One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Why are you so angry?

 

Ironically you have spend countless hours arguing State level (or any level) control is unconstitutional.

You are the only one stuck on the State vs Federal, and that is a new argument from you, which means you have been unable to honestly differentiate before this. The author is simply talking about the laws which governed the US citizens at that time and founders did not have any issue with it.

As for the author, of course you attack him because you dont like what he says about US history, but his comments are historically accurate, and no, he is not an anti-gun activist, he is a history professor (and you are not).

 

I care, because I want the same thing.

 

And I call that a win for the people.

 

Guns we're far less regulated in 1789 than they are now. That's to say, they weren't regulated at all. You could own any gun you wanted, even a cannon, despite what Creepy Joe says.

The Bill of Rights are rights of the people. The 2nd wasn't written to give the government the power to create a militia.

The powers of the government are listed in Articles 1, 2 and 3.

The Bill of Rights spell out what powers the government doesn't have.

 

So you don't think we need campaign finance reform?

You're cool with George Soros funding politicians?

 

Your source doesn't provide one ounce of support for any of those claims.

 

Well, that is simply not true.

He is not Tucker Carson, he is a professor of history who specializes in that very time frame when US became independent and Constitution was written.

What kind of 'support' were you looking for? The kind like you prefer, where you just say its so because you said so (like when you say there was no control whatsoever)?

Of this kind, which is supported by 261 quotations.
THE EARLY AMERICAN ORIGINS OF GUN CONTROL
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them to report for a muster or face stiff penalties."' Regulations governing the storage of gun powder were also common." States prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. ° A variety of race-based exclusions disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. ' Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the population during the Founding Era This pattern of regulation shifted dramatically in the decades after the adoption of the Second Amendment. In the years after the War of 1812, a number of states enacted laws against the practice of carrying concealed weapons. The first laws were passed in southern states,' but midwestern states such as Indiana also passed similar laws. The first round of laws made it a crime to carry such weapons. Later, several states enacted even more stringent laws, banning the sale of concealed weapons.

1. Loyalty Oaths and the Confiscation of Firearms During the American Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States.

 

No. Not the campaign finance reform the Leftists want, anyway.

It's his right. Whether I like him doing it, or not, is irrelevant.

 

It's absolutely true. Hell, you can still buy a cannon, sans permit of any kind.

 

Well, y'all want democracy. There it is.

 

So you do not believe that we need campaign finance reform?

 

why are you so wrong about my state of mind?

 

Cornell is a paid whore of the anti gun lobby and fluffs the gun ban movement for money. You are absolutely unable to understand the point I have made about federalism and how McDonald v Chicago has changed that. ONCE the second was incorporated, lots of stuff that should have violated state constitutions, now violates the second amendment and I realize that bothers those who try to downplay how anti gun democrats are.

 

it's bullshit for sure-Saul Cornell, took one city-Boston and pretended because Boston had a city ordinance against loaded firearms, that meant the founders all were supportive of that which is as idiotic as saying because California elects far left moonbats to office, the entire USA would support such candidates

 

Its typical you'd attack him and call him names when he says something about American history which you don't like. Unfortunately your approach is not an argument, its a dodge.

Actually he didn't say they were "all supportive". The situation was what it was, and it was not just about Boston, as the study touches every State in the new nation. I provided the study which is backed by 261 quotations to different sources, but obviously you didn't read it, and will not read it because it doesn't agree with your bias.

 

Why isn't he at Ohio State any more? He's pretty much like this guy-another darling of Democrats who try to defend their party's attempts to ban or restrict guns among the lawful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

 

Another dodge.......why not offer an argument as opposed to trying to smear the professor. What is that you disagree about these historical facts?

Besides, he said nothing about wanting to ban or restrict guns today, he is only talking about how things were during and after the time of the American revolution.

 

Cornell is constantly supporting gun bans. He filed an amicus brief with the supreme court supporting the DC handgun ban. So he clearly supported a complete ban on handguns at what is a federal level. He's scum.

 

To wit:
Saul Cornell, History, Text, Tradition, and the
Future of Second Amendment Jurisprudence:
Limits on Armed Travel Under Anglo-
American Law, 1688-1868, 83 Law &
Contemp. Probs. 73 (2020) ........................... 5, 6, 25

Saul Cornell, The Right to Carry Firearms Outside
the Home: Separating Historical Myths from
Historical Realities, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J.
1695 (2012) ........................................................... 11

Saul Cornell, The Right to Keep and Carry Arms
in Anglo-American Law: Preserving Liberty
and Keeping the Peace, 80 Law & Contemp.
Probs. 11 (2017) .................................................. 7, 8

 

This one is fun:

An 1836 Massachusetts law that broadly prohibited
carrying weapons in public—with a limited exception
for people with “reasonable cause to fear an assault
or other injury or violence to his person, or to family
or property”17—served as a model for other states.18
The law prohibited both open and concealed carry
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193242/20210921152055553_20-843 New York State Rifle v Bruen Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent.pdf

Given the level of gun-related violence in the US, who does NOT have a "reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury or violence to his person, or to family
or property"?

And another:

As Massachusetts Judge Peter Oxenbridge Thacher
explained in 1837, “[w]here the practice of wearing
secret arms prevails, it indicates either that the laws
are bad; or that they are not executed with vigor; or,
at least, it proves want of confidence in their
protection.”20

Sounds like the basis for the "enforce the laws we have" position.

 

One final time: What is that you disagree about these historical facts?

 

Nothing in the article says anything about regulating gun ownership.

 

what i disagree with is his analysis where he tries to pretend that the second amendment was not a blanket prohibition on federal action because he asserts that the founders did not attack some state or municipal gun control laws.

 

Here is what Saul Cornell does

1) correctly claims that there were state and municipal gun control laws

2) from that-dishonestly claims the founders must have supported gun control laws at a FEDERAL Level

3) and on top of that-argues that the second amendment was not intended to strike down federal versions of existing state gun control laws