JAMA bias

A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Assoc. (2008;300(13):1575-1577) shows that even Doctors can be fooled.

It's opening statement claims that the Heller v DC decision recognized that the BOR "grants" rights:

"In District of Columbia v Heller, The Supreme Court held, for the first time in its history, that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to possess and use firearms for personal use..."

Yet, in the majority opinion is written (page 19, first paragraph):

"The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . .”

In the Stevens dissent is written (page 17, first paragraph) wrote:

"And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment . . codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right."

Not a very astute beginning for a scholarly article, eh?

The conclusion is just as telling:

A bare majority of the Supreme Court—in the most strident
and dismissive terms—has thus sided with, and given
voice to, ardent opponents of firearm safety regulation.

Yep that's right. If we oppose bans defacto and dejure, we oppose safety. I'm surprised he didn't try the "give guns to little kids" bit.

His citations are just as entertaining. Wintemute, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, and Bloomberg. How much Joyce Foundation funding can we cite in one place?

No. No bias here. Not many facts either.