June 26, 2008

Couldn’t Help But Comment ….. (062608, Afternoon)

My reax to the 2nd Amendment decision by the Supremes today?

  • Duh — What about “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?
  • 5-4? O,M,G. DC’s law was a ban on handgun ownership. It obviously violates the Second Amendment. It’s not debatable. I’m leaning towards a conclusion on the four dissenters that, in the interest of sobriety, must await reading their dissents.
  • Does anyone still think judicial nominations won’t be an important election issue? (see the first update)

Update, 3:15 p.m: I deliberately avoided reading blog reax until I put in my $.02 above. Now I see that Instapundit is linking to a CQpolitics post claiming that guns won’t be a big deal in the November Prez vote, and says that “Obama’s record of strong support for sweeping gun control would hurt him a lot more in a climate where gun owners felt more threatened.”

WHAT? Today’s decision shows that we’re one bad appointment away from losing the right that supports all of the others. Heck, we’re lucky that Anthony Kennedy got this one right.

The gun ownership issue is more important than ever. Obama is clinging to the wrong side of it (*), and I can guarantee you, despite the shows of pleasure at the decision, that the feeling is more of relief, and that gun-rights supporters feel as threatened as ever. Their worst fears about the desires of judicial activists to take away our fundamental rights have just been confirmed.

* – Oops, the Obama Waffle Iron is out. See 3:50 p.m. update.

Update, 3:45 p.m.: In fact, support for the Heller decision should be a litmus test for any US Senate candidate. Opposition to it should be a deal-breaker, period.

Update, 3:50 p.m.: If the decision is so irrelevant to the Prez vote, why is Obama already trying to spin his way out of his clear support for the DC ban seven months ago (last two sentences at this link)? This is yet another flip-flop Matt Hurley can add to his collection of over two dozen at Weapons of Mass Discussion. I think it’s perfectly clear, based on his track record, that Obama would take your gun in a heartbeat if he could.

Update, 3:55 p.m.: Which leads to another question — Why is that outspoken former Hillary Clinton supporter, Gun Guy Ted Strickland, now so gung-ho for Obama in the circumstances? When he says he’s giving his “whole-hearted and enthusiastic support” to Obama, doesn’t that make Ted’s cred on the Second Amendment suspect?

_______________________________________

Geez, I was going to predict that gun-grabbers would attempt registration as their next gambit, but decided to wait and see. Well, I didn’t have to wait long. According to this AP update at 2:12 p.m.:

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation’s capital to register their handguns.

WaPo confirms this, and also has the mayor claiming that “the city can still bar handguns from being carried outside of the home.” With all due respect (i.e., none): Bleep you, sir.

_______________________________________

An e-mailer suggests voting at this Internet poll about “what should happen next?” now that James Hansen has called for criminal prosecutions of energy executives “for high crimes against humanity and nature.” I’m not a big fan of these because they’re not scientifically done, but perhaps, given that the blogger doing the poll says that “the results will be submitted to a member of the U.S. Senate for distribution, NASA’s director, and will also be mailed to Dr. Hansen at NASA GISS,” it should be considered the equivalent of a petition. I voted.

_______________________________________

This story about war correspondent Lara Logan should surprise no one. I love the fact the FreeRepublic.com scooped everyone on the story — six months ago.

_______________________________________

Take that, Arnold — According to Survey USA, a majority supports expansion of off-shore oil drilling. That would be a majority of those polled in California, as well as in the whole USA.

Share

3 Comments

  1. 5-4 vote.

    Yes tom. judicial nominations matter. a lot.

    Comment by Ben Keeler — June 26, 2008 @ 2:52 pm

  2. This is different, and should be cautionary. Unlike other activist decisions that found penumbras to expand meanings, the Heller dissenters actually tried to unconstitutionally repealing the 2nd Amendment by judicial fiat. These are the types of tyrants B. Hussein wants to fill the benchs, not only the SCOTUS but the lower courts as well. That and the War are the best – and possibly only – reasons to vote for McCain. They are both weak, but at least JSM isn’t dangerously so.

    Comment by Joe C. — June 26, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

  3. #2, that is exactly right. It was an attempt at a judicial veto of a bedrock constitutional amendment — nothing more, nothing less.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 26, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.