Because the Track Record for Disarmament is So Good

It’s obvious that some people do not research history. While it’s not bad in any way to remain ignorant on a topic it is bad to have an opinion on topics you’re ignorant of. Take for instance Alex Wagner who has an opinion on the Second Amendment that demonstrates an utter lack of history:

Bill Maher, HBO: “Let’s ask Alex. What would you change in the Constitution?”

Alex Wagner, Huffington Post: “Well, I’m going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that.”

It seems Alex is unaware of the history of gun control and how disarmed people are at the total mercy of their government. When you’re are the complete mercy of your government few options exist when that government decides you are no longer fix to live.

Alex’s quote also demonstrates the fact that many do not view the Bill of Rights as a list of rights but government granted privileges. If this is the case then what grounds exist for any supposed right? Does the government get to decide if we have the freedom of speech and assembly? Can the government just decide to get rid of protections against illegal search and seizure? While the answer to both questions is technically yes it should be no as the spirit of the Bill of Rights was to grant protection from government of certain activities.

Also where the fuck does the Second Amendment grant somebody the right to kill? Alex said, “And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm…” yet I don’t see anywhere in the wording of the amendment that grants such a right. It appears as though Alex is either illiterate or hasn’t actually read the wording of the Second Amendment. If the first case is true than I can understand where many of her beliefs probably stem from and if it’s the second case she shouldn’t be talking about the Second Amendment in any regard whatsoever.