Keith Olbermann first rose to prominence on ESPN, back when it focused on sports and not politics. Of course, then he went away from sports and started talking about politics and he proved that as a political commentator, he was a pretty OK sportscaster.
Over the years, Olbermann’s insanity has been on full display, overplaying every advancement made by the right as if it were somehow the end of civilization. Some people apparently liked that for a while.
However, after losing his MSNBC spot, his career has been on a slow spiral. Probably because he says stupid stuff like this:
Keith Olbermann owned himself on Twitter.
The left-wing former ESPN and MSNBC commentator unveiled a novel argument for the constitutionality of gun control — that the Second Amendment doesn’t use the word “own.”
Mr. Olbermann made his legal claim in a video he posted to Twitter on Tuesday afternoon before that evening’s baseball All-Star Game in Denver, where authorities had earlier arrested four people over a stash of long guns and ammunition.
“Consider again the holy Second Amendment to the Constitution and ask yourself this question. Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word ‘own’ in it? Why does it not say the right to own guns or a synonym for own?” he asked sarcastically before reciting the existing amendment.
Why doesn’t it say “own” in the Second Amendment? Because it used the word “keep” instead. This is the very synonym you claim doesn’t exist in the Second Amendment’s text.
(Let’s also note that it wasn’t a potential mass shooting at the All-Star game. We knew this before Olbermann posted this.)
I mean, what does Olbermann think the word “keep” means in this context? That the government will give us guns and that we get to hold onto them for a while?
Honestly, if the government did that, I’d be cool with it, but that’s not happening and we all know it. Even Olbermann knows it.
This is Keith Olbermann thinking he’s found some kind of gotcha in the text of the Second Amendment, yet even anti-Second Amendment jurists don’t try to make this kind of argument. Why?
Because it’s freaking insane.
This is the dumbest argument I’ve heard since people tried to say the Second Amendment only applied to muskets. Since the colonists actually had rifles at the time–pro-tip: the difference between a musket and a rifle isn’t in how you load it–that was an idiotic argument to make. Still, I could at least understand why someone would try and think that.
Olbermann’s claim, though, is beyond even that.
Not even the gun control advocates that populate Twitter came to the man’s defense as he got ratioed all to hell and back. Everyone blasted him for it and the gun control advocates had enough good sense to stay the hell quiet.
Look, at this point, those who love Olbermann need to intervene and get the man some professional help. Over time, he’s become more and more unhinged. I mean, when you’re someone who makes Rachel Maddow look rational by comparison, you need serious help, yet that’s precisely what Olbermann does.
Especially when he says such colossally stupid things about the Second Amendment.