"[T]he Second Amendment is simply not relevant to the US gun debate,” Buchanan assures us. “None of the proposals to limit gun purchases, to limit (or even ban) carrying weapons in public, to require background checks, to forbid gun ownership by domestic abusers, to limit magazine capacities, or any other proposal on the horizon even comes close to bumping up against the Second Amendment.” [More]You'd think he'd have a better argument than Julianne Moore.
3 comments:
Technically correct, though, as you know. It simply affirms a right that pre-existed the Constitution. :)
Technically incorrect. Four words that debunk that arguement - "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
The ONLY place in The Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights or any other Amendment to the Constitution where those words are used.
Ah, so you think the Second Amendment grants the right? That the right to keep and bear arms is not a natural human right?
How ... interesting.
And contrary to case law, but your law degree is probably fresher than the old sots who wrote Cruikshank.
Post a Comment