The hot takes about the 2nd Amendment have been many recently, but a letter to the editor of the New York Times that the paper is highlighting took it to another level:
A revised Second Amendment could read: "The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed" #NYTLetters https://t.co/2vkXwj0p1J
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) March 28, 2018
Hot take level: PIPING. But it got cooled off quickly:
Good luck with that
2/3 House
2/3 Senate
3/4 of the States, 45 of which also protect this right in their founding documentsI give you credit for your honesty
Try climbing this hill https://t.co/cDpO1yKzPY
— DaveinTexas (@DaveinTexas) March 28, 2018
It seems that if the Founders intended the #2A to be about hunting that word would be in the amendment:
"Hunting, sports and recreation" aren't the reason for 2A. Nice try, but no trophy for this hot take.
— Walkin' Pam D (@lifebythecreek) March 28, 2018
Or you could take a revised walk off a pier. No thanks. https://t.co/mC3Du58Np0
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 28, 2018
Oh yay, can’t wait for the government to subjectively decide who is deemed a responsible person.
Why are liberals so obsessed with big brother?
— M0ser (@TM0s41) March 28, 2018
https://twitter.com/colonel_potter/status/978968471550808066
They really hate the fact that you have the right to armed self-defense. #SelfDefenseIsAHumanRight https://t.co/g9AkXgiVBl
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) March 28, 2018
Which would completely eliminate the original intent. Say it with me now, NYT: ‘the 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting.’ https://t.co/qczNv4UB5a
— NoOneOfConsequence (@StarDogCh4mpion) March 28, 2018
The same people who despise 2A boast the same hatred for hunting…Leave the Second Amendment as is and don’t ruin it for us law-abiding folks. #DefendTheSecond https://t.co/huilQyhtGD
— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) March 28, 2018
Too bad that the #2A isn’t about just hunting and sport. Its about protection from tyranny. The exact kind of tyranny that you alt-lefties support.
— Josh ??? (@JReese513) March 28, 2018
I’m sure that would totally work. pic.twitter.com/6XlcHkL0ys
— Christie (@RepRepublic) March 28, 2018
That line of reasoning could backfire just a little, as some pointed out:
A revised First Amendment could read: “The freedom of speech for conversation, education and socialization being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by unpaid persons for these purposes shall not be infringed.
— AgainstTrumpDude (@TheAmishDude) March 28, 2018
https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/978835905178824704
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an even hotter take about the 2nd Amendment this week.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.