I understand not everyone has read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety. It's not overly long, but it's not exactly the most riveting work of literature in history. But the Bill of Rights is so short and succinct that there's no excuse for anyone not to have read it.
So when people say baffling stuff about, say, gun control, it's hard to believe any of them have read it.
This isn't some nebulous complaint, either. There was a specific example recently:
On Tuesday, Moms Demand Action members fanned out across the capital to ask lawmakers not to pass the age change. The group’s executive director, Angela Ferrell-Zabala, says she remembers how, after Parkland, then-Gov. Rick Scott and a bipartisan group of legislators worked to prevent what she calls, quote, “another senseless tragedy.”
“To actually roll that back right now is just a slap in the face to survivors and advocates that worked so hard for this change to ensure public safety,” she said.
The House easily passed the bill dropping the age of purchase to 18. The vote was 78-34 with Republicans largely in support. Many of the arguments for lowering the age of purchase center around the Second Amendment — which enshrines the right to own weapons in the U.S. Constitution. However, Ferrell-Zabala disagrees with that stance.
“One thing that I often hear that is very frustrating is pitting this against the Second Amendment. That is absolutely ridiculous," she said. "We have many gun owners amongst us that advocate right alongside us and even gun owners that are survivors of gun violence themselves. Responsible gun ownership is something that we should be really making sure that we have in this state and across the country. Not anything that’s going to be reckless or endanger public safety.”
I get that it's frustrating for her, but nothing she says addresses the constitutionality of what she wants.
"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."
Where in all of that is there any mention of "the right of the people if they're above a certain age beyond the age of majority" or anything of the type?
The fact that there are supposedly gun owners who back gun control doesn't negate the fact that what they are demanding strips the Second Amendment rights for many lawful, law-abiding adults simply because they're deemed too young.
Considering that these same jackwagons tend to want to lower the voting age to 16 or younger, I find their arguments unconvincing.
One has to wonder if they've even read the Second Amendment. I know that despite their protestations to the contrary, they don't support it, but have they even read it in the first place? Ferrell-Zabala's comments sure suggest she doesn't have the first clue as to what it says, that's for sure.
Then again, when you're trying to override a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, one wouldn't expect you'd get hung up on key details like what the rights actually are or anything else.
