Harvards Opinion On The 2A


Evidently this is what the nations best thinkers believe about the 2A.

Link Removed
 

robiewan

New member
aRTICLE

This article is not in the best interests of Americans, or of the country as a whole. It makes me sick to read the tripe these "educators" try to pass off as truth because of their illigitimate sense of intelligence over the masses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
:mad:
 

PascalFleischman

New member
Wow.....ignorance. I don't know about you guys, but every seller at a gun show I've ever visited required a background check. Hmm, my buddy from MS had to use an FFL transfer from a dealer here in Memphis. OK, that argument is wrong. What's the obsession with gun shows anyway? Would they pitch a fit if the private sellers AT a gun show went outside and did it? BAN PUBLIC PLACES, YOU CAN BUY GUNS THERE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!

I love how they claim "safety" in gun free zones, yet completely ignore D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et cetra, et cetra, et cetra.....
 

HK4U

New member
gun free zones

Wow.....ignorance. I don't know about you guys, but every seller at a gun show I've ever visited required a background check. Hmm, my buddy from MS had to use an FFL transfer from a dealer here in Memphis. OK, that argument is wrong. What's the obsession with gun shows anyway? Would they pitch a fit if the private sellers AT a gun show went outside and did it? BAN PUBLIC PLACES, YOU CAN BUY GUNS THERE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!

I love how they claim "safety" in gun free zones, yet completely ignore D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et cetra, et cetra, et cetra.....



But there is safety in gun free zones! Safety for the criminal.
 

kwo51

New member
When is this rational going to be used to get rid of cars and bikes? These are the brains running our government.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Allow me to paraphrase . . .

Despite the controversy surrounding the First Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not been sufficiently plumbed. The Supreme Court should take on a case of "Free" speech, in which the central consideration should be the right of an individual to express their opinion publicly under the First Amendment. Such a Right was important to the development of the young country 250 years ago, but the world has changed and the Government has become more sophisticated now and can satisfactorily decide the best course for the Nation. It doesn't need opinionated amateurs and self-righteous intellectuals participating in the process. The case should specifically address personal opinion and the dubious value of expressing it publicly, which could serve to arouse the passions of a susceptible populace with detrimental effect to the Nation. 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 Free Speech, especially in the printed form which can be so widely distributed, is potentially injurious to the country's tranquility. Instead, the First Amendment should be replaced with federal statutes designed to tightly regulate the publication of unauthorized opinions.

How do ya think that would fly?
 
Last edited:

DrDavidM

New member
Why don't we just remove any part of the constitution we don't agree with. It's just a piece of really old paper. :mad: This of course is obsurd. I can't place exact information on it, but I wonder if they read the article Harvard did a few months ago about how handgun carry decreased violent crime. I guess they didn't agree with it so they removed all record of it.
 

NDS

New member
Those who believe parts of the Constitution are no longer relevant should just follow the legal procedure to modify it. They should lobby for an amendment and then use the system to pursue their goal.

The only reason they argue for other means is that they know they have no chance of success in amending. Should they try to modify the constitution in this way, the outcry against them would be huge; in their minds the 'common folk' are unable to understand the need to modify society to fit some statist utopian dream.:(
 
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide..............

...........Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced.".............

..........Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.........
 

ishi

New member
This opinion is unique in its honesty. Notice that they are putting forward arguments to repeal the 2nd amendment. This is the only legal and honest method to attempt gun control, this much at least has to be admitted.

At least the article does not advocate unconstitutional methods of gun control. It's a step forward for the opposition at least, to recognize that the 2nd amendment does not allow them to do what they want.

Now that they agree on what the constitution does and does not allow, the argument becomes a utilitarian one. Let them attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment. They will fail. And once the attempt fails miserably, it will be a decisive victory for gun rights.
 

gordo

New member
That is their 1st amendment right. What they don't seem to understand is that the 2nd amendment is what protects all of the other amendments! I think the numbers should be switched.
 

JC40

New member
It`s kind of ironic that the supposed intelligent people can be so stupid at times,and talk like complete morons.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
And while we're at it, why don't we attempt to pass legislation repealing the rest of the bill of rights in an attempt to keep people from behaving irresponsibly? The problem with the writer's line of reasoning is the slippery slope that would inevitably result if these suggestions were actually implemented. If the government can invalidate a part of the constitution by simple legislative fiat, and not by the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, then who's to stop other constitutionally protected freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to a trial by jury, from being similarly invalidated?
 

ishi

New member
I'm pretty sure the author is advocating the legitimate removal of the 2nd amendment, not legislative fiat, as you put it. Anti-gun people who prefer legislative fiat never talk about removing the 2nd amendment, they simply cite utilitarian reasons for unconstitutional legislation and ridiculous judicial interpretation of the 2A.

This guy wants to remove the 2A the old fashioned way, as was done with alcohol prohibition.

While I'm sure nobody here agrees with his idea, it's refreshing to at least face an opponent who respects the constitution.

And while we're at it, why don't we attempt to pass legislation repealing the rest of the bill of rights in an attempt to keep people from behaving irresponsibly? The problem with the writer's line of reasoning is the slippery slope that would inevitably result if these suggestions were actually implemented. If the government can invalidate a part of the constitution by simple legislative fiat, and not by the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, then who's to stop other constitutionally protected freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to a trial by jury, from being similarly invalidated?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the author is advocating the legitimate removal of the 2nd amendment, not legislative fiat, as you put it.

Ishi, I'm not sure there would be a legitimate reason for removal of the 2A. Someone may try legal venues to do so, however, I really don't think enough states would vote to ratify a removal or even a change to the 2A.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,343
Messages
622,604
Members
74,169
Latest member
gamike
Top