Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN's Toobin: 'Preposterous' to Believe in 2nd Amend. Right Back at Harvard
NewsBusters.org ^ | 7/15/2009 | Matthew Balan

Posted on 07/15/2009 4:39:53 PM PDT by Pyro7480

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst | NewsBusters.org...On Wednesday, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin implied that the Supreme Court’s 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 nominee’s “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, it’s 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, that’s something that’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; caselaw; cnn; elitism; harvard; heller; leftismoncampus; liberalelite; liberalfascism; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; toobin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last
So eltist of him...
1 posted on 07/15/2009 4:39:53 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

The second amendment is as much a right as the 1st


2 posted on 07/15/2009 4:40:37 PM PDT by GeronL (UnitedCitizen.Blogspot.Com --------- United Citizens Nation! ------------- Join Today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Proof the “Brothels of Higher Learning” have been packed with anti american marxists and worse for at least the last 50 to 60 years.
3 posted on 07/15/2009 4:43:00 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.


4 posted on 07/15/2009 4:43:11 PM PDT by Republic (Uhbama has sleezed and schmoozed his way through life-he is a silly little boy with inmmature dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
“When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous...."

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".

5 posted on 07/15/2009 4:44:02 PM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The second amendment is as much a right as the 1st

And since it doesn't apply to individuals, neither does the 16th

6 posted on 07/15/2009 4:44:52 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Move over NetZero - Obama's in the house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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? :-)


7 posted on 07/15/2009 4:44:58 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Control the teleprompter, control the agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias.

That is absolutely NOT true.

This man is either ignorant, stupid or he is a bald-faced liar.

8 posted on 07/15/2009 4:46:27 PM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Good one!


9 posted on 07/15/2009 4:47:09 PM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

“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)


10 posted on 07/15/2009 4:47:34 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


11 posted on 07/15/2009 4:47:37 PM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
The nation already has 80-100 million firearms in private hands.

I think that makes the silly question pretty much moot or academic at best.

12 posted on 07/15/2009 4:48:00 PM PDT by muir_redwoods ( How come when I press "1 for English" I still can't understand what's being said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Exactly.


13 posted on 07/15/2009 4:48:07 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
Isn't it just a bit irrational to hate inanimate objects? It's sort of like hating rocks, isn't it?
14 posted on 07/15/2009 4:48:47 PM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Toobin needs to stay off the crack. I didn't go to Harvard Law, but I did go to one of the premiere law schools and I'm a little older than Toobin. The idea that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual and not the state was in NO WAY be characterized as "preposterous".

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.

15 posted on 07/15/2009 4:48:56 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


16 posted on 07/15/2009 4:50:25 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

“...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....


17 posted on 07/15/2009 4:50:25 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic
“If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.”

If people had more guns, liberals would likely drop drastically too!

18 posted on 07/15/2009 4:51:57 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous

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. 28
I would demand a tuition refund.

ML/NJ

19 posted on 07/15/2009 4:52:09 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

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.


20 posted on 07/15/2009 4:52:47 PM PDT by Globalist Goon ("Head down over a saddle.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

When I went to school the very idea that liberal elitists like Jeffrey Toobin breathed the same air as we did was considered preposterous.


21 posted on 07/15/2009 4:53:18 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
They've been trying to spin it that way in the big urban centers for decades, as a tool to control minorities and the less affluent. It isn't selling in Mayberry, and they can't understand why!

They actually think that they can just pass a law and everyone will line up and hand over their shotgun.

22 posted on 07/15/2009 4:53:32 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
DC vs. Heller was won by a lawyer from the Ivy League -- Cornell with a law degree from Georgetown.
23 posted on 07/15/2009 4:53:32 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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)?


24 posted on 07/15/2009 4:53:51 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (There might just be too many metrosexuals in America to allow Sarah Palin to become President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

The sheeple are baffled why everyone else hasn’t rolled over with them.


25 posted on 07/15/2009 4:54:41 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Democrat Party: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

exception-proves-rule etc. etc.


26 posted on 07/15/2009 4:55:02 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All

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!


27 posted on 07/15/2009 4:55:10 PM PDT by rayincolorado ("Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Republic
If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.

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.

28 posted on 07/15/2009 4:55:25 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I guess, deep down, ALL LIBERALS are afraid of an armed revolution.

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.

29 posted on 07/15/2009 4:56:10 PM PDT by Republic (Uhbama has sleezed and schmoozed his way through life-he is a silly little boy with inmmature dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

The fact this azzhole thinks a right is revolutionary tells us all we need to know about academia.


30 posted on 07/15/2009 4:56:24 PM PDT by dforest (Who is the real Jim Thompson? I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


31 posted on 07/15/2009 4:56:38 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (There might just be too many metrosexuals in America to allow Sarah Palin to become President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

peace = piece.


32 posted on 07/15/2009 4:56:58 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
They've been trying to spin it that way in the big urban centers for decades, as a tool to control minorities and the less affluent. It isn't selling in Mayberry, and they can't understand why!

It all began with Andy Griffith only allowing Barney Fife one bullet. Who knew how that was going to blow back on us?

33 posted on 07/15/2009 4:57:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Democrat Party: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
The nation already has 80-100 million firearms in private hands.

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).

34 posted on 07/15/2009 4:59:48 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
DC vs. Heller was won by a lawyer from the Ivy League -- Cornell with a law degree from Georgetown.

Cornell is really not Ivy League. It is more Mildew League.

35 posted on 07/15/2009 5:03:21 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

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.


36 posted on 07/15/2009 5:03:50 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

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.


37 posted on 07/15/2009 5:07:23 PM PDT by Texas resident ( Cut n Shoot Texas: Mayberry for rednecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
"Proof the “Brothels of Higher Learning” have been packed with anti american marxists and worse for at least the last 50 to 60 years. "

Actually they were packed during the 30's and 40's.

38 posted on 07/15/2009 5:07:32 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Mao said it best: “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”.


39 posted on 07/15/2009 5:08:35 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Something that has never (to the best of my knowledge) been brought up is the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the government has no responsibility to protect individuals, only "society" as a whole. Given that fact, then it is up to the individual to protect him or herself. If the government can disarm an individual, while stating that the government has no responsibility to protect the individual, then the government is acting against that individual, and as such, must be opposed.

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...

Mark

40 posted on 07/15/2009 5:08:48 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
toobsmoker is to the left of stalin... only a communist regime like cnn would call him conservative.

LLS

41 posted on 07/15/2009 5:10:10 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

ALL THREE!

LLS


42 posted on 07/15/2009 5:10:31 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (hussein will NEVER be my President... NEVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


43 posted on 07/15/2009 5:10:48 PM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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.


44 posted on 07/15/2009 5:11:14 PM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan (I AM JIM THOMPSON! - Huckaboob = Joy Behar's Favorite Republican - 'Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
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.

To quote G.K. Chesterton:

"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it."

Cheers!

45 posted on 07/15/2009 5:11:44 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

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.


46 posted on 07/15/2009 5:12:42 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
The Ivy League:

Harvard

Yale

Princeton

Cornell

Brown

Dartmouth

Columbia

Penn

Cheers!

47 posted on 07/15/2009 5:12:43 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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?


48 posted on 07/15/2009 5:12:54 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Yes, we disagree - no, we won't shut up - no, we won't quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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”.


49 posted on 07/15/2009 5:13:13 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
“When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous...."

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.

50 posted on 07/15/2009 5:13:37 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson