Of course Murphy is saying that there can be restrictions to RKBA, a line that both parties and nearly all engaged in the issue stipulate. However, when one is willing to hop on that slippery slope, one cannot then define when and where the exit is justified.Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”
Murphy tweeted, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”
The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.
Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”
There is no neutral position to be taken. One is either of the belief that RKBA (or any other right) is absolute, or that it can be watered down and regulated into oblivion. Do we guard our Liberty jealously, or do we allow definitions to be changed and citizens to be deemed felons with the stroke of a pen?
Here we go destroying absolute truth claims in favor of some ever changing cultural ethos of the time. Is mathematics absolute, or does it evolve? Did 7 evolve from 6? Is mathematics universally true, no matter where and when you apply it, is 2+2=4 true? Does the culture or the voting population influence this truth? Can we anchor ourselves in anything absolute?
We're calling an absolute RKBA "imaginary"?
If the Bill of Rights or the Constitution isn't "absolute", then what restricts government from damaging our Liberties? How do we define Liberties/Rights? If the law is no longer the goalie, what is and how is is supported/strengthened?