Logic, the 2nd Amendement, and the 14th.

Folks like Robert Reich and other pundits who are not in the far right "let's default on the debt and destroy the global economy" camp are quoting the 14th Amendment a lot right now.

Why?

Well, consider this, it states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The argument is logical enough, and pertains to this:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.

A cap on debt that operates to dishonor the debt, intentional or not,  as long as it was authorized by law, cannot be questioned.

The stupid debt caps call it into question.

Clearly, they are unconstitutional, just as pundits, including those on the left, note.  And firebrands on the right who hold otherwise are demonstrating contempt for the constitution.

So let's next consider this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The same thing is at work here.  Not infringing, means not infringing.

The point here isn't to argue the policy or wisdom of either provisions.   Rather, you don't get to depart from the logic train once you board it.  Or, in other words, if you are a guy like Robert Reich, you can't argue that you can go ahead and infringe the Second Amendment, as it doesn't mean what it says, while arguing that you must apply the 14th Amendment, as it means what it says.  Nor can you be Kevin McCarthy, and argue that the Second Amendment is plain in its meaning, while turning a blind eye to the 14th Amendment.

They both mean what they say, but if you argue one, you must accept the other.  If you can logically argue to depart from the text of one, you must do the same as they're both so plain.