Bemoaning the fact the Second Amendment means what it says by claiming it doesn’t, David McGrath in the Chicago Tribune offers up this gem:
Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association’s claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment’s exact language — “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.”
Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
If McGrath’s commentary is a true reflection on the quality of education in America’s High Schools (and I have no reason to doubt it isn’t) we are in serious trouble. A proper grammatical analysis by an expert that McGrath’s claims, and possibly the assertions of High School teachers are completely wrong.
Besides expert grammatical analysis we also have the words of the founders themselves. Here is a nice collection of quotes that I’m sure the Justices of the Supreme Court relied on (along with proper grammatical analysis) when they ruled on both Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
Anti-Rights cultists will go to any length to deny you you’re pre-existing civil rights protected by the Constitution. Lies and distortions are the norm, expect them to get worse.
are the same ones who conferred gun violence victim status to a terrorist.
David Codrea from The War on Guns had an issue with an article being unpublished that is a must read. So go read it.
Well actually I do, anti-rights cultists are still stinging over being forced to implement concealed carry in Illinois because not allowing it was a violation of civil rights. Something conveniently left out of this amateurish article. The article is a litany of infringements that they feel are necessary regardless of Constitutionality or effectiveness. All of the usual wish list items are there including no private sales ( in spite of there being a mechanism for citizens to verify the legal status of the buyer), presumably because they want all firearms registered. Confiscation of firearms through a ‘gun violence protective order’ without due process, increased training requirements (gun owners had to sue to get a range to train at in Cook County think this won’t be abused either?)
Another curious omission is the murder they mention in Schaumberg Illinois. I can’t find any information on the case and none is provided other than the location, but the author of the piece does not inspire confidence when he states “a woman was killed by her boyfriend who she had filed a restraining order against. In a situation like such, his FOID card should have been revoked, but he was still legally able to buy a gun before that and kill her.” I’m not sure what he wants with this statement. Does he think that the State Police should employ clairvoyants and gypsies with crystal balls to divine who might become violent later? Then he calls for an immediate seizure of firearms once a protective order is issued. Again violating due process and opening the door for the system to be abused to disarm potential victims. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that IF this murder occurred the boyfriend was known to police and likely a prohibited person already. Meaning no FOID was ever involved.
This is the fight Illinois gun owners and civil rights supporters face every day. When not dealing with the mis-informed they are left fighting the willfully ignorant. In the most extreme cases they have to try to counter outright liars to whom nothing short of full citizen disarmament would be acceptable.