October 19, 2008

USA Today has ACLU-esque view of the Bill of Rights

USA Today needs to read up on American history. Just a little.

Forty-eight states provide various rights to carry firearms. Illinois and Wisconsin do not, according to the National Rifle Association. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in June carved out a right to individual gun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment allows citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

I wonder if USA Today (or any other media) has used the phrased "carved out a right" when describing, say, abortion? Or, say, a right to an attorney? Heh. But a right which is explicitly provided for in the Constitution? The high court "made it up."

Posted by Hube at October 19, 2008 09:19 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

USA has never been a publication for deep thinkers and seemes to be geared to those seeking an upgrade from supermarket tabloids.

Why expect any rational thought from such a publication on the subject of the Second Amendment?

There was even grudging acceptance of the spirt of that Amendment inherent in the crafting of tne National Firearms Act during the New Deal. Lawyerly 'weasel-wording' imposed a 'tax' rather than a prohibition. The piece of legal flummery know as the Miller Decision upheld the law by ignoring history.

We have seen the Left (and some in the muddle-headed middle) take what is really incrmental victim disarmament and make it into an article of faith called 'gun control'.

It proved to be an albatross to Kerry and Gore but their record of animosity towards the right of the people to keep and bear arms pales in contrast to that of the radical Obama. Perhaps the zeal to enfranchise felons was an apppeal to his true base,

Posted by: Art Downs at October 19, 2008 10:27 AM

Under the Supreme Court's ruling on the death penalty for child rape, wouldn't that mean that the laws in those two states are unconstitutional because the consensus view of the states is for concealed cary? Doesn't it indicate that an "evolving standard of decency" has determined that permitting citizens to carry the means to defend themselves has developed in such a way as to override any objection that the Founders might not have meant the right to keep and bear arms to include ordinary citizens?

Or do those arguments only work to support LIBERAL positions?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 19, 2008 11:21 PM

Typical. The MSM has been openly hostile to the 2nd Amendment for years.

And the ACLU.... they've consistently used a ridiculously flawed reading of Miller to support a "collective rights" view of the 2nd Amendment (which makes it clear they've never actually read the case)

Even after Heller they still believe it's not an individual right.

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

Posted by: mike w. at October 20, 2008 10:38 PM

I heard Glenn Beck riffing on this a while back; his take was that the Bill of Rights delineate rights of citizens against the federal government, why would the second amendment be the exception? Remember, all of the protections in the Bill of Rights were from things the British monarchy had been routinely doing to the colonists, like quartering troops in their homes, requisitioning their goods, breaking up their meetings, etc. No need for emanations of a penumbra when the redcoats tell you they're cutting down your best white pine to use for a mast on a frigate!

Posted by: G Rex at October 21, 2008 09:35 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?