“An expansive Second Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court could restrict or prohibit the sensible solutions that have been shown can end gun violence,” said Jonathan Lowy, vice president and chief counsel at the gun violence prevention group Brady. Lowy included state laws requiring a justification to carry a gun as examples of such “sensible solutions.” [More]
I guess if you're a violence monopolist that makes perfect sense.
1 comment:
"Until Barrett came along, some justices who favor gun rights questioned whether Chief Justice John Roberts would provide a fifth, majority-making vote “for a more expansive reading of the Second Amendment,” said George Washington University law professor Robert Cottrol, who said he hoped the court would now broaden gun rights."
Even the guys supposedly on our side have trouble with the concept. NSRPA is not looking to "broaden gun rights." They're looking to restore them closer to what the Founders intended, and what the Second Amendment was written and ratified to protect.
' "An expansive Second Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court could restrict or prohibit the sensible solutions that have been shown can end gun violence,” said Jonathan Lowy, vice president and chief counsel at the gun violence prevention group Brady. Lowy included state laws requiring a justification to carry a gun as examples of such “sensible solutions.” '.
Note again the phrase "expansive Second Amendment ruling" instead of perhaps "restorative Second Amendment ruling" which would be closer to the truth but completely against the gun controllers' narrative. And there's still no explanation, and probably never will be, if these infringements of that which "shall not be infringed" actually worked to "end gun violence" given that we have somewhere around 20,000 of them, why does "gun violence" still exist?
Post a Comment