Another retread.....Prof urges gun controllers to get the support of gun owners....

[geekWithA.45]

FYI, Kevin Baker has crossed swords with Prof. Cornell on numerous occassions, fisking him soundly every time:

http://www.google.com/search?client...aul+Cornell"&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I'm amused that in their latest exchange, that Prof. Cornell retains his formulaic smug righteousness response template, which I've seen every time he comments publicly:

I've seen your {pathetic screed}. It's so full of errors that I really don't have time to deal with it. {Denial without proof}, {Defensive distraction}, {non sequitor}.

 

[Tomcat1066]

I'm probably an anomoly here on THR. I'm someone who has stood on both sides of the gun debate. In a past life, I supported gun control because I honestly felt that our founding fathers could not have envisioned the firepower that we now can command as a people. How could they? I live in this day and age and can barely comprehend it myself.

However, as time went on, I realized that it wasn't that I didn't trust myself with these weapons, just some of the other folks out there. Then I thought a bit more about it. Most other gun-grabbers are the exact same way, it's not that they don't trust guns, they just don't trust the masses. However, to maintain MY right to own guns, I had to defend everyone elses. So I started venturing over to "the dark side". I had always loved firearms, and I didn't want to lose MY right to own them, so I had to defend others right to own them as well.

The professor keeps mentioning the Second Amendment, but he acts as if he's never read it. First, it states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state. Well Regulated means properly functioning, nothing there to give anyone the right to take my guns. Further, the founding fathers wrote PLENTY to give us a clear idea on their reasoning, and none of it says ANYTHING about southern slave owners. Instead, it talks about arms allowing the people to enforce their rights to freedom.

The dear professor even talks about the perceived right to be free from fear of gun violence. How about MY right to defend my family? What about MY right to be free from fear of the bad elements in the world? What about MY right to sleep safely at night knowing that if anyone comes in my house without my permission, I have a 124gr suprise for them? When do the rights of people like myself come into play?

I swore an oath, back in 1993, where I swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. I was honorably discharged, but my discharge did NOT release me from my oath. I stand today, ready to defend this nation. I can NOT do that without personal arms, which is what the founding fathers very clearly envisioned me doing should the need arise.

My ancestors helped found this great nation. I will continue to help defend it. And my weapon will help me do it. If the good professor has a problem with that, he can just deal with it. I'll protect him too.

Tom

 

[Turkey Creek]

I know I shouldn't generalize but this guy lost me with the title of Professor

 

[cambeul41]

Turkey Creek

If someone addresses me as "professor," I respond politely. However, I would never introduce myself using a title. I prefer no title, just my name.

If a newspaper were to write a report about me, they might use the term "professor," but not because I wished them to do so. I can see it now, "Detroit professor advocates citizens arming themselves against criminal element. Claims criminals do not deserve a safe working environment."

I do know professors whom I respect greatly. They tend to be called things like "Sandy" or "Bill."

 

[mountainclmbr]

The left has always been for slavery or pseudo slavery. With themselves as the new masters. These swindlo-intellectuals will try to sell the theory that Marxism or Socialism is the new freedom.