CBS Sunday Morning: The Second Amendment Ain’t What It Use To Be

CBS’s Sunday Morning devoted an entire program to guns yesterday. Needless to say, their attempts to appear neutral on the topic were not entirely successful. From a pro-gun perspective, the end result was, at best, a bit confused. Like this misleading look at the Second Amendment, which starts as it means to finish — making Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms seem as malleable as turkish taffy. It isn’t. A point that Sunday Morning was incapable of providing to its audience. Surprised?


  1. avatar Cliff H says:

    It is what it is and what it is is what your definition of infringed is.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      The dissenting USSC opinions in Heller stated that they could not imagine the early federal government would restrict itself in being able to control such things as weapons to the general public; so the bill of rights, which binds the Federal govt. from restricting the rights enumerated in the bill of righrs, and specifically the 2nd amendment in “shall not be infringed”, really isn’t a restriction on the Federal govt’s ability to infringe the 2nd amendment.

      So goes the justification of the lawyers in black robes to ignore the clear and unambiguous wording of the 2nd amendment.

  2. avatar Ben says:

    Turkish taffy. Hah.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “No mention of guns, or hunting or…”
    Apparently he has never read the federalist papers. That’s some poor learning for a supposed scholar.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      He was very careful to limit his statememt to the actual discussions at the convention. He specifically left the Federalist Papers out of scope of his statement so that he remains technically accurate.

      Though this tactic is really just a lie of ommission so he is still a liar just one with room to be a weasel.

      (With all due apologies to actual weasels.)

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        I’ve been instructed to speak for weasels. We understand no offense taken

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yes. The sin of omission can be as bad or worse than the sin of commission.
        In his case, it’s way worse.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      This drives me crazy. If people read the Federalist papers they would know exactly what the framers meant on the 2A. It’s fairly clear. Only a bumbling idiot could screw it up.

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Progressivism has always depended on bumbling idiots. Hence, pervasive public schooling.

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Only a bumbling idiot could screw it up.
        No shortage of those, especially in government.

  4. avatar Cesare says:

    The 2nd Amendment is an official affirmation of our natural right to keep and bear arms, as in NATURAL RIGHT which trumps (no pun intended) any written documents old or new.

    1. avatar Gadsden16 says:

      Exactly! Natural rights are NOT ‘granted’ by any government. They are guaranteed by the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The thing that makes (made?) America great was this very concept…that the people have certain rights and those rights are NOT subject to government approval. In other words, we are ‘citizens’ not ‘subjects.’
      If we ever go down the path of restricting or eliminating Natural Rights, then the USA as conceived will cease to exist

  5. avatar Doug says:

    Perhaps we should regulate the freedom of the press and see how that goes.

    1. avatar On the can says:

      Agreed. I wonder how libturds would feel about this: This age of media is currently in a Wild West stage, and needs to be strictly regulated. Publishers should be forced to undergo background checks, and be required to be licsensed if they wish to publish in public. Also, they should have to pay a tax for this right, erm, privilege, and should be held liable for the things they publish. This would only be the first step as word limits on publishings and political talk would also be required.

  6. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So how do we respond to this, and stuff like it? Half the game is that they get to spin the battle space prep unopposed.

    In the end, we want the “amendment as toffee” argument to make undecided people think: “So, propose an amendment that says what you want.” And to think this guy is a schmuck for trying such a disengenuous con. How do we plant those associations out there, vs. round here?

    In the end, they know they can’t get an amendment change saying what they want, so they try to get around it by stretching the meaning or sneaking through the cracks. People don’t like crap
    py weasles. So, how do we expose the manipulation?

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” So, how do we expose the manipulation?”

      The manipulation exposes itself. People can see with their own two eyes and hear with their own ears what is going on in the world around them. Cognitive dissonance kicks in and eventually folks have their “Ah-HA” moment.

      The problems are:

      (1) It can take a LONG time for a ‘critical mass’ of people to come to the realization that they are being manipulated.

      (2) It can take even longer for them to ACT on that realization (such as change voting habits, seek out broader information sources than MSM, etc)

      (3) How much damage can be done in that time?

      That’s where we are “losing.” I think we are winning people over, but it’s slow. Meanwhile, the damage-causers march on with stuff like this on broadcast news, pre-crime restraining orders, secret prohibited person lists, etc. Their mid-point goals spread like cancer. (I AM encouraged by what appears to be a spreading of “Constitutional Carry” states and similar things…I’m not being all doom-n-gloom here, just trying to realistically see the big picture stuff).

      At some point, I think one has to ask “At what point does it not matter how many people agree with us? The system has been corrupted too far.” When the government acts clearly in opposition of the people, we know we have some serious problems.

    2. avatar Don says:

      We respond by arming all good Americans we can and working hard at the state level for carry laws then hit the US Congress to get rid of restrictions to firearms ownership. No law enforcement or federal force should be better armed, as individuals, than the rest of us citizens. Get rid of the national guard armed forces, at least beyond the basic rifleman. Beef up sheriffs programs.

  7. avatar LarryinTX says:

    RF, you actually watch this crap? Man, you are earning your pay.

  8. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    I watched the entire thing. I would say they barely made any attempt at being neutral. It came across more as softly spoken anti-gun. In their normal form they just kept a very mellow voice . . . while being confused about why Aussie style confiscation could possibly be a bad thing. It was a waste of my morning just to hear the same tired old half-truths and “reasons” based 100% on feelings instead of facts and reality.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      I watched it all too. Honestly was surprised it wasn’t worse, considering the source. Nothing new here- lots of emotion and ‘if we can save ONE LIFE, isn’t it worth it?’ Gun owners are irrational hicks from Wyoming and gun controllers are sympathetic victims. Blah, blah blah. Much better then say, NBC is capable of, but that is faint praise.

    2. avatar JohnF says:

      I watched it all too. I agree with BigE, I was surprised that it wasn’t worse than it was. I won’t say it was fair by any means, but it did present a few solid pro-gun arguments. It’s up to the viewer which arguments they find credible.

      I thought it was interesting hearing that Aussie lady who was involved in a mass shooting and is now very anti-gun. It was a big contrast to a speaker we heard at VCDL Lobby Day in Richmond who had survived a mass shooting at a mall in Oregon. He said his thought, when he was hiding in a store as shots were ringing out was, “Why don’t I have a gun? Why am I defenseless?” He says he carries at all times now and he chooses to only live in places and go to places that allow him to carry.

      Same facts, different reactions.

  9. avatar Templar says:

    CBSnews had 6 anti-gun articles on its frontpage yesterday. Not even an attempt at appearing impartial.

  10. avatar Mad Max says:

    I kept screaming at the TV…the Federalist Papers, Trent Coxe, the Pennsylvania (and some other states) Constitution, is where you can find clarification.

    Shall not be infringed means what it says but, if the antis were smart, they would try to “regulate” the militia.

    That might be a good thing (think free training and practice).

  11. avatar JohnnyDerp says:

    Keep pounding them with this

    “First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    The Founders are most likely weeping at what we have done to their Republic. And it is a Republic. As Ben Franklin said. “A Republic, if you can keep it”. Well we have to educate the people on the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, and then explain why a Republic is a good thing. And then we will have earned our Republic, and exercised our right to keep it

  12. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Mass Media isn’t about journalism, it’s about rating and entertainment.

    Do think the rag mags actually care of Brad Pitt or Kim Kardashian’s gigantic a$$? Of course not. But, it sells.

    That’s why I don’t watch this tripe or click on the links, usually. I’m not going to generate ad revenue for this garage.

  13. avatar Al says:

    Just finished watching La Reine Margot yesterday night. An absolutely remarkable movie IMHO. The question that kept popping up in my mind was what sane people would give up the right to self defense? It just boggles my mind.

  14. avatar Allan Dobson says:

    If Guns kill people, then I guess that means that we should take the spoons away from not only fat people but all people.

  15. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    OMG, all those commas! Such a complex sentence! Clearly that “journalist” doesn’t deserve either the title nor his liberal ivy league sheepskin. I guess they stopped teaching writing and reading skills at the schools that he graduated from. It is a good thing for us all that the average person in America can still read a complex sentence and come to an understanding of the simple declarative therein.

    The only worthwhile bit in that clip was the reminder that Obama should not be allowed to pick a replacement for Justice Scalia.

  16. avatar HP says:

    Keep it up, anti’s. The best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they can’t do it. I’ve got several friends who are first time gun owners who went out and bought AR’s (I live in NY, and yes, you can still buy them here) all because progressives tried to browbeat and shame gun owners and decried the rifles as evil. Please, keep it up.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t know who I despise more — the Democrat Party or the mainstream media.

    Or are they just one and the same?

  18. avatar gs650g says:

    Next week we will go over how the first isn’t what it used to be. Not.

  19. avatar Chris T from Ya 1q22 says:

    I gave up watching liberals who hate freedom on Sunday morning a long time ago. It is a New York City news show with New York values.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email