What Objectivity Looks Like

I have never heard of the Alyona Show, but apparently it exists on the RT network. and Ladd Everitt from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and J.P. Freire from the Washington Examiner appeared on it in regards to the McDonald ruling:


She asked tough questions of both sides, and was intelligent and informed about the issue. Not to mention kind of hot. Note that RT is Russia Today. What is Russia today?

RT was launched as Russia Today by an autonomous non-profit organization in 2005. However, much the funding to this organization, ANO TV-Novosti is injected from Russian Federal Budget (2.4 Billion Rubles in 2007 [1]). In 2007, RT’s monthly audience share exceeded that of CNN and Bloomberg TV among NTV-PLUS satellite subscribers in Moscow.

Get that? The former commies are managing to have better coverage of our issues than CNN and Bloomberg. This is a sad, friggin state of affairs for our media here when the Russian Government manages to fund media that’s more objective and informed than our own. God help us.

6 thoughts on “What Objectivity Looks Like”

  1. Dear Sebastion, the more I am reading about this ruling and the legal and policy responses to it, the more I fear it has become a hollow victory.

    Again, we hear of “reasonable regulations,” which are, in fact, infringements being allowed to accompany the right to bear arms. Already, Mayor Daley is formulating regulations that in his own words will render the decision void of effect.

    Forgive my pessimism, but I don’t feel like celebrating. Allowing violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause is just as treasonous and tyrannical as violating the “right to keep and bear arms” phrase of the Amendment, perhaps more so.

    Also, the militia reference in the preamble makes it clear that private ownership of military arms is especially protected, yet I don’t see any protection for them in the gist of this ruling – every comment in the news has only involved handgun rights for personal self defense. This may be a 14th and 9th Amendments victory, but this ruling, like Heller, clearly does nothing to secure my Second Amendment rights.

    And until these “reasonable regulation” infringements are absolutely banned by the Court (as they are by the 2A), then our work is not done – indeed, it hasn’t even begun!

    This is why substantive due process theory is so odious: my “rights” become subject to the whims of a judge or judges, not codified as a priviledge or immunity in the letter of the supreme law.

    You are right: we do need four more Clarence Thomases on the Court!



  2. Arnie,

    It’s way too soon to determine whether it’s going to be a hollow victory, and we don’t have much evidence now that it will be. We have a ruling that basically incorporates Heller, in very strong language about it being a fundamental right.

    Not all gun control will be unconstitutional. But we knew that going into this. Not all speech restrictions are unconstitutional either, but we have broad protections for speech nonetheless.

    Will RKBA be as broad? Hopefully. We now have two fairly strong opinions that hopefully lower courts treat seriously. Time will tell.

  3. Arnie,

    Heller and McDonald are essentially baby steps. Heller established that 2A protections apply to individuals, but only against the Feds. McDonald adds that it applies against the states, as well. Neither really establishes any scope of what that protection entails beyond forbidding an outright ban on all firearm ownership. That will have to be established in future cases.

    It’s far from ideal, and it’s certainly not right, but they are steps forward.

    As far as Mayor Daley’s goal of rendering the decision “void of effect,” I hope those words can be used to sue him personally for civil rights violations, and render him financially bankrupt (to match his moral bankruptcy).

  4. First, yeah, she is kind of hot, in a Rachel Ray sort of way.

    Second, twice in two years now we have dicta from the Court on what ‘reasonable’ gun laws are – criminals can’t buy or own guns, neither can those ruled to be mentally unstable, and guns can’t be carried in schools. No words saying or suggesting that registration or licensing or anything else is reasonable.

    What is really tragic is that we have been fighting for 40 years over what was so clear back in the day:

    William Rawle’s “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:
    The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

    Seems like then there was no question that the Second could be applied against the states.

  5. Gentlemen, thank you all so very much for somewhat calming my trepidations regarding “reasonable” regulations. I deeply appreciate your considerable insights into the historical progress of RKBA through its judiciary journey. I must admit the path does appear to be heading in the right direction. But it may take a few more of these “baby step” victories before I can look without suspicion on “reasonable regulations.”. As I said, I am a pessimist.

    As for comparing free speech restrictions with RKBA infringements, may I humbly offer that I’m not sure either are constitutional if you adhere to original intent? My understanding has been that the Founders intended speech to mean purely political opining (not obscenity or slander), and would tolerate absolutely no restrictions whatsoever upon it – hence the outrage over and repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and hopefully also of the recent “disclose” bill. Within that narrow confinement of original intent, I believe their prohibition on abridging political opinions be considered essentially absolute. If we apply the same test to the Second Amendment, I believe we could make (at least against the Federal Governent) the same absolute claim. I fear to give ground on the plain meaning of words in light of the liberal propensity to make them mean something different, even opposite, of the Founders intent, and thus inimical to our Creator-endowed rights.

    But sincerely, gentlemen, I do feel much better after your optimistic assessments.

    Thank you!!!


Comments are closed.