« Democratic candidates need our help TODAY | Main | Majority of Idahoans say Bush not doing the job »

June 27, 2008


I think the Supreme Court got it right. It's a lot easier for me to find an individual right to own guns in the 2nd Amendment than it is to find an individual right to privacy in the 14th, where the word "privacy" never appears. Most absurdly, to me, are that there are people who believe the right to privacy "found" in the 14th Amendment wouldn't also extend to the right to keep a gun in your house, even if they don't believe the 2nd Amendment applies.

Even Sen. Obama believes the 2nd Amendment is in individual right. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601652.html )

Agreed. And it's good to have this settled once and for all.

And, you know, we all disagree with Clayton from time to time, but he's entitled on this one, and I sent him a congratulatory note this morning -- because agree or disagree, he's still one of ours.

I guess the question will be whether this ruling will allow local governments to enact bans that are more narrowly drawn than the DC law and, apparently, some in the Chicago area. Obama expressed the same reservation yesterday.

I don't dispute that the amendment allows individuals to own guns. I'm just not sure the framers anticipated the sort of guns nor the levels of gun crime that we have today.

I also know for sure that a bunch of white guys who didn't allow blacks nor women to vote nor own property (and who in fact *treated* blacks and women as property) could never have the last word on issues that affect us.

Sharon, you are SUCH a bridge-builder. Bless you.

To quote a remark made on another recent Supreme Court ruling -
This decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed”

I agree that early American history is full of heinous examples of inequality (and worse), but I'm pretty sure women and freed blacks were allowed to own property.


OK, Bubblehead. Thanks for setting me straight on that, but my overall points stand. After this week's ruling, I don't see how reactionary Republicans can cry foul over judicial activism in the progressive ranks, nor - given many Dem candidates' reaction - can the NRA paint Democrats as gun opponents.

Especially not Walt Minnick. Adam wrote recently that electing Walt would enable Rep. Pelosi to implement her "San Francisco values"; I wonder if Adam thinks that believing the Constitution contains an individual right to bear arms, as Walt does, is one of those "values" Adam opposes. Or maybe Walt Minnick is just much closer to the mainstream of the Idaho electorate than Adam gives him credit for.

There seems to be some confusion about this being "activism." The vast majority of court decisions for the last two centuries have recognized the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The decisions protecting the Klan (Cruikshank), antiunion thugs (Presser), and racists punishing a white man who married a black woman (Miller v. Texas) are really the judicial activism.

Clayton, thanks for stopping by and writing a comment that makes you sound like a lib'rul. And congrats again on the validation you received in this case. As I told Brandi Swindell when I met her four summers ago when we were registering voters on opposite corners downtown, I respect anyone who is willing to work and speak out for what they believe.

Right on, Bubblehead ... I still say there's no WAY that Hoffman, Graham, Sali et al can get away with painting Minnick as a Pelosi pawn ... not when he served in the Nixon White House, worked in the forest products biz, and applauds rulings like this (which I'd wager was indeed NOT all that popular in SF).

Minnick is smack in the center of Idaho's political mainstream, in a big tent with centrist Dems, moderate Republicans, and Independents. Sali et al are somewhere way up the right bank, looking for a place to stake their shrinking pup tent.

The comments to this entry are closed.

We're All in This Together