Link to site courtesy of Talon’s Point.
Time To Use The Ivory Tower For Target Practice
By Cultural Limits on January 31, 2014
The old men weren’t so dumb as the Ivory Tower-ites would have us think.
Not sure what they’re smoking in the Ivory Tower, but it could be a commercial success if the right market forces were applied.
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.” From Daily Caller
Wait, just a second, How can having a right to a high-capacity magazine square with restriction being at the core of the right to carry a gun? Doesn’t the Second Amendment say the right “shall not be infringed”? Wouldn’t that put any restrictions into question? And this is coming from a law professor?
Not that high capacity magazines in the wrong hands are a good idea, but that’s more a matter of society dealing with mental illness appropriately and that is a completely different discussion that is not happening thanks in part to the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower.
To continue with Donohue’s diatribe, now that jaws have returned to their normal positions:
Donohue explained that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in historical context. The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said.
He also criticized the argument that the right to bear arms was necessary for American citizens to guard against tyranny.
“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.”
Wanna come at that one again, professor? War machines have been plenty destructive for a number of centuries. Our founding fathers had access to cannon, among other “big guns” and knew that well-timed and proper placement of lead made up for a lack of it. Men who could place a cannonball in such a way as to create the maximum amount of damage were quite valued on the battlefield.
Several modern weapons make up for aim with volume, but that doesn’t mean that weapons haven’t been potent long before now. (After all, our bloodiest war was the one we fought against ourselves, and there were no high capacity magazines involved.) Advances in weapon design were a foregone conclusion among people familiar with the battlefield and the inventive mind. Don’t forget, one of our founders (the subject of the image at the top) was among the most inventive men in American history. The gentlemen who drew up the founding documents of this nation would have quite well understood that the musket’s days were numbered.
The thing about aim is anyone could have it. It’s a by-product of vision, steady and firm body control, and practice – or at least that’s the impression we non-gun people get from our friends who shoot. In the hands of the right citizens who have practiced and know where to aim, guns of any sort are plenty deadly, and as such a check on abusive regimes that want to control the people via force and fear, which is what results when the authorities are armed and citizens are not. There’s nothing “fanciful” about it.
Frankly, some quite well trained civilians with the right guns and ammo could take out…well, more than cheap Chinese food. The Ivory Tower would not be a safe place to be with the right projectile blowing up the right pylon. (And not many ivory tower residents of my acquiantance are structural or civil engineers. That’s APPLIED science, not lab.)
As for the military turning on U.S. citizens: the rank and file probably would not on their own, but high brass (that means officers at ranks where they would be in charge of attack missions) are being asked about it, and those answering that they won’t fire on the people are being relieved of command. It’s not comforting at all.
The inhabitants of the Ivory Tower won’t get that and the implications until they hear INCOMING! and assume it means the mail has arrived.
In the meantime, Donohue and his fellow residents of La La Land might take head of his debate opponent’s words:
“Taking away citizens’ arms has always been the first step of the greatest human rights violations,” [Kilmer] said. “The mistake of giving up your arms is a mistake you only get to make once.”
That one is actually historical fact. It would be well worth the field trip to the library to look it up. Last I looked, the Ivory Towers still have those.
Feinstein didn’t get her way; but the left will never stop trying. Be vigilant!
A recent post seemingly un noticed:
Courtesy of Bill Bissell, PAN Admin on January 31, 2014