Very short post.  All day long Drudge has been doing something weird – it seems to me – with Scalia’s statements about regulations of firearms, which are just about the most obvious thing in the world.  Maybe Matt Drudge doesn’t know it, but nothing Scalia said is any surprise at all.

“Scalia Warns: Guns May Be Regulated.”

No ***t.  Wow, ain’t that a corker.

Well, duh, Matt.  Tell us something we don’t already know.

Guns already *are* regulated at the Federal and State and Local level, and that practice has been going on for a long time now. There is no surprise in the ongoing process of judicial review.   There are hundreds of cases across the country that are ongoing.

Everything can be regulated in our country, including regulation itself.   This is not a shocking concept.

I don’t understand why Drudge has been running the headline all day today because it’s a no-news headline, and what Scalia said is about as uncontroversial as it could be.

“We’ll see,” he said. ‘”It will have to be decided.”  And similar statements saying that new developments might require adjudication.  I mean, what’s really the story there?  If he had said:  “Guns cannot be regulated” then the next question would have been:  “Why are they?”

So I’m wondering what Drudge is trying to achieve here.

If he’s trying to tell people who already own firearms that they can be regulated, they already know that.
If he’s trying to tell people who oppose people owning firearms they can be regulated, they already know that, too.
If he’s trying to tell people who study the issue from a legislative point of view they can be regulated, those people most assuredly understand that in a very deep and intrusive way, believe me bucko.  You can bet that Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer know *that*.
If he’s trying to tell people that Scalia said something on television, he could have just made the headline:  “Scalia Says Something on Television.”  But everyone pretty much knew that.

I’m not sure what Drudge is trying to demonstrate with the headline except that he is a master of the obvious.  If he wanted to talk more constructively about what the reality is, Scalia’s statements are very bland.  He should have linked directly to the article at National Journal talking about what Obama might actually DO as the President.

Here is that article, by Major Garrett of National Journal:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726

Scalia’s statements are about as PH neutral as you can imagine in comparison to the steps Obama is considering.