Ted Cruz posted quite a few excellent tweets in defense of 2A. Thanks!
Just WHAT is in the water in Connecticut?
You're right, Ted, it's hard to do this issue justice on twitter, but I commend you for trying. Here's my side of the argument, on why the 2nd Amendment is about collective, not personal defense, and allows the government to reasonably condition firearms ownership. 1/x https://t.co/r3g42QnPGV— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 20192/x First, you selectively quoted the Amendment. It actually reads: "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." It references militias - not personal defense - for a reason.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
4/x Nowhere in Madison's copious notes from the Constitutional Convention does he mention the 2nd Amendment being about the private right of gun ownership. And the term "bear arms", which today is connected with private gun ownership, back then was connected to militias.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
5/x So I don't think the 2nd Amendment is about protecting the right to defend your personal rights with a gun, but I DO believe that the founders did likely believe in a sort of common law right of gun ownership. That's also pretty clear from the history of the time.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
6/x But they also believed that government should be able to regulate that right. And it wasn't just about denying African-Americans the right to own guns. There were revolutionary era laws to register guns, control gun powder storage, prohibit concealed weapons, etc.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
7/x The founding fathers probably believed in a right for citizens to own guns (though not necessarily for the reasons you articulate). But they also definitely believed in the right of government to restrict the ability to own and operate weapons.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
8/x And that's where we are today. No Democrat is arguing to outlaw private gun ownership. But we do believe, as the founders did, that there should be reasonable limits on gun ownership. Like, some people are too dangerous to own guns, and a few guns are to dangerous to own.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
Nowhere in Madison's copious notes from the Constitutional Convention does he mention the 2nd Amendment being about the private right of gun ownership. And the term "bear arms", which today is connected with private gun ownership, back then was connected to militias.—
LG~~If I remember my history correctly there would be no mention in Madison's notes because the "Bill of Rights" wouldn't be added to the Constitution for another few years.
Duh Murphy, you relying on the stupidity of the masses?