Something is indeed ‘scary’ here

I haven’t really been following case of Kenneth Webster, who was arrested in Massachusetts with what the media is (predictably) describing as an “arsenal,” or “massive cache” of weapons, in defiance of Massachusetts law. One article breathlessly describes his “massive cache” as including “more than 1,000 live rounds” (should he have stocked up on dud rounds, instead?).

As stated, I haven’t really been following the story, but according to the above-linked article, he doesn’t sound like any kind of terrorist or mass shooter I’ve ever heard about. That’s not really what I’m writing about today. Instead, I want to look at this column:

When he was arrested on July 1 Webster reportedly told police that he had a constitutional right to own those guns. If that sounds scary, here’s something scarier. There are a lot of people out there who agree with him.

I think columnist Joe Burns is talking about “extremists” like me, here. But wait! It gets even better.

Second Amendment literalists have long held that the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means just that.

Imagine! People thinking that the Constitution means what it says, rather than what Joe Burns and Sarah Brady tell us it means–simply terrifying, isn’t it?

“Second Amendment literalist”–I kind of like that term, but I don’t want to give up my “extremist” creds–“Second Amendment extreme literalist,” maybe? Kinda awkward, I guess. I’ll keep working on it. I wonder if Burns is a “First Amendment literalist.” That, of course, would be perfectly alright–thinking that the First Amendment is just a figure of speech is plainly ridiculous.

I have to wonder–would those who oppose publicly speaking about the purpose of the Second Amendment prefer to be called “Second Amendment figurativists”?