A classic line from a frothing Arizona Republic op-ed on the Second Amendment:
Other rights have reasonable limits that can be discussed and accommodated. The Second Amendment has been turned into the supreme law of the land.
I’ve never seen a more perfect illustration of the dismissive manner in which many media types tend to regard the right to keep and bear arms. “Turned into the supreme law of the land”? Ha! It’s a part of the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. How else should it be characterized? “A suggestion”? “A vague hint among more serious laws”?
As for the complaint that “other rights have reasonable limits that can be discussed and accommodated,” this is patently ridiculous on two levels. First, because it implies that the Second Amendment isn’t restricted when it really, really is; second, because it suggests that the Second Amendment is less restricted than the other parts of the Bill of Rights, which simply isn’t true. If I were to rank the first ten amendments in order of how keenly they are observed, I’d put the First Amendment at the top and the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment at the bottom. What world do these people live in?