Thread by @kurteichenwald

1. Oh, if it wasn't for that pesky 2nd Amendment, smokeless powder sawed off shotguns and submachine guns could be made illegal! But of course, that's impossible.

Wait...what? They ARE illegal? You can only own one under very speicific circumstances? But..but...@FoxNews and...

2...the @NRA & idiot gunners online tell me that you can't do ANYTHING because of the 2nd Amendment. How could it be possible that those are illegal?

Well, too bad it's unconstitutional to ban high cap magazines. Wait...what? There are cities in America where they ARE banned?...

3...well, those must be lawbreaking cities, flouting the constitution.

Wait, what? The NRA sued, lost, and the Supreme Court did not even deign to hear the appeal, letting it stand. So high cap mags CAN be banned, and it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment?.....

4...the bottom line of my sarcasm: Idiots and propagandists online and vomiting on TV have absolutely no idea what the 2nd Amendment is or what it does. People who say "I can read it myself!" are constitutional toddlers, who seem to believe that THEIR interpretation has some....

5....meaning or weight. It has none. Only one body has the Constitutional authority to state what the Constitution means: The Supreme Court. And the reason why gunners and the NRA and @FoxNews never tell you about the details of Supreme Court decisions on 2nd Amendment is that...

6...they are deceived, intentionally lying, or too dumb to read the rulings. How things stand now: The opening clause effectively does not exist - ridiculous, but Scalia in Heller ruled with the majority that this was a "prefatory clause" - a term so foreign to grammar that....

7...if you Google it, what comes up is a bunch of stuff about Scalia and Heller. So, not only did Scalia "the strict constructionist" declare words in the Bill of Rights could be ignored, but he essentially made up a term of grammar to prove it. However, as things now stand,....

8...that is the 2nd Amendment: No opening clause about "well regulated militia." HOWEVER, as Scalia ALSO makes abundantly clear in Heller, this does NOT mean that the 2nd Amendment is some absolute right to have any gun you want. Juts like with every other right, there...

9...is a balancing test - societal interests versus personal actions. I cannot invoke the first amendment as giving me the constitutional right to incite violence or threaten a terrorist attack. The Supreme Court has NEVER declared ANY right is absolute. So what matters is....

10...what does the court say about the second half of the 2nd Amendment? About banning accessories? Nothing. The only attempt to overturn an accessory ban to ever come close to SCOTUS - high cap mags - was swatted away without comment. About banning particular guns? Scalia....

11...not only made clear that US v Miller stood (with some falderal about the opening clause, however) and that was the case about banning sawed-off shotguns. So, I dont CARE what you think the 2nd amendment means, just like you should care what *I* think it means. What we....

12...interpret the constitution to mean has as much importance as fly dung on your desk. SCOTUS, under our constitutional system, is all that matters. And yes, the country can ban particular guns and accessories and require background checks and the 2nd Amend never comes....

13...into play. Now, here is how you know the Parkland kids are smarter than @FoxNews and all their troll-bots: They somehow know the law. If you look at what they say they want - as opposed to what Fox and other liars SAY they want - it falls directly within the power...

14...and authority of the legislative and executive branch, as given by the judicial branch in precedent. So, these kids are saying "Here is what is allowed, and what government should do" & @FoxNews's of the world reply "You're POOPYHEADS! And not old enough to talk about this..

15...which, as you notice - one side is talking about policy, the other is name-calling, insulting haircuts, clothing and words (and this is the one claiming to be "adult.")

So no, I disagree with Justice Stephens. We do not need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I *do* believe it...

16...would tear the country apart. But we must STOP believing the @NRA and @Foxnews propaganda that has deluded so many about what the 2nd Amendment means. This country can establish sane gun rules AND have a 2nd Amendment. Know how I know that? Supreme Court says so.