Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Strike is On

Subways and buses across the nation's largest city shut down Tuesday morning as transit workers walked off the job following days of acrimonious labor talks, stranding more than 7 million daily riders...

But...but...but...how will we move about without someone to pat us down and search our bags?

Landru, guide us!

Katherine Letellier Responds...

...to my inquiry:
Mr. Codrea,

I appreciate your comments. I do object, however, to your contention that I am challenging "the leading authorities on the subject" when I state that both sides of the gun debate issue can cite colonial history and arguments made by the Founders to support their case.

First, though I do not question Mr. Halbrook's scholarly credentials, there is no monolithic set of "leading authorities" who are all in agreement regarding the Founders' intents. A quick Google search of the gun rights issue will bring up myriad federal court cases (Silveira v. Lockyer, for example) in which federal judges explicitly declare their belief that the intent of the Founders was to preserve a collective rather than independent right to bear arms. While I am not endorsing or refuting either the federal courts' or Mr. Halbrook's view of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I would posit that federal judges should be included among "leading authorities on the subject" and that "leading authorities" thus appear to disagree on the issue. There is apparently some gray where you would like to see only black or white.

Second, you can examine the 1789 "House Journal" and "Senate Journal" (the official records of the original debate) or the "Annals of Congress" (compiled decades later) to assess the intentions of the Founders. Contention over the meaning of "milita" abounds, a point critical to collective rights advocates. You can additionally examine English common law, often referenced in the colonies prior to the Revolution, and find a debasement of the individual right to bear arms starting as far back as 1328. These are but examples of the historical evidence that gun control advocates might use to substantiate their case and what I intended when I wrote that "both sides can cite colonial history and quote from the Founders."

But my point in writing the original letter was not to position myself as a leading scholar of matters constitutional nor to advance a particular point of view, but rather to express disappointment that such a complex and interesting issue was treated in so one-sided a manner. I was hoping that leading scholars on BOTH sides of the argument would write thoughtful pieces, and that I and other readers would benefit from their contrasting viewpoints.

I would very much appreciate your removing my e-mail address from your web site as it is intended for school business, and I do not want to be inundated with Second Amendment-related e-mails. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Regards,
Katherine Letellier


My reply:

Ms. Letellier,

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.

I did not ask you about Silveira. I did you [sic--my bad--it was late] ask you about English law in 1328.

I asked you to substantiate your claim that "Each side can cite Colonial history and quote from the Founding Fathers."

Please provide these quotes from the Founding Fathers you say exist that state there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

That's what this is all about, and that's all I'm looking for.

Can you do this? Yes or no?

Everything else is nonresponsive to my specific question.

In re your email address, it is a public record on the internet, available to anyone doing a Google search on your name. However, in the interest of obtaining a specific answer to my inquiry, I will do as you request.

------------------------

Let's see what she says.

Man Accused of al-Qaida Link Admits Gun Buy

Khadr admitted ties to senior al-Qaida members and confessed to buying guns and rocket launchers for them in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan?

Why didn't they just go to one of probable GOP presidential candidate John McCain's American gun shows? Does this mean terrorists can buy all the weapons they want elsewhere?

And here I thought the problem was America's "lax gun laws." Boy, I guess you learn something every day.

Brand Wars in Albany

[Use BugMeNot to bypass site registration]

Synopsis:

New York Democrats want to sue gun manufacturers.

New York Republicans object.

They have a better brand of gun control.

You're Not Supposed to Tip Your Hand...

The president of the Oakville Liberal riding association has resigned after telling a voter unhappy with gun control to take her "gun-loving ass back to the U.S."

See, the cardinal rule has been broken here--you're not supposed to reveal your true agenda.

We've seen this happen in California. It's called "ideological cleansing."