“The Founders Couldn’t Have Imagined Assault Rifles,” She Blogged

According to a former professor of history at Ohio State University:

"The Second Amendment of their imagination: Gun-rights advocates need to admit that the Founders were fine with gun confiscation, among other things....

"Any honest historian of the early Republic will tell you that lax gun laws are not in fact pro-Second Amendment; they are anti-Second Amendment....

"In the period between 1968 and 2015, more Americans have died as a result of gun violence than perished in all of America’s wars combined. Can anyone honestly say that our current gun policies are promoting the 'security of a free state'?....

"Pennsylvania, in its 1776 Constitution, was the first state to include an express provision affirming the right to bear arms. It also passed a stringent loyalty oath that disarmed a large proportion of its population....

"Similar oaths were in force in most of the other states.....

"While we need not emulate the Founders’ policies exactly — today, for instance, we have a higher standard for protecting due process — it is clear that they would never have wanted us to sacrifice collective security so that a few citizens could avoid dealing with some additional red tape."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/saul-cornell-amendment-imagination-article-1.2682637

 

...A FORMER professor of history whose opinions do not hold water IMHO. Not when the statements of the Founders themselves clearly rebut his assertions rather effectively.

 

what is funny is I doubt there is a single American poster on this board who complains about the founding of that prison colony now called Australia. Less than one percent could tell you who the the PM of your country is, nor does it really matter to us. but we wonder why you constantly complain about our constitution, our founders and our rights. BTW I see someone quoted bought and paid for Joyce Foundation anti gun liar Saul cornell. That guy is a joke in second amendment scholarship. He deliberately confuses state laws with federal powers and applies one standard to the second amendment based on the FDR revisionism and then ignores that same revisionism as applied to the commerce clause. in other words, he's an anti gun liar who starts off with his masters' premise-guns are bad, and works backwards to pretend he is right

 

Saul Cornell's research was paid for by the Joyce FOundation- which is close to SOROS in terms of political leaning. If you read his garbage, which I have-you will see he changes his standards of review in order to make his arguments work. he pretends that what the FDR court did actually proves that the founders did not intend that the second amendment guarantee an individual right, but he also ignores that the FDR court rejected 140 years of precedent concerning the commerce clause

 

The credibility of Saul Cornell has been discussed at length in prior discussions. He is not a credible source, no different than Arthur Kellerman.

And yet the founding fathers did not, at any time, ever pass a single firearm-related restriction into law. Pray tell why was that?

What someone will say, and what they will actually prove, are two entirely different standards.

The actions of criminals fueled by the drug trade are not actions the second amendment was intended to protect. Instead they are actions the second amendment was intended to stop.

Irrelevant. The bill of rights to the united states constitution was intended to restrict federal actions. It was not until after the civil war, and the enactment of the fourteenth amendment, that the bill of rights was applied against the actions of the individual states.

Indeed they were not. Such loyalty oaths are the exception rather than the rule.

The entire narrative of this sentence if blatantly false. There is such an absence of truth to anything that has just been said, it is all but impossible to determine where to go about starting, in completely eviscerating the entire premise.

 

cornell aslo pretends that the state laws must prove the existence of federal gun control laws. In reality that cuts against any desire for federal control

 

I think Cornell makes a very good point regarding "the security of a free state". Lax gun control threatens such security and therefore can not be in harmony with the Second Amendment.

 

Can a single person armed with a single firearm threaten "the security of a free state"?

 

Saul Cornell is a discredited individual, whose points hold no more merit than that of a mentally ill person, suffering from schizophrenia, and believing the CIA and FBI are using dental filling to read the minds of individuals. His entire methodology of reaching his conclusions is highly flawed.

In the united states, there is quite simply not one, single, legal avenue through which a prohibited individual may acquire a firearm without committing at least one felony offense in the process. Simply because it may go undetected means nothing. A significant number of murders occur every single day in the united states, but they remain undetected for years because they occur in remote areas that are not frequently traveled. However this fact does not mean that the laws against murder are lax, or otherwise need to be addressed.

Ultimately it does not matter how a firearm was acquired, where it was acquired, when it was acquired, or from whom it was acquired. The bottom line is that someone that the legal system deemed fit to be released from prison, chose to procure a firearm despite such being illegal. If you want this to stop, then it is necessary to cease and desist immediately in releasing these individuals back into society, where they can do the most harm.

When physicians treat cancer, they do not use other methods in hopes of integrating the tumor into the surrounding tissue of the host body, but rather they subject tumors to radiation and chemotherapy for the purpose of killing the disease. The same approach must be utilized when dealing with those who commit violent offenses against the public for no legitimate reason. Remove them from the equation either through lifetime imprisonment, or execute them.

Not every single life is precious, or otherwise worth saving. Some lives simply must be eliminated in order to save other lives.

 

Utter bovine excrement. The courts have ruled - again and again - that the individual is responsible for the security of himself; the state has ZERO obligation to protect us. Unfortunately, a bunch of self-serving, arrogant people want to believe it is the job of the state to protect them, they do nothing to secure themselves, they scream for gun control so they can feel "safer" without having to take any responsibility for themselves, and they tend to be the victims of violent crime more often as well. Well, "the security of a free state" begins with the individual, and if you don't take responsibility for your own security then you are part of the problem.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tutional-carry-vs-may-no-issue-states.501646/

 

God forbid people have to fill out a form

 

Why should they?

 

Because it would save lives

 

No people having the means to defend themselves saves lives...why do you oppose this?

 

I don't. I fact I never have

 

I am liking that post because its so silly I can only conclude it is what we call a POE post.

 

But it doesn't. We've had to fill out forms to buy a gun since 1968.

 

SOMETIMES you have to fill out forms

 

If they had them....

 

That is still greatly outweighed by the benefits of gun ownership.

Gun rights isn't one of those things.

 

Double post.

 

Evidence?

 

Evidence?

 

Nah.....you never post any