After Pratt discussed the concept of "inalienable rights," and how they cannot be infringed regarding President Obama's gun control overreach, Mitchell gives an astounding response:
"Well, they can be infringed, because the First Amendment is infringed, I have to obey all sorts of regulations from the FCC, there are things we can't say in a crowded theater, so every right also carries with it responsibilities and obligations."
Is Andrea Mitchell's argument representative of those who are anti-second amendment advocates? If so, perhaps they should reconsider. Law-abiding citizens should not be punished pre-emptively for breaking laws that were never broken. Not only is a ban on so-called "assault weapons" unconstitutional; evidence that it reduces shootings is weak, even non-existent. Criminals break the law by nature.
Pratt responded respectably and effectively:
"What's interesting about that, though, is we don't gag people before they go into the theater, we punish the lawbreakers, and in the same way, we would argue punish those who abuse the right, but don't gag law-abiding citizens before they exercise their right. We shouldn't be registering them like sex offenders, like they are in New York. We shouldn't be in any way impeding them if they have not committed a crime."
Pratt nails the argument, as rights should not be infringed on law abiding Americans.
Watch the exchange here:
Photo Source: Twitter