Media Attempts To Distort Barrett’s Record

Bearing Arms ^ | October 16, 2020 | Tom Knighton

[yoe]

[snip]However, it’s primarily in this day and age that we see the media take those things they disagree with and distort them beyond all recognition to smear the nominee.

And, of course, Barrett is getting plenty of that ( Unsurprisingly, Salon is taking part.)

[snip] Except, Barrett didn’t argue that felons should be allowed to buy guns. She ruled that non-violent felons shouldn’t be disarmed as a matter of law since they represent no threat to the public.

Nothing in her dissent said violent felons should be permitted to purchase firearms, which is an important distinction. Kanter was convicted of mail fraud, a crime that almost never is associated with violence. As a result, there’s no public need to keep these people disarmed, and public need is the justification given for all sorts of infringements on the Second Amendment.

[yoe]

Barrett is a class act, the sort of Barrister we want on the highest court in the USA. The left want someone they can mold to their agenda...Amy Barrett isn't that sort of Justice. She rules according to law, not her emotions or someone else's agenda.

[Old Student]

I find it rather bitterly amusing that the one right the Left wants to restore for felons is the right to vote. I also note that depriving felons of the right to bear arms is pretty recent. In the days of the Old West, at least out West, when a felon was released from prison, his firearms were returned.

[Oatka]

[Svartalfiar]

Nothing in her dissent said violent felons should be permitted to purchase firearms, which is an important distinction.

How is that an important distinction? A felony is a felony - once they've served their time, they should be a fully productive member of society. If we can't trust them to be out, then why are they being released at all?