Streaming live here. For those of you who don’t know, Saul Cornell was a Joyce Funded scholar, who tried to make a case against the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. His work is largely discredited in mainstream Second Amendment circles, and was rejected by the Supreme Court. He hasn’t been seen around much since Heller, so it will be interesting to see what he has to say, and particularly questions. When they argue against the Second Amendment itself, we win.
11 thoughts on “Saul Cornell Lecture by Newtown Action Alliance”
Comments are closed.
Allow me to summarize thus far:
1) Gun ownership increases crime
2) Second amendment advocates are insurrectionists
3) Second amendment requires regulations (like those proposed by gun control advocates
4) Heller was wrongly decided
He’s closing with a list of “common sense” gun laws he supports:
– increased funding ATF
– universal BG checks
– 1 gun per month
– mandatory storage
– waiting periods before purchase
– “assault weapons” bans
– magazine bans
– national gun registration
Constantly dropping condescending remarks that show clear bigotry and contempt toward gun ownership. I read his briefs carefully during Heller, and several of his other publications. I disagreed with them for various reasons. Now to disagreement add that I think Saul Cornell is an asshole.
I wonder how much of that increased ATF funding would end up supporting his “scholarship”.
I missed it. I live 15 minutes from Newtown High School. And I missed it.
Livid doesn’t even begin to cover how I am feeling right now. I have already had several run-ins with the screeching banshees of the Newtown Action Alliance, and have found them to be sorely lacking in fact but high on emotion. Tonight could have been so magical. To debate someone who might actually know a thing or two about the 2A would have been wonderful.
It was not to be.
WR2A, There were some gun people there and they were very polite. It almost seemed a shame to call them “gun people.” From what I know of the NAA they are nice people who want to make a difference. They are a young group. It’s okay not to have all the knowledge yet of established groups. Saul did make some well timed jokes about pro-gun groups and people. He also made clear and cited concrete facts that there is no slippery slope the US is near: with 300 million guns in the US there is no chance to make a dent in that number. He also compared the European model of gun control to the current US model and quickly established why this isn’t a fit for the US. Guns are a part of our culture and history. Saul cited the NRA as the most powerful PAC in DC after the AARP. Guns are not going anywhere but more people entered the conversation.
They can “make a difference” without stomping on the rights of innocent people. I suggest they do volunteer work at mental health clinics.
Rob, the NAA has just as much right to congregate and freedom of speech as the NRA and other pro-gun groups do, like this site.
So glad he is no longer affiliated with my almamater.
WR2A, from what I remember of his scholarship, it wouldn’t be much of an improvement in debate quality. He was the bagdad bob of 2A scholars.
Can you provide link/source for why Cornell was “discredited”?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
I read Cornell’s “A Well-Regulated Militia, etc.,” and noticed his most egregious error was citing early State and local gun laws as proof that the Founders’ purpose for the Second Amendment did not recognize an individual right to bear arms or limit FEDERAL authority to restrict individual gun rights. To cite examples of State authority to “prove” the existence of federal authority is a monumental flaw of, frankly, incredible stupidity!
The Second Amendment clearly invalidated all federal attempts to restrict individual rights to arms, and the Tenth Amendment clearly left the authority to regulate individual gun ownership/employment with the States, respectively, or with the People. A sixth-grader could discern that with a single reading of the texts. That Cornell could author an entire book contrary to those obvious truths exposed either his invincible ignorance of the facts, or else an extreme anti-freedom bias that renders his book pure propaganda.
If I remember correctly, he was also accused in the press for misusing selective quotations and for misrepresenting the statements of some of his sources.
Respectfully, Arnie