Rolling Stone magazine that paragon of truth and justice just ran an written by an “alleged” Constitutional law expert. According to David S. Cohen a Drexel University law professor, “The 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.” 

We will examine the article and address it point by point.

“sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The 2nd Amendment must be repealed.”

The founding fathers are quite possible some of the greatest minds that have graced our Earth. It was because of them that the great experiment called AMERICA was set into motion.  The founding fathers of our nation were truly great men with a very solid understanding of history. They were men of great virtue who truly believed in freedom and knew full well what it took to secure those freedoms. Great thought and great discussion went into the drafting of the Bill of Rights that secured the rights that they fought so hard for. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the teeth and the amendment which secures all of the others. Even Mao knew that real power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Anytime someone calls for the repeal of perhaps the most important amendment to the Constitution we need to evaluate the intentions and rationale.

“The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.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.”

Oh David, such a brilliant Constitutional scholar such as yourself should know the VALUE of good solid research. As that is the cornerstone of every argument. If you can’t get that right then you might as well back up your bags and go home. Providing lies as the basis for your argument pretty much invalidates your entire case. So let us proceed with some facts my lying little liberal Domestic Enemy of the Constitution.

a Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute) 2nd Amendment
A Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute)

The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a “machine gun”, being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest. If only David S. Cohen did any sort of reasonable research on an article about repealing the 2nd Amendment…

A Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute) in the midst of a driving rainstorm. A rate of 9 rounds per minute compared favourably to musketeers of the period, who could be expected to fire between 2 and 5 rounds per minute depending on the quality of the troops, with experienced troops expected to reliably manage 3 rounds a minute under fair conditions; it was however inferior in fire rate to earlier repeating weapons such as the Kalthoff repeater which fired up to six times faster.

2nd Amendment Facts: The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.

“Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.”

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that appeared in the seventeenth century and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-nineteenth century. As its inventor is unknown, it is named after the Kalthoff gunsmiths that has come to be associated with the design. The Kalthoff had two magazines, one for powder and one for balls (some had a third for priming powder). A single forward-and-back motion on the trigger guard powered a mechanism that deposited a ball and load of powder in the breech and cocked the gun. Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. A small carrier took the powder from the magazine to the breech, so there was no risk of an accidental ignition in the reserve. Early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, later they became flintlocks. Some carried six shots, one claims in an inscription on its barrel to have thirty. The Royal Foot Guards of Denmarkwere issued with about a hundred of these guns, and they are thought to have been used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658-59) and the Scanian War. SO YET AGAIN…Another liberal gun grabber myth is laid to rest…The framers not only knew about these weapons they had been in use for almost 100 years prior to the Bill of Rights.

Oh the irony…A great quote comes to mind from the great one Ronald Reagan.


Our gun grabbing Domestic Enemy goes on to say the following:

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

Yes the freedom to keep and bear arms is a violation of basic rights, natural rights and rights that were designed to be protected from a tyrannical government. The right to keep and bear arms was not a new concept that the founding fathers invented. The right of an individual to protect himself goes back to the beginning of time. The basis of the 2nd Amendment however can be found in the Magna Carta. One would think that such an astute scholar of law would know this…Clearly Drexel is willing to give anyone a professorship.

“But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.”

Here is when our Domestic Enemy goes off his rails further. Mr. Cohen fails to understand or fails to tell the simple truth that the carnage of the terrorist attack in Orlando occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE. In the state of Florida gun are already banned from any establishment that derives the majority of it’s income from the sale of alcohol. Evil doers and criminals do not obey laws. They will find a way to perpetrate their evil upon the world. As a Jewish man Professor Cohen should well understand this fact as he surely knows about the state of affairs in Israel where terrorist acts are committed by knives and bombs.

Mr. Cohen clearly is a fan of liberty and is very worried about the loss of life of innocents. Oddly however he feels that the nearly one million babies that Planned Parenthood genocides year in and year out are not entitled to the right to life. As a man of Jewish descent I would expect that genocide might be a hot button issue…But that is just me…

“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.”

Does Mr. Cohen’s feelings that a person should be able to escape the consequences of their actions outweigh the right of a child to be born?

My main question about Mr. Cohen’s basis for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment is this…Is it really about saving lives? If it is perhaps we should address any of the actual top killers of Americans first, after all guns are not even in the top ten.

Now here is the best part of Mr. Cohen’s incoherent argument.

Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

When bad men do bad things and there are people being murdered what happens every single time? People call the police who have guns. Who then try and kill the bad guy to stop him from killing more people. Why is it so hard to understand that Mr. Cohen’s irrational fear of an armed citizenry does not supersede my NATURAL RIGHT to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones and friends. Why does Mr. Cohen feel morally superior if he is forced to cower and beg for his life if confronted by a gunman? I would wager that Mr. Cohen is a coward who has never been forced to deal with evil and real violence. Mr. Cohen would much rather watch his loved ones be rounded up and herded into a cattle car for extermination than defend his own freedom. Men like Mr. Cohen are sheep. They despise strong men who stand by ready to stop the violence perpetrated by evil men. What would Mr. Cohen do if someone broke into his home and started raping his wife? Would he call 911? Would he stand there and watch helplessly? I assure you that Mr. Cohen would not be able to address the threat by himself. I can assure you that Mr. Cohen would wish that he had a gun and knew how to use it.  If he didn’t there really is no hope for Mr. Cohen and sadly his family.

Mr. Cohen’s final point is this:

“The 2nd Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.”

Once again our Domestic Enemy of the Constitution and “Constitutional Scholar” is gravely misinformed about what kind of a government that the founders set up.  America was established as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY. The founding fathers despised democracy. They knew full well that every democracy resulted in tyranny which is why the chose a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC as the basis for our nation.

Mr. Cohen, perhaps you should go back and do your homework because you clearly get an F on this assignment. The real question that anyone who pays tuition to Drexel should ask is what are they teaching there if this is the quality of their faculty? This Constitutional scholar could not be any more wrong about the 2nd Amendment.


Facebook Comments