Menu Content/Inhalt

What is this?

Featured Item


OFCC Gift Membership with commemorative lapel pin!



2009 OFCC Calendar

The Foregone Conclusion On The Second Amendment PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff Garvas   
Tuesday, 05 September 2006

Imagine if you can a "Second Amendment" policy think tank created at Ohio State University funded by the Joyce Foundation. Do you think it would have any potential anti-gun bias? You would if you knew that the Joyce Foundation funds anti-gun efforts, such as Toby Hoover's Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

It should come as no surprise that OSU Professor Saul Cornell (biography) has written a book A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, which basically argues that the founding fathers of our country were so caught up in the word "regulate" that they really wanted to see guns in the hands of "the people" regulated.

It doesn't take much digging to realize that Saul Cornell is Director of "The Second Amendment Research Center" -- just read the staff biography page.

Yesterday the "Progressive" BuzzFlash interviewed Cornell on his book, concluding on their own that the Second Amendment "caused a gun violence epidemic in the cities":
By allowing the prevalence of weapons and guns in the new country, they created somewhat of a monster, which was a gun violence epidemic in the cities -- in Boston, in New York, in Philly, etc.

The Second Amendment was designed to solve the first problem, meaning how do we defend ourselves without a standing army? But in doing so, there came this other problem in the form of a gun violence epidemic.
If you go to BuzzFlash's webstore and try to buy the book they warn you that you're about to fund anti-gun groups, too:
(In the spirit of full disclosure, the creators of BuzzFlash have a relationship with Freedom States Alliance (FSA), an organization of state gun control groups working to reduce violence, and $5.00 of each copy of "A Well Regulated Militia" sold will be donated to FSA.)
One has to wonder, if you put a bunch of anti-gun people in a room at a public university, and you fund them with anti-gun foundation grants, isn't it a foregone conclusion that they'll eventually come up with arguements for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise infringing upon civilian ownership of firearms?