UCLA law professor on the 2nd Amendment

[Koshinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqGBOt32NM

I've seen this a couple times on my facebook in the last day or two. Figured it should get a bit wider viewership.

[BuzzinSATX]

Thanks. Good video and hard to argue with. People can argue we should change the constitution to amend the 2A, but it's hard to see how restrictions on ownership of firearms can be viewed as constitutional today...

[WillBrink]

I've seen this a couple times on my facebook in the last day or two. Figured it should get a bit wider viewership.

I have been communicating with Dr. Volokh for some time. His younger brother was a law student at Harvard and had lunch with him. He started the gun club there, much to the chagrin of the faculty. Dr. Volokh is obviously a rare bird at UCLA and a stanch 2A supporter. He also has a news list for 2A scholars I follow.

[tb-av]

You really can't make it any more simple and clear than that. Which is what I always thought The constitution was supposed to be. A document that all of The People could either understand or have easily explained to them.

[sevenhelmet]

Solid and unemotional argument, professor.

I like it.

[WillBrink]

Solid and unemotional argument, professor.


Which is why it will be ignored by the anti gun/anti 2A/anti Liberty types.

[Koshinn]

I have been communicating with Dr. Volokh for some time. His younger brother was a law student at Harvard and had lunch with him. He started the gun club there, much to the chagrin of the faculty. Dr. Volokh is obviously a rare bird at UCLA and a stanch 2A supporter. He also has a news list for 2A scholars I follow.

I've been following Volokh since I first read some of his articles when I was in law school. I think his work originally changed my stance on gun rights, as I was of course born and raised in a very liberal culture where no one had guns and violent crime was virtually non-existent.

Honestly, the title I chose was click-baity. I've seen a lot of people comment on this video (in other places) things like "I don't need to hear no opinion of a commie lawyer" or otherwise just knee-jerk reacting to his title and school.

[LoboTBL]

Succinctly stated Professor. Thank you.

[SteyrAUG]

Solid and unemotional argument, professor.

I like it.

But at the same time, who cares. For every one like him there are 10 who argue the opposite. Since "professor" is pretty meaningless, it's essentially a meaningless opinion, thankfully.

I understand that he is getting an informed message out, but he will still be drowned out and shouted down by those who don't agree.

[officerX]

But at the same time, who cares. For every one like him there are 10 who argue the opposite. Since "professor" is pretty meaningless, it's essentially a meaningless opinion, thankfully.

I understand that he is getting an informed message out, but he will still be drowned out and shouted down by those who don't agree.

Thanks, Debby Downer.

[LoboTBL]

But at the same time, who cares. For every one like him there are 10 who argue the opposite. Since "professor" is pretty meaningless, it's essentially a meaningless opinion, thankfully.

I understand that he is getting an informed message out, but he will still be drowned out and shouted down by those who don't agree.

Perhaps it's time that us Pro 2A types did the drowning out and shouting down of the antis. Not in the same imbecilic, overly emotional way they do of course.

[Bulletdog]

Thanks, Debby Downer.

I was going to call him Negative Nelly… You beat me to it.


This country is slowly turning around. Good signs all around and professors like this one saying thing like what he said, certainly qualify as good news. I'll take it. More please.

[SteyrAUG]

Thanks, Debby Downer.

I'm just saying let's not add more importance than necessary otherwise we need to listen to Professor William Ayers and take his crap seriously.

[SteyrAUG]

Perhaps it's time that us Pro 2A types did the drowning out and shouting down of the antis. Not in the same imbecilic, overly emotional way they do of course.

I'm more interested in focusing on the opinions of judges.

[Waylander]

Even though he is only one man, a well articulated message from him will reach a wider audience; also among younger, impressionable minds. It helps even pro-gun advocates articulate the argument when presented with the contrary and irrational arguments from anti-gun advocates.

A UCLA law professor could even attract more pro-gun students that may one day become one of those pro-gun judges you're looking for.

[LoboTBL]

I'm more interested in focusing on the opinions of judges.

There's certainly something to be said for that. What's the old saying? "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

[SteyrAUG]

Even though he is only one man, a well articulated message from him will reach a wider audience; also among younger, impressionable minds. It helps even pro-gun advocates articulate the argument when presented with the contrary and irrational arguments from anti-gun advocates.

A UCLA law professor could even attract more pro-gun students that may one day become one of those pro-gun judges you're looking for.

I'm really not trying to be dismissive. I'm just saying this is just an opinion. I'm glad for it, but for all his efforts he doesn't even cancel out the cackling of somebody like Nancy Pelosi...sadly.

I get also that he is a pro gun message behind enemy lines. He will reach people who may not have otherwise listened, just like Colion Noir did with his youtube videos. That's a good thing and I don't want to undervalue their efforts or contributions.

But at the same time I don't think it is that significant, we've got a lot of work to do and perhaps only 4 years to get it done. We need to get judges and politicians talking that way.