Harvard Crimson - The Second Amendment is an anachronism

[Lodge2004]

An editorial from staff of the Harvard Crimson. I would have expected more from them. They did not get a good return on their tuition investment.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013

Some examples...

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

"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."

"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."

[Liberty]

Yawn ..
Its not like it is a real newspaper written by real grownups that live in a real world. I don't think anyone can take seriously these undergound college rags. Somehow something written by a club of rich teenagers doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. This article is proof of that.

[JLaw]

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013

Some examples...


"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 get so sick of hearing this. I really do not understand how people can believe this statement. I'm not going to ramble on...just going to shake my head in disgust and go renew my NRA membership.

JLaw

[srothstein]

But, and this is an important but, this view means that they do recognize that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and keep firearms.

By stating that the firearms need to be banned and are no longer needed, but that the amendment needs to be repealed to do this, it implicitly recognizes the Second as what we have always said it does.

[anygunanywhere]

But, and this is an important but, this view means that they do recognize that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and keep firearms.

By stating that the firearms need to be banned and are no longer needed, but that the amendment needs to be repealed to do this, it implicitly recognizes the Second as what we have always said it does.

Sincce they are so ignorant of facts, they will never understand that even if the 2A was repealed, we would still have RKBA.

Actually, if that ever happens then we really need to use our arms as they were intended.

Anygun

[Lodge2004]

Sincce they are so ignorant of facts, they will never understand that even if the 2A was repealed, we would still have RKBA.

That is a concept that most on the left would be unable to consider unless a roll of duct tape were handy to keep their head from exploding.

The amusing part about the D.C. case is the variety of reasons put forth against the 2A. Instead of sticking with the "militia" argument, I am reading a lot more "it's for the children" or "times have changed" arguments.

[stevie_d_64]

Yep...And a degree from Harvard is an over-hyped, over-priced goatskin on your "I love me wall"...