« The Flood of ‘08, Shooting and the Price of Gas | Main | What's Wrong with this Picture? »

June 26, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

A Hit From The Supremes

“It was a damned near-run thing.”—Arthur, Lord Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, on the Battle of Waterloo, at which the English came very close to getting their asses whipped by Napoleon.

Well, this was a damned near-run thing. We averted disaster by one vote. If the Supremes had found against Mr. Heller and held that the Second Amendment refers only to militias, the future would be grim beyond imagining. We will, in all likelihood, have an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and a President named Obama. In the face of a defeat for our side, the new congress would draw up a really hellish anti-gun bill, and Obama would sign it immediately. Democrats can’t help it; it’s genetic.

Justice Scalia (who, as I recall, went duck hunting with Dick Cheney and survived) wrote the majority opinion, holding that the right to self-defense is an intrinsic part of Article II and, in the process declared unconstitutional Washington’s idiotic rule that all guns in the home must be disassembled or have trigger locks on them.

We got a very, very big break today, but Sarah Brady will not go away, and Hillary Clinton will forget that she is supposed to be Annie Oakley, and Chuck Schumer and Michael Bloomberg will still be doing business at the same stand. If you would like to do something to celebrate, send some money to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. Armed with the Heller decision, the ILA will be fighting to roll back some of our more idiotic gun laws. And they have a long, long list to choose from.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Hit From The Supremes:


Mike Reeder

For Jack Landers,
You've got to be kidding, right? Whatever Obama says about Heller now, and whatever he's said at one time or another in the course of flip-flopping his way through the campaign, Obama's past actions leave no room for doubt about his position on guns. To repeat for the umpteenth time, he sponsored legislation in Illinois that would have shut down every gun store in the state; he steered grants to one of the most virulently anti-gun organizations in existence (it proudly claims to be THE most anti-gun); he fully supported Chicago's gun ban and he gave his support to the D.C. gun ban in a television interview earlier this year. And lest we forget, he let his true feelings about guns and gunowners peek out in San Francisco when he thought only a bunch of his wine-sipping and cheese-eating liberal friends were listening. Granted, Obama's trying to trim positions from NAFTA to Iraq right now in order to move toward the center after doing the seemingly impossible task of outflanking Hillary on the left during the primaries, but anyone who thinks a politically expedient pivot before the election negates 20-years of public action better watch out for bridge salesmen in Brooklyn.

Edward C K

If you really read the Second Ammendment, it grants NOTHING. It simply states and affirms that a God given right shall not be infringed upon. Even with no Second Ammendment,I STILL have the God given right to self protection, protection of my Family and my Country and the Constitution. Which in spite of Legislators taking an oath to uphold and defend,take great pains to rip asunder.

Jason G

Well said Edward CK. Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that the men who wrote the 2nd Ammendment had just fought a war against what had been their government which they considered unjust. The reason the ammendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is they're saying well the government has to have guns, and since any government might eventually collapse or become corrupt, the people have a right not just to defend themselves from scumbags on the streets, but to defend themselves from the government if necessary. That is what seperates us from all other countries. What other country allows the citizenry to defend themselves from their own government? How important is this? Ask the German Jews or any Cambodian during the Khmer Rouge years. The very fact that we have such a right almost guarantees that we will never have to use it. But loosing such a right would just be the first step down a long road to ruin.


By all means say what you want to say, just don't say it in a way that helps the cause of the man who wants to take your guns.

Orland K

To the two fools(The Canuck,& Jersey Jerk)The Death Pen. works, just ask all the people that those people did'nt kill.
Now as for the 2A, To Jersey seem like all those laws are working out for you guys up there( Oh, wait is'nt Camden, NJ. the murder capitol last two years)To the Canuck, the reason why you guys crim rate is so low is because of the taxes you guys pay to keep your health-care system running, a friend of mine up there is paying 55% of his income to support it,wait is'nt this the same system that Hillary, and Hussain want to put on us


For years I have called myself a "Conflicted Libertarian" more recently a "Jeffersonian" in that I want the smallest government footprint possible. Government can never be the answer to all our problems; more often than not government IS the problem! I do recognize that as our world and society become more crowded and more complex there goes from the masses a cry for more and more government solutions.

There are only 4 things the federal government should do: uphold the US Constitution, National defense, facilitate commerce and resolve disputes between states. Nowhere do you see Implement Socialized Medicine on that list. Nowhere do you see ban abortion on that list. Nowhere do you see force states to conform to a national ID card policy. Get the picture? Way too many people demand that the National (federal) government solve all problems/enforce all moral beliefs.

It ain't supposed to be that way!


In principle, I agree with you on many points Silver Arrow. But there's much lost in translation when ideology meets reality. My suport for socialized medicine come niether from a belief that it would be ideal, nor that there exists anything in our constitution that assures the right. It simply comes from the opinion that one could hardly invent a worse system than the one we have in place and that the "free market" that created the problem is unlikely, moreover adverse, to any reasonable solution. My support for the Democrates on this particular issue is more strategic than ideological. My greater point is to avoid labels that aren't really nesessary. Yes, we need to have the term "spade" in order to "call a spade a spade", but is there really such need to label things "liberal" or "conservative" when, looking at the individual issues, an arguement could be made that the "liberal position is more conservative or the "conservitive" position more radical? Why do the vast majority of pro-choicers align themselves with opposition to the death penalty? Wouldn't the only conceivable link between the two, a reverence for life, lead one to be pro-life and opposed to the death penalty? Yet I've found very few pro-lifers who are opposed to the death penalty and even fewer proponents to the death penalty who are pro-choice. I suppose one could say I have a "libertarian" streak, but I find that having those interests seldom lead me to chose the GOP over the Democrates since niether seems to truely believe in smaller government, right wing propoganda aside. My one burning issue is conservation. While I certainly would not say that the legislation put forth by the Democrates is ideal in this area, it does tend to align more closly with what I think is important. This cycle, I'm impressed with McCain's stance on the environment (a word that has become rather unfortunatly polarized in this type of discussion), and I haven't heard anything from Obama that makes me think that the issue is a higher priority than welfare programs that I don't support (socialized medicine aside). I may very well vote for McCain despite general support for the Democratic party. Anyway around it, I agree with the court's ruling against the D.C. ban. Where I draw the line however, is in thinking that the GOP (or judges they may put on the bench), will ensure the continuance of this right anymore than the Democrates. Yes, many Dems have a bad track record with regards to this issue, but I find GOP support for the FISA wiretap fiasco no less disconcerting.


As a refuge from New Jersey (The Gestapo State) I can understand where Jersey Guy is coming from, it's called Brainwashing! You are taught from birth you have no right to protect yourself or even own a gun to hunt, it's a privilege granted by the State and can be taken away just as easily. I was lucky enough to be raised by a father who hunted and fished. Just going out in the woods with a rifle or handgun to shoot targets is considered criminal! The only "legal" hunting arm was a shotgun, and to carry a muzzleloader to hunt you needed a special permit from the State Police! (this in addition to the muzzleloader hunting license)

I got out of that place as fast as I could!

Mr. Smith

Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives.. Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives.. Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives... Guns save lives...


If you think the current health care delivery here in the US of A is bad, go to Canada when you need an angiogram(heart cath) you know, to see if you need surgery cuz your heart arteries are blocked. The wait for citizens is months, 6-9 months, by their own data. If you need an MRI, well, there are more MRI machines in the state of OKlahoma than in the entire country of Canada. Things are not perfect but the US government will screw up anything they try to regulate, because it gets caught up in the bureaucracy.
In fact the "free market" in health care was working very well with an overall higher percentage of Americans receiving health care prior to LBJ's "great Society" where since Medicare, overall costs have skyrocketed, Most of the healthcare costs today are a direct result of governmental interference. Regulations about every stupid little thing that must be done that cause hospitals to have to spend money on stuff just to meet governmental standards is what is killing health care today. There is no "free market" because very few hospitals can afford to not accept government dollars and stay open. The cost automatically goes up when the hospital accepts the cash. In order to do that, they have to be JCAHO certified. There is not hospital administrator in the country that does not cringe at the thought of a surprise JCAHO inspection. Think of them as the chip on the shoulder IRS auditor without people skill. They have absolute authority to kill a hospital (and some of them act like it) Get the government to stop protecting us from ourselves and the world would be a better place


That is a rather lengthly and well constructed argument against a position that I don't support. I haven't, here or elsewhere, proposed that we model our health care after Canada. Aside from using the Canadian model as a strawman, you assume that universal health care would be imposed upon the current system and then point out problems that would arise as though it would take place in a static system that would not change to accomidate the evolving situation.

Our Blogs