Free Markets, Free People

Second Amendment Decision Cheered By … Democrats?

The follow-up Supreme Court decision to Heller that was handed down yesterday marked a significant point in Second Amendment history. And that has not just gun-rights advocates jumping for joy, but also Democrats:

For them, the court’s groundbreaking decision couldn’t have been more beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend against Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners.

“It removes guns as a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right and everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the culture program at the centrist think tank Third Way.

A House Democratic aide agreed that the court’s decision removed a potentially combustible element from the mix.

“The Supreme Court ruled here that you have a fundamental right to own and bear arms, and that means at the national level it’s harder – whether it’s Republicans or whether it’s the [National Rifle Association] – to throw that claim out: if Democrats are in charge they’re going to come get your guns,” said the aide. “It pretty much took that off the table.”

Despite the fact that there are a fair number of pro-gun Democrats in Congress, members of the Donkey Party are typically slammed as “gun-grabbers” in close elections. With the decision in McDonald, that issue is basically moot for Democrats running red or purple districts.

The likely removal—or at least neutralization—of the gun issue this fall is of no small matter in the battle for the House and Senate. The Democratic majorities in both chambers were built, in part, on victories in pro-gun states and districts that had until recently been difficult terrain for Democratic candidates as a result of the national party’s position on gun control.

[...]

For congressional Democrats—especially those in seats outside major metropolitan areas where support for gun rights runs high—the ruling offered a chance to assert their pro-gun bona fides.

[...]

John Anzalone, a prominent Alabama-based pollster with a roster of Southern Democratic clients, called it a “win, win, win, win” situation for everyone—and above all, “for conservative Democrats who will be able to use it as a credential that they’re conservative. This is a tough political environment; you’re going to see Southern, Western Democrats use it and stand up for gun rights.”

Unfortunately for the Democrats, gun rights issues weren’t likely to be very high on the list of grievances redressed at the ballot box this Fall. Mired in the middle of the Great Recession, economic issues will be paramount in November, especially on jobs and tax policy.

In fact, although Democrats are cheering the absence of Second Amendment posturing thanks to McDonald, to the extent such issue would have been raised, it would have served as a distraction from the core concerns of voters. Now, with that issue off the table, the Democratic spending policies are cast in stark relief. While out on the hustings, they will be forced to answer for their support of ObamaCare, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, Finreg and the rest of the Democratic agenda that’s done nothing to help the economy, and sure looks like it may have done much to hinder it.

In political time, November 2nd is an eternity away. There is really no telling what might happen between now and then that might influence various elections, whether on a national or local level. Even so, I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats were wishing they had the distraction of gun-rights issues this Fall instead of being forced to face the economic policy music. It will be a baleful tune.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

51 Responses to Second Amendment Decision Cheered By … Democrats?

  • …members of the Donkey Party are typically slammed as “gun-grabbers” in close elections. With the decision in McDonald, that issue is basically moot for Democrats running red or purple districts.

    I think you’re totally wrong here, Bruce.  People are not generally as aware of the jot and tittle of arguments or issues as are you.  People KNOW Deemocrats want them disarmed, have wanted them disarmed, and will want them disarmed tomorrow.  The will lie, cheat and steal to make it happen, as we well know from decades of experience.
    McDonald doesn’t change that, and it will make the issue one the Deemocrats have to face…along with a butt-load of others…in the Fall.  Hmmm…nice term that; Fall

    • I agree with you Rags, that the Dems “want them disarmed, have wanted them disarmed, and will want them disarmed tomorrow” but I believe McQ meant this SCOTUS decision will act as cover for their agenda.  If pressed, they will just wave it off with a simple explanation that it has been covered by the courts and is no longer an issue.

      Now if some stupid Dem like Mayor Daley tries to circumvent the ruling by trying another tact at removing handguns or any other type of armature from the American public, then Katie bar the door – the fight is back on.  It will be interesting to see the governing response over the next 60 days  – if nothing happens, then they are just going to wait out the election and hope for the best.  And if the worse were to happen for them, then watch closely the Lame Duck Democratic Congress spitting in the face of the electorate on this and any number of other issues.

      • Oh, I get the argument.  And for you and I, it holds some water.
        But for most of the folks in America who give a rip about the 2nd Amendment…and for me, as well…we know who we’re dealing with here.  They are not done.  They are not deterred.  They WILL be who they are.
        I’m not saying this is going to be a deal-maker this election cycle…just a factor among many.  It does not go away with one decision…by ONE vote…of the Supremes.

      • Exactly – every regulation will now be a ‘reasonable’ one. That’s the hole the court left with the decision and every government from local to state which wants gun control will make that claim as they again try to infringe on the right.

    • issue off the table

      This is not off the table.    LOL
      Did Citizens United take the issue of campaign finance off the table .. DISPOSE of that idea.

    • I think you’re totally wrong here, Bruce.
       
      As much as I would love to agree with you and engage in yet another lengthy debate with one of the authors here at QandO, I lament the fact that I cannot.  For you are wrong, here, Rags… on two counts.  One being the fact that it is an issues of contempt that some Dems can attempt to take off the table, and the other being that Bruce McQuain is not the author of this post.  The latter being an honest mistake, I’m sure, and of obvious lesser importance, of course.
       
      Mr. Wade is correct that economic issues are the dominant concerns of voters.  It always has been, and will likely always will be.  But to your point that “People are not generally as aware of the jot and tittle of arguments or issues as are you.  People KNOW Deemocrats want them disarmed, have wanted them disarmed, and will want them disarmed tomorrow”, the Democrats in question will most certainly make aware to those whom you caricature as not being aware of the “jot and tittle.” (thank heavens for you lawyers to explain to us laymen the meaning of landmark court decisions!!)
       
      From the Politico article…

      “Today’s ruling has put the Supreme Court on the side of every Constitution-loving American,” he said in the e-mail. “Our right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our Constitution, given to us by our Founding Fathers, and it can never be taken away.”

      “Of course, we were watching for the decision, but if you work for someone whose response to Heller was ‘it’s about time,’ then you were probably prepared for this decision, whichever way it went,” said John Foster, campaign manager for freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who noted that Minnick has made it a point to visit the gun ranges and ammunition and boutique gun manufacturers in his strongly conservative district.

      It’s what they do…
       
      Besides, any constituent that places 2nd amendment rights above all else, a relatively small faction, already realizes that Democrats are not their strongest friends in the legislature.  But it is the fence sitters in the conservative districts that have elected democrats that are the ones targeted in this would-be sub-campaign. Those, and I know a few, that cherish their gun rights, yet see, as Michael notes, threats against their rights not exactly near the top of concerning issues.
      As Mr. Wade also noted, election day is a lifetime away, and anything can happen.  Entertain for a moment, as one would have to because the Democrats have given no reason for serious consideration, that the oil spill in the Gulf is contained and moved from the headlines, that the economy begins a slow yet steady recovery, and Obama and his allies win a series of political victories, the anger and enthusiasm for a power shift begins to abate.  Taking the ordinance that is gun-control fears out of the arsenal could make key differences in close elections in conservative districts.
      It’s banking on a long-shot, of course, but what is there to lose?
       
      Something of more interest to me other than the petty games politicians play with their voters, is the philosophical ramifications of decisions like McDonald and Heller make for.
      If, as the Right have been arguing since the big bang, the philosophy of states rights should be dominant in the debate over abortion, why then couldn’t the same argument be made for popular sovereignty over gun rights?  Why shouldn’t, if Alabama wants to outlaw abortion, the citizens of Chicago and D.C. be allowed to put restrictions on the ownership of firearms?
      Constitutional rights are at the pinnacle here.  Whether explicit, or implied.
       
      That’s much more interesting than if some douchebag pol sends emails to his constituents professing that the matter is out of his hands.
       
      Cheers.

      • “If, as the Right have been arguing since the big bang, the philosophy of states rights should be dominant in the debate over abortion, why then couldn’t the same argument be made for popular sovereignty over gun rights? ”
         
        Could be because abortion isn’t actually enumerated as an inalienable right in the Bill of Rights for individuals.  Rights that are ours regardless of the level of government bent on infringing them.
         
        Geeze…abortion, what a one to pick – where we agree it’s okay to snuff out the life of a citizen before they can become a citizen because we find them currently inconvenient.  I fully expect one of these days courtesy of medical science we’ll come to see that in the same light as we now see the concept of owning other people.  Another of our ‘peculiar institutions’.

        • Exactly.  Why not pick abortion?
          Right to bear arms – enumerated.  Right to privacy – implied.
           
          This is the philosophical debate that makes for an interesting discussion.  The implied rights that we have accepted as a society has equal footing with those actually enumerated.  One cannot deny that the founding fathers could not foresee the course of society or the technological advances brought with it.  That’s why they left room in the constitution for implied rights, IMHO.
          And unfortunately, we as a society must accept the pros and cons accompanied with such questions answered by flawed men.  From Dred v. Scott to Brown v. Board to Roe v. Wade and on and on…
          We seem to making this sh!t up as we go along.  But as long as the principle of liberty that the Constitution inherently embodies, I’m okay with the trial and error.
           
          The issue of abortion is a highly contentious one, as we know.  So why abortion as an example?  Because we have by and large accepted the issue as one of privacy, an institution we have for a long time accepted as an implied right.
           
          See what I mean?  This is good stuff!!!
           
          Cheers.

          • heh – okay, it’s certainly a hot button issue that my thinking keeps evolving on.
            One should note, not the right to keep and bear firearms…. the right to keep and bear “arms”.   Clever bastards, it means they covered blasters, light sabres and Imperial Star Destroyers too.
             
             

          • One should note, not the right to keep and bear firearms…. the right to keep and bear “arms”.   Clever bastards, it means they covered blasters, light sabres and Imperial Star Destroyers too.
             
            Precisely.  See, at the time the founders wrote that, “arms” meant muzzle loading muskets.  Could they foresee automatic assault rifles?  Shoulder-fired missiles?  The M1 Abrams?
            Where do we draw the line?  Where and if should SCOTUS draw the line?  Chicago or D.C.?
             
            The 2nd amendment isn’t as scored in stone as some would believe.  The “enumeration” might not be as enumerated as it was back in 1789.
            For me, I believe that if one can afford an Abrams, then one should be allowed to have one.  After all, local ordinance can prevent owners from driving the thing.
            But what about nuclear weapons?
            It’s complicated.
             
            Cheers.

          • Actually the time they wrote “arms”  it was also pikes, sabers, artillery swords, spontoons, pitchforks, lances, field pieces, swivel guns, punt guns, bows and arrows, etc.      There’s certainly no limit to the types of pointy weaponry they considered to be arms.    Generally any reference to artillery pieces seems to have it being ‘owned’ by the local militia unit in the ‘colonies’.   But since I do know people currently who own, oh, say 10 ordinance rifles, 12 lb Napoleons, 2 inch mountain howitzers and French 75mm field guns…heh…I know for a fact you CAN own an operational cannon.

          • Heh – cannons….funny now that I think of it…because I see them so often I never consider the implication, but a 12lb gun firing grape or canister will really F* up your day, even if it does have to be muzzle loaded.

          • Actually the time they wrote “arms”  it was also pikes, sabers, artillery swords, spontoons, pitchforks, lances, field pieces, swivel guns, punt guns, bows and arrows, etc.
             
            You’re right.
            Bladed axe, picks, or swords.
            But giving into what they also considered arms to be, “pikes, sabers, artillery, etc.”, don’t you also concede that they could not foresee, and by implication also could not expect, the weapons of relative mass destruction in the form of automatic assault weapons?
            Maybe they did.  Or at least maybe they didn’t consider the fact of technologically advanced weaponry to nullify their belief in the right to bear arms.  Maybe they dreamed of death rays from outer space.  It is not inconceivable.  Maybe their belief that the right to bear arms superceded any and all technological advances.
             
            But we know for a fact that they believed in kicking the can down the road.

          • Some thoughts there – one is the machine gun premise – that it would be ‘too horrible to comtemplate!’ and so would end war.
             
            Let’s look at the equivalent for the time of the nuke/tank – HMS Victory, USS Constitution.   I think they understood that by and large the infrastructure needed to own/support such a weapon would preclude the necessity for such a consideration.  They would recognize someone MIGHT be able to afford the cost of such things (by virtue of the infrastructure necessary to build and operate them) but they weren’t dealing with the exception.    And it’s interesting to talk about an individual owning a ‘crewed’ weapon but obviously the very nature of the weapon (including the cannons I spoke of earlier) require more than 1 man to effectively operate them.  Now you’ve moved into the territory of a militia.
             
            Now, suitcase nukes – you’re right, I have to believe they could conceive of such a device (after all, it’s just a modern city sized depot filled with stacks and stacks and stacks of kegs of black powder), but would have been horrified that anyone would contemplate using something that was so clearly a tool of evil.  I honestly think they would not have perceived that to be a weapon of self defense (it clearly is not), and certainly not ‘well regulated’.
             
            Given some of the things we have now would to their minds be ‘infernal’.  But too, I think if their intent was to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government who DID possess these infernal devices, given time to contemplate it they might have agreed that the citizens, to the extent they could own and work a device individually, should be as well armed.
             
             
             
             

      • People KNOW Deemocrats want them disarmed, have wanted them disarmed, and will want them disarmed tomorrow”, the Democrats in question will most certainly make aware to those whom you caricature as not being aware of the “jot and tittle.” (thank heavens for you lawyers to explain to us laymen the meaning of landmark court decisions!!)
         
        Rewrite…!!!  STAT…!!!!

      • Geez, Poque…isn’t it early to be THAT drunk…I mean…even for the Irish…???

        • Oh, please do explain yourself.

          • Pogue,

            At the time of the founders, they actually had a primitive rapid fire weapon designed in America (IIRC Jefferson designed a rapid fire rifle). Various other, older, rapid fire weapons existed. There is good reason to think they anticipated weapons development that would lead to effective automatic weapons or similar; I doubt the AK-47 or M-14 would be much of a surprise (M-16 moreso due to its space age construction).

            Now, if you want to talk about weapons like Davy Crockett, I doubt they would forsee anything similar to that.

            If you want to consider what the 2nd covers and doesn’t cover, well the standard answer based upon pre-Heller cases (i.e., Miller) suggests that the standard military hardware and civilian equivelents are protected. The 2nd almost certainly applies to any and all individual military weapons. Crew served weapons are another issue, but generally speaking things like jet fighters and tanks are simply to expensive to buy, operate, or maintain for any but the most wealthy.

            Nukes? Well, I already brought that up with Davey Crockett, but the fact is that their expense protects us from nuke prolifferation much more than federal law does.

        • Judging by your sentence (?!?!?) structure, and the quality (!?!??!) of your arguments, you not only have “drink taken”, but are snot-slinging drunk!

          • Really???  You’re going after my sentence structure???  Really!?!?
            First of all, I’m not so drunk that I can’t see who wrote the damn thing.  You… not so much.
            And let us have a look at your writing.

            People KNOW Deemocrats want them disarmed, have wanted them disarmed, and will want them disarmed tomorrow.  The will lie, cheat and steal to make it happen, as we well know from decades of experience.

            “Deemocrats”
            “have wanted them disarmed”
            “The will lie, cheat and steal”
             

            Hmmm…nice term that; Fall

             
            Is that a good place for a semicolon???  I think not.
             
            Most realize that blog comments are usually forgiving for errors in technical writing, and it is generally accepted that an informal writing style would be best suited for a pithy response and make for an entertaining read.
            And pointing to one’s mistakes, which you generally made but ultimately failed to do, is a sure sign that you have nothing else to give.
             
            Pathetic.

          • And pointing to one’s mistakes, which you generally made but ultimately failed to do…

            Further evidence.  Case proven; case closed.

          • Case proven; case closed.

             
            Gold star, man.  Nice work.
            See, this is a good example of the proper use of a semicolon: separating two related yet independent clauses.
             
            And with a little practice, you won’t make those same structural mistakes.  Keep it up, you just might elevate yourself to college freshman level.

          • Please, Poque…  I mean, we all make mistakes.  I dash these off and frequently leave typing errors.
            But nobody can make any sense of what you wrote.
            And that never BEGINS to address the stupid arguments you were attempting.  Try rewriting the sentence I quoted so it makes some sense.
            Good to see you’ve been bonging coffee since I called you on your condition, though.  Much more lucid…!!!

          • Please, Poque…
             
            Please, Raq…
             
            I mean, we all make mistakes.  I dash these off and frequently leave typing errors.
             
            Don’t we all?  Apparently, yours are meant to be forgiven.  My alleged mistakes you deride as drunken offensives.
            Truth is, there’s nothing grammatically wrong with my writings.  If you can’t make heads nor tails of it, that’s your problem.  Others here, for the better part of seven years, have had little trouble with my meaning.
            Now you and I may have gotten off on the wrong foot.  For that, I apologize.
             
            For if you have any questions as to my meaning, just ask me to rephrase.  I promise that I”ll try my best to draw it out to a more provincial understanding.
            Now if you’re laughing at that last statement, then we’re a lot closer already.
             
            Until then, Think Of Me as a mix of James Joyce and W.C. Fields.
            And I know what you’re thinking…
            How the f*ck can you consider yourself anywhere near James Joyce?
            …It’s hard to explain, man.  I don’t like it anymore than you do.  It’s my cross to bear.
             
            One more thing, though.

            Good to see you’ve been bonging coffee since I called you on your condition, though.  Much more lucid…!!!

            See, that’s funny to me because I’ve had no coffee.  In fact, I’ve drank all of my stout and have since moved on to my wife’s Pilsner.  And she will not be too happy about that when she gets home in a couple of hours.
             
            Until then, why don’t you address some of my arguments?  Even if you believe you have to speculate as to what I mean.
            After all, if I’m the drunken baffoon you believe me to be, then I shouldn’t be much of a challenge for an experience, practiced, and seasoned lawyer such as yourself.
             
            Slainte.
             

          • Challenge…?
            OH…I see…now you’re in your W.C. Fields mode…!!!!  That IS good…!!!!

  • “It removes guns as a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right and everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation,”
     
    Riiiiight – subject to regulation……weasel words for “let’s see how difficult we can make this AGAIN”.  You can own one, you just have to keep it locked in a gun safe, which has to be on the far side of a crocodile infested moat in your basement behind a 5 inch armor plated steel door.
     
     

    • You can own one, you just have to keep it locked in a gun safe, which has to be on the far side of a crocodile infested moat in your basement behind a 5 inch armor plated steel door.

      Actually, IIRC those sorts of law that was ruled unconstitutional in Heller. Essentially, laws that require guns to be inoperable are the same as those outlawing possession in the first place.

      • Yep, I know that was an essential part of the victory in Heller .
         
        However….you already have Daley in Chicago vowing to create a new way of restricting it.  They can’t keep you from owning them, the way to disarm you will be to make it difficult to own and use, legally.  Hassle you as much as they legally can.  They are not going to just go quietly into the night on this, any more than advocates of fire arms possession went away in DC.
        That’s why she’s clinging to the words “subject to regulation’.    In making up my scenario I wasn’t going to bother to help them with actual restriction possibilities that seem like they could reasonably work to effectively disarm you and still satisfy the Heller ruling.  But you can bet they’re out there right now scratching their pointed little heads to find them.

    • Chicago Gun Ban on Way Out, But Mayor Won’t Quit
      Does this issue sound like it is off the table  ?

  • Michael, I don’t understand why you push this meme about gun rights. That’s all you dense righties do: memes, memes, memes. We on the left don’t have to do that because we have post-modern multiple truths instead.

    Besides, don’t you know there’s no such thing as natural rights? Rights are granted by carbon-based forms of life that have the proper leftist sensibilities and good intentions. That’s why having the federal government force states to grant rights is wrong, wrong, wrong. Except when we wise leftists need it to be right, such as with abortion.

    Besides, guns are icky, and most of the people who are deluded enough to think they’re necessary are ex-military basket cases wigged out from the stress of serving in an imperialist military.

    Isn’t it great that you have an accomplished philosopher to give you this deep discussion of rights? I’m an economist too, completely qualified to lecture you dense righties on how valid and wonderful Keynesianism because it gives a great reason to give more power to wise leftists in government. Plus, I’m all over quantum physics, and when I have time I’ll post all about the Hindenberg Uncertainty Principle, and how everything in the universe superposes and sometimes kills cats in boxes. Plus there’s quantum funneling to discuss, and if I have time, I’ll tell you the mathematical makeup of Dilbert Space and quantum enfanglement.

    It’s too bad that you thick righties don’t understand the wonder and brilliance that is me, and how lucky you are that I come here and share my wisdom with you. Even though you insult me. That just tells me how truly right I am. Yes, if you won’t give me an endless supply of counter-arguments to handwave aside, then you’ve conceded that I’m right and you’re wrong. Besides, if you will go back and forth with me enough times, I’ll give you a condescending little head pat and tell you that you might be on the right track, though you’re still wrong.

    It’s all a matter of post-modern holy writ, which I’m also expert on. Though I don’t buy it. Except when I do. Depending on what I need to believe and express any particular day to lecture you on how wrong you are. Aren’t multiple truths great?

    And don’t start up about how I come here out of desperation to find someone who will listen to puerile leftist talking points and not ban me. I don’t need anyone to lecture down to just to save any shreds of self-worth. No sir. I’m accomplished and smart, and, darn it, people like me. And of course I have advanced degrees from places you’ve never heard of, which were not either granted just to get rid of me. And a book. Have I told you about that? A real book. I have a copy on my shelf. And it’s not either from a vanity press that specializes in suckering social science academics. Nope.

    My next book won’t be like that either. That’s why I hang around here, research for my book. Studying you righties, the same way Margaret Mead studied aborigines in… where ever it was. I’m an expert in anthropology, too, did you know? That’s why I’m calling my book “Righties in the Mist: Observing Righties in the Native Blog Habitats to Understand Why They’re Wrong About Everything.”

    • So its you who’s watching me…  I felt your eyes, man…

      • I had to abandon my earlier book, named “Why is War Easy? Because Dense Righties Like It.” I was working on it in the middle of the surge and I was just sure the demand for it would be high by the time I got it written, seeing as how the surge was certain to fail and expose Iraq as the biggest foreign policy disaster in our history. When Sadr won over Maliki, I was even more sure.

        But random quantum fluctuations in Dilbert Space caused the failure of the surge to be unapparent for a while. Then Obama came in and took control, and of course the surge then because a successful strategy. So I dropped that book and focused on the anthropological one.

        The title above is just one possibility. I’m also thinking of using “Righties in the Mist: The Bizarre Rituals of Sarah Palin Worshippers, as Seen in Their Native Blog Habitats.” I am just dumbfounded how you thick righties can continue to venerate Palin, just because she has full lips and an ample bosom, and winks at you through those naughty librarian glasses. Why, a reliable left-wing web site says she got free kitchen redecorations! How can you abide such corruption?

        Well, as I explain in my book, it’s because you’re mindless, sterile, inbred, and Nazi-like. That’s what my research indicates. I have notes that prove it.

    • Ott, you’re good but not 30 Pieces of Silver good!

      • Given that I work for low pay at a university with herds of moose roaming through campus, I would be content with thirty pieces of copper.

  • Actually, I think the flip side is that McDonald will bring guns back into the debate. Daley is going to try to find a “loophole”, for one. But more significant is that McDonald opens up state and local gun laws to legal attack.

    I expect that CA gun laws, like the law requiring gun safes, restricting the handguns sold in the state (approved list), banning so-called assault weapons, etc., will face challanges. The same will happen in states such as NY, NJ, etc. I believe Gura already has something moving forward in NC.

    McDonald will keep this issue moving forward. Democrats will no doubt defend their laws or attempt end runs like Daley and DC. The gun community will have their eyes open to all of this. Essentially, I expect the gun focused base will remain energized on this issue, while the Democrat antigun base will be demoralized.

    I don’t think this will work out well for Democrats this election cycle.

  • For [democrats], the court’s groundbreaking decision couldn’t have been more beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend against Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners.

    I’m thinking that Daley didn’t get that message, and will work tirelessly to keep RKBA on the front pages.

    Ragspierre and Don are right:

    1.  The dems are not going to give up, and we 2A supporters know it very well, and;

    2.  The blow is to the GFW’s: they’ve suffered a huge defeat that will likely be made worse by having to watch their “relieved” champions in the democrat party point to McDonald as reasons that people shouldn’t fear that the democrat party wants to abrogate their Constitutional right to armed self-defense.

    GFW – But… but… but… guns are like…  BAD!  And ICKY!  And people shouldn’t have them!

    democrat – Hey, the Court ruled.  Please shut up about it, OK?

    GFW – But… but… but… You said you agreed with US!  YOU PROMISED!  WE GAVE YOU MONEY!

    democrat – The Court has ruled.  PLEASE shut up about it until after the election, all right?

    GFW – WAAAHHHH!!!  I HATE YOU!  I HATE YOU!  YOU BETRAYED ME!!!!  I PAID YOU MONEY TO STICK IT TO THOSE MURDEROUS, RACIST GUN-TOTING REDNECKS, AND YOU SOLD ME OUT!!!  WAAAAAHHHH!!!

  • There is one way in which clever libertarian politicians can still use this issue. Use the court decision to force votes in localities to remove their (now obsolete) Gun restrictions.   This would still force the left to vote for or against it.

  • Most Democrats I know are in favor of gun rights.   But in some urban areas with high crime problems gun control is popular.    But the idea that Democrats want to disarm everyone is ridiculous — it’s sort of like saying that Republicans want poor children to starve.  It’s just stupid.  The ruling will depoliticize the issue, and gun control laws didn’t work anyway.

    • Prof. Erb continues to just make things up.  See http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1535/poll-state-local-governments-laws-banning-sale-possession-handguns.
       
      Currently only 30% of Democrats consider protecting gun rights more important than controlling gun ownership with 62% visa-versa. That’s an improvement from 23%/73% two years ago, but hardly a big Dem endorsement of gun rights.

      • Well, I live in Maine.  We’re a gun friendly blue state.  Our Republicans are often pro-choice, and our Democrats are pro-gun.  I think that’s healthy.

        • But your comment remains anecdotal and doesn’t apply to the nation as a whole as you posted it.
           
          It took me 30 seconds to google a liberal poll that contradicted your claim. Why didn’t you do the footwork?

    • It is obvious that when Democrats are safe in their power, they pass gun control laws even when they don’t expect the laws to reduce crime. This is very clear in my state of California. It is also clear in DC, Chicago, etc.

    • Oh, and Scott, this ruling brings the issue back up, it doesn’t depolitcize it. Daley and the rest will fight tooth and nail against the ruling. And legal challanges to gun control will be brought forward throughout the blue states.

      As Sacramento, Chicago, New York, and other gun control areas try to defend their laws, the issue will continue to be put into public view. When Dems actually concede their laws are unconstitutional, they will demoralize key portions of their base (even moreso than they are now).

      This ruling isn’t the quite end of the debate. Now, the details have to be hammered out in the various district courts. This is starting now (IIRC, Gura is filing in NC, and Heller II is moving forward). I wouldn’t be surprised if half a dozen or more suits were filed today.

  • But the idea that Democrats want to disarm everyone is ridiculous…

    Yeah, geez…  It’s not like there is a HISTORY here or anything…  Liar.

    • Now, now.  It’s perfectly true that democrats don’t want to disarm everyone.  I’m sure that (for example) DiFi certainly would support the right of people named Senator Diane Feinstein to keep and bear arms.  Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell doubtless feels the same way about their bodyguards.  I feel very certain that Jean-Francois Kerry and other democrats like him would defend to the death the right of democrat candidates to keep and bear arms during campaign commericals and appearances in rural areas / red states.  And what democrat would argue with the right of the police to bear arms?

      Common citizens, though… Not so much.

      ;-)

    • OK, when have the Democrats tried to disarm everyone?   Don’t just give a couple urban hand gun bans, defend the claim they want to “disarm everyone.”

  • What could possibly be more threatening to the white liberal establishment than common ground discovered between Al Sharpton and Clarence Thomas? Just the idea is enough to give our “progressive” friends chest pains.