Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate [More]
Which is why those presuming to be our leaders had better start advancing core purpose.
As an aside, that smugly grinning self-styled know-it-all in the video is as irritating to watch as she is ignorant, but it is important to note the grabbers are returning to pre-Heller arguments that they gave up on for a while but are now bringing back with a vengeance.
And my challenge still stands.
[Via Jess]
2 comments:
There are some basic misunderstandings that are cultivated by politicians, the press, and the courts.
1. The Second Amendment has had only a limited relevance in knowledgeable "gun debate" since SCOTUS rendered their decision in US v Cruikshank 1n 1876. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is mentioned in the Second Amendment, but does not come from it. Those who go on about Second Amendment rights do so out of ignorance and/or because they've heard the phrase so many times. In fact, no rights whatsoever are granted by any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those amendments merely set limits on the Federal and state governments as to how far they may legally go in limiting those pre-existing rights.
2. The NRA has essentially no political power. The power that NRA wields comes from its membership pretty much like federal power is delegated to the federal government by the states. Ask yourself what would happen to NRA's power if all of its members quit and perhaps joined other organizations. Obviously those members' political power would go with them. So just as obviously, that power is inherent in the members, not the organization.
The very first sentence is a lie, and the article continues to lie all the way to the end:
"Second Amendment didn’t protect your right to own a gun until 2008"
Bullshit. By that logic, the First Amendment didn't protect your freedom of the press until 1907, the first SCOTUS case on the subject.
Post a Comment