Snowflakes in Hell

From StrategyPage:

When the fighting ended, ten police officers and soldiers had been wounded, but three of the drug gang were dead and ten more, some of them wounded, were in custody.  A considerable arsenal was confiscated, including 7 automatic weapons, 16 “sniper rifles,” a dozen automatic pistols, and a grenade launcher, plus grenades and ammunition, as well as flack jackets and some radios.  Much of the equipment appeared to have come from the U.S. 

They were identified as operatives of the Heriberto Lazcano drug gang, commonly known as the “Gulf Cartel.”  Among the prisoners were three Mexican-Americans, apparently all U.S. citizens, one from Texas and two from Michigan, apparently professional criminals hired to provided additional muscle.

Most of that firepower would be illegal in the United States as well, so I’m having a hard time believing we’re the source of it.  Grenades, grenade launchers, automatic weapons, are all too heavily restricted to have been sourced here.

This guy says it’s not.  I’m in agreement with SayUncle’s analysis.  I agree with Right Side of the Rainbow on this point:

For what it’s worth, I think we should pay close attention to the legal framework outlined in the administration’s brief. I’d wager that the Supreme Court adopts it, or something close to it.

The last sentence there is why I had such a negative reaction to the brief.  In my mind it opened the door to the court to rule in favor of an individual right, but based on an interpretation that intended to uphold every federal gun law, and will make attacking state laws, like Massachusetts byzantine licensing system, and New Jersey’s “maybe we’ll issue you one this year, if we feel like it.” permitting system for purchasing handguns.

My outrage in this is mellowing a bit, because perhaps I am expecting too much from The Court in Heller.  If, in order to get a majority to rule in favor of an individual right, they need a track of reasoning that the liberals feel comfortable with, perhaps this is a way they could go without handing us an outright defeat.

If The Court did adopt the government’s position would I consider it a victory or a defeat?   I think I’d have to still consider it a victory, because it will at least force the lower courts to start asking the proper questions, even if the ultimate result is not being able to use Heller to get rid of as many gun control laws as we would like.  My big disappointment is that the government’s brief is that it merely calls for “heightened scrutiny”, which implies the government is after something less than strict scrutiny.  What level of heightened would make the government happy?  No doubt whatever level is necessary to uphold the vast majority of federal prohibitions.  That should not be the concern when it comes to constitutional matters.  The Second Amendment deserves the same standard of scrutiny as every other part of the Bill of Rights.

It wasn’t too long ago Bitter and I were discussing this “Cross on the Road” phenomena.  But neither of us could have talked about it in a way that’s as creative and amusing as Tam’s writing on the subject.

Thanks to Geek With a .45 for this link. Follow it, watch all the videos. It is some truly excellent stuff. This man is facing The Inqusition a Canadian government inquiry demanding answers as to why he published cartoons that were deemed offensive to Islam. Here is the first video, just for your perusal. Watch all of them:

We must never let this happen in our country. Never! Bravo to Mr. Levant for standing up for his rights.

From Ian Argent, in the comments, speaking about The Administration’s filing on DC’s side in DC v. Heller:

They slapped gun owners in the face with a fish. Sushi-grade fish, with some tasty sauce, but still, a slap in the face with a fish…

Best metaphor of this whole sorry affair that I think we’re going to see.