Posted on 08/01/2015 9:48:01 AM PDT by PROCON
The legal profession is full of blowhards, egomaniacs, hypocrites, and elitists, but even so, rarely are all those qualities present in a single individual to the same degree as in Alan Dershowitz. At age 28, Dershowitz became the youngest full professor of law in history with his appointment at Harvard. And, yes, it went to his head. He has written that he “does not hide behind the distorting shield of false humility” and has even suggested things might have gone differently for Jesus if he had been there to represent him. When not busy indoctrinating impressionable law students in his own particular brand of politics, Prof. Dershowitz has advocated on behalf of various celebrity clients, including in highly-publicized cases involving allegations of murderous domestic violence.
Despite his reputation in some circles as a civil rights champion, Dershowitz is no fan of the Second Amendment. He has advocated for a variety of gun controls, including banning all semi-automatic firearms. As he said on the (since cancelled) Piers Morgan show, “If I could ban 100 percent of guns without violating the Constitution, I would do that ….” In the same appearance, he called the idea that guns have a role in protecting liberty “a myth.” Nevertheless, at least at one point, he was willing to go on record as admitting the Second Amendment protects an “individual right to ownership of guns,” although subject to regulation.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz (who admitted in 2003 that he's never held a pistol) on Monday claimed America’s “experiment” with private ownership of firearms “has failed miserably.” During an appearance on Newsmax TV, he went on to say, “If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms.”
Even though Dershowitz is famed for his expansive readings of other provisions of the Bill of Rights, he would have no problem regulating the Second Amendment into oblivion. “What is needed,” he said, “is some very tough legislation on both the federal and state level to make it much, much harder to get guns and to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership ….”
Although perhaps the most obnoxious, Dershowitz is by no means the first legal prima donna to suggest rewriting the Bill of Rights to eliminate the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly suggested that a “future, wiser court” could revisit the landmark Heller decision, which recognized a private right to arms under the Second Amendment. Later, in a televised appearance from Cairo, Egypt, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
More recently, another dissenter from the Heller case, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote an entire book about how he would refashion the U.S. Constitution to his liking. Among his suggestions is limiting “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment with the phrase, “when serving in the militia.”
While we at the NRA don’t think much of their constitutional scholarship, we can at least credit these influential legal thinkers for their candor and for illustrating the true philosophical underpinnings of the gun control movement. No matter how else they may couch their rhetoric – most recently as “gun safety” proponents, gun control advocates simply hate guns and do not trust the American people to have them. It should surprise no one that the legal elites among them are perfectly willing to repeal or judicially nullify the Second Amendment entirely.
The next U.S. president could appoint perhaps three or even four Supreme Court justices to a bench where the Heller and McDonald decisions currently survive by one vote. The importance of who makes those appointments should not be lost on those who value the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever else can be said of his tendency towards incessant bloviation, that’s one lesson from Prof. Dershowitz we all should heed.
The next U.S. president could appoint perhaps three or even four Supreme Court justices to a bench where the Heller and McDonald decisions currently survive by one vote. The importance of who makes those appointments should not be lost on those who value the right to keep and bear arms.
Commie libs would love to see the entire Bill of Rights “go”. It’s a commie pig thing. You can’t destroy freedom and enslave the entire population with that pesky Bill of Rights out there hanging over the heads of the communist masters.
They can’t do it by following the procedures available to change the Constitution.
Would have to have a military take over/coup to make that drastic of a change. I don’t think the military would go for that either, but who knows?
>>You can’t destroy freedom and enslave the entire population with that pesky Bill of Rights out there hanging over the heads of the communist masters.
Actually they can. The Bill of Rights is only as good as the willingness of the people to kill (not complain to, vote against, or sue) would-be tyrants who try to take it away. It’s easy for the people to decide to do that when the tyrant tries to take it all at once, but when the tyrant does it by chipping away a little a time and turning small portions of each right into a “privilege” that must be licensed, then the decision point becomes harder to calculate.
If they really wanted to save lives they would outlaw abortion.
The unborn are insignificant to them.
Of course, the gratuitous attack on our most basic freedoms, is contemptible, regardless of the IQ or personal accomplishments of the attacker--whether that attacker is an Academic loud mouth or the person who empties the coin boxes at the laundromat.
Secondly, the negro community organizer from Chicago has demonstrated that he can ignore the laws and the constitution with impunity. This is a valuable lesson for future President's-assuming he leaves office in 2017.
You are witnessing your country being "transformed" (meaning taken) right before your very eyes and are doing NOTHING!
“The importance of who makes those appointments should not be lost on those who value the right to keep and bear arms.”
Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future actions. I seem to remember a guy by the name of Earl Warren and a guy named William Brennan; both appointed by Eisenhower.
He (Eisenhower) would later describe them as his two biggest mistakes.
We have more recent mistakes, of course, but those two were doozies.
Yep, and they are more than willing to do a Stalin style purge to achieve control.
Yep. And there are two ways to make them "go". One is to outright repeal the Bill of Rights. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
Here's the second way. Have the courts interpret these amendments to have them refer to the rights of the government, and not to individuals. That's where the danger is.
Exactly. That’s the problem with having a “dumbed down” America like we now have. The idiots go to the government to ask them to “interpret” the Bill of Rights for them and tell them what they mean. The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and the people. It’s the peoples’ job to tell the government what the Bill of Rights mean. If the government continues to violate the Bill of Rights, it’s our job to make the government comply with the Bill of Rights. If it fails to do so, it’s our job to replace that government.
Well then, what do you propose I do?
Organize to fight, find a leader who is effective.
The only thing that getting rid of the 2nd amendment would do is ensure an immediate 2nd revolution which frankly isn’t the worst thing that could happen. IMO.
The constitution and bill of rights is just about the only thing preventing 0bama’s fundamental transformation. So of course the progs would like to get rid of it.
Aw, they don’t know that it is NOT the Second Amendment from which that right springs.
Hmmmmm ..?? What is Obama holding over the Professor’s head to get him to PUSH this gun issue ..??
Or is part of it the Professor’s compliments regarding his one-time student, Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court in the most recent Obamacare decision explicitly said “We don’t care what the law says; we’ll rule it says what we want it to say”.
Small people fit in small holes. Less digging.
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.