This is honestly embarrassing. I've seen more balanced and serious Second Amendment analysis from literal gun-control groups. I laughed when the reporter puzzled through who exactly has the right to keep and bear arms. If only the Constitution directly told us that part!
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1454246704425938946
This report couldn't even get the basics right. 8 states have may-issue concealed-carry laws, not 6. Miller said the sawed off shotguns weren't protected under the Second Amendment because they weren't useful in militia service, not because the plaintiffs weren't in the militia.
Did the people putting together this report ever wonder why the Supreme Court didn't take a Second Amendment case until 1939? Could it be because the federal government didn't have gun laws until that decade? But, how could that be if everyone agreed gun rights weren't real? 🤔
This piece gives literally zero credence to anything but the furthest left view of the Second Amendment and the history of the gun-rights movement in America. It doesn't even feign an attempt at examining a different point of view.
There's a reason the framework the Supreme Court adopted in Heller is called the standard model. Despite what this video would like you to believe, it's not just Federalist Society accolades who agree the Second Amendment is reserved to The People just like the 4th or 1st.
There is a way to discuss the view that the Second Amendment merely protected a collective right and was effectively meaningless, which was a common view in the 20th century and is still held by some today, and balance it against the current prevailing view. This piece isn't it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
