Posted August 5, 2019 12:00 pm by Comments

By Tom Knighton

It’s hilarious whenever the New Republic opts to pretend like anyone who writes there actually understands the Second Amendment. It would be like Amy Schumer talking about dieting or Alyssa Milano talking about, well, anything. They don’t know the subject yet desperately want people to think that they do.

The latest example is from historian Saul Cornell and him trying desperately to make the case that gun control is consistent with the Second Amendment.

As part of this comprehensive reappraisal, we need to tackle head-on the most stubborn political obstacle to meaningful progress on fashioning effective gun laws: the myths attached to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This long-embellished mythology is so powerful that before his death, retired Justice John Paul Stevens even suggested repealing or rewriting this feature of our Constitution to facilitate this process of change. Some commentators indeed interpreted Stevens’s suggestion as a vindication of the fatalist view that the Second Amendment will always thwart effective reform efforts: How can we do anything significant and not run straight into “America’s First Freedom?”

But the actual background to the constitutional protection of the right to bear arms tells a very different story. Although …Read the Rest

Source:: Bearing Arms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.