The same old song…

Gun-grabbers need to get some new arguments. They’ve worn the texture right off all the old ones.

Here’s a law professor at Stanford University, going on about the country’s crying need for more victim disarmament…

He argued that the Second Amendment must be interpreted through a historical lens, noting that the firepower available when the Bill of Rights was written is not comparable to today’s firepower. “Restriction has to be at the core of this right,” he said.

And it’s really up to the old beardo who’s never even seen an Ivy League college to point out that first amendment protections aren’t limited to manually-operated screw presses? Any gun-owner’s kid can shoot down that poor excuse for an argument. And “restriction has to be at the core of [the] right?” Really? Is that true of all rights, or only this one of which he disapproves?

Later he bloviates that “[i]t’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check” on tyranny, and that “it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.” Even the briefest check of history proves both these statements to be complete nonsense. Ask any Soviet Finn you happen to meet if guns in the hands of citizens can’t stop tyranny. Ask the Bonus Army, or survivors of anti-union violence in West Virginia mining country in the early 20th century, or those dead kids at Kent State University, or the survivors of the Danziger Bridge shootings in New Orleans, if the military arm of the US government or its junior-grade auxiliary in law enforcement will turn on its own citizens. At the drop of a hat, Professor. Any hat.

And what distresses me about this isn’t that gun-grabbers lie. Duh, of course they do. What distresses me is that they do it so poorly. Everybody, even this dumb old white trash hermit, knows that the practice of law isn’t about upholding the law or the principles of everything that’s good and proper. The practice of law is about twisting law and logic to plausibly win your client’s point.

That said, I would expect a Stanford Law professor to be the best at law- and logic-twisting to ever wear shiny wingtip shoes. And I am appalled to see this guy doing it so badly. That’s all I’m sayin’.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The same old song…

  1. TM says:

    To be fair to the good professor, restriction is at the core of the second amendment. And the first, and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th. And for that matter, the Constitution itself. Of course, it’s a restriction on the government, not us serfs, but hey, what’s a few missed details among comrades.

  2. Dick says:

    Yep, the quality just isn’t there these days. But then again it’s a hard position to debate.

  3. Matt says:

    Their lies don’t have to be well crafted anymore because of two reasons:

    The sheeple have become incapable of doing any thinking for themselves and rely only on knee-jerk emotional responses to make decisions about right and wrong.

    And the poor quality of lies means that they aren’t really trying hard anymore. Pretty soon this veil of very thin veneer won’t even be used because they will simply start doing every thing with their guns pointed at you.

  4. guffaw says:

    +1 Matt!
    …and how pathetic is THAT!

  5. Chocs says:

    “…even this dumb old white trash hermit…”

    Ok, Joel. Quick reminder here – remember that fellow Darwin?
    You’ve survived exactly *how many years* as a desert hermit????
    Not only survived, but cobbled together your own power system without killing yourself??

    I have no idea how old you are, and while your beginnings may have a redneck-twist, you sure as hell ain’t dumb; old; white (spending hours in sun?? right, next) or trash.

    What’s happening on the eyes, btw?

  6. anonymous says:

    Amen – what part of SHALL NOT in the Amendments is hard to understand ?

  7. Expat says:

    The amendment protected the right to bear the standard military arm of the day. When repeaters were brought in to the civilian market in the 19th century they arguably were superior to the then military standard. Now with the military owning full autos these deniers are saying that only muzzle loaders were protected.
    As you say pathetic arguments.

To the stake with the heretic!