While Glenn is "underwhelmed," and I consider myself too ignorant to comment intelligently about the Miers nomination, at the risk of being simplistic I would like to offer a simple, off-the-cuff observation.
Pit bulls have been under attack for far too long, and have suffered so many acts of discrimination -- including numerous legal attempts to wipe out their entire breed (laws which would be called genocidal if they involved humans) that unless the headlines are lying, I'm relieved to see this much maligned breed finally having a little representation on the court.
Coco seconds my emotion, and she's faxing in her approval.
MORE: Via my blogfather Alphecca, I see evidence that Ms. Miers has a low regard for the Second Amendment.
Doesn't sound very pit bull-like.
AND MORE: Glenn Reynolds links to Dave Kopel's post about Harriet Miers -- who, it turns out, appears better on the Second Amendment than the last link might initially make her appear. Here are her words (in 1992):
The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
I'm glad to see that she felt that way then, and I hope she still does.
posted by Eric on 10.03.05 at 10:35 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2849
It is very possible that her support of the Neighborhood Project doesn't mean she's anti-Second Amendment.
One of the problems that fuels the Brady crowd and others is gun violence by criminals. Enforcing the existing gun laws, rather than the continuous proposal for more laws, might go a long way it stemming gun violence. At worst it will get more criminals locked up for longer periods of time.
After Columbine there were calls for more gun laws when in reality the 2 boys broke about 2 dozen existing laws. Another law wouldn't have stopped them, but strict enforcement may have had an impact on those who sold them weapons. We will never know for certain, but it cannot hurt.
I don't have the source but I read somewhere that the strict enforcement of sales or pass-on sales of cigarettes and alcohol has been effective in reducing access to minors. Stiff fines and zero tolerance works when it is publicly supported.
As long as the laws don't infringe on the Second, I see no reason to be anti gun-law enforcement. That is what most gun owners want to have happen: enforcement of existing laws and prosecute criminals rather than curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens with guns (such as doubling sentences when guns are used in the commission of a felony, etc.).
I read through the Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) site. I don't see anything overtly anti-gun. PSN appears to be the right approach, although they may be allied with groups not friendly to gun owners: http://www.psn.gov/Presidentsletter.html
They did overuse the "recreational use" and sportsmen meme and they didn't mention their stance on the Second Amendment. I'd be interested in seeing more on this.
Grand Stand · October 3, 2005 06:05 PM
"Well, first we have to get you into the White House. For her part, Coco promises to work tirelessly behind the scenes on your behalf."
I had better amend that. I would elect you to the White House to nominate Coco to the Supreme Court.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I would nominate Coco to the Supreme Court!