with a robust set of laws, we can significantly limit damage. why can t we do that with guns? on that point. and they always fall back on the same argument, the constitution doesn t guarantee you are right but it does guarantee your gun right. a well regulated militia being necessary to the free stay, the right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the second amendment. argue that the second amendment makes america unique, exceptional, and they re right. apart from the uk, we don t have the second amendment there, it s a right that doesn t exist in canada or france, or india, or russia, or brazil. in fact, only three countries on earth have gun rights embedded in their constitution. the united states, mexico and guatemala. both those two countries say that right only extends to the home, and they both make it very difficult to purchase guns. america, of course, is different, not just because of the second amendment but how the courts have interpreted i
with a robust set of laws, we can significantly limit damage. why can t we do that with guns? on that point. and they always fall back on the same argument, the constitution doesn t guarantee you are right but it does guarantee your gun right. a well regulated militia being necessary to the free stay, the right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the second amendment. argue that the second amendment makes america unique, exceptional, and they re right. apart from the uk, we don t have the second amendment there, it s a right that doesn t exist in canada or france, or india, or russia, or brazil. in fact, only three countries on earth have gun rights embedded in their constitution. the united states, mexico and guatemala. both those two countries say
interpreting the second amendment in a way that it wasn t understood for the majority of american history, as kids are massacred in schools, maybe it s time to make the meaning of that amendment, in the constitution, much clearer. what s the worst is going to happen? conservatives attack liberals is anti - as we just saw, they already do that. to those who think repealing are changing or amending the second amendment is unrealistic, impractical, impossible even, i say, fair point. it s all of those things. you know what else is unrealistic, impossible, even, getting republicans to vote in favor of any especially if they can hide behind the second amendment as interpreted by the roberts court. joining me now to talk about all this he writes extensively about the second amendment in his new book, allow me to retort, a black eyes guide to the constitution. ali is also justice correspondent for the nation
there is no oh, look at the apocryphal on ted cruz, that s making ted cruz not be a dripping hypocrite. you don t debate them, you beat them. you don t debate them, you win. what has to happen is that when democrats have power, they have to use that power, maximally, to stop these people and defend our children. that s the only option because, as you saw in that clip, debating them is pointless. they re not interested in any kind of logical framework of debate. other countries have mental health issues, other countries have disaffected mill youth. other countries have violent video games. what other countries don t have is a bloodthirsty interpretation of a second amendment and a right to bear arms given that interpretation given that interpretation, given your point about wielding power, maximally, let s talk
magazine. thank you for coming back on the show. in your book, you argue that an individual right to self-defense, with a gun, was not provided by the second amendment, but by the conservative supreme court interpretation of the second amendment. you also say, quote, there was an original purpose of the second amendment, but it wasn t a key people safe. it was to preserve white supremacists and slavery. briefly, how do we know that to be the case? i m coming up with that just because i m reading patrick henry and george mason, who is then governor of virginia, at the founding of the country. this is not my words, this is with those white guy said when they were debating the second amendment. they said, they needed the second amendment because they needed the armed, disciplined militia, to put down slave they were worried the federal government had all of the power to raise the militia, right? the southerners needed the militias to put down slave