Alan Singer is trying to nuance his way into saying that
gun control civilian disarmament is completely constitutional and should even be agreed to by the “Supreme Court’s right-wing activists” – his words; not mine… and yeah, those socialist-leftists on the court are not activists in the least… no sir-ree!
He tries to make his case by citing examples from our founding documents where the words “person”, “people”, and “persons” are used. One problem… as he lays out his argument, his own evidence points to the fact that gun control is definitively unconstitutional because it disarms everyone. It disarms all people blindly across the board and indiscriminately. It does not pick and choose who specifically is a danger to society and who cant be left to their own devices. It disarms society as a whole.
In his article Mr Singer draws the conclusion that gun ownership is indeed a collective right, but then directly contradicts himself and the case that he just laid out by saying…
Gun control and restrictions on ownership are a political decision left to elected officials, not constitutional principles. This interpretation of the Constitution and the Second Amendment provides an opportunity for even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices to support significant new gun restrictions approved by elected officials in local, state, and federal governments.
Nope. You are letting your political dogma get in the way of actually understanding the conclusion that you yourself walked right up to. By your own definition you can not impose broad laws that would disarm the civilian population as a whole… you can only do that on a case-by-case basis and only after thorough due process.
Hey, Allen… maybe you should look up the word tyranny in the dictionary. It might help to know the actual definition of the word that you scoff at while playing word games with our liberties. Here is a hint for ya… Guns for me but not for thee!