An editorial from the Harvard Crimson. If this is what our best thinkers believe we're in trouble.
This is a discussion on What Harvard Thinks About The 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; An editorial from the Harvard Crimson. If this is what our best thinkers believe we're in trouble. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013...
An editorial from the Harvard Crimson. If this is what our best thinkers believe we're in trouble.
Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership.
Just what we need...more federal intervention into the lives of law abiding citizens and abrogation of our individual rights. Hence, ultimately, a police state...
As bad as the ideas are in this article, the grammar is even worse. I wouldn't worry too much about this changing anyone's mind, no matter what they are already thinking. Their arguments are completely unpersuasive, and they'll only confuse anyone who can actually read the English language.
Having said that - they are all idiots...
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged
Can I get a couple of those federal statues...I'd like one of Washington, and Madison and maybe one of 'ole Teddy Roosevelt too!!!!!!Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership.
If these are the best minds this country has to offer we are in deep trouble.
Last edited by Captain Crunch; November 30th, 2007 at 04:37 PM. Reason: Deleted a language workaround
Wow. I'm.... really not surprised. Sounds like someone's looking for a brown-nose piece for when they apply to the NY Times. What a bunch of trash.
They pay way too much money to goto a school to get told how to think - then bemoan people who disagree for being 'close-minded.'
This does a good job of illustrating the difference between the left & right....
One side wants more restrictions on everything. More government regulations & more government control over your lives.
The other side wants less government & more freedom.
One side sees things in the Constitution that aren't there. They don't see the individual in the Second Amendment, but see 'separation of church & state'....even though, that phrase IS NOT IN IT! They are for abortion, but against the death penalty.
The other side just wants to be left alone.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
Cool your jets... all colleges are nortoriously liberal antigunners...
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8
I must be mistaken, I thought that "assault Weapons" were the weapon of choice of criminals, not hand guns?But in the wake of the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, gun control remains relatively lax in many states, especially when it comes to handguns, which are responsible for many, if not most, gun-related murders.
Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)
"First Duty is To Remember"
I have asked people how you could put the very people the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect us from in charge of it?
Nothing I can find in any of the early writings such as the federalist papers say anything about duck hunting or home protection. Every place that I have found it commented on is as a control AGAINST the federal government.
If the anti-gunners have convinced any of you that the 2nd amendment is talking about hunting or protection from criminals they have already won half the battle.
This would be similar to making medicine illegal to 'save lives' by reducing overdoses.Gun advocates claim the need for handguns in self-defense, but such considerations are moot when weighed against the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons illegal.
I like this quote too. Murderers are ditching their plain, boring 'assault weapons' and upgrading to the new, more deadly 'handgun'.But in the wake of the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, gun control remains relatively lax in many states, especially when it comes to handguns, which are responsible for many, if not most, gun-related murders.
As a former editor of a high school newspaper I recognize this jive as the work of someone trying to complete an assignment as quickly as possible.
The privileges of a high-brow eddycayshun.They pay way too much money to goto a school to get told how to think - then bemoan people who disagree for being 'close-minded.'
...instead of Indoctrination:
Protecting the Trigger
The Second Amendment is in need of uncompromising protection
Published On Friday, November 30, 2007 1:15 AM
By THE CRIMSON STAFF
Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice, the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own personal safety, freedom, and stability. But even now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is still absolutely relevant and useful. As intended, it has become an impediment to tyrannical public policy, and the fundamental human rights it embodies should be respected and re-enforced with the necessary repeal of existing federal legislation that infringes upon this most basic right, the right to defend the only thing anyone truly has in this world, their very life.
Despite the intuitively obvious relevancy of the Second Amendment in its 200+ year history, arguments against its have surfaced in the United States since the late 1960’s, starting with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was merely a piece of feel-good legislation enacted upon the perceived need to “do something” in the wake of the Kennedy and King assassinations. Years of judicial misconduct by activist judges led to the formation of the historically, legally, and morally indefensible position of portions the judiciary that, the Second Amendment of the Constitution, ratified on June 21, 1788, was only meant to ensure the collective right to have a National Guard, which was established by the Militia Act of 1903. But early this month, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the central consideration is the right of an individual to own a firearm as protected under the Second Amendment. The case specifically addresses private handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. But while legalistic arguments—the phrasing of the amendment itself and the framers’ intent—will be at the center of the debate, no matter what the justices ultimately decide, we believe that a constitutional protection of an individual right to bear arms is beneficial to the country. Therefore, the Second Amendment should be reinstated to it plainly obvious original meaning with the removal of the current federal statutes that are clearly unconstitutional regulations on the basic civil right of gun ownership.
The high level of freedom in the United States as compared to other developed countries, because it is directly related to the culture of lawful gun ownership and possession, is at least a strong argument that the Second Amendment is doing it job in preventing blatantly oppressive federal gun regulation. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2005, 10,100 homicides in the United States were committed with firearms. 4,760 murders were committed with knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, poisoning, strangulation, explosives, fire, drowning and through other means as well. Given the pervasiveness of gun self-defense that occurs approximately 2,500,000 times in this country every year, the benefits of eliminating almost all forms of gun control is acceptable, especially when it comes to handguns. Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting, except of course during the handgun hunting season. But of course, since hunting is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers as the reason for the Second Amendment, whereas using firearms against one’s own repressive governmentIS mentioned or implied, hunting is irrelevant to the argument. A handgun is a military, police, and free citizen’s weapon, built expressly to defend the life of a human being, since it sacrifices the far greater killing power of rifles and shotguns for easier carry and concealment. Yet little is done to promote the dissemination of this fact: In Virginia and the rest of the former colonies when the Constitution was written any person could buy a handgun, no background check was required. A certain Virginian from that period explicitly wrote about the benefits of young people learning personal responsibility and building character through firearms training. George Washington thought kids and guns was an excellent part of developing a well-rounded person.
Supporters of the pre-existing natural human right that is further constitutionally affirmed, the individual right to bear arms, argue that state gun control laws have “reinterpreted” the individual right to gun ownership into a non-existent collective one. These limitations on gun ownership, they say, demonstrate that gun control itself is linked to increased violence, as can be seen in Britain’s explosive increase in violent crime committed with handguns after they banned their possession. In the wake of the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, gun control remains relatively lax in many states, as it did before the Ban, which had no effect on crime rates whatsoever, and especially when it comes to handguns (with only one specific handgun being covered by the so-called “Assault Weapon” Ban) which are responsible for many, if not most, gun-related cases of self defense. Freedom advocates claim the need for handguns in self-defense, and such considerations are backed by the number of lives that have been saved by recent trends across the country to allow concealed weapons to qualified citizens.
In the context of today’s society, the Second Amendment is especially needed. Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy. Instead of wasting time attempting to limit this right, we should repeal legislation that is actually meant to protect the “security of the state” , and restore the personal freedom of individuals to determine their own destiny through possessing the most effective tools for repelling the criminal and the tyrant - a charge explicit in the Second Amendment.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC