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).

Some important things to note before we get in to this:

1) I’m notoriously libertarian about almost everything. I can’t call myself a true libertarian because those people are f*cking crazy.

2) I am Generation X… which means I’m cynical about the function of the government and pretty much have joined the “it doesn’t matter who wins, both candidates are out for themselves and for power and will do whatever the Illumnati tell them” club. I’ve realized that the Boomers are going to hold power forever and that by the time they leave, power will have skipped GenX and gone right to GenY.

As part of that cynicism, I’ve accepted the fact that the pissing contest between the Republicans and Democrats and the people who sell hate will probably end up collapsing the system. The 24-hour news cycle and hate-sale business has murdered the idea of compromise and where no idea, even if it’s good, can be accomplished. Social Security is going to collapse. It is. When I’m of age, it will be gone. A legitimate idea to fix the problem was destroyed by Democrats because they didn’t come up with it. I believe this because no one can possibly believe that a system which will eventually see Generation X trying to support the Boomers will hold up when coupled with a system of government jobs (like the Post Office, teachers, and railroad workers) where people can retire with full benefits at 55.

3) I’m pretty sure that most of Frodo Kucinich’s articles of impeachment are hogsh*t and will hurt Obama more than help him.

4) I don’t vote based on social issues because social issues will tend to move left by themselves regardless of who’s in charge. This has been the trend in the 200-odd years this country has been around and I have no reason to believe that will change under the current Constitution.

5) I believe that the government loves the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration because it distracts the masses from the fact China owns our country.

6) I don’t believe that judges who are declaring marriage laws unconstitutional and are requiring the government to allow prisoners some sort of judicial review are “activist judges.” I do believe they have simply read the fourteenth amendment and realize what it actually means. Specifically, this bit — nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws — which seems really straightforward.

7) I believe Lindsay Graham should be removed from office based on his idea that the Constitution should be amended to suspend Habeus Corpus because of the Supreme Court’s (correct) ruling that prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to judicial review of their cases.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to pick random issues off each candidate’s site and decide who I agree with more. I’ll keep a running total until it gets too serious.

Important note: I live in New York. My vote does not matter in the slightest.