Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Spoons on Levy
Spoons had posted a very good retort to my argument on Levy's NRO article (linked to further down). Mea culpa.
Here's his response in full:
I think you're being shortsighted about this.Here's what I think you're not factoring in to the equation. Currently, the Supreme Court doesn't recognize much of anything in the way of our Second Amendment rights. Now, we can argue all day about whether the Supreme Court has any authority to ignore rights that are spelled out right there in the Constitution, but the fact of the matter is, what the Supreme Court says matters. If you and I have a "right" to own guns, but the Supreme Court says we dont', and the State is willing to back them up with force, then the fact that you and I know we're right isn't much comfort.So, we find ourselves in a position where if we want our rights to be meaningful, we need to persuade the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't filled with wise and honest judges who will always impartially interpret the law regardless of their personal preferences. The Court is filled with, by and large, politicians. At least half the Court doesn't really care what the Constitution says. They care what POLICY is. They'd rather be kings, than judges.In light of that, it MATTERS what kind of case comes before them. Should the Second Amendment apply the same way to the crackhead as to you or I? Maybe it should. But guess what? Whichever one of us gets to the Court first, that's who's gonna shape the law. If the crackhed gets their first, and the Court decideds to construe the Second Amendment narrowly because they don't like him, then it's you and I whose rights are going to suffer.If we had a perfect Court, you'd possibly have a point. In the real world, though, we just need to win. If the crackhead's case is a loser, then we don't want him carrying our flag.
# posted by Spoons : 12:28 PM
This is a very big problem I have and he skewers me rightfully. I have never been good at pragmatic approaches to things. People point this out to me all of the time.
Usually when I'm arguing with a liberal, I do pretty well. Inevitably though, I hit a point where I cut loose with something like, "Well I don't see why I shouldn't be able to own a machine gun, for crying out loud."
This is the equivalent of me getting naked, painting myself blue, and signing a confession that I'm a complete wingnut.
So, upon further reflection, Spoons is entirely right, and I would probably lose any 2A argument in front of the supremes.
Here's his response in full:
I think you're being shortsighted about this.Here's what I think you're not factoring in to the equation. Currently, the Supreme Court doesn't recognize much of anything in the way of our Second Amendment rights. Now, we can argue all day about whether the Supreme Court has any authority to ignore rights that are spelled out right there in the Constitution, but the fact of the matter is, what the Supreme Court says matters. If you and I have a "right" to own guns, but the Supreme Court says we dont', and the State is willing to back them up with force, then the fact that you and I know we're right isn't much comfort.So, we find ourselves in a position where if we want our rights to be meaningful, we need to persuade the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't filled with wise and honest judges who will always impartially interpret the law regardless of their personal preferences. The Court is filled with, by and large, politicians. At least half the Court doesn't really care what the Constitution says. They care what POLICY is. They'd rather be kings, than judges.In light of that, it MATTERS what kind of case comes before them. Should the Second Amendment apply the same way to the crackhead as to you or I? Maybe it should. But guess what? Whichever one of us gets to the Court first, that's who's gonna shape the law. If the crackhed gets their first, and the Court decideds to construe the Second Amendment narrowly because they don't like him, then it's you and I whose rights are going to suffer.If we had a perfect Court, you'd possibly have a point. In the real world, though, we just need to win. If the crackhead's case is a loser, then we don't want him carrying our flag.
# posted by Spoons : 12:28 PM
This is a very big problem I have and he skewers me rightfully. I have never been good at pragmatic approaches to things. People point this out to me all of the time.
Usually when I'm arguing with a liberal, I do pretty well. Inevitably though, I hit a point where I cut loose with something like, "Well I don't see why I shouldn't be able to own a machine gun, for crying out loud."
This is the equivalent of me getting naked, painting myself blue, and signing a confession that I'm a complete wingnut.
So, upon further reflection, Spoons is entirely right, and I would probably lose any 2A argument in front of the supremes.
