An expert on U.S. colonial law at Washington University in St. Louis who consulted on the recent Second Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms most likely will not be an issue that Obama will address as president early in his term — if at all. [More]See, an "Authorized Journalist" told us this guy's an expert, so we should just accept that along with what he says, right?
Not so fast.
John Richardson sent me a copy of his email to Susan Killenberg McGinn, and is allowing me to share it with you:
Dear Ms. McGinn,
I just read your interview with Prof. David Konig regarding future gun control legislation in the soon-to-be Obama administration.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/13171.html
In it, you refer to Prof. Konig as "An expert on U.S. colonial law at Washington University in St. Louis who consulted on the recent Second Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court..."
Saying that Prof. Konig consulted is somewhat disingenuous for two reasons. First, he wasn't a "consultant" but rather was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court. This goes well beyond being a mere consultant.
Secondly, and most importantly, Prof. Konig submitted his brief in support of the District of Columbia which was trying to say that the 2nd Amendment did NOT protect the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. The Court rejected this interpretation and did find that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right.
Finally, given the Prof. Konig is a Professor of Law and History and not a political scientist with an expertise in either modern legislative politics or Presidential politics, his opinion on what Pres.-Elect Obama will or will not do with regard to future gun control policy is the equivalent of mine. That is, it is opinion rendered on a subject in which he is interested but only as a gifted amateur in the field.
Sincerely,
John P. Richardson
Waynesville NC
It's the "colonial law" thing that jumps out at me. Freudian slip, maybe?
ReplyDeleteMy friend in the media told me there's an approved list -- actually it's a book -- of "experts" on most topics journalists will be called upon to write about. On the gun issue, the "experts" are the Brady Coalition, a couple of their satellite organizations, and the NRA.
ReplyDeleteSnort.
But the journalists hear things they agree with, so of course they say it must be correct. They know that they don't know, but they dont care. The agenda is the important thing, just as politicians say "This (city, county, country) can't afford a tax cut!" (Meaning "Our incompetence and wasteful misuse of funds demands that MORE wealth be confiscated, not less. WE'RE not going to change. The PEOPLE will have to tighten THEIR belts. If they don't like it, they can vote me out next term. Ha ha ha.")
It's good to be an Elite.
By the way, my 16-year-old granddaughter understands the difference between rights and privileges.
ReplyDeleteSo there's no excuse for DC's argument or those like it. If they enclosed Washington in a dome, would they argue that yes, you have the RIGHT to air, subject to reasonable restrictions like oxygen meters, higher fees for smokers and the out-of-shape, pure oxygen flood for government buidings because goverment runs on brainpower (again, Snort!) ...
Cool. A Fellow Waynesvillian reads this blog.
ReplyDelete"That is, it is opinion rendered on a subject in which he is interested but only as a gifted amateur in the field."
ReplyDeleteExcellent response, but he misspelled "statist".