« CNS on elections and firearms issues | Main | Ideas for new political parties »
Gun control debate at Harvard
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
"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.
Government not inherently evil? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers believed?
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 It is fairly obvious to anyone who will take the time to read historical documents and not just someone's summary of it (ie Federalist papers, the writings of St. George Tucker).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.
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.