SelwynDuke.com

Obama’s and Holder’s Selective Constitutional Deafness

By Selwyn Duke

Often a phenomenon of bad marriages, “selective deafness” is when one hears only what is convenient. The same failing manifests itself in government when politicians and judges hear the Constitution talk only when it sings their tune. Worse still, sometimes these people behave as if the document says things it doesn’t. This is the equivalent of hearing things.

The Supreme Court and Faux-marriage Fallacies

By Selwyn Duke

With cultural defenders such as some of our conservatives, who needs liberals? One could draw this conclusion when observing the Proposition 8 case currently before the Supreme Court.

So far we have we heard arguments about the “sociological” impact of faux marriage and, from pro-marriage (conservative) lawyer Charles Cooper, about awaiting “additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing,” as if the case is just a matter of whether the Court should be an agent of social engineering at this time and in this instance. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the swing vote in the case, weighed in on both sides of the debate, saying, “There’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have 5 years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.” But he also claimed that California’s “40,000 children with same-sex parents…want their parents to have full recognition and full status” and asked Cooper, “The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” My answer?

No, it isn’t.

If I Were a Governor….

By Selwyn Duke

If I were a governor, the first thing I’d do is scrutinize the school curriculum in my state. For the teachings in the schools today will be the ideology of tomorrow, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

I’d review as much of the material as I could myself, and if the volume was too great, I’d appoint like-minded traditionalists to help with the task. But gone would be the revisionist history, radical environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism, politically correct teaching models, and most other pseudo-intellectual “innovations” of the last century. Tradition would be resurrected and exalted, the classics would be taught, and the moral supremacy of the old Western civilization emphasized. I would be mindful of G.K. Chesterton’s words: “It ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest children, the assured and experienced truths that are put first to the baby. But in a school today the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself.”

The Great Gun Debate: Joshpe Responds

By Brett Joshpe

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to debate and respond to Selwyn Duke's piece, which makes many very reasonable points. Its biggest deficiency is that it never actually proposes measures --whether specific new regulations or repeal of specific existing ones -- that would improve the current system. Instead, Mr. Duke says he would scale back gun laws from 22,000 to 5,000, two arbitrary numbers, neither of which bear any correlation to smart policy.

Before discussing potential policy responses, let me say that Mr. Duke is quite right that thousands of gun laws, unsurprisingly, did not eliminate crime (I am unaware of anybody who ever suggested that they would, or of any law that ever has). I find wholly unpersuasive the suggestion that laws -- particularly new laws -- are unnecessary because "bad guys" will not follow them or because they will fail to eliminate a problem completely.

Read the rest here.

The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe

The following is my first entry in a gun debate with Politico writer Brett Joshpe. I will post a link to his response when it is published.

By Selwyn Duke

A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It’s not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let’s discuss what’s “sensible.”

Joe Biden: No Reason to Ban AR-15s

By Selwyn Duke

Okay, half-slow laughin’ Joe didn’t actually say that, but he might as well have. While defending his position a week ago that banning the rifles incorrectly called “assault weapons” won’t negatively impact upon Americans’ safety, he pointed out that you shouldn’t trouble yourself: shotguns would still be available — and they’re more effective, anyway. He said, reports the Daily Caller:

A shotgun will keep you a lot safer — a double-barreled shotgun — than an assault weapon in somebody’s hand who doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it. You know, it’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun.

[…]You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.

Alright, Joe; if you’re talking about close-quarters self-defense, you’ll get no argument from me. Now, would you again explain why you want to ban AR-15s?

Ten Piers Morgan Gun Lies, Untruths, and Deceptions

By Selwyn Duke

It’s probably not quite true that gun-control advocate Piers Morgan has been “standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook,” as Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro put it. It’s more correct to say that the cheeky Brit has been standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, jumping up and down, and stamping his foot. I can say nothing else about a man who repeatedly combines the Newtown tragedy with lies, misconceptions, and deceptions to push a political agenda. What am I talking about? Well, here’s a top 10 list.

Walmart and the 100-round magazine

Morgan wrote in the Daily Mail, “I can saunter into Walmart — America’s version of Tesco — and help myself to an armful of … magazines that can carry up to 100 bullets at a time.” Perhaps he could.

But he can’t.

Read the rest here.

Piers Morgan Takes Aim at the Bible

By Selwyn Duke

You’ve got to hand it to bloviating Brit Piers Morgan. While he got most of the facts wrong in his recent targeting of the Second Amendment, it hasn’t stopped him from moving on to even more formidable targets.

Such as the Bible.

He says the book is “inherently flawed” — and needs to be amended.

Revealing Gun-owners Names Reveals Truth

By Selwyn Duke

A birdcage liner in my county of Westchester, NY, The Journal News, has made national headlines by releasing the addresses of county residents licensed to own a handgun. The paper claims that in the wake of the Newtown shooting, citizens want to know more about the arsenals their neighbors may possess. Of course, the rag’s real motivation is obvious: it wants to “out” firearms owners. The thinking is, “Hey, you want to own a gun? Then we’re going to put you in the pusillanimous people’s pillory, where all things manly and traditional belong.” Hence the title of the Journal piece, “The gun owner next door,” which could be followed with “The pedophile next door” or “The terrorist next door.” Ooh, scary. I’m more worried about the journalist next door.

Not surprisingly, the paper is taking a lot of heat for revealing who is packing heat. And one of the more common criticisms reveals a truth.

It's Official: Mayor Bloomberg Needs Mental Help

By Selwyn Duke

Since removing constitutional rights is all the rage now, I have to ask: when does dislocation from reality become severe enough to justify involuntary commitment? A good study case is NYC's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently uttered a real gem on his weekly radio show. Writes Politicker.com:

"I don't think there's anybody that's defended the Second Amendment as much as I have, Ray," Mr. Bloomberg said to a caller who asked him why he was "so against" the constitutional passage. "I think you have a perfect right to buy weapons and keep them for protection or for sport. We have tried to make sure that you have it."

Well, take that, Wayne LaPierre. You thought you were the point man on gun rights, but you're actually outshone by Little Big Gulp, who has defended the Second Amendment more than "anybody."