September 18, 2020

Ohio State University Professor vs. Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Yesterday, I read an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, an opinion piece, written by Ohio State University history professor, Saul Cornell. The title of his article is called, “Restructuring the Second Amendment”. He is also author of a book titled, “A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America”.

After reading the article, as with most that are spewed by progressive liberals, I passed it off as another bunch of crap lies and decided not to write about. Then, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if I am going to have any affect on the security of our Second Amendment rights, I need to clarify facts from fiction. We cannot sit idly by and just laugh at people like this. We need to expose them for what they are.

My work actually became much easier because today, Dan White from the gun rights group Ohioans For Concealed Carry, is “Dissecting the Lies” as is the title of his rebuttal piece.

You should read both pieces completely. Neither is very long yet both are filled with either lies or facts – you decide. Here’s some help.

Cornell begins his article with the number one act of spewing disinformation that exists. Here’s what he claims to be fact.

Polling data for decades have shown that most Americans favor stronger gun laws. Indeed, surveys demonstrate that such policies are even supported by most gun owners. Yet pundits and political soothsayers have written off this issue because it is perceived to be a loser at the polls.

White from OFCC responds this way.

First of all, the vast majority of non-biased polls (including a recent Zogby poll) have shown that Americans do not, in fact, favor more gun control laws. This is why campaigning on a platform of gun control is a loser at the polls. Bill Clinton himself lamented that the Democrats lost control of the legislature because they voted in favor of the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Having responses to comments made by anti-gun people is always a good thing in debating the issue. This statement made by Cornell is one of my favorites of the liberals’ barrage of twisting our Constitution to fit their wants.

It is not surprising that during that struggle gun rights supporters tried to lay claim to the Second Amendment by reinterpreting it as an individual right of self-defense.

Although White has much to say in response to this statement, here is his initial response. He follows this statement up with quotes made down through history that helps to clarify what is meant in regards to the Bill of Rights. You’ll need to go to his article to read all the quotes. Many of the quotes come from those who penned the Bill of Rights.

This argument has been thoroughly debunked. The idea that all other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, yet this particular one is a collective right, is ludicrous. Consider the following statements:

This is the final statement that Cornell makes in his article and the one that got my ire up the most.

Supporters of regulation need to point out that liberty without regulation is impossible. The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.

First, is White’s response.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. That’s an awful lot of regulation. Gun crimes exist because certain individuals choose not to follows those laws. Adding more laws will not change that fact. Not to mention that the right to bear arms protects the “right” to be free from gun violence. This fact is supported by the recent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study which found that “if a crime is committed, the criminal is less likely to be successful if the victim produces a weapon” and “a criminal is more likely to move on to another victim if he suspects someone is carrying a weapon.”

What White says is true and I think there is quite a difference between asking for the respect for one’s perceived fear of violence versus the Consitutional right given to each one of us to protect ourselves. If someone perceives that lawful citizens who own guns is a threat to them because of potential danger, they don’t need another gun restriction, they need pyschological help.

There is a world of difference between citizens having to give up their only means of protection and respecting the fact that someone is afraid of guns based on information fed to them by people like professor Cornell.

Responsible gun control comes in the form of education – that’s educating owners in the proper and safe handling of the weapons and educating the public as to the facts and benefits we all enjoy because we can own guns. As Dan White says, the right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms is Mr. Cornell’s “right” to be free from the threat of gun violence.

Tom Remington

Share