The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence [More]
I see some interesting points raised in the abstract and look forward to carving out the time to read the whole paper.
[Via Michael G]
Friday, October 02, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Me here again. Mr. Quibble.
If you know anything about Frank Luntz, you know that his stock in trade is the meanings and/or emotions tied to but not necessarily stated by the words chosen. You should also be aware that controlling the language used in a discussion gives one an edge in controlling the discussion itself. Think of the uses of phrases like "right to life", "assault weapon", "common sense gun safety" just to cite some common examples. One of my favorite pet peeves is RINO -- Republican In Name Only. This is commonly used to describe a Republican who is not behaving as a conservative should. An assumption is being made there, which in some ways says more about the person using the phrase than the person being described.
Simply put, the Republican Party has never been, is not currently, and probably never will be an organization of conservatives. If you're assuming your local candidate with (R) next to his/her name is a conservative, you're making a mistake that just may well cost you bigly.
So why am I posting this here?
"The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence"
WTF are the writers talking about? If the Second Amendment went away tomorrow, what would happen? Would our RKBA go with it? SCOTUS ruled in US v Cruikshank that there is little connection between 2A and RKBA. The amendment merely says the right exists, and forbids the government from infringing upon it.
So the Second Amendment is not the Right to Keep and bear Arms anymore than it is about sporting goods, or any more than your (R) politician is guaranteed to be a conservative.
Don't let the subtle differences bite you when you're not looking.
Post a Comment