The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Responses to Heller

As you’ve probably read, the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller came down today. The response from the right is pretty much what you’d expect (“Yeehaw!” *fires gun into air*). However, Radley Balko said the decision, while a philosophic victory for the Second Amendment, was too weak in practice. From his article:

Scalia’s opinion does interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, but only for self-protection, and only in the home.  The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead.

Despite being freedom-hating libruls, the response over at Blue Oregon was fairly muted and neutral, except for this exasperating paragraph:

It is the highest-profile case to be decided by the Roberts Court, and suggests that the Court will not blanch at the opportunity to decide in favor of conservative positions in politically-charged cases.

Sorry, but since when has the Constitution been a “conservative position?” For all the whining from the left about the evil, boogieman Roberts Court, most of its decisions have been surprisingly moderate and narrow. They even stuck it to the Bush administration on habeas corpus. Oh those radical right-wing judges and their respect for our founding documents!

P.S. Slightly off-topic, but this Onion video on the Supreme Court is totally wicked awesome.

  1. CJ Ciaramella says:

    Yeah, most of the commentors on the Blue Oregon article were for the decision. I mainly just use “librul” as self-parody.

  2. Vincent says:

    How come it’s only self-professed liberals who spell it “librul”?

  3. Pat Ryan says:

    Just for the record, regarding Blue Oregon, there were several of us “Libruls” that were arguing for

    ” The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government”,

    including offering quotes from the Federalist Papers to back up our arguments.

    I was one of them, and a little acknowledgement of the facts would not have hurt anyone.

  4. Josh M. says:

    Even funnier than the Supreme Court video, check out “McCain Vows To Replace Secret Service With His Own Bare Fists.”

  5. Andy says:

    The ruling is narrow, and the arguments on both sides sophomoric. Basically the court said, ‘well it’s okay to own a gun, but only in your house, but it can be registered, owner licensed, taxed to hell, and whatever sort of other regulatory tyrannical burduns imposed at the whim of any level of government.’ Gee, I’m glad 5 elitist shit-for-brains – the other 4 being much worse – gave me permission to do something I’ve been doing my whole life and WILL continue to do till the end, and even at the peril, of my own life. Basically they knew it had to come down like this or else a whole lot of their bureaucratic colleagues would have been in grave danger of not seeing reaching retirement age. It’s really amazing what a losing issue gun control is, and how insane anyone is who pushes for gun grabbing. It’s like advocating slavery for full employment in an economy.

  6. Timothy says:

    Really, I think it’s Kennedy’s court more than Roberts’. He’s the only unpredictable vote anymore. Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are predictable lefty votes. Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are pretty predictable righty votes – Thomas can be somewhat unpredictable on some issues like due process, but he’s taken a more statist bent recently.

    Kennedy is the only justice whose decisions aren’t easily predictable given the case presented, so I’d say it’s really his court.

  7. Sean Jin says:

    Boobie’s right on the Supreme Court thing.
    Souter, Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens were the ones that voted to strike down the MCA, with the more ‘conservative’ judges voting not to.

  8. Boobie says:

    Ruling 5 to 4 against the administration isn’t exactly “sticking it” to them. But that doesn’t really matter.

    Though I’m sure that we disagree fundamentally, I like the point from Balko. Without the right (and more importantly, the ability) to overthrow your government, the second amendment seems trivial.

    Of course, as a hopeless librul, I’d rather see all weapons more sinister than an inch and a half long blade of a swiss army knife outlawed. But before we freedom haters can realize this dream, we’ll have to legalize pot. The prison-industrial complex still lacks the supply necessary to meet demand and we’ll need to free up enough space to lock up all of you newly criminalized gun-nuts.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.