Cornell’s article was a republished one on Yahoo.
Of interest is the last informational paragraph which notes:

As a researcher at the John Glenn School of Public Policy at Ohio State, Cornell was the lead investigator on a project that was funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to research the history of gun regulation. Part of the research cited in this essay was done under that grant.

The Joyce Foundation is well known as a rabid antigun group. Cornell is known for it too. With such open bias, why should anyone expect any other ‘results’?


Anti-Gunners Attempt To Re-Write 2A History

What did the Founding Fathers think about our right to keep and bear arms? According to historian Saul Cornell, founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison would be far more likely to side with Everytown for Gun Safety than the National Rifle Association if they were alive today, because in Cornell’s view, the early republic was chock full of restrictions on gun owners.
In a new piece at The Conversation, Cornell lays out five types of gun laws that he says the Founders wholeheartedly embraces, starting with gun registration laws.
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
What Cornell is describing isn’t a registration of privately owned firearms, and he provides no evidence whatsoever that the various colonies actually kept track of the rifles and muskets owned by militia members. Cornell is correct when he says that those mustering for militia service could face fines if their firearm wasn’t well maintained, but that has nothing to do with any sort of registration or list of guns in the hands of private citizens.
Next, Cornell claims that the Founders loved the idea of restricting the right to carry. For this argument, Cornell reaches way back to English common law and claims that there was no “general right of armed travel” at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. Were there any actual bans on traveling while armed? Cornell doesn’t cite any specific examples, though he is correct when he points out that by the mid-1800s many states had either banned or limited the practice of carrying concealed. What he doesn’t point out is that by attempting the manner of carrying arms, those same lawmakers were tacitly acknowledging a more general right to carry.
The Fordham University historian also argues that the Founders would also have been opposed to “stand your ground” laws, even though the Castle Doctrine had been a part of common law for centuries by that point.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.
I’m honestly not sure where Cornell gets the idea that deadly force was only justifiable in the home. I can think of one very famous case from the 1770s where that wasn’t the case. Most of the British soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of angry Bostonians who were throwing chunks of ice and razor-sharp oyster shells at them on March 5th, 1770 were ultimately found not guilty of murder because a jury found that they were acting in self-defense (two others were convicted of manslaughter).
Cornell goes on to claim that the Founders were on board with storage laws, based solely off of a 1786 ordinance in Boston that required guns had to be kept unloaded. His last assertion is that “the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.”
To wage an offensive war against the United States is indeed treason, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. To take up arms in defense of a tyrannical federal government, on the other hand, was most certainly acknowledged as a right of the people by the Founding Fathers. Here’s James Madison writing in Federalist 46.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Saul Cornell has likely forgotten more history than I’ll ever know, but he’s off-base in asserting that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the laws pushed by gun control activists today, like bans on commonly-owned firearms or magazines; gun licensing; gun rationing; or bans on carrying firearms would have found favor with the Founders or the early Americans who argued against ratifying the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included and the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected.

Another one of these ‘not on the radar’, ‘very personable’, ‘quite out of character’, ‘no known motive’.


NASHVILLE EXPLOSION: Anthony Warner died in explosion, was ‘bomber,’ authorities say.

Anthony Q. Warner, 63, has been identified as the “bomber” in the Christmas day explosion in Nashville by U.S. Attorney Don Cochran.

Cochran announced the update to the investigation in a Sunday afternoon news conference.

“Anthony Warner is the bomber. He was present when the bomb went off, and he perished in the bombing,” Cochran said.

DNA found at the scene was matched to samples taken at another location searched by investigators, TBI Director David Rausch said Sunday. The TBI was involved in testing the evidence.

Because they had identified a suspect, investigators said they were able to match samples to a potential family member quickly.

At this time, officials said there is no indication that anyone outside of Warner was involved in the explosion. Authorities reviewed hours of surveillance footage and they say they only saw Warner.

A motive in the bombing has not been released and is still under investigation according to FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski.

The types of explosives used in the bombing were still under investigation, authorities said. The FBI said Warner wasn’t on the radar of authorities before Friday’s explosion and declined to deem the explosion an act of terrorism.

Continue reading “”

Judge Barrett has fallen under such ‘scrutiny’ because she’s a judicial conservative, something the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett could replace, was not.


This is how ‘twisted’ the purported logic is of those who 1,  don’t like the idea of personal self-defense and 2, when guns are involved, their mind goes blank in a spasm of ‘Guns are BAAAAD!‘.  And being a former law clerk of a noted proggie, leftist anti-gun Supreme Court Justice seals the deal, his head full of mush being better used as a hat rack when it comes to propounding on anything to do with individual rights, especially RKBA.

I’m not going to waste my time, or yours, trying to fisk this crap-for-brains piece of opinionated garbage. Any of the readers I know are more than intelligent enough to detect the fallacies and mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) on their own that this thoroughly indoctrinated ‘Harvard professor’ made in this propaganda piece.

The purpose of this post being to – again – display the generations of people who are  teaching indoctrinating our children in the colleges and universities these days.


How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws

You’d think it would be easy to determine whether Kyle Rittenhouse can successfully plead self-defense after killing two people and injuring a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Turns out that it’s actually pretty complex. Here’s why: When gun rights get involved, the law tends to depart radically from common sense. Continue reading “”

What’s a ‘consensus’ got to do with an election? Nothing in my book.


ZUCKERBERG: Election May Take ‘Weeks’ And Cause ‘Civil Unrest’ Until Media Creates ‘Consensus’ On Next President
The Facebook CEO warns of civil unrest after an election that may take weeks to determine a winner

In a recent appearance on Axios on HBO, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg suggested that his company and “and other media” should work to convince the American public there is nothing illegitimate, strange, or suspect about the results upcoming presidential election taking days or weeks to be tabulated due to mail in voting.

Zuckerberg stressed that Facebook is preparing Americans to accept that election results may take weeks after November 3 to be tabulated, and explained that Facebook will add “informational context” to posts by any candidate who attempts to declare victory in an election before a media “consensus result” has been established.

“One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people,” said Zuckerberg, is “That there’s nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted, in fact, that may be important to be sure that this is a legitimate and fair election.”

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook will use “a bunch of of different messaging around that, just so people know that that’s normal.”

Then, Zuckerberg explained that “If one of the candidates, in any of the races, claims victory before there’s a consensus result, then we’re going to add some informational context to that post directly, saying that there’s no consensus result yet.” Continue reading “”

It’s not ‘hard’ for me. I seriously take it as nothing more than HS propaganda attempting some kind of guilt trip. That it comes from a multi-millionaire Clinton merely makes it laughable.


BLUF:
Chelsea Clinton grew up with luxuries most people can only dream of. It’s not like she’s lived a “normal” life. It’s not like she knows what it’s like to struggle to pay the bills, find a job or put food on the table for her kids. She was automatically put up on a pedestal and given more opportunities because of her last name, being related to the former president and growing up in politics.

It’s hard to take this kind of thing seriously from someone who has lived the majority of their life in national politics. It might come off slightly more effective if the Democrats used someone that’s a little more “normal” and a little less of a washed up political celebrity.

How Rich: Chelsea Clinton Is Telling Parents How to ‘Erode White Privilege’ Out of Their Children

Former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton talked about how she is working to “erode” white privilege out of her children during a conversation with Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) about voting rights in America. The conversation was part of a “Women for Biden” online event.

“You know, congresswoman, certainly my children are young, but we believe they’re young but still citizens so we talked about the ratification of the 19th Amendment and women’s equality day but how fundamentally incomplete that victory was,” Clinton said. Continue reading “”

Well, since The Trace is Bloomberg operation, you can figure which end of the horse they’re emulating for their articles.


The Trace Tries To Turn Gun Community Against McCloskeys

Mark and Patricia McCloskey have become icons on the right. They provided a stark visual for many of just what the stakes are with the recent unrest in many of our cities. After all, the mob showed up in their front yard and they were prepared to defend themselves.

Can’t blame them for that.

However, it seems that The Trace wants everyone to know that these two new symbols of gun rights activism are really vile anti-gunners or something. After all, they sued a gun manufacturer out of existence! Continue reading “”

Grade School Requiring Children to Study ‘Book About Whiteness’

A grade school in a wealthy Pennsylvania school district is requiring children to study a book called “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” which claims “white people who relate to police officers or decline to watch the news are complicit in racism.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported Gladwyne Elementary in Lower Merion School District assigned the book for fourth and fifth graders.

The curriculum also assigns “A Kid’s Book About Racism” to kindergarten and first graders, the report said.

Some parents aren’t happy, and the Beacon reported Elana Fishbein, the mother of two boys, wrote to the district superintendent and board demanding the school halt its “cultural proficiency” curriculum.

“The book teaches kids not only to defy parents but to hate themselves. To hate their parents also because they are white,” she said. “By default, [the kids] are white, and they’re privileged, and they’re bad. [The school] is teaching this to little kids.” Continue reading “”

Waiting for the Umbrella Man or someone like him.

Who can take a city, burn it to the ground? The Umbrella Man can, at least according to the search warrant affidavit filed by Minneapolis police officer Erika Christensen last week.

The Star Tribune’s Libor Jany told me he came across Christensen’s affidavit in a routine review of new court filings. He reported on the allegations of Christensen’s affidavit in “Minneapolis police say ‘Umbrella Man’ was a white supremacist trying to incite George Floyd rioting.” The story has made waves around the world.

According to Officer Christensen, Umbrella Man is a white supremacist who set off the week of riots and arson throughout the Twin Cities by knocking out the windows at AutoZone on Lake Street at Minnehaha Avenue in south Minneapolis on May 27. Did Umbrella Man also burn the AutoZone down? I can’t tell from Libor’s story, but it was in fact torched.

* * * * * * * *

Officer Christensen’s affidavit superimposes a mythical narrative over the events as we saw them unfold. Cockburn adds, by the way, that it took him “just a single minute on Google to discover rioting and destruction from May 26 — the day before Umbrella Man supposedly kicked everything off.” Spectator USA has made Cockburn’s column freely accessible at our request.

Officer Christensen, perhaps coincidentally, is “a frequent letter-writer to the Star Tribune” and the Minneapolis police department’s “rare ‘out’ liberal,” as she described herself in this Star Tribune column last year. See Christensen’s letters to the editor here (May 8, 2017) and here (March 25, 2019).