I didn't see this until now -- I'm not a regular reader (meaning: I haven't sought out a Washington Post to read in more than 10 years), so it takes a pointer and a nudge to get me to check something out on washingtonpost.com.
As predicted, District of Columbia v. Heller is causing people to go off the deep end. This editorial is a case in point.
A bipartisan majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress weigh in on the side of Mr Heller in his complaint against the District of Columbia. As our editorial writer observes, the Solicitor General weighs in (sort of) on both sides of the argument: 2A is an individual right (consistent with the plain-language reading of the constitution), but don't use strict scrutiny when applying the law (inexplicable concern that can only have been politically motivated: there's nothing in the facts or the law that would cause the SG's concerns to be valid).
So, when the VP joined in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the congressional majority, the Washington Post cries foul? "...irresponsible, selfish and unnecessary."? What's all this about? "Irresponsible" because the Washington Post editorial staff doesn't agree with the majority in the U.S. Congress? "Selfish"? "Unnecessary"? It's almost too bad these editorials aren't longer, so we can better understand the logic used to justify the language.
Anyway, this is a "drive by" on the VP -- nothing more, nothing less. Another reason to get my news from other sources.
Mr. Cheney's Government - washingtonpost.com