Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:15:47 GMT  <== RKBA ==>   <== Politics ==> 

Karl Denninger - Nice exposition of why state infringements of any kind on any of the Bill of Rights are completely out of bounds.

The conversation quickly degenerated when he started with the "So you're for private ownership of nukes, right?" crap and "The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets, so that's what it covers" nonsense.

I retorted with "So the First Amendment is about movable type, paper and ink -- hand-driven -- right?"

Ah, no answer.

Didn't think I'd get one, by the way, so rather than keep hammering that I instead pointed this out the following (and it took three tweets to do it @ 140 characters each):

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution (no government can give what it does not have)

2A recognizes the fundamental human right to self-defense, irrespective of the attacker's identity.

The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT.

This is why we can't have a "reasonable" debate on this point with people on the other side of the debate.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

Aren't tweets 1 and 3

Submitted by Rick Hanson on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:19:40 GMT

Aren't tweets 1 and 3 the same? ;) Regardless, he is correct. Thanks for sharing, Bill!

Edit comment