Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Dershowitz Lose 2nd Amendment - Guns = Freedom

  1. #1
    Join Date

    Dershowitz Lose 2nd Amendment - Guns = Freedom

    During a recent appearance on Newsmax TV, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the Second Amendment is an “absurd thing” in our constitution and that our legal framework needs to be adjusted “to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership.”

    Dershowitz said:

    We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach. The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.

    If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution. We have to live with it.

    He then referenced the attack that killed two people in the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana, saying, “Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

    Dershowitz contends that if you want a gun you should have to go to the police or other authorities, borrow a gun for self-defense purposes or hunting, then be required to return it when finished using it.

    Gun Confiscation By British Started Revolutionary War

    The maelstrom about removing guns from the populace, completely forgets true history. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting with guns. During the American Revolutionary War, the first shot fired over a bridge in Concord [4/18/1775], was to try and stop the British from coming into America and take away America’s guns.
    Paul Revere’s goal was to spread the news through Middlesex County, the population center of Massachusetts.

    The British Are Coming!

    Revere’s warning made it to Concord, even though Dr. Samuel Prescott carried the message the last few miles. Longfellow, eighty years later, told Revere’s story in verse ["Listen my children and you shall hear, Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere"].

    For months before Revere’s ride, constrictions between the Colonists and British were increasing. The British wanted to ensure troops would control the colony if rebellion occurred. Orders went out to seize weapons stored by Colonists.

    British troops (Redcoats) traveled up the coast to appropriate ammunitions. Revere, and the Sons of Liberty, alerted the townspeople of the British invasion well before arrival.

    Redcoats then decided to take a short water route across Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Revere knew lanterns shining from the steeple of the tallest building in Boston, would clearly be seen on the other side of the Harbor. At the very top he lit, and briefly held up two lanterns, long enough to be seen by the patriots in Charlestown before he was captured.

    These lanterns, from the King’s own church, ignited the American Revolution. No guns were ever confiscated. Events of April 18, 1775 – The Old North Church will verify the above events.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    Nazi Jerky
    Dershowitz fits a certain stereotype and I'll leave it at that.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    was COlorado, now COmmirado
    Post deleted because I couldn't insert images for some reason.

    Had a nice succession of angry dictator faces starting with Dershowitz and ending with Stalin.

    Oh, Bloomberg was in there, too.

    Don't know why you can't just use image tags any more.
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    Suburban Wasteland of NC
    We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach. The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.


    He then referenced the attack that killed two people in the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana, saying, “Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country.
    He's right, we've tried every gun control scheme under the sun somewhere in this country at one time or another. Everything from registration to bans, yet the CDC was unable to find that any of it worked:

    So according to him the 1968 GCA and the Brady Bill aren't good regulations. Interesting, we should scrap them then.
    Everyday is bike to work day.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    Kingsport Tennessee
    True. As happygeek pointed out in post #4, the CDC 2003 could not find any empirical academic research that showed a measurable benefit from any of the gun control laws favored by the progressive responsive community.

    Not to be outdone, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council conducted a review of gun law research "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" in 2004 and reached the same conclusion as the CDC report. There was no proof that any gun control law had any effect on bad behavior by bad people.

    IF you restrict your study to empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals in areas of law and criminology (JEL academic subject codes K4 Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior, subcode K42 Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law), there is no proof gun control works.

    The CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 reviews of empirical research have had no effect on the "guns bad, gun control good" mindset.

    Blind faith reigns in the Democrat National Party Platform, NYT Op-Ed columns, in wishful thinking by reformist demigods, in self-righteous rhetoric by divisionist demagogues like Alan Dershowitz, Jon Weiner and Weiner's student Michael Bellesiles and screeds by True Liberals sniffing out the false by the litmus test of blind faith in gun control. There among the True Believers, Gun Control is Good without question, a basic axiom or tenet of the faith, in student edited law reviews, in The Nation, in The New Republic, in The Daily Koz, in The Democratic Underground. Oh, I forgot, in The HuffPost, mussent forget them.

    Alan Dershowitz deserves credit for one thing: he supports a ban on private gun ownership BUT he does not lie and pretend that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says when he reads: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He calls for a repeal, and he mocks the tortured interpretations used by other gun control advocates to deny the 2A protects an individual right, as SCOTUS in Heller '08 and MacDonald '10 so rightly decided. He argues that twisting the words of the 2A to claim they do not mean what is writ in order to achieve a liberal goal, is a tactic he would object to if used against a cause he supported. An honest supporter of a gun ban would first call for a repeal, rather than twist the English language into pretzels.

    On the other hand, his mindless true belief in gun control does blind him. I remember his repeated claims during the interview of Alan Dershowitz and John Lott by Piers Morgan: Dershowitz repeatedly claimed Lott's research was bought and paid for by the NRA, and Lott repeatedly asserted he has never received any funding from the NRA. Dershowitz insisted Lott was lying. Apparently when the goal is gun control, lying about the source of Lott's research funding is an acceptable tactic. Or maybe he truly believes that Lott could get results that contradict his true belief in the goodness of gun control only if Lott were paid by the source of all evil in the liberal universe, the NRA.

    What a liberal truly believes is The Truth (TM) and mere facts belong to factualists fascists. And a blatantly non-factual assertion in a politically correct cause is excused by liberal rhetoricists as being "poetic truth"--a lie serving a greater cause.
    Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    I forget where I recently read that when the term "common sense" is used by liberals, it means they have no empirical evidence to back up their wishes/agenda. I think credit goes to 230RN if what is left of my memory serves. I believe "reasonable" also serves in the same capacity.

    Obviously, Dershowitless is bent. Your opinion of him might coincide with mine.

    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts