The Atlantic Suggests Using an Anti-Gun Narrative to Supplant the Second Amendment

posted on November 2, 2019

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Richard Gillin/CC BY-SA 2.0.

An opinion piece in The Atlantic, titled “A Constitutional Case for Gun Control,” showed how tangled the mainstream media’s narrative on guns is nationally.

The opinion article was written by two Yale Law School students. Like many on the anti-gun left, they are clearly worried that a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices will honestly interpret the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights when they rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York sometime next year.

These two Yale Law School students write:

“Gun-control advocates need their own constitutional narrative, one that incorporates a broader conception of self-defense into its vision. Since Heller, the Court has drawn a straight line connecting the broader, constitutionally grounded right to self-defense to the more specific right to individual gun ownership. But defense of oneself and one’s family can be pursued in a variety of ways. An individual right to gun ownership offers one path, deputizing all people to defend themselves with a firearm at their side. Gun regulation offers another such path to self-defense, one vastly more efficacious and preferred by the American public. It represents a mode of preemptive self-defense, whereby the state is tasked by its citizens with limiting access to deadly force.”

These two students are so entangled in the left’s narratives about guns that they’re asking us to suspend all we know about the nature of our rights, including why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, so that some fabricated narrative pushing a collective-rights myth can legally supplant protections of our individual freedom.

They also want us to forget—and the mainstream media is helping them by not fairly reporting these facts—all of the evidence proving that more guns does equal less crime.

They go on to argue that “[g]un-control advocates must reclaim the Constitution from the pro-gun lobby.”

The thing is, their method isn’t an attempt to “reclaim the Constitution.” It is an attempt to rewrite the Constitution without going through the constitutional amendment process the document mandates. They want a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices to usurp the liberty of the people in order to make way for centralized government power they crave.

For a detailed analysis of this upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case, read the NRA’s friend-of-the-court brief on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Also, check back here, as we’ll keep you up to date on this important case and on other important issues related to your rights.


Joseph P. DeBergalis Jr.
Joseph P. DeBergalis Jr.

NRA 2023 Year In Review

None of this would be possible without the enduring support of NRA members.

A Fact Check of Gov. Newsom and Gov. DeSantis on Crime and Guns

To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Montana’s AG Explains Why NRA v. Vullo is a Critical Supreme Court Case

“Government should not be able to come in and act like the mafia,” says Montana Attorney General Knudsen.

The Armed Citizen® December 1, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

A Gun-Control Amendment?

Gavin Newsom is openly trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to include what he calls “common-sense” gun-control regulations. It seems he doesn’t understand what’s already plainly written in the Constitution.

Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.