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 doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
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 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.”
““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
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.
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.