'Repeal the Second Amendment,' says law professor

Finally, a liberal who comes out and says what most gun control advocates really want: a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Writing in Rolling Stone, David Cohen, who calls himself a "constitutional law" professor, presents so many logical fallacies that it's hard to keep track.  His view of the constitution in the first place. is breathtaking:

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.

The point of the Constitution is not to promote social justice or inclusiveness.  It is to guarantee the rights of citizens.  I think I learned that in 3rd grade.  I guess the good professor wasn't paying attention when that simple, basic truth was being taught. 

How can someone so educated get it so wrong?  In order to believe what the professor believes about the Constitution, you must deliberately ignore history, tradition, and the words on the page.  Shockingly ignorant.

As Cohen lays out his case for repealing the Second Amendment, you realize that any parent who allows this man to teach their kids about the Constitution should demand their money back.  His reading of the Constitution's "flaws" that were eventually fixed by amendments is OK, but Cohen fails to take into account the time in which the document was written and the attitudes and beliefs of those who wrote it.

In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

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.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

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.

Cohen is not making a "case" for repeal as much as he is obfuscating the issue by getting all touchy-feely about his idea of "freedom."  The fact is, 99.999% of people who partake of those "freedoms" don't get shot.  And the nutcases and terrorists who open fire can be stopped via reasonable law enforcement and mental health reforms.  In effect, Cohen is advocating using a nuclear bomb to kill a roach.  The problem is serious, but anyone who thinks eliminating the right for U.S. citizens to carry a gun is going to stop a terrorist from carrying out a mass casualty attack or even keep a crazy person from obeying the voices in his head is delusional. 

As far as I can tell, Cohen doesn't actually make a case for repeal.  He repeats nostrums from the gun control crowd and expects to be convincing.  He's not.  His argument appears to be that people die in familiar, everyday places, so we should ban guns.  That's not an argument.  It's sophistry.

Don't you wish that Democrat politicians would be honest like Cohen?  Let them run on a platform of repealing the Second Amendment.  The resulting electoral slaughter will be well deserved.

Finally, a liberal who comes out and says what most gun control advocates really want: a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Writing in Rolling Stone, David Cohen, who calls himself a "constitutional law" professor, presents so many logical fallacies that it's hard to keep track.  His view of the constitution in the first place. is breathtaking:

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.

The point of the Constitution is not to promote social justice or inclusiveness.  It is to guarantee the rights of citizens.  I think I learned that in 3rd grade.  I guess the good professor wasn't paying attention when that simple, basic truth was being taught. 

How can someone so educated get it so wrong?  In order to believe what the professor believes about the Constitution, you must deliberately ignore history, tradition, and the words on the page.  Shockingly ignorant.

As Cohen lays out his case for repealing the Second Amendment, you realize that any parent who allows this man to teach their kids about the Constitution should demand their money back.  His reading of the Constitution's "flaws" that were eventually fixed by amendments is OK, but Cohen fails to take into account the time in which the document was written and the attitudes and beliefs of those who wrote it.

In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

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.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

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.

Cohen is not making a "case" for repeal as much as he is obfuscating the issue by getting all touchy-feely about his idea of "freedom."  The fact is, 99.999% of people who partake of those "freedoms" don't get shot.  And the nutcases and terrorists who open fire can be stopped via reasonable law enforcement and mental health reforms.  In effect, Cohen is advocating using a nuclear bomb to kill a roach.  The problem is serious, but anyone who thinks eliminating the right for U.S. citizens to carry a gun is going to stop a terrorist from carrying out a mass casualty attack or even keep a crazy person from obeying the voices in his head is delusional. 

As far as I can tell, Cohen doesn't actually make a case for repeal.  He repeats nostrums from the gun control crowd and expects to be convincing.  He's not.  His argument appears to be that people die in familiar, everyday places, so we should ban guns.  That's not an argument.  It's sophistry.

Don't you wish that Democrat politicians would be honest like Cohen?  Let them run on a platform of repealing the Second Amendment.  The resulting electoral slaughter will be well deserved.