One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

I am attacking what Cornell does. He tried to convince the USSC that the DC handgun ban was not a violation of the second amendment because some municipalities banned loaded handguns. He is either dishonest-pretending that state laws are applicable to DC or actually ignorant of the legal difference between say Boston and DC

 

It's, OUR Constitution, is much more than "just words on paper", many serious thinkers, since it was written, have credited it as being "inspired". Those "words" have created THE Greatest Nation on earth ... even today. So, before we start toying with changing those "words" we should think long and hard about it. Before "changing" the Second Amendment I think we should "also" consider another Amendment that would clarify the right of States to legislated law they deem necessary to protect the Life and Liberty of their citizens.

The Founders GREATEST fear was that the LIBERTY they fought for would be taken away by a tyrant. That is why they gave every AmeriCAN the right to own "firearms commonly in current use", so that they (US) would have the means to defend against tyranny. That's not a right we should take lightly. January 6th 2021, if nothing else, showed us how easy it is to attack the seat of our National Government, the implementation of "those words".

 

It's still just words on paper.

It doesn't have any special powers other than our respect for it.

 

is this an oblique attempt to pretend that we don't have constitutional rights? or just not the ones the Democrats hate??

 

And the only think that prevents you from removing/adding whatever words you want on it is the absence of a compelling enough argument for doing so.

 

And by unanimous consent and 234 years of tradition These United States have been governed by it's Constitution. THE greatest document ever written by man for mankind.

 

I completely agree.

 

Well, then it’s NOTu]JUST[/u] “words on paper”. The sum is MUCH greater than its parts. As evolutionary as the revolution itself, “Government BYwas a idea NEVER tried before.

 

It's still just words on paper.

 

No, it’s MUCH, MUCH,MUCH MORE than “just words on paper”.

 

Its a historical study, not an assertion. The situation back then was what it was, and gun regulation was pretty strict.

I didn't see #2 or #3 in the study. Did you see that, or do you just assume that he was 'asserting' it.

 

Democracies existed long before the US.

 

But they weren't founded from the bottom up as Government BY (all of) the People.

 

Even Roman Republic had that kind of government. Nothing wrong with that of course.

 

No, they did not. Their democracy was top down. Elites ruled.

 

Elites? You mean elected representatives? Same here. Obviously. It has been that way from Day-1.

The Constitution is a fine document, but the idea was not brand new. Even the Bill Of Rights was mostly copied from English Bill Of Rights.

 

did you miss my point that I am attacking what Cornell does, not his silly historical recitation that has zero relevance to constitutional law

 

He is pretty much the subject matter expert on that subject, so I'm not sure why you expect people to listen to you instead, and he also writes books on "competing views" in American history. Your view is 100% one sided views, while he considers multiple views. Don't you think its beneficial to hear all sides?

 

he has no expertise on constitutional law. its his attempts to pretend the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right that proves him a whore. It's his conclusions that I and many other pro rights legal scholars take issue with. He doesn't present both sides. His actions have always been anti gun owners' rights. I am curious, you constantly claim you support people owning guns yet you fluff anti gun activists like Cornell. Is it because you both are democrats?

 

You keep trying to discredit him, even though he is considered an expert on the matter.

And your repeated attempts to insult is a dodge.

I have no idea what party he belongs to, or if he is an activist, but I know I am not a Democrat? Are you a Dem?

History is really not a partisan matter unless you unleash people to whitewash history books of inconvenient truths, and that effort is already underway in places like Florida. You think history is "activism" unless historical facts are in line with your bias. You lash out when you don't like what you hear about history. That's a pretty lame / dishonest way to study history. Sorry to say.

And yes, I support people owning guns, but that has nothing to do with gun laws 250 years ago.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-gun-control-advocate-and-his-fabricated-facts/

Cornell fudges facts and sometimes just outright lies

 

he is not a legal expert. He is historian. His conclusions run counter to that of most leading legal experts. His attempts to pretend the founders did not intend an individual right is not based on historical fact and he has constantly ignored the fact that the constitution never gave the new federal government any gun control powers over private citizens

 

It's the supreme law of the land.

 

Yep, written using words on paper

 

AKA: documentation. Like every other law our country has.