Skip to comments.CNN's Toobin: 'Preposterous' to Believe in 2nd Amend. Right Back at Harvard
Posted on 07/15/2009 4:39:53 PM PDT by Pyro7480
...On Wednesday, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin implied that the Supreme Courts 2008 decision to uphold the Second Amendment was revolutionary: When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....But the Supreme Court [in Heller]...said that...individuals have a personal right to bear arms.
...Anchor Wolf Blitzer raised the Second Amendment issue with Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the others on their panel analyzing the hearings.... [and] asked...what were the nominees positions, specifically on the federal obligation to support the Second Amendment, as opposed to local communities..?
The CNN...analyst harkened back to his law school days...and possibly revealed a bit of his formation as a liberal:
TOOBIN: You know, its funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that Supreme Court precedent is some unchanging thing- that is just the law that is changed. But if you look at the Second Amendment, thats something thats changed dramatically over the last- for 50 years, including when I was in law school, which was more recently than 50 years ago- the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, I believe we have it- we have it in our system- you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms.
Well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias. But the Supreme Court, two years ago, in the famous Heller decision, said that when it comes to the federal government, we- individuals have a personal right to bear arms, and the D.C. gun control law was thus unconstitutional....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The second amendment is as much a right as the 1st
If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.
Maybe the idea was "preposterous" at Haaaaaavaad, you ignorant, arrogant, elitist, a$$hole, but the rest of us have known of this individual right for our entire lives.
I have grown weary of Harvard educated "analysts".
And since it doesn't apply to individuals, neither does the 16th
I am not a fan of guns. Hate them, actually.
That said, the language of the Constitution is plain. There is a right to bear arms, pure and simple. If I do not like it, I can work through the Congress and Ammendment process to get it changed. If not enough people agree to change it - that is if I cannot convince the percentages outlined in the Constitution required to ammend it - then that is my problem.
I wonder what Toobin’s idea on the existence of the right to privacy is? Considering it doesn’t actually exist in the Constitution, I assume he believes the right to privacy is preposterous....right? :-)
That is absolutely NOT true.
This man is either ignorant, stupid or he is a bald-faced liar.
“To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)
Proving William F. Buckley’s statement that he would rather be governed by those in the first page of the Boston Phone Book than the entire Harvard Faculty.
I think that makes the silly question pretty much moot or academic at best.
This is part of the left's orchestrated effort to paint strict constructionists or movement conservatives as something of a new phenomenon as well as something a fringe movement. The MSM carries their water, as usual.
Yes, of course, the 2nd amendment only gives the state government the right to arm the National Guard.
While the deconstructionist Warren Court had to dig through mountains of papers to find one sentence in a Thomas Jefferson letter that they could torture into nullifying the “free exercise” clause in the 1st Amendment, their modern fellow travellers wouldn’t DARE to try looking for anything like that in the writings of ANY of the nation’s founders respecting the 2nd Amendment.
Their writings are so clear, that even the most cynical deconstructionist would have no success in trying to argue that the Founders would nullify the right to self-defense.
“...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous.”
That certainly wasn’t true when I was in law school! Most of us took part of November off to go deer hunting. A few of us, myself included, would go bird hunting before and after classes. We’d take our shotguns right into school with us. I don’t remember anyone thinking it was odd at all. Of course, I didn’t go to Harvard....
If people had more guns, liberals would likely drop drastically too!
Funny. The Framers considered it preposterous that one might not have the right to arms.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28I would demand a tuition refund.
I respect guns...they literally are the last resort to keep our Republic intact. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool and/or a traitor.
When I went to school the very idea that liberal elitists like Jeffrey Toobin breathed the same air as we did was considered preposterous.
They actually think that they can just pass a law and everyone will line up and hand over their shotgun.
So will Jeffrey Tobin consider placing a sign on his lawn clearly indicating that the owner of this home does not believe in the constitutional right to own a gun (Neal Boortz once asked Cynthia Tucker this question)?
The sheeple are baffled why everyone else hasn’t rolled over with them.
exception-proves-rule etc. etc.
Hey Toobin .. There are approximately 80 million gun owners in America, who own a combined total of about 258 million guns. THIS is what is keeping the socialists among us like you at bay. Walk up my driveway to take mine away and find out how well they work!
Indeed it would. I mean what is a thief, or a burglar ? At their core they are liberal socialists. A burglar sees a disparity in wealth distribution and proceeds to redistribute your wealth without your consent. And if he is armed and you deem him to be a threat, you put a peace of lead in him and there is one less socialist in the world. So yes, without liberals and socialists the need for guns would drop drastically.
Now...why would that be? lol
Could it have something to do with the great American people waking up and deciding to STOP the trashing of their precious consitution?
Liberals KNOW that an armed populace is the ONLY way revolution can be carried out to an end game that could crush them and their ideals forever.
We all knew and respected the old Dem pary....since it has been overtly corrupted by anti-American, death loving secularists...it is no longer a party, it is a cult.
We need to be armed.
It isn't something to be taken lightly anymore.
The fact this azzhole thinks a right is revolutionary tells us all we need to know about academia.
I once heard that if liberals interpreted the second amendment the way they interpret the first amendment not only would people have a right to own a handgun but they would also have a right to own a ballistic missile. Plus not only would they have the right to own a ICBM but everyone should honor and praise the people for owning a missile and a failure to do that would be considered highly intolerant.
peace = piece.
It all began with Andy Griffith only allowing Barney Fife one bullet. Who knew how that was going to blow back on us?
There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4
4. BATFE estimated 215 million guns in 1999 (Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, Nov. 2000, p. ix , www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm. The National Academy of Sciences estimated 258 million (National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005).
Cornell is really not Ivy League. It is more Mildew League.
I have always said, gun control, and in this case gun hatred, is to give an inanimate object a moral quality. That is the ultimate in materialism.
This goofball Boston reared/educated cluster**** never lived in an area where he needed to defend himself against the thugs that this government won’t lock up and the illegals they won’t round up. Come spend a couple of months on the border you jerk and your mind will be changed real damn fast. ***ing elitist idiot. Educated WAY beyond their intelligence.
Actually they were packed during the 30's and 40's.
Mao said it best: “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”.
In addition to that, handguns are primarily defensive weapons - In the military they're used as a "last resort," so when the government bans handguns, they're banning defensive weapons, again, removing the ability of individuals to protect themselves.
Finally, the Constitution CLEARLY makes the distinction between "The State" and "The People." Why it is that these "over-educated morons" choose to ignore that is completely beyond me...
The educated, enlightened view is that The Bill of Rights detail individual rights, except the 2nd amendment, which is a collective right. As evidence of this, the advocates offer...nothing particularly compelling.
Eh, I’ve always thought it was preposterous how journalists think their actions are completely blanketed by the Freedom of the Press clause. Honestly, I find it even more preposterous that any law school actually gave Toobin a law degree.
To quote G.K. Chesterton:
"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it."
I was under the impression that the 2nd Amendment as it’s part of the original Bill of Rights could not be changed or revoked through the amendment process.
Assuming that the authors of the Constitution were fairly intelligent, educated people, why did they put the Second Amendment in the Constitution? Mr. Toobin, your answer?
The Second Amendment is an absolute right. The founders did not limit it or defer some power to the states by stating that “Congress shall pass no laws”. They stated categorically that the right “shall not be infringed”.
Where did this fool go to law school? Zimbawbe? Everyone who takes constitutional law (not as taught by the anti-American Obummer) learns about the "Second Amendment right to a gun." It's right there; just after the First Amendment and right before the Third.