Keith Olbermann: ‘Holy’ Second Amendment ‘does NOT’ authorize gun ownership

[Achilles]

Keith Olbermann: ‘Holy’ Second Amendment ‘does NOT’ authorize gun ownership



In this May 3, 2007, file photo, Keith Olbermann poses at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill, File) more >


Print By Victor Morton -
The Washington Times -
Tuesday, July 13, 2021


Keith Olbermann owned himself on Twitter.

The left-wing former ESPN and MSNBC commentator unveiled a novel argument for the constitutionality of gun control — that the Second Amendment doesn’t use the word “own.”

Mr. Olbermann made his legal claim in a video he posted to Twitter on Tuesday afternoon before that evening’s baseball All-Star Game in Denver, where authorities had earlier arrested four people over a stash of long guns and ammunition.

“Consider again the holy Second Amendment to the Constitution and ask yourself this question. Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word ‘own’ in it? Why does it not say the right to own guns or a synonym for own?” he asked sarcastically before reciting the existing amendment.

NEW VIDEO: Whether or not you’re going to watch tonight’s baseball All-Star Game, consider that they may have broken up a planned mass shooting there.

And ask yourself: why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word “own” in it?

The 2nd Amendment does NOT authorize gun OWNERSHIP! pic.twitter.com/4cLrNsCKXy
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) July 13, 2021

It says “‘keep and bear’ … not ‘own.’ ‘Keep’ doesn’t mean ‘own’; ‘bear’ doesn’t mean ‘own,’” he said to his close-up camera.

In his tweet promoting the video he declared that “the 2nd Amendment does NOT authorize gun OWNERSHIP!”

The Second Amendment “isn’t about gun ownership, it’s about regulation of state militias,” he said on the video. “Yet thousands of us die every year buried under this same [expletive].”

That “keep and bear” neither means nor presupposes ownership was not an argument made by any of the dissenting justices in the Heller decision that established contemporary gun-rights jurisprudence.

It also was widely derided on Twitter, as numerous people pointed out that “keep” does in fact mean “own.”

One person posted an image of the dictionary definition of “keep” as “have or retain possession of.”

Another asked whether “you think the word ‘keep’ referred to equipment on loan from the state?”

And a third pointed out that “keep and bear” is actually a stronger guarantee than “own.”

“It specifically says ‘keep & bear’ because owning a gun does not mean you get to keep it or bear it. To hammer it home, the KEEP part means the government CAN. NOT. TAKE. IT. AWAY!” wrote John Taznar.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-does-not-aut/

[Buster]

IMO
he is correct
it says that the fedgov can’t stop us from having firearms
that “right “ does not come from the gov
but look where we are now

[Pastor Guest]

The ungodly read and interpret the Constitution in the same way they read and interpret the Bible. They reject what is really said and substitute their own beliefs.

I wonder if Olbermann has thought about the implications of what he has said? If we cannot "own" arms as he says, it still does not negate the fact that we can " keep and bear" arms. I guess for that to be done, the government will have to issue us weapons. Government will own the arms, but we will keep and bear them. My wish list will be forthcoming.

[Ivan88]

Before the Constitution was made, the Men of Massachusetts regulated their public servants to protect their neighbors from rip off money lenders;
And they bore arms to do that regulating. The Money lenders hired a private army to invade Massachusetts and put down the Men regulating their
public servants. If the Men of Massachusetts had secured the Armory, they would have been in good shape to resist the Richman invasion.
But, they didn't see far enough ahead to do that, and got shot down by the richman's hired guns.

None of the "Patriots" who did the Constitution stuff, said one word about this situation. In fact, the Constitution was written to prevent the
American Man from regulating the public servants.

Lincoln overthrew the right to bear arms, then Roosevelt did it more effectively during the banker created depression, and a Congress well bribed to do nothing.
And, now that we have loved Communism since Lincoln and fought 2 world wars for the Communists and many others, why shouldn't our nice Communist
glorious peoples leaders dis arm us. Americans have showed them that they don't have enough sense to accomplish a non-Communist system anyway.
And, besides that, Americans are hopelessly outgunned by those nice war crazies in Washington.

[Lenno]

after watching Olbermann's antics for a considerable period of time I've come to a conclusion: He is a dangerous psychopath

[Mountainbear]

What a legal scholar he is. His feeble liberal mind can't even grasp that the constitution does not place limitations on our rights by not explicitly granting them. The constitution does not explicitly grant us the right to own cell phones either, yet here he is posting on twitter.

[Lenno]

Deranged Former MSNBC Host Keith Olbermann Tries to Smear Tucker Carlson With Another Conspiracy Theory (VIDEO)

[Samuel Adams]

“We” may not have the capacity to “regulate our public servants” (sic), but the First Amendment is truly the most undersung of them all.

James Madison wrote both, the First and Second Amendments, among others of the Bill of Rights.

In his own Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Madison had this to say, regarding his intent in the fuller meaning and power of the First;


“1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.”

The full text can be found at; https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/foun...ligions43.html


As can be seen……Madison embodied the Conscience of the Individual, before God, as paramount even to the supreme law of the land…..the very foundation of the sovereignty of the individual as he exercises his conscience, before his Creator, in the meat world and not just on Sunday mornings.

Incidentally, my “religion” and CONSCIENCE dictate that I defend the fatherless and otherwise defenseless, on this plane, and that I sell my cloak and buy a sword to do so.

Amen……….and go f*ck yourself, Olbermann.

[dragonmouse]

It is blatantly obvious that you sir have never actually read nor understood the constitution, for all your blather. You would do well to go to Hillsdale college and take a class. Agree with them or not, you cannot but spout garbage if you have no idea of what it says. The above proves you do not, nor do you have the historical understanding to follow the reasoning. The federalist and anti-federalist papers are a good starting point. These same arguments were made ~250 years ago with the same lack of understanding that you just proved.

[Off-Grid Organics]

the same way they read and interpret the Bible. They reject what is really said and substitute their own beliefs.

Oh c'mon! The denominations of sun-day churches do the exact same thing!