gun rights for people to have ‘muskets’ because that’s what people used when the Constitution was written.
“When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah everyone should have like equal rights to a musket. Got it?”
Critics are saying that El-Sayed is attempting to dismantle and rewrite the Constitution with his argument that the right to bear arms was fulfilled with the Coast Guard and state militias.
He claims that the constitution does not grant the right for people to choose and have their own personal gun, if it’s not a musket.
“So, the idea was that you had the right to bear arms against your government should they become tyrannous. And the way that we enacted that was in the coast guard, and state militias that are supposed to be able to protect.”
“They want to interpret the Second Amendment in the most extreme version possible. And they tell us that the Constitution says that you can have any gun for anyone anywhere, at any time, which is just not consistent with any interpretation of the constitution at all. ”
In a previous video following the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, El-Sayed proposed amending the Constitution by replacing the right to bear arms with a right to health care.
Critics argued that El-Sayed focused solely on guns and disregarded the other triggers:
🔵The shooter was tr*nsgender
🔵Made anti-white racial comments like wanting to “k*ll all the white kids”
🔵Wrote “I hate the American people,” and
🔵Expressed admiration for other mass k*llers.
The Supreme Court disagrees with El-Sayed, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, unconnected to militia service.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion stated that the amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The Court compared this to the First Amendment protecting modern forms of communication and the Fourth Amendment covering modern searches.
Republicans and conservatives argue that El-Sayed’s musket standard is a selective and inconsistent form of originalism.
Applying the same logic to the First Amendment would limit free speech and press to quills and printing presses, excluding the internet, radio, and television.
They say that the Founders themselves used the most effective weapons available for defense and that the amendment’s purpose – protecting the people’s ability to resist tyranny or crime – does not expire with technology.
Should the Second Amendment protect only the specific firearms that existed in 1791? Or is El-Sayed trying to explain away his anti-gun stance?
#ChristinaAguayoNews
