Rolling Stone: Second Amendment Must Be Repealed

Send to Kindle
David S. Cohen, the author of this article. He is a law professor at Drexel University.

David S. Cohen, the author of this article. He is a law professor at Drexel University.

Warning, click-bait ahead!

You know, I think that’s my reaction to a lot of the crap that’s published by the mainstream media following a tragedy like the mass killing in Orlando that left 50 dead (including the terrorist responsible for the act) and 53 more wounded.

It seems to me that publishers deliberately seek out the most radical writers in their network to have them put together articles that are so polarized and one-sided that they guaranteed to cause a stir, thus attracting readers.  The click-bait machine goes into overdrive.  If you’re not familiar with “click-bait,” to use a sports world meme, it’s a “hot take” or a reactionary opinion that was formed, often in haste, without any deep thought, empirical analysis or care as to how the world actually works.  Translation: it’s inflammatory B.S.

That’s what we have going on with this Rolling Stone article, entitled, “Why It’s Time to Repeal The Second Amendment,” written by an extremist who is not tethered to reality.  Care to guess his profession?  Yup.  You guessed it.  He is a professor.  Not just any professor, but a Constitutional law professor.  Presumably, he would know something about the Second Amendment.  Right?  Wrong!

What is his argument for dismantling one’s right to keep and bear arms?  The usual nonsense, of course.  It’s outdated, the founders got it wrong, the AR-15 wasn’t invented when the Constitution was written, more people with guns will mean more violence, yada, yada, yada.

The troubling thing for me is that although I know it’s click-bait, I feel as though I have to respond.  I guess I’m a sucker in that respect.  Well, sorta.  I’ll get paid to engage this ass-clown and his untenable drivel.  So, I guess it’s not a total waste of my time.

I’m just going to pluck out a few of his rhetorical nuggets and briefly respond.  I say “briefly,” because I don’t want to eat up too much of your time either and belabor what is self-evident to you the reader and the other 100-plus million gun owners in this country.  Anyways, here it goes:

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.

You know, in the entirety of this professor’s essay the words “government” or “tyranny” or “free state” never come up.  The primary purpose of the 2A is to keep government tyranny in check, to keep a free state free.  The Second Amendment is the one safeguard we, the people, have from despotism, totalitarianism, monarchism and all of the other ill-fated regimes one might imagine.  When we lose the Second Amendment, we lose our ability to prevent what is a necessary evil (government) from metastasizing into a full-fledged tyranny.  But this law professor fails to address this essential part of our right to keep and bear arms.

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.

My favorite response to the AR-15s-weren’t-around-during-the-inception-of-the-Constitution argument comes courtesy of Alan Korwin, a GunsAmerica contributor.  He writes about the effort to subarm America, which means to ensure that there is a growing disparity between what Joe Public is allowed to own and what the government is allowed to possess.

“We used to have parity with government, and this kept government in check, made America the liberty capital on Earth. We the people were equal with our hired hands. Both sides were in a state of stasis, equilibrium. They had matchlocks, we had matchlocks. They had flintlocks, we had flintlocks. They got cap and ball, we all had it,” writes Korwin.  “We grew up together, we were partners in this, developed the field together. Self-contained cartridges, rifled barrels, bolt action, revolvers, semi-auto, improvements to everything, optics, full auto… the story starts to rag out right there.”

Korwin then goes on to talk about the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the subsequent Gun Control Act of 1968 which basically disrupted the historical balance between us and them.  Needless to say, at present, the balance is way out of whack.  The government has every weapon imaginable at its disposal.  And the best of what we have are semiautomatic rifles with a detachable magazine.  We’re so outgunned by our government that resistance to a tyrannical uprising would pretty much be futile. But even so, the author of this article asserts we should lose what little protection we have left (In other words, we should just surrender… and hope our future overlords aren’t too sadistic with the cattle prods they use to keep us in line at the government-run gulags and extermination camps).

The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more.

He has it backward.  Liberty isn’t created on its own.  It’s established and protected by good guys with guns.  What allows for one to “live their lives free from being easily murdered” are good guys with guns, e.g. cops, soldiers, concealed carry practitioners.  As Col. Jeff Cooper, said in his book, “The Principles of Personal Defense, “Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life… the peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists everywhere and at all times.”

The question we have to ask the professor is by severely impairing one’s right to self-defense, how do we make that individual safer?  More broadly speaking, hHow does society become safer when the predators have arms and everyone else is defenseless?

The gun-rights lobby’s mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We’d be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be.

The author’s claim is statistically refutable.  Over the past two decades, more people have purchased firearms and obtained concealed carry permits than any other time in our nation’s history.  Last I checked there were at least 12 million permit holders, the most ever.  What’s been the result of this massive movement of civil armament?   Crime has gone down.  Not up.  And that’s all crime, property crime, violent crime the gun-related homicide rate.  We’ve become safer as a society.  There have been fewer blood baths — not more.  And the myth that mass shootings have increased has also been soundly refuted.

In the end, the author’s argument doesn’t hold water.  But as I mentioned earlier, that wasn’t the point of it.  It wasn’t supposed to be a cogent critique of the Second Amendment.  The point of it was to get clicks.  To troll the gun community.  To get us in a tizzy at a time when Rolling Stone knows we are on high alert.  And in my case, hey, it worked.  They got me to engage with them.  Hopefully, they don’t get you too.  It’s not worth it.  Don’t waste your time.

{ 39 comments… add one }
  • mcFoo September 8, 2017, 10:23 am

    ..so this self impressed knucklehead turned the “Rolling Stone” into the “Rolling Jackass”. The editor of the mag who approved the piece should be deported – he obviously is not American.

  • charlesjones June 21, 2016, 10:04 am

    Only if they repeal all muslims and illegals first.

    • Michael Bostick June 21, 2016, 3:12 pm

      Who in the world cares what rolling stone mag. thinks they only appeal to the left wing idiots in that industry, they only care about how much money they stick in there pockets.

  • jd June 19, 2016, 4:28 pm

    Don’t count on most Police (or any) siding with common citizens if their political masters make all guns NOW ILLEGAL and start to confiscate them. Think about it; who will still have guns when Joe Average American has his confiscated? The Police themselves. They have theirs, so why should they care if we have ours? After all they are the police, they are entitled to special treatment/privileges. And all the police will always be fair and not push their weight around-correct? Especially when the rest of America is unarmed. Now if the POLICE also had to disarm of their personal weapons and leave their service weapons at the station until their next shift they would be on the front lines with Joe Average American trying to protect Second Amendment rights. The police are just ordinary people also. When they have skin in the game they would be most concerned about universal Second Amendment rights. When they get to have all they want with any capacity magazine how hard will they back the Second Amendment for the rest of us? Are readers aware that when a LEO retires he gets a CCW that has stamped across the front “RETIRED POLICE OFFICER” and he can legally carry in any state? Would anybody say that is not special treatment? I am not saying that is not as it should be, but I AM saying a retired LEO is the same as me and you and no longer represents the government and should receive the same treatment I receive. No government elites for America!! All equal before the law. Justice is supposed to be blind but special privilege is certainly not.

  • Robert June 19, 2016, 11:46 am

    A law professor…..Wants to take away a right. So the 2nd is repealed….What right might be next? Speech? It’s being limited with the reason of “hate speech..” Complain about a person is seen as hate. But ONLY from one side……Libs can claim all whites are racists…..It’s not hate speech….This “teacher” needs to learn…….

    • Ardvark June 19, 2016, 7:11 pm

      All rights will be next, that is reason they want the guns!

  • M Hall June 18, 2016, 7:48 am

    Now is the time to be bothered by cramp like this click baitor. The sheep want the assurances of the sheep herder. I can tell you from growing up in the streets of Chicago as a young man there were times I wished to God I had a gun to protect myself and the only assurance is the gun at your side. Crime those looking to harm you swoops in slither and hides in the shadows to strike. The police by the time they get there are more like a clean up crew.

  • T Dawg June 17, 2016, 10:37 pm

    It’s not the 2nd amendment that is killing people it’s the person pulling the trigger, and if it wasn’t a trigger it might be a knife or a paper clip , If you truly believe in your cause there is nothing that will stop you , Instead of Gun Control we need to practice Stupidity Control, if someone is acting stupid find out why , and if they a fanatical about their views and plan on hurting someone else , stop them or let someone know who can stop them.

  • Dan June 17, 2016, 9:54 pm

    While a lack of education can make life harder for some with the thinking this fellow generates it can make people dead. I am not sure anything Rolling stone prints is worth the paper it is written on. Maybe we should start with their article on sexual assault at a university they screwed up.

  • Rob S June 17, 2016, 4:26 pm

    “A gun is a tool, no better or worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” Quoted from the movie ‘Shane’ circa 1953.

  • S. Velez June 17, 2016, 2:11 pm

    You said so. Let’s do it . The second ammendment will be repelled. With the first true the 19 amendment what the heck repeal all bills of rights. Take care with your dictatorship government. The freedom isn’t free you will have to fight. The stupidity of the people thinking like you is all government agencies will protect you and your family against any attacks. I saw sadly first hand what’s going happen with people like you in my 30 years as police officer. Keep dreaming and good luck . What happens in Orlando was a terrible act of jihad terrorism. ISIL is willing to sacrifice all to destroy our way of Life as the same of the Democrat party. The new world order? they say we need guidance ?????

  • Jeremiah June 17, 2016, 1:07 pm

    Sometimes it is better to be thought a fool, than to write detritus in Rolling Stoner and be proved a fool. Obviously RS should have stuck to their forte, the adulation of musical artists, and stay away from topics for which they have absolutely no intellectual capacity.

  • Kirk June 17, 2016, 12:21 pm

    This so called educator is wrong on so many levels, that it is a wonder he was allowed to matriculate, at any reputable university. You cannot repeal a right!

  • Rocky June 17, 2016, 12:12 pm

    Liberals are sooo illiberal!

    The Bill of Rights ‘granted’ no rights, but instead codified certain pre-existing, naturally occurring, unalienable rights, due all mankind, into the basis of all of our laws; the US Constitution, in order that none might ever attempt to infringe upon them.
    IE; The right to defense of self, family, home and community, by the most expedient means possible, far predate any form of government ever devised by man, for his own rule.

    Even were the 2nd Amendment to be ‘repealed’, the 9th and 10th Amendments would still protect our unassailable rights to firearms, as the only means of protection against our out of control Federal Leviathan.

    The US Constitution granted the Federal government a small, limited number of, enumerated (listed), powers, leaving the lion’s share (all of the rest) to the individual States and to the People. (Art. 1, Sec. 8 US Const., 9th & 10th Amendments, Federalist Papers #45, etc..)

    The vast majority of powers currently being exercised, on the part of the Federal Leviathan, are those which it has unconstitutionally usurped from said States and People, by such means as the use of force, threats, coercion and bribery, etc.

    IE; the continued unconstitutional occupation of State’s lands, in the western States, in direct violation of the ‘Enclave Clause’ (Art. 1, Sec. 8 Clause 17.)

  • Larry June 17, 2016, 11:24 am

    And this moron is teaching our kids! Unbelieveable.

  • Ram6 June 17, 2016, 11:16 am

    This constitutional law “professor”, Mr. Cohen, knows as much about the constitution as Barack Obama and half the U.S. Congress. There is no repeal of the 2nd amendment or any other part of the “Bill of Rights”. It’s not repealable. Yes other amendments have been repealed, but they were addressing portions of the constitution that were not part of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Cohen is a perfect example of why our university system is turning out totally uninformed liberal doctrinaires. They are fed a constant stream of this propaganda from the day they walk through the door to the day they graduate and end up knowing absolutely nothing but what ultra left wing liberals professors want them to know. I am not surprised that Rolling Stone found someone like this to support their silly premise.

  • Old Soldier June 17, 2016, 11:00 am

    Those that have not been in a war, no knowing of fighting for your very life or of the ones there along side of you. So many (people) say from my “cold dead hands” well, if that is what it would take, believe me that is what will happen. Every since the Democratic party re named itself from the “American Communist Party” have Americans been losing rights. It will never end unless we Americans make it happen, not sure how but, a bloody conflict would ensue I’m sure. Would I fight or run? I am old soldier, so I cannot say for sure what I could do other then what I was trained to do in my war, so long ago. I would do my best to protect my loved ones and the American way of life to my fullest ability so, I guess I would fight and run at the same time, just as soldiers do! Run to live and fight another day! God Bless America in it’s time of need! Old Soldier out!

  • Tom BALDWIN June 17, 2016, 10:48 am

    Another example of unbelieveable ignorance..Gun control is a tool for tyrants..You want my gun? Come and get it!!!

  • 2War Abn Vet June 17, 2016, 10:42 am

    Nothing in the Bill of Rights is “repealable”. It is a listing of natural rights that government cannot take away from American citizens. The Constitution would not have won approval without it. Only an ignorant dunce or a budding totalitarian would believe otherwise.

  • sidney crews June 17, 2016, 9:54 am

    Semper Fi my friends

  • Richard Smith June 17, 2016, 8:53 am

    KNOW YOUR ENEMIES!

  • Terry June 17, 2016, 8:52 am

    I would bet that when the professor sees one of those ISIS bastards cutting his families or his own head off, he will wish he had a gun. He is another one who has been brain washed by Obama’s BS.

  • D.K June 17, 2016, 8:11 am

    I don’t believe the founding fathers created the second amendment so they could match our enemy gun for gun. They created it to give the people some form of redress if needed to defend against a tyrannical Government or invasion by another country. The inference to a well regulated militia in no way suggests that only militias should have guns. The militias consisted of citizens who knew first hand what dealing with a tyrannical government entailed, and the 2nd amendment was created to make sure that the PEOPLE would be able to rise to the occasion to any threat to our way of life either foreign or domestic and I feel that sentiment is still true today. Repealing the 2nd amendment will do nothing to make us safer. In fact it would most likely have the opposite effect and embolden those who would do us harm. I recall reading an article about a high ranking officer involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor was asked why japan didn’t continue on and attack the US mainland, and his reply was that they knew that American citizens had guns and were proficient at using them. Not his exact words but you get the point. As far as the statement that our forefathers only had muskets and flintlocks is a non issue, as I am sure had more modern weapons been available they would have certainly been used by both sides. Some people want to interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment. If you research and read some of the personal writings and letters of the founding fathers, you will find that almost all them believed that citizens have a right to keep and bear firearms for their own protection. Perhaps the law professor should do some research before making obsurd statements regarding the 2nd amendment.

    • Tom BALDWIN June 17, 2016, 10:52 am

      Right on, DK!!

  • Chuck Creel June 17, 2016, 7:04 am

    These clowns like this “constitutional law professor” miss one huge point. These mass shootings are taking place in “gun free zones”. How is that working out? These gun free zones should be called killing fields because the criminals know, unless they are totally deranged, that the odds are extremely high that there is no weapons there except theirs. Think about this folks, less guns will NOT make us safer, only the armed citizens l will. And another thing professor, take our gun rights away and freedom of speech IS next….. guaranteed!

    • JT June 17, 2016, 8:30 am

      Hate to tell you this Chuck, but they’re already working on our freedom of speech – reference the disruptive protests outside Trump rallies. What you have to realize is that in liberal-land, free speech only applies to those who share their viewpoint. Then there’s the whole PC thing: can’t say this, can’t say that. Can’t say “illegal alien” or “Islamic terrorism” even though they are accurate descriptions. Liberal strategy is two-pronged… to take away our guns AND shut us up.

  • Paul June 17, 2016, 7:01 am

    Perhaps it’s obvious to most gun owners, and people who value their freedom; but we absolutely must insure that a true American Patriot is elected to the Oval Office in November. This brush with a tyrant, a President and party with a hidden agenda has been enough to remind us of the reason for the American Revolution. We have our hands full with threats to the stability of the rest of the world. It’s really not a good time for America to be put in a state of turmoil. I would like to hear more gun owners and Patriots vocalizing their vehement refusal to accept any augmentation of the 2nd Amendment. Politicians need to know, it isn’t going to be tolerated.

  • Scofflaw June 17, 2016, 5:11 am

    Ive always hated the they couldnt have forseen assault rifles when they penned the second amendment argument. In that case they couldnt predict the internet or twitter so we may have to look at how dangerous freedom of speech is these days. And i doubt they ever expect large numbers of muslims, hindus, sihks, or buddhist here either so we better look at that freedom of religion too.

  • TiredOFtheLIES June 17, 2016, 3:20 am

    Well, if he feels the 2nd should be repealed because AR15s were not envisioned at the time, then I guess the 1st need repealed because our forefathers could have never envisioned the internet, radio, TV and high speed printing presses. Really, why should anyone with a keyboard be able to have a voice, they don’t NEED their opinion.

  • michael j eberhart June 17, 2016, 3:03 am

    ted nugent is still right, along with our founding fathers & many others. i’m keeping mine

  • Will Drider June 16, 2016, 10:08 pm

    Every single day in the U.S. 51 people die from overdose of illegal street drugs. This does not count any prescription drugs. 51 EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! Do we need to reduce the Constitutional and God given Rights of law abiding citizens to pretend to fix that? Where is the outrage! Where are the grassroots organizations to fight that! Where is the presidential and political big tought talk on that?
    It is evident that the number of daily deaths are not really the issue pushing this landslide of anti gun legislation, just the hatred of guns by tyrants and sheep using criminal acts and tragedy to pust the same agenda against lawful citizens and commerce.
    Ban all the gun and you still get Paris results because they take action on a object not the criminals. We currently have a “Illegal Drugs Ban” and volumes of Fed, State and Local Laws to cover and “enforce” the Street Drug Ban. How are those Laws working? 51 Overdose death every single day plus the other hell related to the illegal drug trade.

    How’s that War on Drugs working out? Ban guns and the Cartels will fill the void. Its common sense!

    https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

    • Jason June 17, 2016, 9:23 am

      You wanted to know what grass root organizations that fight for our second amendment rights….

      http://www.nagr.org
      National Association Gun Rights

      http://www.georgiagunowners.org

      These non-profit organizations support our rights and support the constitution. Please support them.

      Jason

  • SuperG June 16, 2016, 12:26 pm

    Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment and that is when the revolution will begin. “Our” government may outgun us, but that is assuming that the Army and police would side with it, which I really think that they would not, and would fight on the side of the people.

    • Just1Spark June 17, 2016, 4:43 am

      Thats what the Jews thought also.

      • JT June 17, 2016, 9:30 am

        German Jews in the 1930’s were by and large unarmed and did not resist. I don’t think you can say the same about American gun owners. From my cold dead hands baby!

    • Ram6 June 17, 2016, 11:22 am

      I wouldn’t count on ALL police to side with citizens. They need their job just like everybody else. I would foresee a large portion of the law enforcement community siding with their bosses. As for the military, who knows. It depends on the leadership at the very top. At the moment I’m a little concerned with all the Obama sycophants that have been dropped into the Flag officer realms replacing the American warrior class before his election.

  • DRAINO June 16, 2016, 9:15 am

    Hmm…the 21st repealed prohibition……that RESTORED peoples rights to drink, have alcohol, blah blah blah….right? But to repeal the 2nd would STRIP peoples rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical govt/self protection????….. Doesn’t sound like a good comparison to me. Compare apple to apples if you are going to try to make a reasonable point. Yep, this gut is just another quack fruitcake looking for headlines by politicizing a tragedy.

  • taxx73 June 15, 2016, 10:09 pm

    And people wonder why I home school my children. This guy doesn\’t know jack about the constitution. Hey if we can repeal the 2nd Amendment why not the whole thing and surrender your life to the government. Be a good nazi. This guy needs to be fired for his ignorance. LEAVE OUR RIGHTS ALONE!!!!!!!

  • andy June 15, 2016, 8:24 pm

    ted nugent was right

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend