NBC released a column on how the Constitution does not protect self-defense rights. Curious? I was too. It’s likely a talking point you may hear Democrats parrot so it’s important to be prepared with a response. Although, all they use is recent rulings, public opinion, and the same common emotional ploy.
Let’s start with their most compelling argument:
In 1939’s U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court decided that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” state militias and “must be interpreted and applied” narrowly in that context. This was effectively nullified by a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment confers on an individual the right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a state militia. Even so, a subsequent ruling in 2010, McDonald v. Chicago, kept the door open to commonsense gun laws, including state and federal laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and regulations prohibiting firearms inside public schools.
In effect, the current Supreme Court position is that while the Second Amendment confers a foundational right, that right is not absolute.
Let’s first look at U.S. v Miller. A New York University analysis exposed some serious problems with U.S. v Miller. In short: the judge rigged the decision by controlling who would be in the courtroom, Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant, and most of the precedent from U.S. v Miller is no longer taken seriously. The Truth About Guns does an excellent job unraveling the many problems with the U.S. v Miller case here.
NBC is right that Heller reversed Miller, but they’re wrong about McDonald. In the case of McDonald v Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that both the states and federal government must protect the right to bear arms.
“Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms in self defense applies against state and local governments as well as the federal government.”
Ultimately, the rest of the article is just what we’ve come to expect. The general waterworks about loss of life is completely legitimate. But it doesn’t mean that we should restrict access to firearms. In fact, armed teachers would be a better equipped to stop these attacks than the police. Not only do police take a significant amount of time to show up on the scene (even 2 minutes may be too long), but in Uvalde, they didn’t even enter the building.
No, talking about loss of life simply won’t cut it. We need to arm our teachers to defend our students. Gun laws will not keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals, we cover why in depth here. The only solution is defense and deterrent. It’d be interesting to see if school shootings disappear once everyone knows your Chemistry professor is packing heat.
Regardless, these lies about and thrive. It’s vital that we be prepared with a response. Don’t let anyone you know buy the lie that the Constitution doesn’t protect your right to bear arms. Stay strong and let’s keep fighting to safeguard what liberty and justice we have left in this great nation.
One thought on “Democrats Claim the Constitution Doesn’t Protect 2A Rights”
Common sense is the lefts greatest enemy and the most feared argument by Leftist judges