Here’s yet another person who argues that the Second Amendment was only intended for a militia. In fact, Thomas P. Crocker argues that the Second Amendment demands that guns be regulated. Somehow The Atlantic thought this debunked take deserved another airing, so they gave Crocker a slot for his philosophical musings.
"We can be free, but only if we regulate guns—just as the Second Amendment tells us," @ThomasPCrocker1 writes: https://t.co/sV4UcBglW8
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) June 8, 2022
All right, professor; enlighten us:
The first half of the Second Amendment is at times also anachronistically associated with the question of whether the right to possess a weapon is tied to service in a “well regulated Militia”—a view the Heller majority rejected. Missing from this reading, however, is any consideration of the constitutional significance of what is necessary to maintain the “security of a free State.” What does this security entail? Are Americans secure in a free state when they live in fear of the next violent act that might be perpetrated by the bearer of semiautomatic weapons? Are Americans secure in a free state when they are told that more resources should be spent on arming teachers, or training students to duck and cover and keep silent, as if in a new cold war, only this time the enemy is ourselves?
Oh, so that’s his hot take. We don’t have a free state as long as there exists the danger of being shot and killed. Even preparing for such an event, such as arming teachers, means that we don’t live in a free state. It’s like all of the people who say their rights are being infringed upon because they’re afraid they’re going to get shot.
The second amendment of the United States constitution says nothing like that at all.
— EdBlonski (@EdBlonski) June 8, 2022
Recommended
This is obviously someone who skipped 4th grade Civics. It’s not too late for summer Credit Recovery classes. Good luck.
— YetiPersisted (@YPersisted) June 8, 2022
How does a law professor not understand the meaning of “well-regulated” in the 18th century? Did he skip the semester when con law was taught?
— Tripp (@cbomar_3) June 8, 2022
What part of "shall not be infringed" was not clear?
— Florin Micle (@FlorinMicle) June 8, 2022
Oh, I get it. You're trying to convince me that freedom is slavery. Thanks, but we've been warned about that trap.
— David Desrosiers (@DefiantWinston) June 8, 2022
Look, 2A is subject to interpretation, but it provides nothing about regulating guns.
— Dog guy (@Catsorange1) June 8, 2022
That's not what the 2nd Ammendment says. It says the government IS NOT ALLOWED to infringe our rights to protect ourselves from tyranny, which is exactly where we're at right about now.
— ULTRAMrsLiberty (@ULTRAMrsLiberty) June 8, 2022
What part of "Shall not be infringed" did you fine folks over at the Atlantic not understand? The second amendment speaks of militia being regulated, but not guns or the people.
— Lord Callisto (@Redwulf_XIII) June 8, 2022
You guys are clueless
— Bill (@WLFManBill) June 8, 2022
This is pathetic even for @TheAtlantic
— Corporal Punishment (@CplPunishment_) June 8, 2022
The 2nd amendment explicitly forbids regulating guns. Do you illiterates even know what the word "infringe" means?
— Alben Oldacre (@AlbenOldacre) June 8, 2022
Physiognomy check pic.twitter.com/nxdozxmGnz
— Return of the Make. 🦤🦤 (@ReturnOfTheMake) June 8, 2022
You and your scarf can fuck off
— Todd (@toddmcaleer) June 8, 2022
“Meanwhile, the rest of us suffer the costs of the actual tyranny that living in a state of fear of mass gun violence creates,” he continues. Guess what? “The rest of us” don’t live in a state of fear … we tried that during the COVID lockdowns and look what the state did then. If you’re living in a state of fear, stay locked inside.
Related:
WaPo analysis takes a closer look at ‘how the Second Amendment was reinterpreted to protect individual rights’ https://t.co/3Fx8quCgqi
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 31, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member