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.

[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.

[Samuel Adams]

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.

Wow.

Why don’t you just point out what it is I missed in my interpretation and AGREEMENT with Madison’s assessments in the First and Second Amendments.

[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!

[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)