Purveyor of outrage Lauren Duca is at it again, but now she’s attempting to bring some intellectual gravitas into her repertoire.

She had (what she believes is) a light bulb moment on the issue of guns in America, courtesy of a burly Aussie man.

A burly Aussie man put our gun debate into condemning clarity:
"Why do you act like you can't change the 2nd Amendment? It's an AMENDMENT."

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) October 24, 2017

My reaction:

Is Lauren Duca using “Watters World” sourcing for constitutional theory?

Following Duca’s (and the burly Aussie dude’s) logic, I assume she’d be okay with, for starters:

• Getting rid of free speech rights
• Languishing in prison for years awaiting trial
• While languishing, not knowing what she’s even charged with
• Giving up her right to an attorney or trial by jury
• Being forced to have soldiers live in her home
• Allowing the government to take any of her property at any time without compensation

These are all rights/protections in the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights.

And, let’s not forget, it’s just an AMENDMENT that allows for freedom of the press.

You know what I don’t find spelled out in the Constitution or any of its amendments? The right to “healthcare.” The right to abortion on demand. The right to a “living wage.”

If you don’t know anything about how the Constitution came to be, I suppose this could pass for a shocking revelation and the start of a devious plan to take power from the people. Unfortunately for Ms. Duca, the only thing this tweet puts into “condemning clarity” is the lack of civics knowledge in our country.

So, let me womansplain a few things about the Bill of Rights. (This is basic knowledge for RedState readers, so forgive me for the simplicity.)

In a nutshell, although the provisions of the Bill of Rights are termed “Amendments,” the Constitution would not have been ratified without them. Breaking it down further, without the Bill of Rights we wouldn’t have a Constitution – or the framers would have at least had to go back to the drawing board.

When the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787, there were two schools of thought on the topic of individual rights and limits on government freedom. Some, including George Mason, believed the Constitution should be “prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Others believed that instead of mere words (a “parchment barrier”), a separation of powers and checks and balances included in the document itself would provide adequate protection and since the states would have any powers not given to the federal government, state constitutions would be the controlling documents for individual liberties.

As the convention dragged on and on, it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified without a Bill of Rights. James Madison attempted to redline the Constitution, adding in protections, but others protested and didn’t want to change the document it had taken months to construct. So, Madison drafted 17 amendments, out of which 12 passed both the House and the Senate and went to the states for ratification. Ten of those amendments were ratified by the states, becoming our Bill of Rights.

The next time some burly Aussie tries to clarify how our government works, it might be a good time to brush up on Schoolhouse Rock.