Five years after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, activist David Hogg is still droning on about the Second Amendment, but now he feels he has an understanding of it despite the fact that he gets it 100 percent wrong as usual.
Somehow, after studying the Second Amendment, he feels that it validates everything he already believed about it.
“After reading about the history of the second amend and talking with a lot of hist & law professors- I believe the second amendment has been intentionally misinterpreted. It was never meant as an individual right it was created to protect state militias like the national guard,” Hogg said, mistakenly believing that he is now a constitutional scholar.
He has interpreted “the right of the people” as evidently meaning that the Founders were protecting state militias “like the national guard.”
After reading about the history of the second amend and talking with a lot of hist & law professors- I believe the second amendment has been intentionally misinterpreted. It was never meant as an individual right it was created to protect state militias like the national guard.
— David Hogg ☮️ (@davidhogg111) February 19, 2023
Hogg has pointedly ignored the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment which states, “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.”
Instead, he interprets it to mean that the federal government cannot disarm state militias.
“It says well regulated militia for a reason. The ‘shall not be infringed’ part means the federal government is not allowed to forcibly disarm state militias. I’m not alone in this interpretation. Over 100 years of jurisprudence back me up on this,” Hogg tweeted, making a blatantly false claim.
It says well regulated militia for a reason. The “shall not be infringed” part means the federal government is not allowed to forcibly disarm state militias. I’m not alone in this interpretation. Over 100 years of jurisprudence back me up on this.
— David Hogg ☮️ (@davidhogg111) February 19, 2023
In all his studying, Hogg just doesn’t get that the Second Amendment is intended to protect American citizens from an overreaching, power-hungry federal government.
Whereas Hogg will apparently never understand the actual intended meaning of the Second Amendment, Twitter users are far savvier and they are not giving up their guns. They are also schooling Hogg on what it actually means:
It was absolutely an individual right. We understand that you want to take our guns, you’ll never get them though.
— Libertarian Party of Tennessee (@LPTN1776) February 19, 2023
I’m glad that, after reading about history and talking with professors, you were able to confirm in your mind what you already believed to be true.
It’s called confirmation bias.
— Sen. Eric Brakey (@SenatorBrakey) February 19, 2023
The Supreme Court disagrees. pic.twitter.com/PA2J56UMKE
— Dread Pirate Darin (@ddogsbbq) February 19, 2023
Can you point to any other example in the bill of rights that the phrase “the right of the people” doesn’t mean the people but means the government?
— Justine (@BruinJustine) February 19, 2023
The second amendment does not apply to the people. The second amendment is a restriction on government power.
Its very simple, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. https://t.co/5H74iyVNW3
— Sharen Johnson (@goinpiece) February 20, 2023
The Constitution already provided for states to have militias.
What scholars told you that the Second Amendment is the only place in the Bill of Rights where “the people” is a collective right rather than individual? https://t.co/9I0tFFgpfm
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) February 19, 2023
Why would the Founders need to give the government the power to do something it already had the authority to do? https://t.co/gTrkeNxC97 pic.twitter.com/iCvNeRphcD
— Lord Woodstone (Toss all MAPS out the airlock) (@EricMertz_KC) February 20, 2023
It is literally an individual right. All rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. They all tell the government it's not allowed to do things. There is nothing special about the Second that makes it not an individual right, or allows the government to do anything. https://t.co/Ioz4rpLDW5
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) February 19, 2023
You know who you didn’t talk to? The founders who fucking wrote it, and CLEARLY intended it to be an individual right. pic.twitter.com/OT4ifIc8CL
— Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy) February 19, 2023
My dude. You got rejected by UC Irvine.
— Abe Froman™ (@WerIstDeinPa) February 20, 2023
Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Leftist tears flow over 60 Minutes interview with MTG: ‘Reminds me of a guy we defeated in the 1940s’ - April 1, 2023
- Rachel Campos-Duffy reveals how she found true love in a hookup-obsessed world - April 1, 2023
- Dennis Quaid documentary exposes the often overlooked dangers of electric grid failure - April 1, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.