An American University professor recently published a book in which he advocates to "repeal the Second Amendment." [More]He doesn't know that wouldn't invalidate a preexisting right or does he, and he's just counting on others not knowing? Is he incompetent, evil or both?
I know ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but when you see a professional liar trying to pull a con, the obligation to meet him under Queensberry Rules goes away. Absolved of that, the best response I've seen comes from comment poster John Walsh:
Worst.Toupée.Ever.[Via Michael G]
1 comment:
"He claims that the National Rifle Association redefined the interpretation of the Second Amendment a few decades ago in order to gain profit from gun sales. Before this, Lichtman argues that the general intent of the Second Amendment was to cultivate a militia."
Professor, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
"10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Think Prof. Lichtman would be surprised to find out he's probably a member of the unorganized militia per federal law?
Post a Comment