Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Courts' role
Levy has an interesting legal argument at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levy200410010740.asp
I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment on the technical aspects this article brings up.
But the gist seems to be that we want young, white, beautiful people to be front and center in any court discussion of 2A. This is the sort of thing that always pisses me off. An ugly black kid with no teeth gets kidnapped in Detroit: lucky if the AP even has a wire story on it. If a good-looking white child is abducted from the suburbs, it gets non-stop coverage.
My fault with the argument is, you are talking about an amendment included in the Bill of Rights (not the patient's bill of rights, or the insurance bill of rights, THE BILL OF RIGHTS.) By saying you need to bring the perfect case before the Supreme Court underscores the subjugation of the argument. It becomes a catwalk instead of a legal argument.
Given, Levy argues that it is better to bring a 2A suit in front of the Justices if the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens, who walk their dogs and drink bottled water etc. It is not so appealing if you have a crackhead, who somehow managed to purchase a firearm legally.
At that point, you undermine the right, perception wise. If a crackhead or a dog-walking suburbanite purchases a gun legally, there's nothing wrong with that. By saying you need stricter gun laws just caters to the notion that people are not smart enough to make decisions. As far as the unfortunate crackhead; if he used a legal gun in the conduct of a crime, what difference does that make? He would have gotten hold of something lethal anyway. The answer to that is to pull him off the street and incarcerate him at taxpayer expense (if you are compassionate) or have him put to death (if you are interested in saving taxpayer money and ensuring the public doesn't have to face a threat from that asshole ever again ((and he can't piss in the gene pool.))
It's an interesting argument, but with rights, I don't think you need to put your best looking face on it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levy200410010740.asp
I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment on the technical aspects this article brings up.
But the gist seems to be that we want young, white, beautiful people to be front and center in any court discussion of 2A. This is the sort of thing that always pisses me off. An ugly black kid with no teeth gets kidnapped in Detroit: lucky if the AP even has a wire story on it. If a good-looking white child is abducted from the suburbs, it gets non-stop coverage.
My fault with the argument is, you are talking about an amendment included in the Bill of Rights (not the patient's bill of rights, or the insurance bill of rights, THE BILL OF RIGHTS.) By saying you need to bring the perfect case before the Supreme Court underscores the subjugation of the argument. It becomes a catwalk instead of a legal argument.
Given, Levy argues that it is better to bring a 2A suit in front of the Justices if the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens, who walk their dogs and drink bottled water etc. It is not so appealing if you have a crackhead, who somehow managed to purchase a firearm legally.
At that point, you undermine the right, perception wise. If a crackhead or a dog-walking suburbanite purchases a gun legally, there's nothing wrong with that. By saying you need stricter gun laws just caters to the notion that people are not smart enough to make decisions. As far as the unfortunate crackhead; if he used a legal gun in the conduct of a crime, what difference does that make? He would have gotten hold of something lethal anyway. The answer to that is to pull him off the street and incarcerate him at taxpayer expense (if you are compassionate) or have him put to death (if you are interested in saving taxpayer money and ensuring the public doesn't have to face a threat from that asshole ever again ((and he can't piss in the gene pool.))
It's an interesting argument, but with rights, I don't think you need to put your best looking face on it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
