[CNN's Chris Cuomo: 'Individual Right' to Bear Arms Created in 2008]
CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently tweeted his understanding of the second amendment, or, rather, his mis-understanding of it. (see above link)
The core of his message is this:
Notice the last sentence of Cuomo’s tweet, “If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state control access.” He is saying because the Second Amendment only protects a collective right, in his opinion, then the true originalist position is to believe you only have guns if the state says so.
There are only two possible lines of thought which can lead to this statement–one is deliberate ignorance and the other is actual stupidity. Ignorance is easy to remedy, but you can’t fix stupid.
If he is actually mentally deficient, what he deserves is pity and a guardian; what he does not deserve is an internationally recognized platform to spout his nonsense.
When it happens that I become entangled in a conversation with someone who believes the line about the 2nd referring to the state rather than individuals, I offer them an easy way to learn for themselves. I tell then to “look it up”. I don’t give specific references, just general directions so there’s no hint of me trying to slant the info they find.
The most elementary search, paper or electronic, of the constitution itself or the people who wrote and debated and presented it for ratification will reveal the true meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment (as well as the other nine.).The entire Bill of Rights specifically addresses rights that are guaranteed to the people, as individuals, and which are to be protected from meddling by the government, whether state or federal.
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington make up the key Founding Fathers. Reading their personal writings about the purpose and and meaning of the 2nd gives a very clear picture of the very real and very serious right being protected for and guaranteed to the individual. There just isn’t any other way to understand it.
Well, I guess there is a third option. He could be engaged in an agenda seeking to strip constitutionally protected rights from law abiding citizens. That’s not ignorant or stupid; it’s criminal and evil, and is intended to pander to a segment of the population who want to be taken care of rather than have the opportunity to take care of themselves. In other words, they wish to be serfs under the care and protection of a master.
That is not freedom. That is not liberty. That is slavery. It is demeaning to any adult possessing wit and will to make their way in the world.
Rant mode ‘off’.
Regards.