If something comes up that needs saying, I reserve the right to mention it in a random interlude.

The Supreme Court correctly ruled on the DC gun ban, calling it unconstitutional based on the text of the 2nd Amendment. The majority decided that the historical narrative both preceding and following the amendment indicated the founders did not intend guns to be regulated.

Writing dissents were both John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer.

Stevens said the majority: would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.

and Breyer: In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.

Stevens is flat out and disturbingly wrong. He assumes that the framers of the Constitution wanted the ability to regulate every little bit of people’s lives. They didn’t. They had just come from a government where the monarch regulated every little bit of the people’s lives. They wanted the people to be in control of the government, not vice versa. They created 10 guarantees of people’s rights that the government could never and should never be taken away. This bastardized, bloated government that we’ve turned in to isn’t what they wanted. I believe they’d be horrified if they knew we were talking about socializing health care. Clinton’s appointees forget that. It is completely and totally outlined in Stevens’s quote. They didn’t want the state to regulate people’s access to weapons because they realized that law-abiding people don’t just go out and kill people when they feel like it.

Breyer, on the other hand, presumes there is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden, urban areas. Why? What is hard to understand about the line: the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What’s the gotcha in that line? And why single out urban areas? Isn’t urban areas where you most need people to be able to protect themselves? Are people in inner cities going to somehow not be able to get illegal guns? Could this be a gentle form of liberal “we know better” racism? I’m going to go ahead and say yes.

Of the three justices who voted with the minority, two were appointed by Bill Clinton, one by Gerald Ford, and one by George HW Bush. Of the majority, two were appointed by George W Bush, two by Ronald Reagan’s handlers, and one by Bush 1. With Gerald Ford’s appointee approaching 90 (and there should be an age limit on justices), I think that the new president will quickly have a Supreme Court appointee. For everything bad you can say about the Republicans (a lot, I admit), their Justices do still stick to the Republican ideal of small government and stricter interpretation of the Constitution. I like that. Obama would appoint a person who would have voted with the minority in this case. I don’t like that. Democratic nominees have a tendency to increase the function of government and erode property rights. Republican nominees tend to do the opposite.

And, elected officials do have the tools to regulate civilian uses of weapons: they’re called murder laws.

Point: McCain (1-1 McCain).

Last 5 posts by Thomas Daniels

• Congratulations, President-Elect Obama - November 5th, 2008
• As If It Matters 2008: Gun Control - July 28th, 2008
• As If It Matters 2008: Right To Choose - July 8th, 2008
• As If It Matters 2008: An Introduction - July 7th, 2008
• Hillary Clinton: I've Seen This Movie Before - March 5th, 2008