Hot on the heals of their ambitions to use the First Amendment as a platform for self-serving legislation they put on a full court press against the Second Amendment, specifically in a well-curated assault against the Constitutional Carry law wending its way through the Gold Dome.
We get a hand-selected letter to the editor, reportedly from a former member of law enforcement that poses questions that are either rhetorical or founded in ignorance. Does the letter writer really not know how reciprocity works? Then we have the inevitable "cars require a license, why not a gun?" which definitely originates in the depths of ignorance. Continuing that line of thought you should need a First Amendment license from the government to operate a newspaper, right? More importantly, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the first and inarguably most important of all the amendments. Why? Because they fulfill two goals: they define inalienable rights; and they explicitly prohibit government infringement of those rights. This is why anyone, even non-citizens and illegal aliens enjoy those rights and protections but not the vote. Which comes to the last front in their assault against the Constitution: a false analogy suggesting that voting and Second Amendment rights are somehow equivalent. That author either knows that is not true and is intentionally misleading or might need to spend a little time on history or perhaps reading the Federalist Papers.
Is this really a media outlet or a propaganda engine? Does it really deserve a legal carve-out?
Posts
