Deflection
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership wants to know why there’s mention of Dred Scott in Parker/Heller. Mind you, he calls it reliance on the case. He notes that Dred Scott is one of the more infamous cases. Let’s spell out Paul’s goals here, because he won’t. First, he’s deflecting the fact that some in the pro-gun community have lately been bringing up the racist roots of gun control. And, pretty much, in Dred Scott, the court said they didn’t want no armed blacks:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to . . . keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The second, of course, is the subtle implication of racism. I find it funny since, you know, Paul’s goals are more in line the racist roots of gun control.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I’m pretty sure you got that quote wrong. It must have said:
After all, there’s 432 years of settled jurisprudence stating the 2A only protects militias. It’s only been a modern invention of that rogue DC court that says otherwise!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
You should use snark tags. For a second, I believed you.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Yeah, I was wondering if 432 years was enough of a tip-off.