Wow....a view on gun control being an "issue".

[Dick1911]

"We can't say nothing, and we can't say, 'Yeah, we love the 2nd Amendment,'" said Cornell. "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."

Whose idea of a well regulated society? Yours, mine, Stalins or perhaps Mao Tse Tungs?

The government may not be "inherently evil" but it does inherently not give a s#*t! And when it does turn evil who is to protect us other than us?

 

[Nolo]

Here's how I see it:
Issues aside, what right does the government have to tell me what I can and can't own? The government can deal with me if I kill another person, steal, etc, but it has not right to control what I own (aside from people, and I'd like to see the antis start calling guns people, that'd be hilarious). The government can wage war and protect the security of the nation (not the state!) from large-scale threats, but it has no rights to take what I own!

 

[Al Norris]

First, From Jefferson:

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
-----
Then:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

 

[thebaldguy]

Is progressive a term for future mainstream thinking?

 

[BridgeWalker]

I suspect that in this context, progressive means:

Ban some guns > ban many guns > ban most guns > ban all guns > ban all people who like guns

Or maybe i'm just cynical.

Nah, I don't think so.

 

[Daemon688]

we can't say, 'Yeah, we love the 2nd Amendment,'" said Cornell.

Wow. Just wow.

Now let's put it this way.

"we can't say, 'Yeah, we love the 1st Amendment," said Cornell.

Sometimes people just won't "get it". Liberals with no hope.

 

[broadsideofabarn]

"Progressive" was used 5 times in the article. Progressive gun control differs how from garden variety gun control?

They can't use "Liberal" anymore. So they stole "Progressive" from reasonable leftists.

Teddy Roosevelt would be pissed.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"There is a way of making gun control an issue that is not poison to the left," Cornell stated. "You can be for gun regulation without actually wanting to take everyone's guns away."

Or at least, not publicly admitting to wanting to destroy the nation's Second Amendment civil rights.

It's all about spin to leftist extremists.

 

[ConfuseUs]

They could always act like real progressives and create government programs to provide places to shoot, encourage and subsidize gun ownership by law abiding citizens, and make safe gun handling skills a mandatory part of the public school curriculum. Of course they would have to stop demonizing guns, gun owners, and shooting in general. Perhaps that's too much to ask of modern libera-err, progressives.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Saul Cornell is the newest darling of the gun grabber elite. His "civic right" thesis is trumpeted by the Brady Bunch as "the" definitive position on the 2nd Amend. If you look at the Districts brief in the DC Circuit, you will see good ole Saul being cited numerous times... you can expect even heavier reliance upon Cornell's approach in front of SCOTUS.

The only one to directly take on his civic rights thesis directly is Halbrook... and frankly, Halbrook did not do to well... and no, I am not speaking about Halbrook's destruction of Cornell re: St. George Tucker, which he handled very well.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Notice that the Original Post is nearly a year old. Is Saul Cornell still around and influencing leftist policy?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Notice that the Original Post is nearly a year old. Is Saul Cornell still around and influencing leftist policy?

Absolutely... For example, Cornell is cited more than any other academic resource in DC's brief, check it out:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/dcparkerbrief.pdf

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Progressive is a term that has been in use in the political sense for a long time. It's just another label, like conservative, liberal, right wing, etc. It has no hard and fast definition. However, if you listen to political discourse long enough, you get the idea that those that describe themselves as progressive are considerably more hardcore than garden variety liberals. Progressives are much more comfortable using the power of government to engineer a society to conform to their vision of social and economic justice. They are probably just a step or two short of revolutionary, but aim for pretty much the same goals.

Bingo. The word liberal was made into a bad word. Progressive are the US's answer to Europes 'Social Democrats' - as if the word 'Democrat' is supposed to make a socialist sound better.

They can't use "Liberal" anymore. So they stole "Progressive" from reasonable leftists.

Teddy Roosevelt would be pissed.

Well, whether or not Teddy was reasonable is a matter of debate (I vote no). But let me remind you, the early progressives were no better. They were one of the main driving forces for Prohibition. One of the last progressives, FDR's 2nd VP Henry Wallace, when running for prez in 1948 was endorsed by the CPUSA, among other communist groups. The early poster I qouted was dead right. They are the most hardcore leftists, the ones who use that term.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Progressive

Remember, kids, progressive = enlightened.

We are smarter than you are.

We are the enlightened.

We'll take care of things.

Just sign here.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Progressive: (adjective or noun) describing one who is anxious to Progress towards a Marxist, Communist, or Socialist system for our nation.

Source: USAFNoDAK Dictionary and Thesaurus, First edition.