When I first began this blog, I wrote a post about the Second Amendment, where I argued that liberals (like me) who wished for other sections of the Bill of Rights to be interpreted as broadly as possible shouldn't try to read the Second Amendment from a narrower viewpoint. The Bill of Rights isn't the buffet line at Sizzler, from which you can pick and choose what you support. Intellectual honesty demands that you either support it or you don't.
Which is why I find conservatives' stammering over the Supreme Court's decision so embarrassingly ludicrous. First, Scalia wrote that "persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else" and then, today Mickey Craig (a contributor to the Ashbrook Center's No Left Turns blog) writes that the "whole idea of limited government assumes that human beings can and should govern themselves."
What's amazing here is that these people are missing the entire point of the right to amend the constitution, which was designed expressly to protect the individual (or the minority) from the inherent excesses of pure majority rule. The Bill of Rights, in fact, is the very essence of the argument for "limited government." If the Scalias and Craigs of the world are willing to just toss out the Bill of Rights for a simple majority, they would soon find their guns sitting on the curb, waiting to be picked up by the ATF.