Finally. A Liberal Tells Us His True Feelings About Gun Rights

Cohen is curiously silent on that issue:

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Self-defense is "outdated"? Sheesh.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

I doubt Cohen has a clue of  what a "risk-benefit analysis" is. How many times have you walked into a movie theater and been shot at? Or a nightclub? Or a church? Fully 99.999999% of the time you walk into one of these everyday, ordinary places, you walk out alive. What kind of "risk-benefit analysis" would those facts yield?

Cohen wants to ban guns so that we should have the "freedom" to"go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down." Raise your hands many of you actually, seriously "weigh the risk" of getting gunned down in a movie theater before you decide which show to see? I thought so.

Most people don't give the prospect of being gunned down in a mass shooting much thought. But Cohen apparently has pondered the matter and decided that the threat is so large and so omnipresent that it demands we tear up the Constitution and take everyone's guns away. Cohen doesn't explicitly say that we have to grab the guns, but his inference is clear. How else do we guarantee people the "freedom" to go to the movies without fear of being murdered?

Don't you wish all gun-control Democrats ran on a platform explicitly calling for Second Amendment repeal? Everyone knows it's what they really want, given the way they hold such contemptuous views on the matter. Just once, you wish that Democrats had the courage of their convictions and spoke honestly to the American people as Cohen has done.

For that -- and that alone -- we should thank him