rep. Zwonitzer said he owns guns, he enjoys shooting, blah blah blah. However, "Wyoming is among the top states in the country in terms of gun-related deaths by population and said the state doesn't need legislation to encourage more people to carry guns."

The AP article continued:

Zwonitzer quoted the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state. He said he wouldn't have a problem with the bill if it specified that members of the Wyoming National Guard have a right to carry weapons.

Let's deal with the militia issue another time (click here and
here if you need a militia/National Guard fix). Rep. Zwonitzer responded to David's post, said it was inaccurate, etc. David sent him a questionnaire to make sure we all understood Rep. Zwonitzer's views. To his credit, Rep. Zwonitzer answered the questionnaire. However, the gentleman who is courtin' the gun owners had this to say about the courts.

5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.

As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is. I do not believe there are any current unconstitutional laws.

Wow. That is sad. And this is out of the state of Wyoming. I had this to say in the comment section:

"As a lawmaker, we work under the assumption that nothing is unconstitutional until a court says it is."

Excuse me, sir. I am not a state representative, but it seems to me that one really doesn't need the help of a court to define what is constitutional - in fact, judicial activism is one of the major problems in recent American history. (Sure, there are legitimate gray areas with some legislation that needs review from a separate branch of the government, as intended by our Founders', but for some reason, I don't think you were referring to this.)

Doesn't someone with the awesome responsibility of representing "We, the People" have the intellectual ability to discern what is/is not constitutional without the assistance of a court? If not, isn't that representative wasting the valuable time of the judicial branch - and taxpayer money?

I am mad that we pro-2nd amendment people consistently elect these clowns who don't care about us. Faux-2nd amendment politicians behave like the stereotypical guy who loves to date on the weekend. We gun owners are like the girl he doesn't really care for. He doesn't want to go out with us at all, but will consent to ask us out if nothing better is available that Saturday night. It just so happens that "Saturday night" is really election time. Then we just "sit by the phone" until the next election.

It is time we put in REAL pro-2nd amendment candidates.

2nd amendment