We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

A lot of people are dunking on The Hill for this, but it’s actually an opinion piece by law professor Alan Dershowitz, which makes it even more dunk-worthy. There’s a very simple answer to what he’s asking.

Dershowitz writes:

Defenders of this decision will argue that the right to bear arms is explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment, whereas there is no explicit reference to abortion in the Constitution. This argument goes too far.  The Second Amendment itself has limiting language in the words “well-regulated militia,” strongly suggesting that the states have the power to regulate gun ownership. Moreover, even though the word “abortion” is not in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people, including women, to be secure in their persons. At the time of the Framing, the words “secure” described what we today call “the right of privacy.”

So here’s another person who never read the second half of the Second Amendment, which does more than “strongly suggest” that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. This argument is so disingenuous … Dershowitz uses the definition of “secure” at the time of the Framing, but ignores the definition of “well-regulated” at the time of the Framing.

Dershowitz knew he was going to get dunked on and tried to weasel his way out of it with that nonsense paragraph above.

Related: