Say it ain't so. Tell me that my co-blogger and friend Mike hasn't lost his marbles. Calm me, sooth me, whisper that in the dark of the night Mike hasn't really and truly suggested that we arm judges as a response to the murder of one judge in Atlanta and the shooting of another judge's family in Chicago.
A significant proportion of the judges in this country can't think straight; what's to say that they shoot any better?
I can see the next confirmation hearing.
"Sir, I see you are a member of the NRA," drawls some cretaceous old bird of a Senator, a faint line of tobacco juice staining his white whiskers.
"That's correct, Senator. And I passed the judicial marksmanship course, too."
Courtrooms can be violent places. There is no doubt about it. Not enough can be spent on trainin marshals and providing adequate staffing. But giving judges guns will only yield more chaos.
The better course is to ban guns from the courthouse. Period. In Connecticut, Judicial Marshals are not armed. Guns are not permitted in the building. Some desperate have less lethal tools to wield in rage.
Don't get me wrong. I am no foe of the Second Amendment. But giving guns to judges will only help transform courtrooms into shooting galleries. And, guess what? You and I will be sitting in the target section ducking and hiding while the judge takes aim.