[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CNN Explains: The 2nd Amendment (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 2/19/2013 2:28:40 PM EDT
|
Make sure you don't have anything that you can throw around the screen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDv1qFBJh1o You WERE warned.... It is bad. |
|
Quoted: seeing as how I don't currently have the money to replace my monitor, someone want to give me the Cliff's notes, or is it the usual "the Second Amendment is about hunting" bullshit? I'm going to guess it's: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Cause that seems to be what they think it says.
|
|
Quoted: Militias don't exist anymore? I guess the "legal annalist" forgot to look up 10 USC § 311 Someone should ask him if "the people" still exist. You know, the people, as mentioned in the actual fucking operative clause. I hate CNN. In some ways even more than MSLSD, but only because MSLSD has no appreciable market share beyond those who nod to what they see like bobbleheads, and their pets. |
|
Cliff's notes:
The NRA redefined the second amendment to make "the right of the people" actually mean "the right of the people" instead of "the right of the government". Some CNN dumbass took several minutes to say that "right of the people" actually doesn't mean that, and the NRA has just brainwashed everyone into thinking so. Quoted:
Penn and Teller really surprised me with that episode, I always figured they had to be liberals, boy, that was wrong. Libertarians. |
|
Quoted:
LOL there is that word again: "Mysterious" WTF is mysterious about any of those words?! I'll give it to Libs. They are the masters of propaganda. indeed they are. They can twist things around in such a way that I have never seen or even imagined could be done. There ability to completely screw up something as simple and basic as "shall not be infringed" really takes some talent. |
|
| Cliffs version: the 2nd Amendment is difficultly worded with 2 parts: militias/state and the people. Initial view espoused was that the 2nd Amendment applied to militias, which were groups of men gathered to fight for their state and country, about 20 yrs ago the NRA and conservative intellectuals started arguing for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as applying to individuals and not militias. The US Supreme Ct. is final word, and has stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals but does not protect a right to "dangerous and unusual" arms. The last minute of the video seems to be voiced over and out of context. |
On top of all the idiocy in that video, at 1:25 they show a cartoon from the 1930s with an employee and employer wearing "NRA" signs. Problem is it's the wrong NRA.
The idiots at CNN don't even know the difference between the National Recovery Administration (started in 1933, deemed unconstitutional in 1935 and dissolved) and the National Rifle Association. Why should anyone listen to them about the history and politics of firearms when they can't even go and fact-check their video? Tards. |
|
Quoted: On top of all the idiocy in that video, at 1:25 they show a cartoon from the 1930s with an employee and employer wearing "NRA" signs. Problem is it's the wrong NRA. http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b367/thunderw21/junk/NationalRecoveryAdministration_zps4be38ec5.png The idiots at CNN don't even know the difference between the National Recovery Administration (started in 1933, deemed unconstitutional in 1935 and dissolved) and the National Rifle Association. Why should anyone listen to them about the history and politics of firearms when they can't even go and fact-check their video? Tards.  Morons. |