30 June 2008

Monday Night Follow-up

on things I haven't posted about yet

so anyway, I was sitting in this all-day Stoopid Business™ meeting on Friday, doodling on graph paper and seething over Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion on the Heller v. DC case and thinking "I should blog about this".

The particular quote from Justice Stevens' opinion that had me all worked up:

The [Supreme] Court 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.
Yes, John Paul, it is conceivable that the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian activities. Like, duh. That's what the Constitution is all about: guaranteeing individual freedoms and limiting the powers of the government.

'specially the "limiting the powers of the government" part.

As it turns out, Moron Pundit over at doubleplusundead had already done the honors:
Why, it's almost as if the constitution was written entirely to constrain the powers of government and preserve the freedom individuals. Why, when I look at the bill of rights, I notice there are several "limits to the tools available to elected officials' relating to no less than 10 different topics!
He then proceeds to lay it out, chapter and verse. I do so wish I had written that post.

Mike of Cold Fury fame hits up on some of the Heller v. DC fall-out. Did I mention that Mike neither parses word nor suffers fools gladly?
Doesn’t matter to them; they blather disingenuously about “hunting” and “sportsmen” to deflect attention from their desire to see the right of the people to keep and bear arms done away with, by any means necessary. I say again: what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
Emphasis mine. But you knew that.

doubleplusundead (actual) brings us an L.A.Times piece on the nanny-staters going after the firearms industry and brings some snark and some of the cold, hard light of reality on the subject:
Essentially, they want the government to try and somehow force gun companies themselves to lower the murder rate, then I think they demand a unicorn.

I think I see the game plan here. They want to punish gun companies that see their guns used in crime more frequently, and we all know, common firearms (the ones the Nanny Staters swear they don't want to take away) are the ones used the most in crime....

.....Translation: We can't impose fascist bans and regulation on the public, but we can force you gunmakers to do it for us!
Do go read them all.

Late, tired, etc.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home