I’m not referring to 9/11, or Saddam’s weapons arsenal. No, I’m talking about the horrible sniper shootings that have occurred across the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. And the first civil liberty that I’m ready to compromise on in this domestic war on gun terror is the right to bear arms. I’m not calling for taking away this right, mind you, so hunters need not, um, shoot me. I’m just suggesting banning the sale of, oh, say, sniper rifles and "military style" assault rifles like the one the Beltway sniper is suspected of using, as well the .223 ammunition (confirmed as having been used by the sniper) that shatters inside its target’s body, doing deadly damage. And what the hell–let’s throw in semiautomatic assault weapons, too. These may not exactly be weapons of mass destruction, but they certainly have caused mass fear and have destroyed far too many lives.

I’m sure that our Attorney General and all of the other conservatives who’ve spent the past year telling us that we need to forgo some civil liberties, having witnessed the brutal deaths of 3000 people in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, will completely agree with me. After all, tens of thousands more people have died at the hands of the domestic-assault-weapons terrorists–and we’ve seen our high schools turn into shooting ranges–and these conservatives wouldn’t want to appear to be hypocrites, would they?

No, I’m sure they will say that Charlton Heston and assorted other individuals who get their kicks from purchasing assault rifles meant to murder people and heading to galleries to shoot at targets will have to sacrifice and get their rocks off through some other macho hobby. That’s what they said to Arab Americans and Muslim Americans as the global war on terrorism got under way–that they had to sacrifice, had to understand that their civil liberties now needed to be compromised for the greater good. Here was Peggy Noonan talking just weeks after Sept. 11 about the sacrifices she would make if she fit the "profile of the bad guys," opining that Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. must accept harassment from the authorities and fellow citizens: "Everywhere I went people would notice me and give me hard looks and watch what I was doing. I would feel terrible about this. But you know what else I’d do? I’d suck it up. I’d understand. I wouldn’t like it, but I’d get it, and I’d accept it."

And here she was just a few weeks ago, angrily berating the three Arab-American medical students who were mistakenly hunted down across the Everglades by Florida law enforcement because a woman at a Shoney’s in rural Georgia thought she heard them say they were going to blow up a building, something they all denied saying: "[They could try] to understand the emotions of the people around them–people who’ve been bruised, who’ve seen their country take a roundhouse right from history–and choose to be polite and friendly. The young Muslim males could smile and nod, for instance. This probably would have gone far in making progress between peoples, for one thing we’ve all read about the terrorists of Sept. 11 is that they never bothered to be nice... But they didn’t bother to be nice. They wanted things on their terms... It would be nice if they were assigned a paper that answers the question: ‘Why might a people who had just been attacked by young Muslim males feel a heightened sensitivity and awareness in the presence of young Muslim males? Discuss.’"

And here was our Attorney General himself a few months back, criticizing those who have been yammering on over the past year about civil liberties: "We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering... To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." I just can’t wait until he tells that to the NRA the next time they start screeching about "lost liberty." I’m with you now, Mr. Attorney General. Let’s get cracking!

The Delusions Continue

Two weeks ago, after I wrote about the antigay record of University of Utah law professor Michael McConnell, the Bush administration’s nomination to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals–and after I lambasted Log Cabin Republicans for defending the homophobic moralist–some gay conservatives on the Internet worked themselves in a lather. They claimed McConnell was misquoted in a release put out by the Human Rights Campaign, a quote that I used; some of them tried to spin this into something of actual consequence. Problem with these poor deluded souls’ analysis however is that, quoted rightly or wrongly, McConnell’s basic statements–regarding gays and the Boy Scouts–were still antigay. The quote should rightly have been a paraphrase, as reported by the Ethics and Public Policy Center newsletter.

"It’s a minor punctuation error that doesn’t make a difference in his record," says HRC’s Wayne Besen. Though ensconced within the Democratic Party, HRC is, by far, not some agent of the gay left, and has often been criticized by gay activists; the group, which has prominent gay Republicans on its board, even sent out releases in recent months praising some of George W. Bush’s actions.

But on McConnell–the only Bush judicial nominee that HRC has spoken out on–it’s all plain as day.

"We have a case here of a guy who is clearly antigay and unfortunately we have apologists in our community who are trying to cover up his real record," Besen says. Fortunately, however, exposing McConnell’s record appears to have helped to torpedo him, at least for now. Only a few weeks ago it looked like clear sailing for the nominee; the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed worn down after rejecting many nominees over the past year. But now it looks like McConnell’s not going to make it out of the confirmation process during this session. I’ve no doubts, however, that Log Cabin will be defending him next year, if he is indeed renominated.