I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.
In other words,
But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.
Ah, now we get to it.
Good. Unlike all the
However, in the process of attempting to make his argument he lies -- repeatedly. Let's go through the lies, because
Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.
Well, don't tell
We have spent close to
The burden of proof is on those who claim that such a policy and capability is ineffective; the overwhelming evidence is that it is. That's one reason that I have repeatedly advocated that the United States
Second, at a more-micro level,
Third, again at a more-micro level,
In point of fact
But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.
That's certainly true. But before you repeal the Second Amendment you must first show that doing so will
Of course there's that wee problem;
What France showed us, and what Orlando showed us, is that
Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.
Oh really? It appears that
Rather than storm the building
If 10% of the 300 people inside had been armed odds are that within
Further let me remind you that Florida Statutes, 790.06
Next, I'd like to direct this blowhard professor's attention to Oklahoma City, where a man with a
Finally, please list all the mass-shootings and where they have taken place. I would like you to separate them into two groups; places that are "gun free" zones
This "professor" ought to be stripped of his credentials
Read more at Market-Ticker.org.