Waffling Away Your Constitutional Rights

So, last night in the debate John "This Dog Won't Hunt" Kerry made this statement

I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

Interesting, isn't it, that he conveniently left off the second amendment. I guess, for Senator Eggo, the right to bear arms simply shouldn't be in the constitution, how else to explain this later statement:

I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

Hmm, how is a ban, if anything, not an infingement??? Of course, Kerry's next breath simply flipped from one side to the other

I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.

He respects it and won't tamper with it. I guess his plan is simply to appoint jurists who will tamper with it.

That of course, would be surprising given his general agreement that the right to bear arms is an individual right if we could believe he really felt this way. However, as the NRA has shown his commitment to the second amendment and the right of hunters (a related but different issue) is rather suspect.

Of course, his past positions notwithstanding, if Kerry really does believe the second amendment provides an individual right to bear arms doesn't that put his assault weapons ban and other past gun control positisions in direct conflict with the constitution and the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny test? As I stated a few weeks ago, this is a question begging further consideration because it

means a firearm law must be supported by not only a compelling state interest, but that the means chosen to address that interest are narrowly tailored and do not burden the Republic with an overbroad scheme. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 274 (1986). (For those not familiar with standards of review, this web page provides a good general overview). The end result of course, is that nearly every gun control measure supported by Kerry is unconstitutional.

Considering the importance of the Strict Scrutiny test in upholding the protections the Supreme Court now affords abortion, and for the protection of African American and other minority rights, I wonder what the pro choice and minority groups make of Kerry's desire to dilute its importance?