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 ...
Just as much a learned professor of law as our president is a Constitutional scholar.
TC
I wonder if there are enough rocks in the world, to cover all the slime bags, who crawl out from underneath them?
Funny how a law professor doesn’t know the definition of “infringe”.
This guy wins the Doublethink Duckspeak Award.
“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?
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.
They also had no concept of stuff like Marxism, which undermines religion and private morality.
He obviously missed all those writings by the founders on the second amendment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
......
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!
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?
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.
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.”
THIS is what is educating the young brains who helped put that destructive bastard and his party of psychic vampires in the White House.
——A Stanford University law professor ? ——
Wow....they are never wrong....
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.