Just got in from my after-work commute. I was going through the dial when Hugh Hewitt said he was going to talk about Harriet Miers and the Second Amendment, and that he would be speaking with Publicola, no doubt due to this post.
Hewitt doesn't think we'll ever get to a standard of strict scrutiny on 2A, and thinks intermediate scrutiny is the best we can hope for, particularly because the voters would never go for uninfringed rkba.
Newsflash to Hugh--some of us will accept nothing less. We don't need a majority--all we need is the critical mass of voters to deny victory. And no, we will not lose our gun rights if the Democrats are elected--that is, not unless we surrender them. Some of us--I pray a critical mass--won't do that, either.
Congratulations, Publicola, on getting national radio exposure.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
FreedomSight's comments made me realize I wasn't very clear in my writing.
I left this comment on his site:
Guess I didn't make it clear--he was on--Hewitt had to take a commercial/news break, and then he had Publicola on.
His voice sounded fine, he handled himself well, but Hewitt was not to be moved and had home field advantage--plus the benefit of being an experienced radio debater.
I thought Publicola's strongest point was referring to Ashcroft saying 2A is an individual right and then making excuses for "reasonable restrictions". That's where Hewitt got into the various levels of scrutiny and started arguing not about private ownership of guns, but of tanks.
I totally agree, there should be private ownership of tanks as well as F15's. Just think how handy an A10 Warthog could be. Molon Labe!
We know the Framers supported the concept of privateers equipped with their own vessels and ordnance, and they acknowledged that with the enumerated congressional power in the Constitution, S. 8, Clause 11, to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
I'd have to ask, does the Supreme Court own the Constitution? Does Congress? How about the President?
I'm pretty sure that the owners, and thus the final arbiters of meaning, are set out in the opening phrase: "We, the People". Nothing in that document suggests that we delegated ownership, only specific, narrowly enumerated powers.
There are reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment, as is often claimed. But those restrictions are on speech, press, or religious activities that involve the commission of specific crimes: Fraud, say, or libel, or child sacrifice. But there are no limitations on the MEANS of speech or press, or the tenets of particular religion.
The equivalent limitations on arms use, of course, would be things like armed robbery, rape, or murder. Assuming that a particular KIND of arm is forbidden is right out. (I personally might debate things like block-buster bombs, nukes, or bacteriological weapons--but let's get the central right firmly established first.)
Post a Comment