Harvard student paper: Repeal the Second Amendment

posted at 11:10 am on November 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

I wonder how many versions of this editorial exist in the Crimson’s archives. The “leaders of tomorrow” never really change.

Once again we marvel at how the Founding Fathers, universally credited with such astonishing foresight in investing the Bill of Rights with liberties that have stood the test of time, somehow apparently burped and crapped the bed when it came to number two. I’ll repeat what I said the last time some op-ed writer floated a turd like this: Frankly, I’m impressed that they’re willing to try to roll it back via the proper constitutional channels instead of letting the courts do their work for them. A proposed repeal would never, ever, ever pass and the Democrats in Congress don’t have two balls between them that would let them even broach the subject with voters, but credit where credit is due. Their recommendation for what the amendment should be replaced with, I kid you not: “nuanced federal legislation.”

The one point they make that I’m interested in seeing the Court address next year is the Second Amendment’s relationship to the military. In colonial times it would have been understood mainly as a right of self-defense against an oppressive national government. Now it’s understood as a defense against burglars. The left occasionally argues, in fact, that so awesome is the power of the United States military that the core purpose of the amendment has been eviscerated. Quite simply, no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them. Really? How’s that working out in Iraq?

Stay tuned next week as the Crimson will presumably make a similar public-safety case for expanding the war on drugs. If only we make them super illegal, they’re bound to disappear. Exit question: Like Ayaan says, what are they learning there?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy. Instead of wasting time attempting to fix this anachronism, we should repeal this amendment and focus our efforts on legislation that will actually protect the “security of a free state”—a charge explicit in the Second Amendment.

Sounds pretty Chavista.

Vizzini on November 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

At least repeal is on honest proposition, as opposed to efforts to “interpret” away its meaning. Disastrously wrong-headed, even immoral, but honest.

Blacklake on November 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

The First Amendment is the Mouth.

The Second Amendment is the Teeth.

(Gumming your way to liberty never works.)

profitsbeard on November 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Founding Fathers paper: Repeal Harvard.

MB4 on November 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Has an amendment ever been repealed before?

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Who is going to break the news to the criminals?

bloggless on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

NEVER!

going to happen.

captivated_dem on November 30, 2007 at 11:19 AM

MMM that is some dry aged ribeye right there!

liberrocky on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Has an amendment ever been repealed before?

Sure, Prohibition.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

How about repealing the insanity of victim-full gun-free zones?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Has an amendment ever been repealed before?

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

The Germans and Japanese tried to repeal all U.S. Constitution amendments sixty some years ago.

They failed.

MB4 on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

That actually irritated me. Not ending Prohibition, but that they didn’t remove it and renumber the Amendments.

Vizzini on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Allahpundit on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Ah, of course. But that was a Bad Idea from the start, and everyone involved knew it, whereas the 2nd was just recognizing a pre-existing right (or so some have written).

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Hehehe, you said balls.

Wineaholic on November 30, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Sure, Prohibition.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Repeal day is December 5th. A liquor company was advertising it.

Allah, I just wanted to say I enjoyed you’re writing here. I normally do, but this one was exceptional.

Esthier on November 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM

any serious attempt to repeal II would be the end of the world as we know it. (civil war)

II backs up all the other rights.

amend2 on November 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Esthier on November 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM

You’re absolutely right. I especially liked:

somehow apparently burped and crapped the bed when it came to number two.

I giggle every time I try to read it.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Laughable…..I know cops who would go out of their way to show you where to hide them, and help you take em out if you needed them.

Limerick on November 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Nicely written piece, AP.

jaime on November 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

The First Amendment is the Mouth.

The Second Amendment is the Teeth.

(Gumming your way to liberty never works.)

profitsbeard on November 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Screw the boneheads. They have no clue what trouble is until they come after my guns.

That would be like playing with lit napalm.

saiga on November 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Quite simply, no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them.

WOLVERINES!!!

nailinmyeye on November 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

In colonial times it would have been understood mainly as a right of self-defense against an oppressive national government. Now it’s understood defense against burglars.

Are they still the same thing?

EdGruberman on November 30, 2007 at 11:32 AM

We believe that a Consitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is detrimental to the country.

Not as detrimental- or just mental- as Harvard is.

(I wonder how many other “constitutionally-protected rights” they’d prefer didn’t exist, either?)

Still, this is a good thing, in a way. As a very wise man once said;

When your enemy openly declares himself, you can enter into battle with a light heart.

– Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC

cheers

eon

eon on November 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM

WOLVERINES!!!

nailinmyeye on November 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

“All that hate’s gonna burn you up, son.”

“It keeps me warm.”

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM

the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful.

Tell that to the residents of Washington D.C. who are asking for the ability to defend themselves from their neighbors, since the state seems to be doing such a poor job of it.

The Crimson editors frame the argument as a citizen irregular militia defending the state from other nation sates, while ignoring the colonials need to defend themselves from their neighbors during a period of time when the powers of the state were ineffective, or non existent.

rockhauler on November 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Interesting. All that money to go to Harvard and the “Crimson Staff” gets it wrong in the very first sentence! The Second Amendment isn’t about “minutemen.” The Second Amendment was a RIGHT put into the Constitution to ensure that the state didn’t maintain control of the population by confiscating all the weapons (as the British did). In this day and age where elitists are constantly trying to figure out nuanced legislation to curtail the public “for their own good,” the Second Amendment is hardly an anacronism.

Beyond that, this editorial seems a pretty lame piece of work that covers well-trodden ground and is a perennial topic for debate clubs. Unimaginative cutting at pasting at best.

highhopes on November 30, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Kind of reminds me of rats knawing at a 50 gallon drum of seed corn. One wears its’ teeth off, then here comes another.

captivated_dem on November 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM

I really believe the far left want to want to have another Civil War in the USA.

oldelpasoan on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

This kind of mindset is why I’m almost a single-issue voter, and why Giuliani won’t get my vote. If this kind of mindset really exists in intelligentsia, we have to avoid it in the Oval Office at all costs.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I really believe the far left want to want to have another Civil War in the USA.

oldelpasoan on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Of course not, ’cause the left would lose; we’ve got all the guns!

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:52 AM

The left occasionally argues, in fact, that so awesome is the power of the United States military that the core purpose of the amendment has been eviscerated. Quite simply, no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them. Really? How’s that working out in Iraq?

Precisely.

Spirit of 1776 on November 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM

‘Red Dawn’ has been on TV far too often lately, hasn’t it?

I wonder if ‘I, Robot’ is on today…

Timothy S. Carlson on November 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM

What amazes me is that if you repeal II, you open up a whole can of worms that will not stop until the entire Bill of Rights is repealed. That Free Speach thing? Freedom of Religon? Freedom to not incriminate yourself? Boy those are inconvienent. Let’s just get rid of them for the “greater good” like we did to that gun one.

crazy_legs on November 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership.

Work on your copy editing, Crimson.

Hey, that Third Amendment is pretty useless now. Let’s repeal it! And I’m also looking at you, Ninth and Tenth.

albo on November 30, 2007 at 12:03 PM

“the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful … Tell that to the residents of Washington D.C etc” – not to mention the people of New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina hit. I remember reading about how the few police who turned up to work were trying to confiscate people’s guns, in case they caused a disturbance. I wonder how successful they were.

Here in the UK the government would rather that we die in our homes, than admit that it is not in control. Governments hate it when the citizenship can control its own destiny; it makes government look unnnecessary.

Apeking on November 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM

The left occasionally argues, in fact, that so awesome is the power of the United States military that the core purpose of the amendment has been eviscerated. Quite simply, no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them. Really? How’s that working out in Iraq?

Ooh, new bullet for my 2nd Amendment defense belt. Thanks.

Mark Jaquith on November 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM

To say that this offended me would be a massive understatement, hence my letter to the editor, which was as follows.

I wish I could say that this was an example of the high standards of excellence that we have all come to expect from Harvard. It is not. It is the worst example of intellectual corruption, short only of Columbia’s inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, that I have ever witnessed from an American institute of higher learning in my life. It leaves little doubt that Harvard has been infiltrated and taken over by communists pretending to be socialist’s masquerading as liberals.

By the grace of God, the founding father of this great republic are long dead and buried otherwise there is little doubt that they would burn Harvard to the ground and string its professors and board of governors up from the nearest liberty tree. Of course today they would be unable to find one of those liberty trees since those masquerading as academias at Harvard have clearly done everything in their power to ensure that not only have those trees been cut down but their very roots burned out to ensure that they never grow back.

I would suggest that you and your entire staff be ashamed, very ashamed that such sentiment was published under the banner of Harvard University, but that is clearly beyond any capacity that any of you posses. Such is the burden that intellectual elitist such as you and your staff must suffer, that mere dullards and unenlightened plebeian such as me would dare to take offense at anything that you might publish.

But have no fear, for like the good plebeian that I am I shall slink now back into the shadows trembling in fear that my intellectual superiors take not out their righteous indignation upon me, castigating my every imagined derision eviscerating my poor mangled prose and dissecting grammatical inaccuracies.

Yes, I shall like a good plebeian return now to allowing my betters to do my thinking, for after all how could a poor uneducated member of the dirty unwashed masses ever conceive that they might dare to grasp the higher ramifications of the writings of our founding fathers.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM

As I enjoy the last day of firearm whitetail deer season in Michigan, My hunting buddies and I discussed this issue over breakfast this morning. We use our second amendment rights to thin out the deer herd so lefties who want to live in the country won’t run into bambi when they are driving home from their govenment jobs. It is a bonus that I am able to suplement my food budget with tasty venison, small game, and birds. It is another bonus that I am able to defend my family and property with my God givin right to own and use firearms. Most of my friends are non-political, but they would be the first in line to vote out or against any politician who tried to take our guns away. In Michigan there were over 700,000 hunters out in the woods hunting deer, do the lefty anti-gun crowd really think these peoople would just roll over and give up thier rights?

deadbackpacker on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

At least repeal is on honest proposition, as opposed to efforts to “interpret” away its meaning.
Blacklake on November 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I’m totally with you on that one (but not your conclusion). As long as the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, I don’t see how the government can restrict the people’s right to keep and bear arms in any way.

I think under the current form of the Constitution the principled stand means no restrictions on guns, no restrictions on carrying scimitars or maces in public and of course no restrictions on the ownership of thermonuclear devices either. (Which is good: you can’t be expected to stand up to the Man with a 9mm Glock when the Man has nukes.)

The TSA may have the right to take away your 12oz bottle of shampoo but your loaded submachine gun cannot constitutionally preclude you from boarding an airliner. (Fake guns enjoy no constitutional protection, though, so the second grader suspended from school because of drawing a water pistol is out of luck.)

If this sounds bizarre, it’s because the Constitutional situation is bizarre, and it’s probably going to grow more bizarre after the SCOTUS strikes down the Washington DC handgun ban and declares the true strict constructionist meaning of the Second Amendment, which is that anybody can have any kind of weapon anywhere.

If you like that, keep supporting the Second Amendment. If not, how about repealing it and instead empowering Congress to define the limits of arms-bearing and arms-keeping?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

I thought Harvard had bright, thoughtful, freedom loving AMERICAN students, some of the best the U.S. has to offer. I guess I thought wrong. It seems Harvard has much of the leftist/bolshevik leaning spirit found in the majority of U.S. colleges and universities today.

countywolf on November 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM

If not, how about repealing it and instead empowering Congress to define the limits of arms-bearing and arms-keeping?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Probably ’cause I don’t trust congress.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM

If you like that, keep supporting the Second Amendment. If not, how about repealing it and instead empowering Congress to define the limits of arms-bearing and arms-keeping?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

…are you out of your f%&$ing mind???

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Probably ’cause I don’t trust congress.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Exactly, and I cant think of one single thing congress has done in my life time that would lead me to even consider trusting them, contrasted to the literally hundreds of things they have done to make me not trust them.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM

someone is so brave, to take a stand against the second ammendment that they have to hide behind “the crimson staff” tagline… either that or it took 91 people to write it

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on November 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM

To those of you who don’t like the prospect of the Waters-Kucinich Act of 2010 defining the limits of weapons ownership: I hear you and I’m not saying you are unreasonable in mistrusting Congress, but what’s your alternative?

Do you just go along with the current situation where the government routinely violates the Second Amendment by banning guns at places it doesn’t like them to be, or banning the types of weapons it doesn’t want you to have or telling people who can or cannot bear arms? Or do you prefer adherence to the word of the Founding Fathers, which allows crazy people to have guns, your neighbor to have nukes and Ahmed in seat 19D to have a hand grenade?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Or do you prefer adherence to the word of the Founding Fathers, which allows crazy people to have guns, your neighbor to have nukes and Ahmed in seat 19D to have a hand grenade?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I’m guessing that people who seriously think the 2nd allows them to have an RPG, Abrams, or tactical nuke are fairly few and far between.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 12:37 PM

First, the Bill Of Rights was not written to define our rights as citizens or to guarantee them. It was written to constrain the Federal Government.

The second amendment was written becuase we just overthrew oppression at the hands of the worlds only superpower whose chief rule was/is to deny weapons to the common citizen.

Serious scholars of the 2nd amendment are in amzing agreement that it protects every citizens right to keep and bear arms.

Second Amendment Facts

dogsoldier on November 30, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Oh, and there are some American Citizens who own their own tanks, FYI. And yeah thats perfectly ok.

dogsoldier on November 30, 2007 at 12:39 PM

nuanced federal legislation.”

“Nuanced” is one of those words the libs have locked into a modern meaning – like “critical” [as in "thinking" or "analysis"] means “Marxist” and “progressive”=”liberal”. “Nuanced” means carefully crafted to sound neutral but actually assuring leftist outcomes.

eeyore on November 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM

To those of you who don’t like the prospect of the Waters-Kucinich Act of 2010 defining the limits of weapons ownership: I hear you and I’m not saying you are unreasonable in mistrusting Congress, but what’s your alternative?

Do you just go along with the current situation where the government routinely violates the Second Amendment by banning guns at places it doesn’t like them to be, or banning the types of weapons it doesn’t want you to have or telling people who can or cannot bear arms? Or do you prefer adherence to the word of the Founding Fathers, which allows crazy people to have guns, your neighbor to have nukes and Ahmed in seat 19D to have a hand grenade?

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Your hyperbole aside, let’s just go with liberty, shall we? It seems the most prudent choice. It’s been very effective in the past.

Rational Thought on November 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM

dogsoldier on November 30, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Yeah, but those tend to be old models. And how many rounds do they have for the main gun?

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM

factoid on November 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Too much freedom always beats not enough.

Bad Candy on November 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:29 AM

That was one of my favorites too. It’s almost too visual.

Esthier on November 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM

“All that hate’s gonna burn you up, son.”

“It keeps me warm.”

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Favorite line!

TBinSTL on November 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Beautiful, AP. I am weeping.

budorob on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Favorite line!

TBinSTL on November 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I use it often (the part about keeping warm, that is.)

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Seriously, they neglect leftist due diligence. Bowling for Columbine compared the U.S. and Canada. Both countries have similar numbers of handguns, yet the U.S. has exponentially more murders. It’s the culture, stupid.

But I’ll go along with The Crimson if they figure out a way to un-invent firearms. Maybe they can get a hold of their friend Dan Vasser in San Fran. I hear he can travel through time and make liberal dreams come true.

Nonetheless, repealing the 2nd amendment would be soooo un-American. We are guaranteed equal rights under the law, and firearms are the ultimate equalizer against criminals.

budorob on November 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM

really believe the far left want to want to have another Civil War in the USA.

oldelpasoan on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Why do they keep pissing us off,we have all the guns!

*fondles Colt SAA replica*

Frantic Freddie on November 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Both countries have similar numbers of handguns

Per capita, maybe. I can count the number of hangun owners I know (not counting cops) on 1 hand. There’s too much hassle, paperwork, and restrictions for most gun owners to bother with.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Harvard sucks. Go Big Red!

TexasDan on November 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Canada does not have as many handguns as the US. From http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for “self-protection.” This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million.

Like healthcare, lots of people want to copy the Canadian model. Ain’t gonna happen, either one.

iurockhead on November 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM

iurockhead on November 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Thank you for doing the research I was too lazy/time constrained to do.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Yeah, and you must really hate the troops if you aren’t willing to put them up in your house. Just think of all those outdated “rights” in the living document.

Defense Guy on November 30, 2007 at 1:22 PM

I think under the current form of the Constitution the principled stand means no restrictions on guns, no restrictions on carrying scimitars or maces in public and of course no restrictions on the ownership of thermonuclear devices either. (Which is good: you can’t be expected to stand up to the Man with a 9mm Glock when the Man has nukes.)

Why not presume that, given that the framers of the Constitution explicitly reserved rights for the people and the states, that sorting out the above would be (should be, must be) a state power, not a federal one and not necessarily an individual right unless specified as a right in the state’s constitiution.

shuzilla on November 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

As long as the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, I don’t see how the government can restrict the people’s right to keep and bear arms in any way.

Try living in California.

But I’ll go along with The Crimson if they figure out a way to un-invent firearms.

Even if it could be done, it would actually make things worse. Imagine, a world without guns

hindmost on November 30, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Stay tuned next week as the Crimson will presumably make a similar public-safety case for expanding the war on drugs.

Nah, they like drugs.

Any repeal effort should directed at the Seventh Amendment, in any event. (Jury trial in civil cases.)

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Some people tend to think that the 2nd is an all-or-nothing situation, and I don’t believe that it is. We have reasonable regulations that “restrict” your right to free speech, or what a newspaper prints. You can’t just say or print anything you want at any time you want. Just the same way, I think there can be reasonable regulations on firearms ownership, so long as it IS reasonable, and doesn’t overly restrict or place unreasonable obstacles to regular, law-abiding citizens from exercising that right.

Again, much the same way with freedom of speech: you are free to assemble, plan, and perform a protest march, but you have to get a permit, perform during certain timeframes, etc, so as not to interfere with others rights.

JamesLee on November 30, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Why do liberals scream about “losing their liberties” yet are so willing to take them away, or just discard them?

Mazztek on November 30, 2007 at 1:59 PM

It’s not surprising to see this attitude at Harvard. Navigating academia throughout my young adulthood, I never encountered anyone who was a big fan of the NRA until I met a woman from Arkansas. When I first visited her place and noticed the anti-gun control stickers all over her refrigerator, I wondered whether it was a put-on. Only when I saw the picture of her, her congressman, and Charlton Heston did I realize that I’d met my first NRA member.

no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them. Really? How’s that working out in Iraq?

Four years and the U.S. and its Iraqi allies have more control over the country than ever. Plus, most of the damage to the U.S. wasn’t done with rifles and handguns, but with bombs (and, to a smaller extent, AK-47s and the like). Would a repeal of the Second Amendment do anything with regards to IEDs? Incidentally, if we’d had the same view of war, life, and security that we had in colonial times, the insurgents would have achieved even less.

I suppose your point, though, is that’s not what the Crimson thinks about Iraq.

Has an amendment ever been repealed before?

Ignoring Prohibition, parts of the Constitution have been modified by future amendments, e.g., the 14th and 25th, which I believe impacted the 10th and 12th, respectively. A well-annotated Constitution would tell the full story.

Any repeal effort should directed at the Seventh Amendment, in any event. (Jury trial in civil cases.)

Only if the amount exceeds $20! If that amendment, enacted after a period of hyperinflation, doesn’t show the fallibility of the founders, I don’t know what does.

Allah, I just wanted to say I enjoyed you’re writing here. I normally do, but this one was exceptional.

Me, I preferred the Hitchens makeover summary, though, upon showing it to a coworker, I got disgust, not laughs. But for me it was the funniest thing I’ve read all month.

calbear on November 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM

The second amendment is my first amendment

All other amendments derive from the second amendment

But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful – The Crimson Staff

I thought they considered our soldiers thugs and rapists

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 The Crimson Staff

I have to see those numbers presented by someone of higher IQ then the teddies at the Crimson. Oh, I forgot, they left out the proof. Guess it was so obvious it was not required reading

Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy

Astounding

Were it not for private gun ownership we would be able to implement pressing public policy?

we should repeal this amendment and focus our efforts on legislation that will actually protect the “security of a free state”—a charge explicit in the Second Amendment – The Crimson Staff

Why do we need legislation to protect the security of the free state when we already have the ‘most powerful security forces on the globe’?

I get it. They want to protect the security of the State.

Second amendment people want to maintain the security of the state of Freedom i.e. individual liberty

I cannot even flatter this essay by calling it sophmoric.

Ivy League is a league unto itself. That is why Ivy Leagers prefer to hire other Ivy Leagers, so they can keep their shame secret

entagor on November 30, 2007 at 2:41 PM

There will not be a civil war btw. the left and the right, because the left can only write/pontificate, but not shoot.

Entelechy on November 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM

…and “shoot” wasn’t meant to be an abstract; should have been more clear – they can’t defend themselves – look at how their ‘leadership’ is twisting itself into noodles over Iraq. Defeatists all the way…

Entelechy on November 30, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Gun control works…look at all the great things Hitler did once he outlawed um…guns.

Black Adam on November 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM

I have a better idea.

Repeal Harvard’s charter.

Replace it with a “nuanced” license to operate, but only in double-wide trailers as the existing buildings will be bulldozed to provide a new senior citizens center and water park.

All existing faculty and administrators shall be terminated, with no-rehire.

All current students will be branded with an “H” on their foreheads to indicate that they have been lobotomized by the former staff.

georgej on November 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM

The left occasionally argues, in fact, that so awesome is the power of the United States military that the core purpose of the amendment has been eviscerated.

Any modern state bent upon conquering or subduing the United States must take into their calculations the fact that the United States has 250 million firearms distributed among 85 million citizens, which (according to Time Magazine) comprise approximately 42% of American households.

If only 10 percent of America’s gun owners took up arms to resist either an invading force or a local, state or federal government gone bad, it would result in an insurgency of 8.5 million armed people. That is larger than any currently existing military force on the earth. To understand the impact of this, consider that during deer hunting season, the number of hunters in Pennsylvania alone would qualify them to be the 4th largest army in the world.

In the era after the Soviet Union fell, US and former KGB intelligence personel were sifting through the old Soviet records and a casual conversation developed about the previously, unlamented, Cold War. When asked about the reason for the state of belligerency, the Russians said they were deathly afraid of a war with the United States. When asked if they ever contemplated invading the USA, the Russians laughed and said that American civilians are too well armed and their experience in Afghanistan proved the point. This was recounted in an old issue of Proceedings (of US Naval Institute). Unfortunately, I no longer have the issue and can’t cite the specific article.

The last time the Militia took up arms against a rogue government in the United States occured in 1946 in Athens, TN. Here is an account of the battle of Athens:

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help….

….The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed “deputies”. GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff’s deputy, “‘Nigger, you can’t vote here today!!’”. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been “shot in the back”; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count “public”. A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. “The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, “his gun raised high …shouted: ‘You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I’ll kill you!’” (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the “people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history.” (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war’s end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and “local boys” headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail’s defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens
Three GIs – alerting passersby to danger – were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a “tommy gun” (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs’ rifle fire was un-coordinated. “From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply ‘shooting at the jail’.” (Byrum, p. 189)….

…Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail’s porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield’s deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

The young morons of Harvard’s Crimson are ignorant of their own history. And that is by design….

georgej on November 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

georgej on November 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

I recall reading that during WWII, the Japanese were terrified of the idea of invading the continental US for the same reason.

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 6:40 PM

The one point they make that I’m interested in seeing the Court address next year is the Second Amendment’s relationship to the military. In colonial times it would have been understood mainly as a right of self-defense against an oppressive national government. Now it’s understood as a defense against burglars. The left occasionally argues, in fact, that so awesome is the power of the United States military that the core purpose of the amendment has been eviscerated. Quite simply, no ragtag bunch of citizens equipped with small arms could possibly repulse a threat from them. Really? How’s that working out in Iraq?

It’s not just “the left” that argues it. Comparing this to Iraq is asininie. If the US military was willing to fight against the general population odds are they wouldn’t follow the same pansy ass rules they follow in Iraq because the very people to whom they are accountable over there are now their enemies. The US army would obliterate a ragtag gathering of southern rednecks and northern gangstas in the blink of an eye. I want to carry arms to fight off criminals. I have no demented illusion that I can take on the strongest military force in the world with a gun.

Darth Executor on December 1, 2007 at 1:06 AM

One thing I don’t get. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but people 150 years ago had guns… and made guns, and repaired their guns.

Now, I could be out in left field, but I’d suspect that I can do roughly anything a person 150 years ago could do with nothing but the tools in my garage, and a handy hardware store.

Hmm, a quick web search for “zipgun” and the first link has a link for a book “Expedient Homemade Firearms”. Yeah, most of those look do-able with the tools I have. But what about ammunition?

The first link for “make ammo” is an Amazon link for a book “Homemade Ammo: How To Make It, How To Reload It, How To Cache It”. Well ok then, that seems like it will do.

So, the first step is to outlaw guns, but the second step is going to have to be to outlaw knowledge of how to make guns.

Anyone got an idea on how to properly remove knowledge from the minds of the people, and properly prosecute and enforce thought/knowledge crimes?

Or am I likely to have a gun regardless what you do?

gekkobear on December 1, 2007 at 2:20 AM

The “Crimson Staff” would be considered borderline retareded ignorant little shits by the average circa-1900 elementary school child.

I am seriously weary of the ignorance, lying, and dull-witted blather of the “control freaks.”

The left supports gun control though it leads to higher crime and eases the path of tyrants.

The left supports communism though it has left a terrifying trail of blood wherever it has been “implemented.”

There isn’t a debate, there’s just a bunch of ignorant, idiot whining jackasses who keep mouthing the same blather over and over.

The latest polemics from the controllers don’t have any new arguments, just the ones that saw them soundly defeated 10, 20, 30 years ago.

I used to like arguing with these people, but it wasn’t very long before I realized they had ZERO interest in anything but their fanatical desire for the worst possible outcome. They ignore facts, lie, make things up, and recycle every failed argument, hoping to wear down the opposition through high-pitched, incessant whining.

I’ve been in well over a hundred detailed, referenced, long-and-drawn-out arguments on the subject. LITERALLY every one has ended with the control freak ditching out, either in a fit of whining invective or to simply try to “win” the argument with someone else later (or with me later, for the exceptionally dim ones).

The only tactics they know are obfuscation and repetition, and it’s pathetic. Again, if it wasn’t for the oiled and pliant MSM, the control freaks would be laughed off the street.

Merovign on December 1, 2007 at 3:29 AM

The First Amendment is the Mouth.

The Second Amendment is the Teeth.

(Gumming your way to liberty never works.)

profitsbeard on November 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

I like that. Can I quote you?

really believe the far left want to want to have another Civil War in the USA.

oldelpasoan on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Of course not, ’cause the left would lose; we’ve got all the guns!

Frozen Tex on November 30, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Yeah, their main weapons would be cafe lattes and flowers.

Texas Nick 77 on December 1, 2007 at 4:59 AM

and I cant think of one single thing congress has done in my life time that would lead me to even consider trusting them, contrasted to the literally hundreds of things they have done to make me not trust them.

doriangrey on November 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Our liberties are in danger every time congress gavels to order. Ditto for federal courts.

Texas Nick 77 on December 1, 2007 at 5:25 AM

Supporters of a constitutionally enshrined individual right to bear arms argue that state gun control laws have “reinterpreted” the right to gun ownership. These limitations on gun ownership, they say, demonstrate that gun ownership itself is not linked to increased violence. 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. 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.
“number if lives that MIGHT be saved”? Of course this completely ignores the hundreds of thousands of Americans that use guns to stop violent crimes every year. These idiots ought to research a wee bit

Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM