So Reuters writes up a story on the recent Heller decision, a story almost anybody could write without screwing up.
But this is Reuters:
Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited...Congratulations America, the Second Amendment V 2.0 was just ratified.
Where do they get their facts from, the Violence Policy Center?
If you like it, link it | 6 Comments:
So much for that MSM fact checking.
You're taking it out of context... that quote was Scalia's, not Reuters' own observation.
The statement (in context) is paraphrased, "Although an individual [right] now has a right to own guns..."
Scalia isn't saying it's a new right; he's saying it's an existing one.
Right, Reuters paraphrased it as new therefor Reuters is saying its new. So, no not pulled from context.
A search of the decision finds one instance where the right is called a "new" one -by Justice Stevens.
-Phil
"Where do they get their facts from, the Violence Policy Center?"
Since when did the VPC deal in facts?
Good point
It's new. 200+ years of jurisprudence has never seen to make the statements Scalia deigned. The way he gets there is convoluted, despite what he and really poor media reporting would like you to believe.
We have -- always -- had the right of armed rebellion against an unjust government. It is not in the Constitution because it does not need to be.* It is the Constitution.
Remember, if you need Scalia to tell you it is okay, you have abdicated your independence.
--
*not as an explicit handout to the gun manufacturers lobby
Post a Comment