« Fast and Furious: Holder moves to appeal ruling | Main | EPA closes last primary lead smelter in US »
A problem with polling
Dave Workman's article covers the only part of the seven hour U Conn. symposium that seems to be getting coverage: an Aggie law prof called for repealing the Second Amendment (and, the coverage leaves unmentioned, substituting an amendment saying that while States can do anything they want regarding guns, Congress can't do anything, anything, about weapons smaller than a tank).
He highlights a problem often seen in polling. At one point she asked how many in the room thought the legislative and judicial response to violent crime had been adequate, and not a hand went up. I think she took that as proof that every person wanted more gun laws, and for them to be sustained. I, on the other hand, didn't raise my hand because I thought Congress had passed many nonsensical gun laws and, apart from the Seventh Circuit, the lower courts had done a poor job enforcing Heller and McDonald. Without asking the details, the results of a poll can be quite misleading. President Obama would probably draw approval rating near zero if you polled pure Marxists, and President Bush II would poll badly among the Tea Party.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
If one doesn't ask the right questions then it usually doesn't matter what one gets for an answer. In this particular debate and many others, the questions are most often lousy and rarely get to the marrow. Emotion, blind bias, bad information and even worse analysis carries the day when no one can be bothered with logic, meaningful data and true root cause analysis.
The problem with repealing the 2nd is that it doesn't repeal anything. See US v Cruikshank for more explanation.
The Rights enumerated in the Constitution preexist the Constitution and do not depend on inclusion in the list to exist. The 2nd grants nothing. The 2nd merely states that the Right exists and shall not be infringed, AT ALL, by ANY government. Barron was so wrong, having absolutely no grounds for the determination.
AND the 9th still exists.
The idea presented by this polling is exactly the kind of thinking those who opposed adding a Bill of Rights said would happen. As was recognized by those who created the Constitution, the federal government was not given power to legislate in any of the areas covered by the Bill of Rights. Those opposed said inclusion of the Bill of Rights would simply make folks THINK 1) the power existed and 2) that the Bill of Rights was necessary to keep Congress from legislating in areas for which no power was granted.
...Article 5, section one : Lets do it. Repeal the 2nd amendment. A vote of each house of Congress should commence this next spring. Get those bastards on record as to their true intent.
...Lets roll ! I want to know how each of them stand.