So, the Supreme Court has recently heard arguments on Heller v. D.C. involving the 2nd amendment and gun control. It seems likely that the conservative members of the Court will interpret the Amendment to allow an individual right to own guns. This is the true crux of this case, as a finding in this direction will then allow the conservative majority to overturn the D.C. handgun prohibition.  In light of the conservative majority's potential ruling, I got to thinking about the ramifications of what the Court might do.  

The question seems to me to revolve around what will actually change in the U.S. if the Court finds an individual Constitutional right to own guns, incorporates it to apply to the states through the 14th amendment, and strikes down the D.C. gun regulation paving the way for all gun regulations anywhere in the country to be struck down by future Federal court action. 

I think about this question as this would be the perfect ruling from the perspective of the right wing gun owners and their lobbying group the NRA.

While those of us on the left might see a ruling such as this as disastrous,  I do not understand why.  Put another way, what is wrong with giving on the gun control front?  To me, this issue appears similar to the issue with the ending of the federally mandated speed limit.  At that time, there were some who posited that raising the 65 mph speed limit on rural interstates would result in a large increase in the number of highway deaths in this country. However, to the best of my knowledge, that hasn't occurred.  It has been several years since I last looked at the speed limit issue, but I feel relatively confident in saying that at worst, the rate of decline of the number of highway deaths in this country slowed, but a spike from high speed limits never occurred.  I could be wrong about that assertion though.

I believe a similar thing would occur if right wing gun owners got their wish.  Is there really pent up demand in NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, and all the other cities with restrictions on handgun ownership?  Are gun ownership rates in those areas going to skyrocket if the regulations are gone?  If gun ownership rates skyrocket, does that mean that gun deaths are going to also skyrocket?  I don't think that either of those two things will come about because I don't think that there is pent up demand for guns in those cities.  Perhaps, if gun ownership rates in those cities do spike, there might be a spike in the number of accidental shootings or gun accidents, but in terms of widespread shootings I just don't see that developing. 

This whole discussion leads to the question of the political effects on the liberal agenda as a whole on the devotion to gun control. Is this devotion costing votes in rural areas that could be garnered in attempting to develop a greater progressive majority?  Possibly, but I also am not sure that even if gun control didn't exist that rural voters would reassess their positions and find themselves to be Democrats.

Apparently, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are meeting with John Edwards attempting to secure an endorsement.

At this point however, a simple question needs to be asked. Namely, Who cares who John Edwards endorses?

I am sure that everyone who actively follows politics, reads political blogs, or is otherwise involved in the political world cares about that endorsement. It remains to be seen if anyone outside of that relatively limited group cares. What votes is an Edwards endorsement for Obama going to pull? I don't know if I am remembering this correctly, but didn't the SEIU in Washington pull their endorsement from Edwards and give it to Obama before the Washington caucuses? If that is the case, meaning if Edwards supporters are endorsing Obama, or Clinton for that matter, before Edwards issues an endorsement, doesn't that cheapen his endorsement?

It seems to me that candidates have a limited time after they drop out of a race, maybe only a couple of days, in which their endorsement actually matters. On the one hand, a dropped out candidates former supporters more than likely will move on to another candidate rapidly, which is what I alluded to above. On the other hand, the news narrative dramatically shifts away from the dropped out candidate to the other two candidates. At the point the news narrative shifts, the dropped out candidate ceases to matter. Consequently, I would hypothesize that an Edwards endorsement is next to useless at this point because 1) his organizational supporters have moved on to other candidates and 2) it has been at least a 1 week news cycle narrative in which he wasn't involved.

The only problem is that "next to useless" is still useful in such a close race as exists for the Democratic nomination. Using the framework from Timothy Noah on Slate, of Momentucrats versus Arithmecrats, one can see how an Edwards endorsement would matter. For the Momentucrats, the endorsement matters because it would appear that the candidate who secures the endorsement would be gaining momentum. From this perspective it is imperative for Obama to get the endorsement to add to 2 weeks of victories. For Clinton, an Edwards endorsement breaks up Obama's "momentum" such as it may be. From the Arithmecratic perspective, every little bit helps in future contests, and any amount of voters that an Edwards endorsement brings is worth seeking that endorsement for both the remaining campaigns. As a caveat, I really don't know what happens  to Edwards' pledged delegates under the Party rules at this point.