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.com ^ | 1/30/2014 | Robby Soave

Posted on 01/30/2014 8:19:56 AM PST by rktman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: rktman
No. XIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776’s Declaration of Rights stated, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

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.

21 posted on 01/30/2014 8:53:44 AM PST by x_plus_one (The harvest is great but the workers are few. Salman Rushdie is right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

“I support the right to self-defense,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.”

“I support the right to religion,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to pray in public.”

“I support the right to free speech,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to publicly disagree with Obama.”

“I support the right to work,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to not join a union.”

“I support the right to require warrants for searches,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that the state must get the warrant before the search.”

“I support the right of political dissent,” ...“But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to hold positions that I define as misguided.”


22 posted on 01/30/2014 8:54:00 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

““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.”

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.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising


23 posted on 01/30/2014 8:54:36 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Only a liberal could interpret “shall not be infringed” as advocating control.

It's the "well regulated" part that throws them.

24 posted on 01/30/2014 8:58:00 AM PST by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

In the language of the time, that meant “well equipped.”


25 posted on 01/30/2014 9:05:31 AM PST by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rktman
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.

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".

26 posted on 01/30/2014 9:13:46 AM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Only a liberal could interpret “shall not be infringed” as advocating control.

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”.

27 posted on 01/30/2014 9:16:09 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rktman

High Capacity = more than one...


28 posted on 01/30/2014 9:17:56 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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 .


29 posted on 01/30/2014 9:20:24 AM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I’ve been so busy getting my other Bill Of Rights permits that I must have missed this one. Dang!


30 posted on 01/30/2014 9:31:10 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Well-equipped, well-organized and well-trained.


31 posted on 01/30/2014 9:38:42 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rktman
From the article: "The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said."

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.

32 posted on 01/30/2014 9:39:02 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
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 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

33 posted on 01/30/2014 9:40:54 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon

I haven’t read the other books you mentioned, thanks for the recommendations.


34 posted on 01/30/2014 9:42:07 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rktman
If that is the level of competence that passes for a professor at Stanford...save your money. They have illiterates on the faculty. I noticed the "adjunct professor" label. He's a part timer who enjoys being associated with the Stanford name.
35 posted on 01/30/2014 9:50:44 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Ooo...the illiterate is the FULL professor on the staff of Stanford. Save your money. Don't go there.
36 posted on 01/30/2014 9:52:04 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

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.


37 posted on 01/30/2014 9:52:23 AM PST by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I read the Second Amendment to read that we should bear the state of the art military assault weapon of the day.


38 posted on 01/30/2014 10:03:53 AM PST by duffee (NO poll tax, NO tax on firearms, ammunition or gun safes. NO gun free zones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
IMO, the proper word is “FOOL”.

But “asinine” works, too.

39 posted on 01/30/2014 10:12:43 AM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rktman

donohue@law.stanford.edu


40 posted on 01/30/2014 10:29:02 AM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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