Second Amendment sends liberal media into temper tantrum

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by tracker, Jun 28, 2008.

  1. tracker

    tracker Guest


    Hear that? That's the national media throwing a temper tantrum over the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to own firearms.

    No, the Second Amendment is not limited to those in a militia. No, it's not merely a collective right. No, it's not just about 200-year-old muskets. The Justices said clearly and unequivocally that the Second Amendment means that every citizen has an inherent and uninfringable right to own common firearms. Period. End of debate.

    It's a simple idea that most gun rights supporters have always understood. But journalists and editors in mainstream news departments around the nation don't get it. In fact, many seem shocked that one of their primary assumptions has been so suddenly and utterly shattered with the hammer of logic and historical wisdom.

    Here's just a small sample of this foot stomping fit from the media, along with my thoughts on their thoughts:

    Chicago Tribune:
    Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
    The Founding Fathers needed an editor? Who? Like you? Keep dreaming, you arrogant dolt. The court has spoken. The collectivist fantasy you've been desperately shoving down people's throats is over.

    The New York Times:
    Impact of Gun Ruling Limited, Experts Say
    The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of the country, legal experts said ...
    Little impact? You think a ruling that tells legislators nationwide that they can't continue to violate citizens' rights will have little impact? You've got to be kidding.

    The Salt Lake Tribune:
    Second Amendment: U.S. Supreme Court should have left precedent alone
    The U.S. Supreme Court's holding Thursday that the Second Amendment enshrines in the Constitution an individual right to keep firearms in the home outside the context of a state militia was wrongly decided and turned decades of settled judicial precedent on its head.
    Settled judicial precedent? Nothing was settled. But it sure is now. This ruling doesn't just draw a line in the sand, it erects a 50-foot stone wall between citizens and gun-grabbing activists and legislators.

    CBS News:
    Outrage Over Gun Ruling
    In cities that have high gun-related death tolls, many leaders are outraged over the Supreme Court's decision overturning a ban on owning handguns.
    Outraged? Sure, they're outraged. They're outraged that they can no longer chase the red herring of gun bans to pretend they're "fighting crime." Now they might have to actually do something that works. Like arrest and punish criminals perhaps?

    Los Angeles Times:
    Guns, yes and no
    Presented with two historically plausible arguments about whether the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court on Thursday opted for the interpretation less suited to a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime.
    Less suited to 21st century America? Nothing could be more suited. When exactly is the natural and constitutionally-protected right of self-defense out of date? What's not suited to 21st century America is a media that's still drinking the Kool-Aid of nonsensical and utterly disproved gun control schemes.

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
    A second thought on Second Amendment
    Somehow, I ... don’t think the public is eager to start rolling back a whole range of gun laws, laws they had come to accept and support as necessary for public safety.
    You don't think so? Think again. Since the vast majority of gun laws do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding gun owners, the public at large have been chucking anti-gun claptrap and embracing Castle Doctrine, concealed carry, and other clear-headed concepts.

    The Associated Press:
    Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts
    "In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said.
    Did you read the same ruling I did? They're not supporting cities. They're slapping them upside the head and telling them to straighten up and fly right. You can't ban guns. You can't deny ownership. You can't infringe the right of self-defense using firearms. Give it up. You lose.

    Let's get something straight right now. The Supreme Court's ruling isn't surprising except for the fact that the mainstream media thinks it's so surprising. Americans overwhelmingly believe that the Second Amendment makes perfect sense. Always have. Always will.

    The media is simply out of touch. And they're having a hissy fit because they've been robbed of one of their most cherished myths: that owning guns is a privilege and the Second Amendment is an antiquated concept about an outdated militia.

    Well, go ahead and stomp your feet and cry. Get it out of your system. Then you can wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and get back to your job of mangling reporting the truth.

    Buckeye Firearms Assoc.
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Not to split rabbits, but the word used in 2A is "arms", not just "firearms". Back in the day, Joe Sixpack could legally own cannon, grenades, mortars, etc. He wasn't limited just to musket and pistol. The idea behind 2A is that the people be armed well enough to fend off a force seeking to deprive the people of their freedom.

    The question "Well, does that mean I should be able to keep a nuke in my garage?" will inevitably come up. There is no specific provision for "reasonable" arms ownership, just as there is no specific provision for "reasonable" free speech. But we do have laws about limiting some speech some of the time (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, libel/slander, etc.)

    How do we reconcile the government having far, far more powerful weaponry than we are allowed to own with the intent of 2A?

    (Sorry to take this off course. It's food for discussion on another thread, maybe.)

    That's becoming more and more true. They're sticking to their old playbook but people are wising up. Subscriptions and viewers are in very sharp decline, while online sources for news are enjoying growing numbers of readers.

  3. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    This is very disturbing to me because the implication is that our "Government" which is nothing more than the collective assemblage of individual "representatives", DOES NOT TRUST IT'S CONSTITUENCY!!! There was an old bumper sticker that came out years ago which read:

    "Fear the Government that Fears it's Citizens"
  4. ScottG

    ScottG Active Member

    I think you're giving them too much credit there Tracker. These people know exactly what the Second Amendment means, and they know that they are the target of it. That's why so many openly criminal politicians support gun control. If they can convince enough of the people who are too dull or satiated by our 24/7 entertainment society, they'll never have to fear retribution for the freedom they are attempting to take away from us.