Skip to comments.Stanford law prof: Second Amendment is about restricting gun rights
Posted on 01/30/2014 8:19:56 AM PST by rktman
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 doesnt mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
And by his logic, censorship is completely constitutional as the founding fathers couldn’t have anticipated the computer and the internet when they wrote the 1st Amendment.
I was once foolish enough to think that lawyers were pretty sharp.
Thankfully, the Obamadork, the Holderfelon, and multiple “professors of law” have erased that incorrect conclusion.
high-capacity magazines = putting more cartridges in the magazine than it will reliably feed.
Otherwise it is standard capacity.
Try the good old Global Warming fact strategy
The lesson on offer: there is only one way to stop these monsters and those who enable them. Only one way.
Only a liberal could interpret “shall not be infringed” as advocating control.
So, professor, that means that you do not have the right to be able to defend yourself against multiple assailants, or against government forces armed with high capacity magazines?
So, with that thought process do we now restrict the First Amendment because The Founders never envisioned the internet?
Drop that “eye” phone and step away.
Well... Assuming this guy isn’t cut from the same cloth as Michale Bellisiles... Then he is clinically insane.
Of course, if he is, then he’s a fraud and needs to be fired immediately.
Hi cap magazines.
The Prof should look up when the Puckle gun was invented.
LOL! Right. Fire a college prof? Now that’s funny.
Everyone should just laugh, in people like these, faces. To actually believe the things they do, they have to deny reality. I can’t say they are “ignorant”, because these are educated people. Another word comes to mind that is perfect.
extremely stupid or foolish.
“Lydia ignored his asinine remark”
synonyms: stupid, foolish, brainless, mindless, senseless, idiotic, imbecilic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, inane, witless, empty-headed; informal, half-witted, dimwitted, dumb, moronic
“an asinine stunt”
I guess we could just set him on fire.
I think the time has come for options to be considered.
quote “restriction has to be at the core of the right to carry a gun”
hm... lets play a game liberals...
lets replace “carry a gun” with “have an abortion” (which isn’t even in the constitution” and see how you feel about such a statement!
This was not drafted by Jefferson or Madison but by Robert Whitehill, Timothy Matlack, Dr. Thomas Young, George Bryan, James Cannon, and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson probably copied this document.
There is no ambiguity as to what right to bear arms means in this Pennsylvania Constitution.
I support the right to self-defense, ...But that doesnt mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.
I support the right to religion, ...But that doesnt mean that you have a right to pray in public.
I support the right to free speech, ...But that doesnt mean that you have a right to publicly disagree with Obama.
I support the right to work, ...But that doesnt mean that you have a right to not join a union.
I support the right to require warrants for searches, ...But that doesnt mean that the state must get the warrant before the search.
I support the right of political dissent, ...But that doesnt mean that you have a right to hold positions that I define as misguided.
“Its fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check, said Donohue. Theyre not really trained to do so. And its fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.
Maybe he should ask the Jews of Warsaw if they would have liked to own guns during WW2. Oh, but wait...they died fighting an army with almost nothing to do it with:
“Hundreds of people in the Warsaw ghetto were ready to fight, adults and children, sparsely armed with handguns, gasoline bottles, and a few other weapons that had been smuggled into the Ghetto by resistance fighters. Most of the Jewish fighters did not view their actions as an effective measure by which to save themselves, but rather as a battle for the honor of the Jewish people, and a protest against the world’s silence.”
It's the "well regulated" part that throws them.
In the language of the time, that meant “well equipped.”
Because the founding fathers were stupid? I can imagine things that could make today's weapons a lot more destructive. I can imagine ray guns. If they wanted to restrict us they would have said "keep and bare flintlocks".
Did he really address “shall not be infringed”?
Seems like he concentrated more on “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” (a largely undefined series of words).
He seemed to say some things are not included in “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
If “something” is not included in “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”, that “something” is not covered by “Shall not be infringed”.
High Capacity = more than one...
If this asshat truly believes his position is correct then he is grossly incompetent and should disbarred immediately for being an idiot or
he is just spouting party propaganda and should be hung for his efforts
to undermine the Constitution which he swore an oath to uphold .
I’ve been so busy getting my other Bill Of Rights permits that I must have missed this one. Dang!
Well-equipped, well-organized and well-trained.
The implication is clear, then, that we are all entitled to own a fully equipped war ship, all the cannons we want, and gun powder by the ton.
Somehow I would guess the professor's argument would be different when it comes to such things which were prevalent during the Revolution.
He reminded the audience that gun control has historically given dictators free rein 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.
Winston Churchill "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill
I haven’t read the other books you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.
Well THAT’S it for me! If a STANFORD LAW PROFESSOR SAYS IT, IT MUST BE TRUE! I’ll turn my gun in and make a donation to my local Democrat club.
I read the Second Amendment to read that we should bear the state of the art military assault weapon of the day.
But “asinine” works, too.
He doesn’t understand militia, he doesn’t understand free, he doesn’t understand right, he doesn’t understand people, he doesn’t understand keep, and he doesn’t understand infringed.
Despite that incredible ignorance, he’s still a professor of law.
To paraphrase the old saying,
1. those lawyers who can’t practice, teach.
2. those who can’t teach, write books.
3. those who can’t write books, become politicians.
4. those who can’t do real politics become President.
I’m not naming anyone in particular. Just sayin’ ...
This law prof is citing administrative law rationale.
So does Obamacare.
Instead of calling him an idiot, you should try to understand the legal mechanism he is deliberately misapplying.
It’s the root of everything the Rats do, yet conservatives have yet to address it.
Search “One Stone, Two Powers” by me, Talisker, for a primer.
LOL! Okay, now I’m suspicious. Where did Justice Roberts get a copy of the ACA? Must have been after the sign it read it statement huh?
Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to carry-out a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, issued under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
The kind of idiot you can only find at a University.
Precisely! Many people understand that “regulated” means that the people are subject to regulations by the government.
If that were so, the words “shall not be infringed” are superfluous.
THOSE WORDS MEAN WHAT THEY SAY, NO MORE OR NO LESS!
Not shouting at you but I see the need to emphasize the point for others.