CNN’s Chris Cuomo decided to keep the gun control town hall festivities going on Twitter this morning:
To those against removing ar style weapons, what about requiring the same process as a concealed carry permit to buy one? #GunCrisisTownHall
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
“Ar style” is an attempt to capture the entire group of long guns. And you know that. What do you need a weapon like that for? When do you require the ability to spray dozens of bullets hunting or in sport? https://t.co/1pOeUu0qQC
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
"When do you require the ability to" is a fraught criterion for determining the limitations of a constitutional right. https://t.co/l8YpBLjdaO
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) August 8, 2019
NO. Nobody needs an AR or assault style weapon. Ask yourself WHY someone would need one, and the answer will be apparent, assuming you are a person who values life, and I believe you do.
— Judith Greene (@musicmommy23) August 8, 2019
I don’t recall it being named The Bill of Needs. Gee, what is it REALLY called…..
— Derrick (@Nomad574) August 8, 2019
Prepare to be schooled, Derrick:
Do you remember what the 2a was created for? That there was no individual right contemplated until Scalia read it in? If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state controls access. https://t.co/j5IAC3NTMZ
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
This is the guy CNN decided should preside over a town hall about guns.
This is so ignorant it’s almost funny, except this guy just hosted a CNN town hall on gun control https://t.co/OjknWAkCt1
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 8, 2019
Recommended
Chris Cuomo, ladies and gentlemen.
We'd be curious to see the sources for your statement @ChrisCuomo
— Mike_TruthMedia (@Mike_TruthMedia) August 8, 2019
His source is his own magnificent brain. Isn’t that good enough for you?
— VaIarMorghuIis (@Appeal2DaStone) August 8, 2019
Patently and demonstrably false.
— Shirley Not Drew (@shodrewshirley) August 8, 2019
This is completely false.
— EJ (@Ejmiller25) August 8, 2019
Noted constitutional scholar (ask him about Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) has…thoughts. https://t.co/o41CE0kxCY
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) August 8, 2019
Dear Chaplinsky,
I think Fordham might want their JD back. https://t.co/M4OEOO5c8P
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) August 8, 2019
“Scalia read it in”
Are you ignorant, or just dishonest? https://t.co/05MLm0w9IC
— Meech (@michi83) August 8, 2019
Both. He’s both.
There was no individual right to own a firearm before 2008? https://t.co/Hp2XEtuOFu
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) August 8, 2019
Scalia created the individual right to bear arms. https://t.co/6lO7zYmMs2
— neontaster (@neontaster) August 8, 2019
I mean, I'm guessing he's talking about Heller. Who the hell knows, really.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) August 8, 2019
This is a wildly inaccurate assertion, Chris, but you've already shown repeatedly that you struggle to understand law and the Constitution.
— Legal Sense (@sense_legal) August 8, 2019
The 2A is there to deter against a tyrannical gov’t. The British confiscated weapons from the colonists IOT keep them in line and needful of the Crown’s defense rather than their own.
— Derrick (@Nomad574) August 8, 2019
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the *right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://t.co/DM0d8XOO43
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 8, 2019
The Second Amendment literally says the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for "the people." https://t.co/tSGhwnktuw
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 8, 2019
The Second Amendment doesn't reserve the right to keep and bear arms for the militia or the states. It reserves it to the people. Just as with the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Tenth Amendment.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 8, 2019
Oddly, we never see these sorts of arguments over who can peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievences. That's a right specifically resevered for the people as well.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 8, 2019
The Bill of Rights is famously a list of rights to protect the state from individuals send this goddam tweet and head to the gym pic.twitter.com/Ttpqvq9API
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) August 8, 2019
Yet another post from you filled with weapons grade stupidity. Not shocked pic.twitter.com/tG4FkipgYi
— Brian ¯_(ツ)_/¯ DaPirate (@BDapirate) August 8, 2019
Don’t worry — there’s plenty more where that came from:
I know it wasn't created for hunting or sport, as you just implied in another tweet.
— Terry, LEO (Ret.) ?? (@editor_wp) August 8, 2019
Implied nothing. I am asking about why you need it. The argument “if I want it I get it” is not recognized under the law…even Scalia admitted there must be limits. Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk. Was that wrong too? https://t.co/ptzTyEzNwz
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
Do you even know what the "AR" stands for in "AR-15"?!?
— kerry ⭐⭐⭐ ?? (@K1erry) August 8, 2019
Armalite. But as you know it is now expanded to encompass a style rather than a manufacturer. You don’t need to know the history of the weapon to question its use in these mass shootings. So calm down and focus on how to protect people better. https://t.co/n3SCuQxkpX
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
Big 2A supporter. I don’t own an AR, don’t need one, don’t plan on getting one. I don’t have a problem with an assault weapon ban. BUT. The concern I have is it’s a Trojan Horse for a complete ban on all guns. It’s a different climate than 1994.
— JonJon (@john_busbin) August 8, 2019
But you have to know that is paranoia and fringe right propaganda. The 94 ban was a joke. Manufacturer went right around it. And we never even tracked shootings to see what impact it had. FYI – i am a gun owner https://t.co/oz2l6OpELi
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
Bernie Sanders wants to “ban assault weapons,” an intentionally vague term. Beto O’Rourke says as president, he’d institute a mandatory gun buyback, aka confiscation, program. Kamala Harris would send law enforcement to people’s houses to confiscate their legally owned firearms. This isn’t “paranoia and fringe right propaganda.” This is the Democratic platform. Chris Cuomo is free to surrender his gun to the government. He’s not free to compel anyone else to do the same.
If they can have an AR style weapon, why not full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, or even nukes? I think the answer is because it’s too dangerous to the rest of us.
Reduce the number of guns and reduce the number of gun deaths. It’s really that simple.
— Sonny “Deep State Alumni" B (@sonnyb9) August 8, 2019
Except it is not simple at all because the cogency of your argument is rejected by pretty much everyone in this president’s base. Hence his reticence to go near this issue. https://t.co/oOSoGctfrd
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
Chris, why is it that when SCOTUS declares that abortion is a fundamental right, but when SCOTUS reaffirms a long held historical right, somehow it's one justice's opinion and wrong. Note: it wasn't just his opinion.
— Vocem Libertatis (@vocemlibertatis) August 8, 2019
Where did I say it was wrong? And why do you people always need to “whatabout” on an issue? Until scotus changes precedent, current precedent stands. Period. Reproductive rights are not a trade off for gun rights. This is not a swap meet https://t.co/MYq8a97vr6
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) August 8, 2019
Parting evergreen tweet:
You are extremely ignorant on this topic
— George Smith (@P1B_WMichigan) August 8, 2019
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.