[rktman]

Comprehension skills.....ZERO Dumbass using the tired argument that the founders never envisioned today's modern weapons. But then again, he is a college professor so he must be real real smart. Either that or he slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[nvscanman]

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 .

[onedoug]

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

[William Tell]

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.

[JimRed]

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

[Myrddin]

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.

[Myrddin]

Ooo...the illiterate is the FULL professor on the staff of Stanford. Save your money. Don't go there.

[jmaroneps37]

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.

[duffee]

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

[Dalberg-Acton]

donohue@law.stanford.edu

[stylin19a]

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.

This guy is an idiot. Historical context INCLUDED the most powerful and destructive weapons in use at the time.

[Talisker]

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.

[pierrem15]

The never envisioned the internet, radio or television either, so I guess our 1st Amendment rights don't apply there, too.

The kind of idiot you can only find at a University.

[Osage Orange]

“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.”

Right there....the educated dumbass is wrong.

[Swordmaker]

Ah, the Barney Fife approach to the right to bearing arms. . . You may bear any gun you wish but only ONE bullet!