Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« CNS on elections and firearms issues | Main | Ideas for new political parties »

Gun control debate at Harvard

Posted by David Hardy · 10 November 2006 10:29 AM

The Record, an independent paper at Harvard, has a short account of a debate involving Saul Cornell and Mark Tushnet.

{Hat tip to Prof. Joe Olson].

4 Comments | Leave a comment

David M. McCleary | November 10, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply

Whats wrong with this guy? He now wants a "well regulated society" where is that in the Constitution??? or in any writng by the founders.

W. Bailey | November 10, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply

"But we have to come up with something to say about it...we need to defend the vision of a well-regulated society, with checks and balances, and show people that government is not inherently evil."

And there you have it: advocacy of a policy that may not accomplish anything positive in the real world--may in fact do the opposite, at enormous expense--and all of it in the service of . . . sending a message about a vision?

Well, I had a vision all right--of OZ, the Magnificent, pulling levers and twisting dials behind a shabby pall decorated with images of the burning Branch Davidians.

Alcibiades | November 10, 2006 1:07 PM | Reply

Government not inherently evil? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers believed?

Gunstar1 | November 11, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply

Prof Cornell does not do research to find out what history has to say about gun rights vs. gun control. It is fairly obvious to anyone who will take the time to read historical documents and not just someone's summary of it (ie Federalist papers, the writings of St. George Tucker). Which will tell exactly why it IS the right OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms. The militia argument, the public good argument were debated and not adopted when the BOR was signed. Which is where Saul Cornell comes in. He willingly rewrites history to fit an agenda of people interested in tricking people into agreeing with their view since they know actual facts and history are against them.

Cornell's funding (provided in part by funding from the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation) will only continue as long as he can continue to come to the same anti-gun conclusions as Joyce is advocating. Realize though it is not fact or honesty Joyce is looking for Prof Cornell to provide, they want research that looks factual on the surface to sway those who have no knowledge on the issue.

Leave a comment