You have to love headlines. Mine like many others out there are done to draw attention. One thing I have learned on the Vine is to not trust headlines, some are good, some are true but deceptive, while others have little to do with the article. The only way to tell is to actually read the article.
Here is the title and link for the article in question.
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
Wow, this headline screams controversy. It is guaranteed bait to attract anyone with a strong view(pro or against) gun rights. Is the headline true though? Only partially which in this case is a bit deceptive. One needs only read the first paragraph to see this.
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The article then goes on to give the backstory, more on the court ruling, and the always present lawyer and his vow to appeal, but says nothing that goes against the summation in that first paragraph.
So essentially the headline implies something that is not true. Sorry, the court did not make it legal for those in the country illegally to possess guns.
Now for the part in my headline about pro 2nd voters going over the edge. For that just open the article comment section and read. Keep in mind, that even though most of the comments are specifically about illegal immigrants, typically those who are currently the most vocal and vehement on the issue are also the same people who art strong supporters of the 2nd. Both are big right wing issues, so there is no doubt there is a good amount of overlap with the two viewpoints.
Here are a few:
now that just turn the US consotitution into a joke. illegal immirgrant should never given the same right as legal immigrant/legal citzens. it look like the supreme court got paid in a large sum of money to make this legal.
It is only illegal if you are an american citizen and you will be arrested. if you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN you are welcomed encouraged and protected from the laws.
So what did this ruling change?
Absolutely nothing. It doesnt allow illegals to possess guns in the US. It doesnt create any new constitutional rights for immigrants as there are a lot of case law and rulings that already say they have constitutional rights. I f they commit a crime they have the right to a lawyer, a trial, and if found guilty the right to spend time in prison just like any American.
What this ruling does do is add more case law SUPPORTING our right to bear arms. The only ones who should be unhappy are those who oppose private gun ownership. Sure the ruling does say there are limits on the 2nd, but to say otherwise would support allowing thieves murderers and rapists ownership of guns, and that is how the court ruled.
But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez's conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid.
So did these commenters just read a headline and go strait to the comments to rant, did they fail to understand what the article actually said, or did the headline itself taint their ability to read the article objectively?
PLEASE try to keep this on topic. This seed is not about the pros and cons of the 2nd, it is about how people react to headlines. For clarity, yes I do support the right to bear arms, yes I was happy with the ruling, but I am completely baffled by the responses.