« Gift Idea | Main | DU Moonbats Pay Their Lack of Respect to Henry Hyde »

Whenever liberals use the word "nuanced," you know it's time to reach for your hip waders.

I'd rather reach for my .45

>Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy...>

And just what "public policy" would THAT be?
When will these self-important Liberals learn the diffrence between legaly-purchased and owned weapons and those that are stolen or purchased illegaly?

"Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting: It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being."

Absolutely. What the writer fails to comprehend is that such a weapon is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment, which mentions militias. It is clear that the spirit of that amendment is to ensure that citizens may have guns to use against other human beings, not for hunting animals (although there's nothing of course wrong with hunting weapons).

You don't form a militia to fight bears, you form one to fight people. If handguns are solely for use against human beings, they're more in spirit with the amendment than hunting rifles.

The right to bear arms is the right to protect yourself from human aggressors. Long may it continue. Never let them take it away, you American type people- you only have to look across to us in the UK to see the supine state a people without guns descends into it. The law is taken away from you, and becomes a thing which is done to you, instead of being something you are part of.

Well...in the spirit to the Crimson's editorial, while we are looking at repealing the 2nd Amendment, let's put other Amenments on the table for discussion.

First to be deleted should be freedom of the press so the government can immediately hang the editors and writers at the Harvard Student Paper. Makes as much sense as the brain dead students at Harvard and Yale.

"Impediment to public policy". I like that.

The only "public policy" blocked by private firearm ownership is called, I think, "Totalitarianism". Of course, with the extreme narcissism/elitism of "Progressives", they redefine this nightmare as "The Common Good".

"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."

"Might"? What evidence is there that prohibition would save lives? After all, look at how drug prohibition has reduced drug use... er...

Of course, no lives would be saved. Even if one accepts the idea that gun ownership causes violence and murder (and that's hugely contentious in itself of course)- even if one accepts that, their argument, as with most statist arguments, falls apart in the practical reality, the actualite of the real world.

America is awash with guns. There are millions and millions of guns out there. If prohibition is enacted, who will lose their guns? Law abiding citizens of course. The gangs, the criminals, the robbers, muggers, drug dealers and terrorists, won't hand their guns in. The guns will simply fall entirely into the hands of criminals, and the innocent citizens will be without any form of defence.

Millions of guns. There's no way to recall them all. No way to find them and destroy them. The authorities can't even stop people trading little baggies of powder. What hope would they have in disarming the criminal population? One may as well ban explosives to stop terrorism.

Statists don't seem to understand this. They really do think that a law will somehow automatically become the reality. If you ban X, X will cease to exist. It just doesn't work that way.

This wont actually pass nationwide. Only states/cities infested with Moonbats are in danger. The more I think of it the CBS series Jericho where some rogue American nukes 23 cities (most Moonbat infested) might have done so to take out the Moonbats along with the corrupt federal government. At first I thought an American doing something like this was totally illogical. Now? Not so much as each day passes and Moonbattery soars. Hopefully no one will actually do anything like as it would make life suck! Alot! Especially the EMP bomb that blacks out the country for several months. Hopefully people will fight back against the Moonbats before some nut does something crazy like that.

I would like for the Harvard Crimson Staff to personally come to my door and attempt to disarm me. Maggot-brained Algorian dumbasses wouldn't recognize true freedom if it spit in their sorry faces and kicked them in their empty crotches.

"nuanced federal legislation"
Does that mean laws that are open to different interpretations depending on the fashionable whims of the moment?

"The high level of violence in the United States as compared to other developed countries..."
According to the US DOJ the level of violence is lower in the US than it is in most countries that ban gun ownership. Look what happened to the Brits and Aussies.

"Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting: it is a military and police weapon..."
A red herring. The Bill of Rights doesn't deal with trivial matters. Hunting is, by definition, a trivial pursuit; it's entertainment. At the time of the founding of the US it was more serious because many people depended on it to put food on the table. The 2A deals with the defense of the republic, our communities, our families and ourselves from criminals and tyrannical government.

"In Virginia, any person over 18 can buy a handgun, and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, no background check is required."
Unless I'm mistaken, federal law says 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun.
If you buy a gun from a FFL holder in any place, gun shows included, a background check is required. Buying a gun from a private individual may or may not require a background check, depending on the state the transaction occurs in.

"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."
It isn't moot when it's your life on the line. I know that from first hand experience.
Reality shows that this "saving lives" argument is nonsense. Let's weigh it against the number of lives that experience shows will be lost by making handguns illegal.

"...stand in the way of pressing public policy."
Like the authoritarian, even fascist, policies being advocated by the leftists?

It's certainly appropriate that their rag is called the Crimson. They're a bunch of Reds.

Actually, this editorial is very good news. By calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, the Harvard babies inherently recognize that it protects an individual right. They don't call for it to be interpreted "correctly"; they call for its repeal.

I hope somebody does introduce a bill to Congree to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I hope it gets voted on. The results would shut moonbats up on the subject for a generation.

I am, personally, in favor of repealing the 2nd ammendment, if it can be replaced with a new ammendment requiring all American citizens to own a firearm and learn how to safely and responsibly store, clean, and operate it. A few of the colonies had that, and it's been downhill ever since.

Those Harvard dummies who want to change the US Constitution because they have a better idea how the country should be run ... hopefully, they will grow up before they damage anything.

"In Virginia, any person over 18 can buy a handgun, and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, no background check is required."

Complete B.S. I live in VA, have been to plenty of gun shows, and the only thing you're buying without the paperwork is some ammo and a bag of chocolate covered peanuts.

No suitable recent threads to put this in so apologies for off-topicness--

Report shows that weather-related deaths have declined drastically since a peak in the 1920s, contrary to popular MSM myth that things are getting worse...

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/12/another-myth-bites-dust.html

"mega at December 2, 2007 4:18 PM"

I've thought about this before, here's what I came up with:

"A well-regulated militia, being nessisary for the defence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for lawfull purposes such as (but not limited to) defence of one's life, family and property as well as that of his/her neighbors shall not be infringed."

How about-

"The rights of the citizen to life, liberty and property being essential to the maintenance of a free and orderly state, the right to bear arms for the purpose of defence of these rights shall not be infringed".

You could also add something like-

"The practical disposition of said arms shall not be restricted in such manner as to reduce their utility".

I've been thinking for a while about constitutions and bills of rights. The US one is still the preeminent such document in the world, but in practical use we've seen it wasn't strong enough. The problem with it being firstly the dependence of the whim of the court that upholds it (and that's the old "what if the highest power (in any state or organisation) is corrupted?" problem) but secondly the flexibility of language. The spirit becomes the letter, and the letter is twisted until it can mean anything. Simplicity is good, of course. If the second amendment had simply read "Any citizen may own any weapons he or she chooses to own" there would be very little to argue about- but even there we see that immediately the left would say "Ah ha, but that doesn't give them the right to carry them or use them does it?!" and so on.

I'm wondering if one could have a Bill Of Rights in simple language and then a subsidiary explanatory document with examples. That probably wouldn't work either.

The central problem is really that any Bill Of Rights/Constitution is a deliberate attempt to frustrate special interest groups gaining power, so the said groups will do everything they can to corrupt and destroy the thing. Which has happened in the US.

Here in the UK, our Bill Of Rights (yes, we have one!) is entirely ignored, which is absurd. It contains a right not to be punished without a trial, for instance. When the government imposed on the spot fines (a direct contradiction of that) the few who mentioned the BoR were just dismissed as romantic fuddy duddies.

Sorry, I'm waffling again :)

Ian, you Europeans write too much; that is the whole problem! LOL... Besides, the US constitution is plenty strong. After the Islamic takeover, sometime in 2070 small surviving bands of renegade Christians and Jews living in caves in Montana and outside present day Brussels will look to the Old Documents to try to figure out how to reconstruct society in order to avoid extinction, and they will not be using the EU constitution. They'll be using the US constitution. Europe's masturbatory intellectual excesses will be long forgotten, but the basic idea of freedom + weapons will still be here. There is a reason most European constitutions are in Rev 6.20.3.a.12-beta, while there is exactly one US constitution.

I say again, if one had to mess with the 2nd ammendment, it should be to make firearm ownership a requirement of the citizenry. This colonial and pre-colonial notion predates the founding of the US and was very wise. The idea was: we are surrounded by violent savages, and it is not only your right but your RESPONSIBILITY to be properly armed so you can defend yourself. So if you want to be a citizen, you have to own a gun and know how to use it. That was wise beyond its time. I will get off this idea, as soon as someone explains to me how today is safer or less in need of personal and family protection than living among the Iroquois a few hundred years ago.

Hmm. I have the greatest respect for America, and am heartily opposed to the transnats of the EU etc. And as I said, the US constitution is the best of its kind. But is it strong enough? I think you may really have underestimated the forces against it. Europe is ahead of you in moonbatisation, but you really aren't that far behind.

On the other point; you can't force people to own a gun, or anything else, in a free society. It's absurd. What are you going to do, throw people in jail for being unarmed?

"Those Harvard dummies who want to change the US Constitution because they have a better idea how the country should be run ... hopefully, they will grow up before they damage anything."

Fortunately, most of them grow up when they actually get a job and feast their eyes on the federal and state withholding.

The problem is, many, perhaps most of them, won't get a job in the normal sense. They'll move into the oligarchy- they'll become bureaucrats, or lawyers, or work for the NGOs, or in the media, or the thinktanks, the pressure groups, or they'll stay in the school system, preaching from an academic ivory tower... there's an entire infrastructure out there, an entire life system for them that enables them to avoid ever having to touch base with normal life. It allows them to live a life in keeping with their belief system, as part of the structure which manipulates power. Many of them will spend their lives as "Non-Jobbers" who have never worked in the private sector. Never worked for a business, never run one (they may well be part of parasite businesses of course, running entirely off public funds and rent seeking).

And some of them will become, in time, politicians.

A parochial example; the UK government currently. The current cabinet entirely consists of non-jobbers (bar one, Alan Johnson, a stray working class bod who was a postman for a bit before becoming... a full time union organiser). All the rest have gone from university into the oligarchy as described above.

So most of them never need to get a normal job, and will thus never need to reassess their values. These idiots are your future rulers, guys. Enjoy :)

Why would we be willing to surrender this fundamental liberty after more than two centuries?

Actually, more like eight centuries, since the 2nd Amendment traces its history to the Arms Assize of Henry the 2nd in 1181. And that, my friends, is the big rub. If not for the common folks being able to bear arms (specifically the later developed musket), we would still have a nobility that could chop our heads off at will. The only reason we now have a Republic is because common folk were able to defend themselves from the predations of nobles.

As for the Harvard Crimson Staff, they can go f*ck themselves. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

"And as I said, the US constitution is the best of its kind. But is it strong enough? I think you may really have underestimated the forces against it. Europe is ahead of you in moonbatisation, but you really aren't that far behind."

No, we are not far behind in overall moonbatterization. But it is concentrated in a handful of large states. The beauty of our constitution is that it can't be changed unless 38 states say "yeah, OK, let's do it." Which couldn't happen today, and maybe could never happen, as relates to the 2nd ammendment. Yet another example of how savvy the founding fathers/brothers were. They were elites who didn't trust elites, and gave us a system resistant to the kind of meddling and tinkering elites love so much. Now, if constitutional ammendments were ratifiable by 1/2 of the states, that would be a different story. The 2nd ammendment would already be gone, we'd have the ERA, and the constitution would by now be the size and cheesiness of the EU monstrosity. The US had the right idea all along - simple liberty-based code, very hard to change. Remember, those 515,000 residents of Wyoming get as much of a say in changing the constitution as the 36,000,000 moonbats in California.

Of course, if we keep having elementary school classes reciting Islamic prayers and dressing up in burkas for Islam Week, and ALL the other stuff that goes along with our self-hating pussification, a generation from now it could be a whole different story. There could come a day when 38 states might want to modify the constitution to make criticism of Islam illegal, and of course the 2nd ammendment would be long gone by then. But for now, there's a long way to go to get to that state of depravity.