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?