Get PJ Media on your Apple

Time for Some Common-Sense Publishing Controls

What would Second Amendment bloviators say if we applied their logic to the First Amendment?

by
Rand Simberg

Bio

December 25, 2012 - 12:21 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

There has been another mass shooting and a revival of the illogical attempts by the gun grabbers to pass legislation that would have done nothing to prevent it, but would punish law-abiding gun owners. One of their favorite arguments, no matter how often debunked, is that the Founders wouldn’t have written the Second Amendment as they did had they anticipated anything beyond muskets.

Here’s a classic recent example from that brilliant British expert on American history, CNN’s Piers Morgan, who seems to be projecting when he calls his debating partner an “unbelievably stupid man,” because he can’t logically hold up his own end of the debate. Indeed his only argument seems to be an argumentum ab incredulam — “I can’t believe you’re making that argument.”

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz displayed his own ignorance and intolerance:

Tonight is…a time we as a people come to grips with a changing society. We need to be the Founding Fathers on how we deal with the sickness in our country called “gun violence.” Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn’t cut it anymore. Hiding behind the Second Amendment can no longer be the shield for access. The people who wrote that document owned slaves, oppressed women, and were short on tolerance.

And of course, since those same intolerant, male-chauvinist-pig slaveowners wrote the rest of the Constitution as well, we can’t just ignore the Second Amendment — the entire document, the fundamental basis of the republic, is obviously illegitimate.

Another scholar of American history and arms control, Whoopi Goldberg, weighed in as well:

She noted that there was no use for assault weapons in hunting or personal defense, declaring, “There’s no excuse for anyone to own one.”

…Assault weapons, she said, were not what the country’s founding fathers had in mind when they created the Second Amendment.

“We don’t have a tank,” Goldberg said. “You can’t buy a bazooka. Why the hell can you buy a weapon of mass destruction?… That’s the first thing that should be gone.”

Assault weapons are WMD? Good to know. So according to Whoopi, Bush was right about Iraq after all.

Of course, it wasn’t just our intellectual betters in the media who wanted to educate us on this topic, but our competent, compassionate leaders as well. For instance, the wise sage, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who when he isn’t trying to dictate how big a gulp we can get, is filing futile weapons lawsuits against the gun industry to determine how big a magazine our guns can have, helpfully informs us that:

We don’t need people carrying guns in public places. That’s not what the founding fathers had in mind. It doesn’t add to anybody’s safety. Quite the contrary, it makes us have a much more dangerous society.

And California Senator Dianne Feinstein who, like Bloomberg, thinks that she should have armed security, and even her own carry permit, though her fellow denizens of the no-longer-so-Golden State should not, is similarly generous with her superior historical knowledge:

There’s no Second Amendment right to bear every type of weapon that you know of. These are a certain class of weapons – they are designed to kill, large numbers of people, in close combat. I don’t believe the Second Amendment covers them. The Second Amendment was written a long time before this class of weapons was founded, merchandised, and spread all over our country, where they fall into the hands of juveniles, grievance killers, people who go into our malls, our theaters, our stores, our businesses, and now our schools, and just kill people for no good reason.

Click here to view the 205 legacy comments

Comments are closed.