Scalia, arguing against granting the writ of habeas corpus argued that this decision:
"...will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
and
“The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
While when you're talking about the DC gun ban, there doesn't seem to be a problem with striking down a popular law (which will also almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed). I just think that Scalia wrote the previous statement to be inflammatory and so that he could rub that in others' faces when an inevitable attack comes; and act he was so smart to predict and if we had done what he wanted, we could have prevented it. Basically I think Scalia is an egomaniacal twit; who, like every other person out there, has an opinion and is able to pick and choose the evidence to support his belief. All the while ignoring evidence (case law and crime statistics), that points to the contrary.
On a side note, I'm not a constitutional scholar/lawyer, I don't care for guns, and never plan to own a gun; but I certainly see where you can end up with the conclusion that there is an individual write to bear arms. My personal favorite logic, which is revolutionary in nature, is that if the people are armed they can rise up to overthrow a government that oppresses the people. Any government with a constitution that incorporates the mechanism for which its people can subvert itself is outstanding in my book. I don't think this is the original intent (most likely has to do with a regulated militia for defense against foreign enemies), but I enjoy that interpretation conceptually. Let's hope that one will never have to be put into action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment