Former ESPN Sports Analyst Gives Moronic Take On CA 2A Ruling And Twitter Users Brutally Rip Him
(Tea Party 247) – Believe it or not, conservatives in California recently had some news they could actually celebrate. While most stories out of the liberal stronghold are generally discouraging and enraging, the news that state courts have struck down the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, therefore upholding the Second Amendment, has been a nice reprieve from that trend.
Townhall has more on this conservative victory:
The Second Amendment scored a victory in court on Friday. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a California ban on so-called large-capacity magazines (LCM) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The three-judge panel ruled that California’s ban “substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights” and “struck at the core of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by banning LCM possession within the home.” The ban makes about half of all gun magazines in the country illegal to own in California and other states with similar bans on LCMs.
“This is a huge win for the NRA and gun owners nationwide,” NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter said in a statement. “The 9th Circuit, which isn’t often a favorable court for gun owners, ruled it is unconstitutional to place arbitrary bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”
While the 9th Circuit isn’t historically favorable to gun owners and conservatives, President Trump has been busy remaking the federal judiciary. President Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate have appointed a record number of judges to the U.S. circuit courts. Trump has already appointed a record 50 judges, whereas President Obama only appointed 19 to the circuit courts at the same point in his first term.
“The judge who authored the opinion in this case was appointed by President Trump,” Hunter notes. “That means everyone who voted pro-gun in 2016 played a role in this significant win. It’s a reminder to everyone: Vote in November. Your rights depend on it.”
All that being said, what resulted from this ruling was former ESPN analyst and current director of sports journalism at Northwestern University, J.A. Adande, causing a collective face-palm on Twitter over his ill-informed and embarrassing take on it. The internet never forgets but also, the internet is savage.
Adande tweeted, “How can high-capacity gun magazines be covered by the second amendment when they didn’t exist when the second amendment was written?”
Dana Loesch was among the first to utterly shred him by responding, “So you’re saying free speech expressed digitally can’t be considered protected speech because neither computers nor the Internet existed when the First Amendment was written.”
Others quickly piled on, probably drawn in by the fact that Adande had invoked the replies option on Twitter which essentially acts as a honing beacon, alerting vigilant conservatives that there is a liberal snowflake who has said something but is afraid to hear what normal people with functioning brains have to say. Nothing puts a target on one’s back quite like broadcasting the fact that you are censoring the responses to your post. Our guess is, Adande quickly regretted stepping outside of his purview on this one:
How can high-capacity gun magazines be covered by the second amendment when they didn’t exist when the second amendment was written? https://t.co/NT6Gb64ZmJ
— J.A. Adande (@jadande) August 14, 2020
So you’re saying free speech expressed digitally can’t be considered protected speech because neither computers nor the Internet existed when the First Amendment was written. https://t.co/VKO6gXy9Tq
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 15, 2020
lol Twitter made it real easy for people to avoid getting ratio’d for their dumb tweets pic.twitter.com/ABDyUTnl2e
— Micah Rate (@Micah_Rate) August 15, 2020
Besides the fact that firearms with ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds did exist during the founding era, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 (Caetano v Massachusetts) that the Second Amendment extends to arms not in existence during the founding era. https://t.co/4frs3bb7Us
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 14, 2020
Wait. You’re joking right? https://t.co/phhTCgdtLF
— RBe (@RBPundit) August 15, 2020
The same way speech on television, radio, and the Internet is protected by the Constitution. Stick to sports. https://t.co/xq4MeIFSsI
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 15, 2020
How can the Internet, radio, television, movies, CDs, and vinyl be covered by the First Amendment when they didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written? https://t.co/PdbKRx5riS
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) August 14, 2020
This is really such a weak argument. The Internet and television didn't exist during the Founding era (though the Girandoni rifle did!) and yet your speech is still protected. https://t.co/vKeGIIPLJh
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) August 14, 2020
The iPhone you tweeted this absurdity on didn’t exist back then either but thankfully the 4th amendment still protects it from illegal search and seizure. https://t.co/p52667Zp1c
— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) August 14, 2020