Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz on 2A: ‘It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution’

What are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments?

What are your thoughts on Dershowitz’s comments?

I have to be honest, this is one of the most anti-Second Amendment tirades I’ve seen in awhile and it comes courtesy of Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

“We have more guns in this country than we have people and we have more gun murders than any other country in the world,” Dershowitz said Monday to Ric Blackwell on “The Hard Line.”

“We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach, he continued. “The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.”

“If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution,” said Dershowitz. “We have to live with it.”

Invoking the text of the Second Amendment, Dershowitz suggested that guns should be more heavily restricted.

“Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution,” he said.

“And if you want a gun you should have to go to official authorities in the government, you should have to be able to justify your need for a gun on self-defense grounds or if you want to be a hunter, to go to a hunting place where they give you the gun and then you give it back when you finish hunting,” Dershowitz said.

“There are ways of changing the culture in this country and making guns far less available to the average person and certainly to the average person with a mental illness or with a criminal record or with a history of abuse. It’s not enough just to say, let’s take guns away from the few people who we now know shouldn’t have guns,” he continued.

Dershowitz then drew attention to the nation’s gun lobby.

“We have to have a major change in the gun culture and as long as the National Rifle Association — which you have to give credit, it’s the most effective lobby in the country — as long as they continue to be as effective in their lobbying, it’s just not going to happen and these murders are going to continue,” said the law professor.

“What is needed is some very tough legislation both on the federal and state level to make it much, much harder to get guns and to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership, consistent with the well-regulated militia language of the Second Amendment,” he said.

“Nobody has done enough, especially as we come closer to presidential elections, we find that candidates get more and more allergic to gun control because they know it’s bad for their electoral politics, certainly on the Republican side, but increasingly on the Democratic side as well,” he concluded.

Dershowitz then had a conversation with Richard Feldman, Esq., the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association (see video below).

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 86 comments… add one }
  • Rit K September 29, 2017, 2:14 pm

    Go to a “hunting place”, kill my animal with a house gun, and bring the carcass home? Mr Dershowitz is obviously not a hunter; he knows less than nothing about hunting. Moreover, like many, too many today, he wants to “cherrypick” the Constitution, and second guess the Framers. Gun crime CAN be reduced….thats the lesson of the last fifty years. There is no single answer to that problem…thats another lesson of the last fifty years. We all want to grasp at the quick, and the instant ….NOTHING works that way…..the short term easy solutions, I have always been taught, are never the RIGHT solutions, especially not for the long term. One day, there may be a way to prevent outright murder, since murder is rarely a random crime, but it will not come from banning guns.

  • Bob November 11, 2016, 12:07 pm

    Not exactly a “Founding Father” is he? Fortunately the genius of the Founders included making changes to the constitution difficult! Had they not, the current crop of faux fathers in DC would have the Nation on the dung heap in no time! I’ve even seen calls for a petition to disband the Electoral College by whiney losers from the Trump/Clinton election; apparently having no idea what it is or why it is. If they want to play word games with the Bill of Rights..start with the First Ammendment. “The Press” when the Founders gave us the Constitution was the ink and paper “press”. No one envisioned radio let alone TV. The so called Media News has become little more than “talk shows and lobbying organizations”. The “news presenters” are more lobbiest and talk show hosts than they ever have been “Journalist”! These are private, opinionated organizations hiding behind the First Amendment while they fund their extravagant salaries by pedaling their clients Viagra and vaginal cream..nothing more!! SAVE THE CONSTITUTION; its the ONLY thing that has made this nation different from all others!

  • MeeesterPaul July 15, 2016, 7:09 am

    Alan, silly person.
    Btw; Imagine how much lower gun crime rates would be if Democrats didn’t shoot each other.

  • Ronhart December 28, 2015, 5:16 pm

    Alan Dershowitz and Amy Schumer need to go back to school and study American History to understand the reasons the colonials insisted on a Bill of Rights and included the Second Amendment in the UNITED STATES Constitution.
    Unjust taxation of tea and other necessities fomented the Boston tea party and what followed. Unannounced searches and seizures, debtors prisons, mandatory quartering of British military personnel in private homes, violation of human rights by a brutal dictator and his equally brutal troops all contributed to the anger of the colonists.
    The Colonials left England to practice their own religious beliefs and get away from a dictatorial king and his corrupt government, but that government followed them to the Colonies. Even though the British had a standing army in the colonies and more weapons than the Colonials, the Colonials had enough of the King’s brutality and they planned a revolution. What the Colonials had was the determination to be free – and ACCURATE HUNTING RIFLES! When the King ordered the confiscation of the Colonials weapons in Lexington, the shit hit the fan!!
    The British army’s idea of how to fight a war was to muster the troops across an open field with their .69 caliber smooth bore muskets and fire a volley at the enemy. [For those of you who don’t know the difference between a smooth bore musket and a rifle. . . check it out on Wikopedia. And while you are at it check out the definition of Militia. Liberals are always getting that mixed up with “a standing Army”].

    Simply said, rifles shoot a smaller caliber bullet with less powder (lead and powder were controlled and rationed out by the King). Greater accuracy was achieved by experienced hunters who could place the smaller bullet in small game or a British soldiers head. Smooth bore muskets were inherently inaccurate, used heavier bullets and more (black) gunpowder. When fired in a volley the shooters were engulfed in a cloud of smoke and it took a minute or so for that cloud to dissipate so they could see to shoot again. As the smoke cleared, camouflaged snipers and sharpshooters hidden in the trees and bushes with rifles were ready to inflict multiple hits on brightly uniformed “red coats” lined up in an open field reloading their muskets.

    The reasons we are free today is that the Colonials had better shooting skills and SUPERIOR WEAPONS than the British troops. And those were the primary reasons our founders felt it was so necessary for the civilian population to be armed and know how to use those arms. The Second Amendment is even more important today than it was in the 1700s.
    Why do you think liberal politicians and people like President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and Amy Schumer perpetuate the ill-conceived concept that we will be safer with less guns? – To disarm the populace and deprive us of the weapons we will eventually need to fight against Obama’s liberal, private Army.
    A problem we have today is that we have TOO MANY uneducated, unskilled high school drop-outs, citizens and illegal immigrants in this country who expect ME to support them and think they are justified in using guns to intimidate, injure and kill us when they don’t get the entitlements they think they deserve just for being here. My dog thinks she has entitlements too! She barks at me when she doesn’t get that second dog biscuit, but luckily all she does is protest. She doesn’t get violent when I tell her to go out and get a job to buy her own dog biscuits.

    I need guns to protect my family and me from the increasing number of criminals Obama is allowing to illegally enter MY country. I want better, faster firing guns with larger magazines that hold more ammunition. I want to be able to buy ammunition to practice shooting, be better trained and to carry concealed without having to ask for permission from a DICTATORIAL government. The Second Amendment is my license and permission to carry a gun!

    The Second Amendment gives me these rights and more – rights I EARNED by serving 20 years in the military service of my country and being an honest citizen who has always paid my taxes, never committed a felony or misdemeanor, not even a traffic ticket, What gives President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and Amy Schumer the right to even think about denying me my Constitutional rights?

    As a volunteer in the military I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and, if necessary, forfeit my life to protect my country. As a Life Member of the NRA I continue to honor that commitment.

    And that is bad news for Liberals!! There are millions of us out here and – WE ALL HAVE GUNS!!

    • Lamar July 13, 2016, 8:29 pm

      You said “Alan Dershowitz and Amy Schumer need to go back to school and study American History to understand the reasons the colonials insisted on a Bill of Rights and included the Second Amendment in the UNITED STATES Constitution.”
      It was in the Constitution because groups of concerned citizens wanted to have a chance of forcing their views or preferences on the fledgling nation if the leadership behaved as tyrannically as King George III did. If they all had guns that weren’t appreciably better than the guns the government had, then, the thinking went, the government would have to move very cautiously.
      I offer Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion as exhibits A & B. Large groups of Revolutionary soldiers were able to worry the government for awhile but the government still got its way.
      On this blog Jim Jefferies gun control bit was mirrored and Jefferies talks about this. He asks the question “You get that the government has drones now, right? You’re bringing guns to a drone fight.”
      For better or worse, the days where even a sizable group of private citizens, Shay’s Rebellion saw 4000 participants, could cause the government any real concern are long gone. The only thing protecting your group of motivated gun owners from being killed is a public relations problem. The government certainly wouldn’t want to be seen just wasting 4000 American citizens in a single go, but to believe “the Government will give in because I own an AR-15” is just delusional.
      To bring this issue up, it seems to me, is silly.
      Go gather your 4 or 40 or 400 thousand friends in one place at one time and announce “You’re going to do what we say or else!” You’re forgetting the lesson the government learned from the Civil War; insurrection is costly and dangerous.
      Tomorrow, 10 or 100 years from now, the government would, if FORCED to choose between the two options, waste every one of you rather than be seen to give in to mob rule or our nation devolve into Civil War.
      We’ll probably impeach or remove from office the president who chose to do that, but how does that help you?
      I think you’re forgetting most Americans are not gun people and aren’t willing to have streets shut down, public spaces occupied, rounds fired menacingly in the air, so you can have your Bushmaster.
      If you don’t believe me, then you’re going to have to try it and then we’ll all know.
      Take over Times Square, the Alamo, the Space Needle and Graman’s Chinese Theater if you want to test this. The government will, in the end, trade those landmarks and your lives to maintain order.
      I’m making a prediction, nothing more, that if you try to rise up against the government with guns in your hand, it’ll end in your blood and less rights to guns than we have now for the majority of citizens left behind when the smoke clears.
      The people who make this argument, “I need my M-16 so I can influence the government” don’t ever seem to consider the most likely chain of events if large groups of them really tried this tactic.
      Please show ANY evidence you have that the government did or didn’t act in a certain way solely because lawmakers were reminded “Hey, you know Americans have LOTS of guns!”
      Americans have always had lots of guns that fact hasn’t seemed to influence American foreign or domestic policy at all.

      • Maigrith Wellesley June 19, 2017, 4:47 pm

        You may be smart enough to realise that making up stupid things to pretend others have said, for the purpose of arguing against them, is called the “Straw Man fallacy”, yes? If you do, then why are you using it? “I need my M-16 so I can influence the government” would be a stupid thing to say, which is probably why I’ve never heard it said or written a single time, other than by you. Using false arguments like that may be a cheap way to win before the other side has even had a chance to open their mouths, but most of us recognise your false statements and immediately conclude that either you have nothing real to offer, or that you are a knave who is not above lying. Enjoy your day.

  • carl kressley August 10, 2015, 2:19 pm

    If Mr. Dershowitz or any other gun grabber wants my guns let them come and take them, MOLON LABE. Dershowitz obviously didn’t learn anything from WWII when the nazi’s rounded up and slaughtered people who had no guns to protect them selves from a tyrannical government. This is the reason the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution. He obviously has no clue.

    • Maigrith Wellesley June 19, 2017, 5:42 pm

      In 1991, commanders in the Soviet Army attempted to counter the attempts to dissolve the Soviet Union. They sent tanks rumbling into the streets of Moscow, but not before they ordered all newspapers, radio, and television stations to cease broadcasting; they also demanded that all guns in the hands of the citizenry be turned in. Professor Dershowitz, maybe you should ask yourself why they feared those guns?

      In the early years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, there was trouble between Albania and Serbia. The Serbs didn’t want Albanian refugees moving into their newly re-formed country. The Albanians were huddled into refugee camps. The Serbs would sit on the hills above the camps and shoot anyone they could see. As “Time” magazine reported, they could do this with impunity because the Serbian government had disarmed the Albanians, and there was no fear among the Serbs that the Albanians might shoot back.

      In 1992 a bunch of people decided they didn’t like a jury’s decision; they took to the streets and rioted, destroying houses and stores and businesses. Jobs were destroyed, businesses were destroyed. Looters went to jail, sixty people died or were murdered by the mobs, lives were ruined. It was observed on TV news that store owners, generally mom-and-pop enterprises, were sitting on the roofs of their stores, rifle in hand, protecting their livelihoods against being broken into and destroyed.

      In the last decade, there have been many cases of mass shootings in the United States. It has been observed that every one of those mass shootings has taken place in a gun-free zone. After all, put yourself in the shoes of the would-be mass murderer: if you were sick in the head and wanted to kill a bunch of people, where would you take your weapons? To a rifle range? I dare you to try it.

      In one case, a mass shooter pinned down children at an elementary school, barred the doors, and started killing whomever he could find. A teacher who had his gun in his glove compartment in his car which was parked a thousand feet from the school as required by law, ran to his car, got his weapon, then came back and shot the shooter. Meanwhile at least a dozen children lay dead. Had the teacher been able to run to his desk instead, he could have put an end to the shooter in mere moments.

      This is what guns are for: protecting ourselves from tyranny. From the tyranny of the government, or from the tyranny of our next door neighbors. In Australia, which considers its anti-gun laws to be effective, annual gun death count has dropped by a half, but the annual murder count overall hasn’t dropped a bit; rather, the murderers are now using knives instead of guns. The same thing happened in the UK when they “banned” guns.

  • Greg Schmidt August 9, 2015, 5:48 pm

    Dershowitz is past his prime. At one time, he was somewhat relevant, but now he\’s just coming up with left-field statements to get attention. And apparently, it\’s working. What\’s the point of stating the 2nd Amendment doesn\’t need to be in the constitution?It\’s there and not going anywhere. Does he think he can start a movement to get it amended? Good luck with that – with the concealed carry holders growing by leaps and bounds every year.

  • Ron August 7, 2015, 9:26 pm

    Another thing Mr. Ivory Tower Dershowitz leaves out is that the Second Amendment was added to secure this nation against all threats, foreign and domestic. Those countries who have been relieved of their weapons are now controlled by despots and dictators.

  • Kevin Townsend August 7, 2015, 3:48 am

    No, liberal lawyers have to be regulated. They should tattoo a number on their foreheads so we can keep track of them.

  • Gary August 6, 2015, 4:55 pm

    I think all those restrictive gun laws are working at last. I am reading news about an imbecile trying a theatre attack with a pelletgun, pepperspray and an axe just a day or 2 ago. As long as people arent shot. If they get hacked to pieces instead everyone can sleep better now.

  • Mark August 4, 2015, 9:50 pm

    In a way he’s right this “experiment” hasn’t been working. The reason being people are stupid. We do need a new approach. These anti gun citizens do not understand research and facts. They see these shootings in gun free zones and think “hey we need more gun control” when there are small towns all around with incredibly low crime rates. Why? Because criminals get shot. I know I’m comparing apples to oranges, but Switzerland, one of the LOWEST crime rates in the world. The government also arms and trains its citizens. Who would have guessed that more RESPONSIBLY armed Americans would create LESS violent crime.

  • ditpook August 4, 2015, 8:47 pm

    We do not have gun violence because of guns. We have it because our country is so well off that the scum of the earth from around the world come here to get something for free and bring values from their lawless countries where violent people take everything. No one is trying to get into the other countries because their economies are terrible and they would not be allowed in, in the first place.

    Let’s assume Dershowitz is correct for a moment. let’s start by putting in the law that no politician or rich person can own a gun, that no body guards can own a gun, and see how fast they sign it. I am sure Dershowitz has a gun and every high profile politician is either carrying or has a brigade of armed people around them and even if the public gave theirs up, they would keep theirs.

    By the way, Dershowitz, the country that allows you to sign out a gun to go hunting is Communist China. Are you a Communist, Mr. Dershowitz? Our Constitution was based on a Republic. Perhaps you should move to the Far East. Furthermore, if you can only sign out a gun to hunt, when can you practice for proficiency?

  • Ross Neal August 4, 2015, 5:03 pm

    This professor is an idiot to think that the criminals won’t have guns if we change the laws. Criminals don’t follow the law, that is why they are criminals….

  • gary August 4, 2015, 8:27 am

    Maybe he is being paid by some anti gun group that wanted a poster boy that is known by most gun owners?
    As we know, seldom does a lawyer do ANYTHING for free! All of the probono cases that he handled did but one thing for him. Make him RICH! Does anyone think he defended O.J. for free? No one else on his “dream team” did.
    Find a high profile case, defend it for free. (Get the book rights of course!) Win or lose, your a famous lawyer. Who makes the most money? Someone everyone has never heard of. Or this guy? That is a no brainer of course.
    When people like him start spewing this kind of idiot drivel..I think of famous anti gun actor Sean Penn. Who had to report his vehicle stolen a number of years ago. When doing so he had to admit to the police that there was not only one but TWO unregistered 9mm handguns IN his vehicle at the time it was stolen!!
    The rich are like the criminals in this country. OUR laws don’t pertain to them. Criminals don’t care about laws..hence the term criminal. The rich believe NO law pertains to THEM. Sad part is, its usually true. Again..good example O.J.
    Or the rich kid that was driving drunk and killed someone. Then gets sentenced to a detox facility!! Now can anyone of normal income truly say that would happen to their son? What was the defense used by his top dollar mouth pieces? The spoiled brat defence! He had done anything he wanted for so long with no punishment, that he could not tell he was doing wrong when he committed murder!! (Well he didnt commit murder, they found him not guilty because he didn’t know right from wrong!)
    I wonder if any of his lawyers went to Harvard and studied under this guy?

  • Jay1 August 4, 2015, 7:56 am

    These United States were formed as a Republic, a rule instilled in the people, the government was granted it’s powers from the people, limited by the people and controlled by the people! The Declaration of Independence states “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This very words “consent of the governed” infers a republican form of government; a government that governs by the rule of law of the people. Democracy, on the other hand is a form of government that governs by the rule of man, and is the exact opposite of the republican form. A democracy is never satisfied with its status. It out of necessity, always strives for more control. Like a snake in the grass, a democracy sheds it’s skin time and again as it grows and gains control over the people under its rule changing from its most benign form of socialism, then to fascism, and finally to a pure democracy which by another word is communism. A democracy flourishes at the expense of the very idea of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” If true Americans sit back and do nothing guess where we are headed! Democrats, governments in general know, that for evil to flourish all it takes is for the good to do nothing!

  • Tom Horn August 4, 2015, 12:58 am

    Yeah, I thought that was Alan, back behind the high school burning one, when he was supposed to be in history class.
    Now he just can’t imagine what that 2nd Amendment is there for.

  • Danny August 3, 2015, 6:53 pm

    Comrade Dershowitz may be against the 2nd Amendment, but is all for freeing convicted traitor/spy Jonathan Pollard, responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not 1,000s of American assets. I have seen Dershowtiz on TV literally foaming at the mouth in defense of Pollard. I suppose the Red Chinese who benefited greatly from Pollard’s stolen intelligence would want him free also!

    • Anthony August 3, 2015, 10:34 pm

      Dershowitz would have been a Tory, showing his loyalty to the King of England, hoping there would not be another Jewish pogrom. Don’t professors at Harvard need to have history as part of their degree program? It’s obvious he has not looked at history, or the results, of people without protection. Shows getting a degree, or teaching for it, at Harvard takes only money not intelligence.

    • Stargzer August 4, 2015, 5:45 pm

      Actually, Jonathan Pollard was spying for Israel, but that doesn’t excuse what he did. He deserves to stay where he is, not get out on parole.

      Aldrich Ames (CIA) and Robert Hanssen (FBI) did the most damage to American assets overseas. The only reason they are still alive is that they traded testimony about what secrets they let loose in exchange for no death penalty and a light sentence for Ames’ wife and a pension for Hanssen’s wife and kids.

  • Chief August 3, 2015, 6:08 pm

    You know who else was a Harvard law professor ? obama .Seems like the Harvard law program has a problem doesn’t it.

  • Oliver Klozzoff August 3, 2015, 5:40 pm

    Dershowitz’s silly idea of gun control is like trying to eliminate drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to buy and drive cars.

  • Help USA August 3, 2015, 3:57 pm

    It is my opinion that the second amendment does not give a crap about the guns. The second amendment was created to empower the people with the strength to stand up to the government. As everyone can clearly see, it hasn’t worked.
    If it was about keeping people alive, they would outlaw alcohol not guns.

    • Joe August 3, 2015, 5:31 pm

      Yeah….. they tried that one.
      Just once though as it made hundreds of millions for the mob because just like people loving their guns, they also love their booze.
      Only the good ones separate the two so they can enjoy them both safely.

  • 'ol shooter August 3, 2015, 3:10 pm

    I would remind Herr Professor Dershowitz that the Nazi’s confiscated guns when they came to power. If that had not been the case, and the Jews had had the ability to fight back, history might have been much different for the Jews in Europe. I would also remind him that the ones calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment overwhelmingly are wealthy, and travel with their own ARMED private security. The reason for the draconian gun laws in Europe has to do with the history of the ruling class, whether Royal or Dictator, that saw correctly that an unarmed lower class was far easier to govern by the threat of force. In medieval times. only the noble and their armies were allowed to have a sword, lest they defend themselves against unfair treatment at the hands of the ruling class. Sounds and looks like Deja Vu to me. Stay in your ivory tower, Prof, the streets are too mean for such as you.

  • Mick Dodge August 3, 2015, 1:29 pm

    Mister Deershits needs to have a chat with some of his brethren that still wear the tattoo on their forearm compliments of the gestapo before he trashes the amendment that protects his kind from history repeating itself.

  • Chief August 3, 2015, 12:12 pm

    These liberals I truly believe have a mental disorder .A disorder that turns everything that is right wrong and wrong right .I believe some of these people truly see things this way, not as we do who believe in the words and actions of our founding Fathers, even feeling their blood running thru our veins . Where we are true sons of this wonderful Country appreciating all that our Fore Fathers did for us ,we also have bastards in the true sense of the word .Bastards who hate our Fore Fathers ,our beloved Constitution and our freedoms and liberty . These bastards are not of us and want to destroy our way of life period ,They are freedom haters . If that my friends is not a mental defect I don’t know what is .

  • Jim August 3, 2015, 11:51 am

    Another self-proclaimed expert…albeit, left leaning wing nut, socialist. JUST ANOTHER CONTROL FREAK!

  • silvestris August 3, 2015, 11:49 am

    Alan, one has to choose between guns or the ovens. I choose guns.

  • JOHN August 3, 2015, 11:22 am

    Deceptive – imagine that.

    Of course we have more murder – we are a big country, bigger than most.
    But our homicide rate is low.
    For a true comparison – The “real issue” is what is our homicide RATE? Compared to the world.
    The World Wide RATE is 6.9 / 100k pop
    The US Rate is 5.4
    Russia 11.6
    Mexico 12.7
    Honduras 61.3
    El Salvador 57.3

    • steve August 5, 2015, 2:32 am

      well that is a pretty dishonest comment. virtually NOONE on the other side argues that the U.S. has the highest murder rate IN THE WORLD. they argue that we have the highest murder rate in the INDUSTRIALIZED world. which we do. creating straw man arguments to argue against is not helping anything.

  • Fake Marlin Perkins August 3, 2015, 10:57 am

    “Scholar” Dershowitz lost all credibility when he said no country, other than the US, has a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution.

    Right off hand, Cuba and Mexico have a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution.

    I think the difference that scares Dershowitz is that the 2 amendment recognizes a god given right to keep and bear arms, not granted or conditioned by the government. The ‘right’ arises not from the government, but is a fundamental right. All anti-gun nuts hinge their arguments on that it should not be a fundamental right, but subject to the caprice of the government.

    If it were not a fundamental right, but a privilege granted by the state, our rights woul have fallen to the likes of Dershowitz, et al long ago.

  • Reticent Rogue August 3, 2015, 10:46 am

    In every forum like this we see the same rite of oratory over and over. In spite of the very good points made here, the debate has inevitably fallen into the gun crime furrow. And that is how the left controls the debate. Guns in the hands of citizens do not pose a significant threat to the citizenry at large but to government. Crime has little to do with the real issue. What we are fighting here is communist socialism—a system of government with one party and zero personal sovereignty and freedom. That is the dark cloud that follows in the wake of gun control. Dershowitz is a stooge with a microphone who only feels safe when nestled snuggly in the bosom armed government. He should have been present in Thailand when a man killed 18 people with a sharp stick and an ax before a government officer finally showed up to shoot him.

  • Norm Berls August 3, 2015, 10:31 am

    Dershowitz wants an unlimited government with the power to commit genocide. His position is only made possible by selectively editing the historical record. His bias toward reasoning outside the full context of reality inevitably leads him to faulty conclusions. Historically people who practice the intellectual failures of Prof. Dershowitz have laid the foundations for the genocides practiced by the likes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Dershowitz is one of the founders of future genocidal states.

  • TMONK August 3, 2015, 10:16 am


  • Leighton Cavendish August 3, 2015, 10:08 am

    Never understand how ANYone can see all the other rights as personal rights…and this one…sandwiched in between…as not being a personal right of individuals.
    The militia statement is merely WHY we need the right to own and bear arms…uninfringed.
    Coming from a Jew…it is funny…guess he was OK with the holocaust.
    As far as criminals…need to go into the ghettos and public housing door to door and person to person with trained K9s to search for their illegal guns.Arrest them…prosecute them (to hell with 4th amendment rights, too)…kick them out of public housing…ban them from public assistance for life.Minimum of 5 years for each illegal gun…10 if connected to a crime…life if a death happened. NO early releases!!!
    Fix the mental health issues…fix the NICS background issues…fix what needs fixing.
    Enforce the thousands of gun laws ALREADY on the books FIRST!!!
    After that…then we can talk about legal gun owners.

  • WinchesterMan August 3, 2015, 9:58 am

    Hey, Mr. DoucheBagOWitz,
    I wonder how many of the Jewish people rounded up by Hitler would still be alive had they met the SS at the door of their homes with a loaded weapon??
    NEVER NEVER give up your guns for history always repeats itself!!

  • The Original Brad August 3, 2015, 9:21 am

    Elitest Harvard Law Professor is, elitest.

    Thanks Al, now go back to defending murderers and criminals who are the ones perpetrating the very crimes you cite in your rant. The legal system gone amuck is the problem we have in the US, not an inatimate object.

  • d August 3, 2015, 9:21 am

    Like so many others, Mr. Dershowitz is enchanted with the idea of being able to pick and choose which basic rights contained in the Bill of Rights he will support and which he won’t. Even at Harvard Law they should realize that it comes as a package–all of those basic rights or none of them. And that includes the First Amendment right of free speech.

    • Drover August 3, 2015, 9:51 am

      The pen is mightier than the sword.
      So why regulate swords and not pens?
      Too many lawyers in this country!

  • Ian August 3, 2015, 9:03 am

    Good thing is he is old and going to die soon I can’t wait for the cleansing of all these old anti gunners from our country. Their time is coming you only live so long. Our generation and the youngster growing up know exactly what the second amendment is and why we have it.

  • Ian August 3, 2015, 9:03 am

    Good thing is he is old and going to die soon I can’t wait for the cleansing of all these old anti gunners from our country. Their time is coming you only live so long. Our generation and the youngster growing up know exactly what the second amendment is and why we have it.

  • David W Stephenson August 3, 2015, 8:26 am

    What a moron,If someone breaks into his house he will be doing two things (1) praying and (2)and waiting for someone with a gun(the police,not the military) ,to come and save his ass. He’s a laywer he knows how it works. Don’t ya just live liberals, You can defend someone who cut someones head almost completely off with a knife but you can’t own a gun. What a guy!

    • TPSnodgrass August 3, 2015, 1:33 pm

      Dershowitz only prays to Himself. There IS no higher “Deity” anywhere other than Himself. Just ask Himself.

      • Larry August 3, 2015, 2:36 pm

        The beige bozo must have learned from him.

  • john August 3, 2015, 7:51 am

    You have to love how they(gun grabbers) frame things to their advantage.
    Consider how this statement is framed:
    “…we have more gun murders than any other country in the world,”
    Well duh – its a big country – bigger than most.

    Imagine that, a Harvard lawyer twisting facts to his advantage.
    Well “duh” we have more people in this country than most other countries.
    The real issue is the murder “rate” not the tot number of murders.
    Of course being a good “lawyer” – he will choose his words carefully for his argument.
    Here is another version of the real truth and facts:
    As for the murder RATE – the US is BELOW the world AVERAGE!!
    World Homicide rates per 100,000 pop:
    Worst : Honduras 61.3, El Salvador 57.3,…, Mexico 12.7
    World Average = 6.9 / 100,000 pop
    USA = 5.4

  • phil morris August 3, 2015, 7:22 am

    Alan Dershowitz , what a dildo! I bet his jewish relatives/ancestors are spinning/turning over in their mass graves.

  • RetNavet August 3, 2015, 7:08 am

    Glaringly obvious is the correlation between an over litigious society and an overabundance of Law Professors….put that in your libtard pipe and smoke it Doucheowitz.

  • Dar August 3, 2015, 6:58 am

    This is the same man who assisted in the defense of O.J. Simpson, I guess murder by stabbing and killing two people with a knife doesn’t count as heinous a crime as someone who shoots someone even, if it’s in self defense. Every time there’s a story about a shooting or robbery/murder, almost always, the shooter has a lengthy criminal record. The revolving door of the justice system, as far as I’m concerned is just as responsible as the person doing the shooting or robbing. And speaking to the 2A, I’m no professor but, isn’t a militia as was intended by the founding fathers made up of ordinary citizens? I do not recall seeing or hearing anything that would change that. As dysfunctional as our current Government is today, I can see where a citizen militia could be called upon some time in the future again to defend our freedoms.

  • Michael E. Hensley August 3, 2015, 4:33 am

    Playing on the Name
    Maybe, Just Maybe if members of your Religion would have not had to give up their Guns as you don’t need them as you are Protected by the State or should I say the Reich, than maybe a couple million more would be alive today.
    ” Get your guns at a Hunting site and then give them back when you are finished ” What an Asinine comment and this idiot teaches!!!

  • JGinNJ August 3, 2015, 4:09 am

    There are many places in the world that would be better off if the citizens had the right to bear arms.
    You could do far more to advance the rights of women in Afghanistan by providing them with small arms and training in their use than by creating war widows. Women in India would not have to fear rape as much as they do now if they were armed. It is a lot harder for a radical to come to your door and say “convert or die” if the response might be a shotgun blast to the face.

    • Evan August 3, 2015, 10:37 am

      The right to keep and bear arms only works in civilized societies. When I was in Iraq, I was a major proponent of gun control for the local population (the rule at the time was one AK with one mag per household). I would often do my absolute best to disable that rifle by busting the gas tube or simply disassembling it to the point where some Iraqi wouldn’t be able to put it back together. The right to keep and bear arms is important for civilized people, but guns in the hands of barbarians like the Afghans you mentioned is a terrible idea.

  • sunaj August 3, 2015, 3:25 am

    The last thing that any citizen should care about is the tirade of the Zionist/Jewish organized crime syndicate that has taken control of the financial (Federal Reserve which is a group of international Jewish banking interests), educational, political and media of the United States,
    our current situation only demonstrates too clearly (q.v., Jade Helm) how important the Second Amendment is to Americans, which will play out very shortly,
    its time to name names and be very clear who this “secret government” is that Teddy Roosevelt talked about in his days, the men behind the curtain that are pulling the strings,
    see the lectures by Michael Collins Piper, Eustace Mullins, Brother Nathaniel, Webster Tarpley

  • Gary July 30, 2015, 9:26 am

    And why exactly should I have to justify my need for self defense? Isn’t self defense a God given right for everyone? The reason political candidates get ” allergic” to gun control at election times is because they will lose if they are a gun grabber. This should tell you what the Will of The People is. Last time I looked our country was based on what the majority of the people want. That’s the point of 2A. A government controlled or regulated civilian militia really wouldn’t be able to live up to the point of the second ammendment. Dumbass.

  • Mark N. July 30, 2015, 12:32 am

    Highest murder rate in the WORLD? I guess old Alan hasn’t heard about Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Jamaica Brazil….I don’t think I need to go on. He is simply wrong. And he is wrong about “well-regulated”–which he, as a law school professor and criminal attorney certainly knows but is intentionally misrepresenting; well regulated meant, at the time the amendment was enacted, well drilled, or well practiced, not “subject to regulation” as Alan would have it.The Supreme Court agreed unanimously on that point. I don’t think he moves the down markers by intentionally misrepresenting the facts and the law.

    • Ram 6 August 3, 2015, 8:48 am

      It also was written so as to be understood that all citizens would be part of the “well regulated” MILITIA. Consequently you were to be armed so when you were called to duty you were already prepared and had a firearm with which to use in defense of the country. The framers also understood that the biggest threat to our liberty was a tyranical government from which you could defend yourself if in fact you were armed.

      Dershowitz is not just a fool, but a very dangerous individual as he believes and spouts the typical liberal line that the gun is the problem and not the criminal on the other end of it. So instead of taking the mentally ill and the criminal off the street, his solution is disarm the law abiding public and leave them with no defense against those who would ignore any law passed anyway. It goes to show that well educated doesn’t coincide with common sense.

      • Dad Cat August 3, 2015, 9:56 am

        “Common sense” is an oxymoron.

    • Larry August 3, 2015, 2:31 pm

      The last I heard, we are number ten. Honduras is number one. If you eliminate the top ten murder capitals (all left wing run cities for decades now with restrictive gun laws making them essentially “gun free” environments) from the list, we come in real close to Scandinavian countries on the hit parade of murderous counties.
      Guns save lives. That’s why police headquarters are some of the safest places in the world! So is my home, if you know what I mean.

    • Tom Paine August 8, 2015, 3:28 pm

      Good point about “well regulated,” Mark N. This is a crucial point about the 2A that is frequently misunderstood, ignored or swept under the rug by gun banners. Even if you accept the lefty point of view that the Constituion and the BofR are to be reinterpreted as the times change… there is no possible “give” in the phrase “well regulated.” It’s not a matter of interpretation or opinion. The word “regulated” has simply changed in meaning over the past 250 years, and this is a simple fact which no knowledgeable historian or linguist would consider worth debate, any more than 2+2=4. The use of “regulation” as “a law” wasn’t in the Founder’s vocabulary. As Mark N says, “well regulated” in 18th century English means “regulated” the way a machine is “regulated’ (and this is probably no coincidence considering that Jefferson was a noted amateur scientist and engineer).

      Also note that “security” is another case of changing meaning–Jefferson meant not “protection” or “safety” but something like “guarantee”–“security” in the financial sense. Again, there’s NO DEBATE possible here, it’s a simple matter of historical fact.

      So putting it all together “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” in Modern English means “A body of citizens ready to act as a well-prepared and smoothly-functioning volunteer army being necessary to ensure that the freedom of the people from oppressive government is maintained…” Not quite as catchy as the original, it’s true.

  • Al July 29, 2015, 4:55 pm

    I don’t buy any of it. We are being persistently and deliberately destabilized into a “need” to disarm the public; but the public is not the problem and they are not buying it either. As an aside: How is this social experiment going so far of replacing fatherhood with a government check?…I would start there; along with enforcing our borders to keep out gangs like MS-13 and drug cartels – but that’s not important to a crackpot professor who hates America.

  • George Bullwinkel July 29, 2015, 4:06 pm

    My old law school professor;as always a persuasive advocate.

  • wade July 29, 2015, 11:55 am

    I forgot to add the 4 cities listed also have the most stringent gun laws in America.

  • George July 29, 2015, 11:52 am

    Same old rant as always. He misses two major points right off. Criminals will always have guns, so if you can’t even the playing field, you’ll be their victim. Then he misses the real problem in all these “massacres”, that it is the mentally ill perpetrating them, and the gun (tool) is being misused. Not even noticing that they also use knives, cars, bats, etc. The one thing I noticed is that after Ronald Reagan relaxed the mental health laws that we had protecting us, these “massacres” started happening. But if you sit in your mansion, in your gated community, you rarely see reality. If you never walk downtown and see the guy on the corner that is screaming at the invisible green men, you’ll not see the problem. Our problem isn’t guns, it is the fact that we have a lot of mentally ill people amongst us.

    • Dave August 3, 2015, 9:32 am

      You’re exactly right. Introducing restrictive laws on firearm ownership won’t do a thing to stop the criminal misuse of firearms because, as you note, criminals just disregard laws. And secondly, and again as you mention, the real issue is the management of the mentally ill. At the point where the mentally ill are expected to ‘self-medicate’ and self-regulate at large in the community we as a society have a very serious problem. Public health policies are the key to restoring safer communities. Attacking inanimate objects like firearms is just dishonest tub thumping.

    • MSG John Laigaie August 3, 2015, 9:50 am

      WE HAVE A WINNER!! George gets it, why do the “educated” , who have never been off campus, not understand reality?

    • Dave Emery August 3, 2015, 1:44 pm

      Not to mention the fact that most, if not all, of the assailants in these massacres were on psychotropic or other mental illness treating drugs. John Noveske posted a list of these people and the drugs they were on or had taken. Interestingly enough, I believe two weeks later Mr. Noveske died in a car accident. Humm….Alan Dershowitz might be a powerful attorney and a professor at Harvard but his opinion on the subject is just nonsensical opinionated drooling babble. Good luck taking my guns. Some things are worth fighting for and our right to bear arms is one of them. Sua Sponte.

  • wade July 29, 2015, 9:51 am

    The USA may have more gun murders than any other country in the world, but if you take out the murders in New York, Chicago, LA and New Orleans the USA is forth from the bottom. How can so many educated people be idiots. Guns don’t kill people. People kill People!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Texas001 August 3, 2015, 7:38 am

      Wade, agree with you 100% but you left out one of the biggest murder cities. Washington D. C.

      • MSG John Laigaie August 3, 2015, 9:47 am

        Right you are,mate. These are the “gun free” zones with heavy firearm regs, so……..why do all the bad guys have guns?

        • Cj August 3, 2015, 11:39 am

          New Orleans is not a gun free area. It has other issues that lead to violence

        • Cj August 3, 2015, 11:39 am

          New Orleans is not a gun free area. It has other issues that lead to violence

        • Stargzer August 4, 2015, 5:14 pm

          “… why do all the bad guys have guns?”
          BECAUSE THEY ARE “BAD GUYS!” They don’t play by the rules, and in some cases don’t HAVE to play by the rules, especially when it comes to registering firearms. Go look up “Haynes v. United States” to see how the Fifth Amendment protects convicted felons from being compelled to register firearms.

      • graphsmith August 4, 2015, 6:31 pm

        Exactly. Perhaps we should disarm all liberals and allow the conservatives to keep them. Then we will both get what we want.

    • Mark August 3, 2015, 9:55 am

      Dershowitz is a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal who has notably fought the death penalty…they even made a movie about his efforts. He’s among the millions of folks in this country who have lived the good Life and, perhaps because of that, do not have the capacity to recognize the existence of evil. He’s probably part of the reason that Harvard has fallen from its lofty position of being the finest university in America to #6.

      • Mark S August 3, 2015, 11:04 am

        Alan Dershowitz moves to sue lawyers representing alleged teen ‘sex slave’ for defamation, but they sue him first


      • TPSnodgrass August 3, 2015, 1:29 pm

        I would remind Professor Dershowitz that his fellow Jewish congregants would have LOVED to have the right to keep and bear arms prior to WWII and after. Seems that he wants his own people to be as disarmed as before, and has forgotten “Never Again”. Rather typical of someone who lives in an exclusive enclave. If Jews were being rounded up or targeted here as they currently are being targeted in the EuroUnion, Dershowitz would hypocritically be singing an entirely different “tune”.

        • Pete B August 5, 2015, 4:27 pm

          Kudos! Great point. Plus, Harvard Law professor…say no more.

        • Tripwire September 14, 2015, 1:04 pm

          I would point out that Germans as a whole had gun rights prior to the rise of the Nazis, it was after Hitler came to power that they were disarmed totally, so .. If ya got em, keep em!, the best deterrent to the anti-gun crowd is for the 80 Million armed Americans to simply say ” NO” and mean it. If we allow them to take this one freedom without a fight then we are as lost as the Jews and our own gas chambers await.
          When they come with force, meet them with force, when we kill all they send they will stop sending them.
          Freedom is not something to be compromised over, one is either free or one is not.
          One can not be a little bit pregnant nor can one be a little bit free, either one is or one is not.

    • charles franchina August 3, 2015, 6:15 pm

      It’s amazing a Jewish man trying to disarm a Country. Didn’t his people learn what it’s like to be sheep led to the slaughter.

      • Richard Feldman August 4, 2015, 11:28 am

        “Didn’t his people learn what it’s like to be sheep led to the slaughter.” Some did, some didn’t! Jewish people buying guns has spiked dramatically in the past few years. Some people never get it. Buying the necessary tool during an emergency situation is a prescription for utter failure.

        • Phil Williams September 3, 2015, 9:14 am

          Oh – but the Jews did learn a lesson – witness Israel! Most of the population is armed and knows how to shoot – and that is a good thing, as they are surrounded by neighbors who would like to wipe them from the face of the Earth!

    • steve August 5, 2015, 2:29 am

      wow. it blows my mind how often i hear fellow pro gun people put forth the extremely intellectually dishonest argument of, “well yea, but if you remove all of the cities with the most murders, then the U.S. really isn’t that bad!”

      well DUH! the same is true for ANY country! you could do the same thing in honduras, taking out the four cities with the most murders and make them look a lot less violent too. that is the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard, and i am as “pro gun” as they come. we are not winning any battles, or convincing anyone by putting for arguments like this. i don’t know if the people who put forth this argument actually think it is a coherent, rational statement, or if they are just being intellectually dishonest, but with the caliber of people in the gunsamerica comment section, neither one would surprise me.
      people using this argument also seem to imply that the reason many cities have high murder rates, is because they are democrat controlled, which is also of course bogus, because there plenty of conservative cities with high murder rates, and the red states tend to have the higher murder rates.

      imagine if someone said, “homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS than homosexuals.” and then someone else said, “yea, but if don’t count the homosexuals living in the 4 largest cities in america, then homosexuals have LOWER rates of AIDS! checkmate!”

    • steve August 5, 2015, 2:34 am

      ***i meant imagine if one person said that homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS than heterosexuals.

      • gary November 11, 2016, 5:20 pm

        to late to save that one there Steve-o

    • Nubbin-Finger Jake Rodell August 5, 2015, 4:08 pm

      Wade you’re almost right. Commissar Deshovitz only wants to take European American’s guns – not the the guns of the Orc army he & his tribe members seeks to set upon us to complete their “fundamental transformation of America.” The more accurate slogan is, Guns don’t kill people – vibrant people of color kill most people, as your list of affected cities illustrates. Deshovitz and his clan member were primarily responsible for the bloodletting in 1900’s once Christian Russia. They succeeded in their Semetic takeover with the creation of the Soviet Union – now they have set up shop over here.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend