|Cliven Bundy Ranch militia lunatics|
Back to Barry Lyga and the barefaced fact that the history of the revisionism of the 1st Amendment proves without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is not absolutist in its words or meaning. Just reading it alone illustrates how out of date the concept is:
2nd: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Most of the militias around these days, or patriot movements as they are also called, are those like the wackos in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, plus the fringes like Cliven Bundy in Nevada. All of them a bunch of crackpots that feed on those who worship the 2nd Amendment. In other words, outdated legislation. So how does the 1st Amendment shed doubt on the 2nd?
1st: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
First of all, there is nothing out of date, which might speak to the fact that the 1st Amendment has seen so many abridgements. Lyga says: “We have freedom of speech, yes, but we have still decided — as a society — that certain kinds of speech are illegal. For example, libel/slander are actionable. Speech, right? But illegal and punishable.” In addition there’s perjury and you can’t lie under oath or try to download child pornography. If you can amend so many aspects of the 1st, how can the 2nd possibly be a sacred document that cannot be touched?
Are the conservatives on the Supreme Court completely devoid of common sense, or is this just their ploy to cater to the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby? And why hasn’t one of the gun advocate groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence taken this premise to court as a matter of precedent?
But then, maybe we should just repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Still more to come.