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

Skip to comments.

Stanford law prof: Second Amendment is about restricting gun rights
The Daily Caller ^ | January 30, 2014 | Robby Soave

Posted on 01/30/2014 1:26:16 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

A Stanford University law professor took the view that the Second Amendment permits strong gun control, telling the crowd that “restriction has to be at the core” of the right to carry a gun.

John J. Donohue, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, made his remarks during a debate with attorney Donald Kilmer, an adjunct professor at Lincoln Law School of San Jose.

“I support the right to self-defense,” said Donohue during the debate, according to The Stanford Review. “But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.”

Donohue explained that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in historical context. The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said.

He also criticized the argument that the right to bear arms was necessary for American citizens to guard against tyranny.

“It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”

Kilmer disagreed, saying that citizen militias have waged successful defensive campaigns against armies all over the globe.

He reminded the audience that gun control has historically given dictators free reign to abuse their citizens.

“Taking away citizens’ arms has always been the first step of the greatest human rights violations,” he said. “The mistake of giving up your arms is a mistake you only get to make once.”(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; california; donaldkilme; donaldkilmer; fascism; johnjdonohue; stanford
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Fanciful? Ever read anything on the 20th Century?
1 posted on 01/30/2014 1:26:16 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Just as much a learned professor of law as our president is a Constitutional scholar.

TC


2 posted on 01/30/2014 1:34:56 AM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A Stanford University law professor took the view that the Second Amendment permits strong gun control

I wonder if there are enough rocks in the world, to cover all the slime bags, who crawl out from underneath them?

3 posted on 01/30/2014 1:35:52 AM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Vet 70-71 Msgt US Air Force, retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Funny how a law professor doesn’t know the definition of “infringe”.


4 posted on 01/30/2014 1:36:00 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This guy wins the Doublethink Duckspeak Award.


5 posted on 01/30/2014 1:36:26 AM PST by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said”

They also had no idea how destructive the modern media would become. Why does it apply to guns but not to anything else?


6 posted on 01/30/2014 1:39:33 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
John J. Donohue III has been one of the leading empirical researchers in the legal academy over the past 25 years. Professor Donohue is an economist as well as a lawyer and is well known for using empirical analysis to determine the impact of law and public policy in a wide range of areas, including civil rights and antidiscrimination law, employment discrimination, crime and criminal justice, and school funding. Professor Donohue previously was a member of the law school faculty from 1995–2004.

From his public bio. Empirical Law....hmmmm.. funny term. That's a liberal dogmatic's way of saying "let's throw this up against a wall and see if it sticks." His kooky magazine limit thingy with respect to the founders is an experiment to try and make it stick that the founders would have disapproved. His only argument in support of it is "they couldn't possibly have imagined the kinds of deadly weapons we have today."

Had the founders known about gas guzzling cars, airplanes and all the rest, would they have also banned them? I'll tell you what they WOULD have been apoplectic over - Abortion. But you will never even see a liberal even deign to acknowledge that type of 'hypothesis.'

The fact is that one cannot "empirically analyze" ANYTHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED! His 'analysis' and argument is actually arguing an outcome of a hypothesis with a one-sided conclusion.

7 posted on 01/30/2014 1:44:40 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

They also had no concept of stuff like Marxism, which undermines religion and private morality.


8 posted on 01/30/2014 1:44:45 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He obviously missed all those writings by the founders on the second amendment.


9 posted on 01/30/2014 1:45:56 AM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It costs 75000 a year to send your little adorable rug rat to Stanford law school. And that includes a Walmart skateboard but no car. And no spare change for any extras or visiting Sandra fluke.


10 posted on 01/30/2014 1:46:42 AM PST by faithhopecharity (C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

He didn’t miss them. They didn’t support his foregone conclusion so he omitted them - just like Michael Mann left out so many stands of trees in the world that did not support his global warming theory.


11 posted on 01/30/2014 1:48:04 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If a few semi automatic rifles and thirty round magazines are no threat to tyrants, why are they working so hard to take them away? And Mr. Stanford professor there can be embarrassed for trotting out that failed notion about the state of firearms technology then vs now. The bill of rights is about RIGHTS, not the expression nor realization of them. They didn't anticipate telephones, email, texts, etc. But do you think your 4th amendment rights don't protect your privacy? They didn't anticipate Facebook, Twitter, etc and the means to connect with millions, but do you think the 1st amendment doesn't protect your speech there too?

In point of fact Mr Stanford professor, the weapons the founding fathers were protecting our right to keep were exactly the same ones the military had at the time. Therefore it could be argued the 2A protects our right to have exactly the same weapons as our government. Yes, including armored vehicles, automatic weapons, missiles, bombs, etc.

12 posted on 01/30/2014 1:58:34 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

Only to point this out...because both sides of this debate are refusing to look at development and new trends...the big gun debate will be over within twenty years.

You can figure by 2030...a new trendy “zap” gun will exist...without any bullets. You will have the ability to stun or kill people....one, a dozen, or hundreds...within just a couple of minutes. No need to worry about lead, ammo magazines, the second amendment, or right-to-carry.

We will even reach a stage where the “zap” gun isn’t even referred to as a gun....thus inviting massive debate over how you’d control a modern technology....where the weapon could be pumped out via 3-D technology in a couple of minutes. The battery size and distance between the shooter and victim are the only question marks at this points.

A kid could into a school, and zap a dozen teachers to such extent...that their nervous system would be permanently screwed up.

This whole worry generated by the anti-gun crowd....is very limited...if you guage development and technology. They’ve got maybe another dozen years before they have to dump gun control and really start to worry over something that is way beyond our understanding of weapons and threats today.


13 posted on 01/30/2014 2:11:41 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Humm I wonder how the good Professors would sort this out

“restriction has to be at the core” of the right .....

to kill your unborn child.

to redistribute your income.

to health care.

to privacy.

to speedy trial.

to legal representation.

......

14 posted on 01/30/2014 2:19:43 AM PST by Fzob (Jesus + anything = nothing, Jesus + nothing = everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”

Gosh, I wish this professor wasn't so damned smart.

The Bonus March, thats when the Military HELPED the veterans who marched on DC get their World War One bonus, right? They didn't FIRE on them. They HELPED the veteran-citizens.

Well, now I'm convinced. No one needs guns.

Glad he could clear all that up!

15 posted on 01/30/2014 2:24:53 AM PST by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

My point is that it doesn’t matter. What galls me about this argument is that it the libs always use it for guns. It doesn’t make any sense when applied media, political speech, religion, guns or any other subject covered by the bill of rights. It can be argued that technology has enhanced the ability of people to communicate and do good or evil beyond anything the framers could anticipate in many of these areas. So what?


16 posted on 01/30/2014 2:28:07 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
They also had no concept of stuff like Marxism, which undermines religion and private morality.

They knew very well of democratic leveling before there was a Marx. Prior to 1913, the structure of their constitution kept the virus of social justice democracy out of our government.

17 posted on 01/30/2014 2:31:12 AM PST by Jacquerie (Restore federalism and freedom. Repeal the 17th. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I sent the author an email about horses and reins and stuff.

In other news, I held off watering my trees and got free rain all night. But I doubt we’ll ever be rid of “free reign.”


18 posted on 01/30/2014 2:34:14 AM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

THIS is what is educating the young brains who helped put that destructive bastard and his party of psychic vampires in the White House.


19 posted on 01/30/2014 2:41:08 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

——A Stanford University law professor ? ——

Wow....they are never wrong....


20 posted on 01/30/2014 2:45:00 AM PST by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Avatar
TEWS_Pilot
• 5 hours ago

Was this Constitutionally-illiterate activist pointy-head a student of Barack Obama? I wonder if he noticed that the SECOND Amendment is the SECOND one listed in the Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights, all of which LIMIT the FEDERAL government’s authority....probably not.
15

Reply

Share ›
Avatar
Robmax TEWS_Pilot
• 5 hours ago

Exactly, and the preamble to the bill of rights makes that very clear.

**************

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth

of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses
should be added: And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in
the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both
Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by
Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the
original Constitution.


21 posted on 01/30/2014 2:50:01 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

I would think that the rights of the living, not yet medically born out into the open world, would be covered by the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” part...but those that believe in abortion don’t see that way...


22 posted on 01/30/2014 2:54:26 AM PST by BCW (Salva reipublicae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
This guy wins the Doublethink Duckspeak Award.<<

That's the end result of most liberal pseudo-intellectuals.....In order to stroke their own egos and appear smarter then others...they have to resort to some sort of magical thinking wrapped around flawed thoughts...as in....Everyone knows what “No” means so to appear smart...they have to convince themselves and others it really means “Yes”!

23 posted on 01/30/2014 2:56:20 AM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

24 posted on 01/30/2014 3:01:28 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens."

Tell it to the Indians.

Wounded Knee

25 posted on 01/30/2014 3:04:24 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

If a few semi automatic rifles and thirty round magazines are no threat to tyrants, why are they working so hard to take them away?

ALSO THERE’S THIS...WHEN A PASSEL OF M-13 DRUGGED UP GANG MEMBERS TAKE IT INTO THEIR CRACK COCAINE FEVERED MINDS TO INVADE MY HOME THREATENING MY FAMILY WITH THIS KIND OF WEAPONRY I REALLY THINK I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGALLY OWN MY OWN HIGH CAPACITY FIREARM...YOU KNOW, JUST TO PROTECT MY HOME, MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN...JUST SAYIN’


26 posted on 01/30/2014 3:09:54 AM PST by jimsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

As usual they are just trying to make you mad.


27 posted on 01/30/2014 3:11:59 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
'Funny how a law professor doesn’t know the definition of “infringe”.

PSST Prof. johnny d...howse about cracking any book written by the most respected 2nd Amendment Author extent...?

MR JOHN LOTT'S MANY BOOKS CAN BE CHECKED OUT OF ANY LIBRARY IN THE NATION EVEN THE STANFORD LIBRARY HAS COPIES IM WAGERIN' SAY, HERE'S A THOUGHT WHY NOT HIKE OVER THERE AND READ UP ON THE SUBJECT....LAD...THEN COME BACK WHEN YOU'VE WISED UP..
28 posted on 01/30/2014 3:17:18 AM PST by jimsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

It worked.


29 posted on 01/30/2014 3:21:19 AM PST by ez (Muslims do not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fella

‘He obviously missed all those writings by the founders on the second amendment.’

AND ALL THOSE GREAT WORKS AUTHORED BY THE INESTIMABLE JOHN LOTT....WHEREIN HE PARSES THE LANGUAGE AND THE ELUCIDATES THE CONTEXT IN WHICH RKBA WAS WRITTEN....IT’S SEEMS THOROUGH RESEARCH WOULD DEMAND SOMETHING LIKE THAT....


30 posted on 01/30/2014 3:24:21 AM PST by jimsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Parents actually pay insanely exorbitant tuition so their children can be taught by a head-up-his-arse idiot like this?


31 posted on 01/30/2014 3:30:12 AM PST by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Only an intellectual elite like the esteemed Stanford law professor John J. Donohue could be so willfully blind, stupid, and wrong. But I repeat myself. These hare hallmarks of the intellectual elite — the trusting naivete of an infant in the goodness of a beneficent, soulless, tyrannical state. For them the state represents womb to tomb security.
32 posted on 01/30/2014 3:37:07 AM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
His 'analysis' and argument is actually arguing an outcome of a hypothesis with a one-sided conclusion.

The liberal's conclusion was pre ordained, then he built his house of cards to "prove" it.

33 posted on 01/30/2014 3:42:45 AM PST by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

“The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said”

So, if George Washington was offered a couple of wagonloads of AK-47s, he wouldn’t have wanted them or figured out how to use them?


34 posted on 01/30/2014 3:45:41 AM PST by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27

The problem is that “free reign” seems to make sense, as in to reign freely, until you think about it a little, and compare it to the idea of giving a horse “free rein”. Unfortunately, most people don’t think at all about the expressions they use, so you’re right: “free reign” will not go away.


35 posted on 01/30/2014 3:49:59 AM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What good can a handgun do against an army?

From JeffHead.com. A good one.

36 posted on 01/30/2014 3:51:09 AM PST by mc5cents (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If that’s true why was the government doing it wrong for over 150 years?


37 posted on 01/30/2014 3:52:57 AM PST by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”

Ah, where to begin...

First, this clown’s view of the fanciful should include his own thought process. The firearms in circulation in this nation are important tools in the preservation of the nation. I dare say, the millions and millions of trained veterans render his argument unfounded.
Second, while it used to be unthinkable that US troops would ever fire on US citizens, we are no longer so sure; especially given Zero’s purge of the senior military ranks over the last few years.

2DV, thanks for the post. I hope we never have to test this guy’s notions. But, I also believe we are prepared to do so.


38 posted on 01/30/2014 4:00:11 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is easy to explain.
(Wait for it)

He can’t read cursive.


39 posted on 01/30/2014 4:05:09 AM PST by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

” And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”

The right “kind” of military sure would....


40 posted on 01/30/2014 4:12:09 AM PST by jughandle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jughandle
The right “kind” of military sure would....

This military did so, and not too long ago, in Watertown MA...


41 posted on 01/30/2014 4:25:02 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Self defense? The 2nd amendment is about having the arms necessary to defend yourself from the government.


42 posted on 01/30/2014 4:33:41 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N; Travis McGee

Thanks for posting that photo — I am so glad that moment is recorded.

Any one of us is in that guy’s sights (has he ever been identified?).

We should never ever forget.


43 posted on 01/30/2014 4:35:43 AM PST by cyn (Benghazi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: catman67

I think GW would have been in hog heaven.


44 posted on 01/30/2014 4:37:21 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This guy is a loon. He seems to have problems understanding the English language. What a moron. I new this was going to happen when they decided that ANYONE could be a “professor”.


45 posted on 01/30/2014 4:42:06 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (ObamaCare. The "global warming" of healthcare plans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Another academic whore spouting off.


46 posted on 01/30/2014 4:48:20 AM PST by RKBA Democrat (Having some small say in who gets to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Stupid is, as stupid does...”

When the chips fall, and he gets his confiscation implemented...

I hope he is the one knocking on my door...I will be happy to receive him...


47 posted on 01/30/2014 4:51:38 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Interesting. And entirely plausible.


48 posted on 01/30/2014 4:53:54 AM PST by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said”

Since rifles -- including so-called "assault rifles" -- are used in such a small number of homicides, this doesn't explain why liberals find them so disturbing. The last time I looked it up, the most common firearm used in homicides was a revolver.

Why not ban revolvers? Or why not ban swimming pools, since they're far more dangerous than guns?

49 posted on 01/30/2014 5:00:26 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

They knew exactly how destructive the media and guns could be. They understood crony capitalism, corruption, evil and abusive government.

The one thing our founders underestimated is the tenacity of our enemies and how little most Americans are willing to fight for the freedoms so many of them died for.


50 posted on 01/30/2014 5:02:12 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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