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
— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) March 28, 2018
Hot take level: PIPING. But it got cooled off quickly:
Good luck with that
3/4 of the States, 45 of which also protect this right in their founding documents
I 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.
— 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
Hahahaha! This is stupid and y’all are ignorant of history and I’m dying laughing.
— Colonel Assault Mom (@colonel_potter) March 28, 2018
— 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
— 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
A proposed 28th Amendment could read: “The right to go jump in a lake being a cherished and time honored tradition, the act of taking a long walk off a short pier shall not be infringed” https://t.co/Y3OCL10uuE
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) March 28, 2018
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an even hotter take about the 2nd Amendment this week.