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 ...
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.
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...
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”!
Tell it to the Indians.
Wounded Knee
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’
As usual they are just trying to make you mad.
It worked.
‘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....
Parents actually pay insanely exorbitant tuition so their children can be taught by a head-up-his-arse idiot like this?
The liberal's conclusion was pre ordained, then he built his house of cards to "prove" it.
“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?
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.
From JeffHead.com. A good one.
If that’s true why was the government doing it wrong for over 150 years?
“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.
This is easy to explain.
(Wait for it)
He can’t read cursive.
” And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”
The right “kind” of military sure would....
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.