Harvard debate on the 2nd Amendment

[Oleg Volk]

Interesting debate featuring Harward Gun Club members and the orks from CPHV. Don't play the video if you have a history of high blood pressure.

It is an interesting topic -- is the 2nd even important. I'd be inclined to argue that it isn't, as even those not covered by it (i.e. non-Americans) have the same human rights we do. So structuring the argument around interpretation of the old documents or around utility may be useful, but we shouldn't ignore the human right argument, either.

 

[WyldOne]

Haven't played the video yet, as I'm at work and I don't have a sound card.

It is an interesting topic -- is the 2nd even important.

Well, since it's being bludgeoned to death anyway....

I'd be inclined to argue that it isn't, as even those not covered by it (i.e. non-Americans) have the same human rights we do.

But couldn't we say that about the entire Bill of Rights? And then where would we be?

 

[DigitalWarrior]

The Bill of Rights purpose was to clarify that even though some powers were delegated to certain branches of the federal government, the rights were still in the hands of the people.

For instance, Congress has the power to declare war, but the people have the right to form a militia.

If you keep this in mind the whole document makes a lot of sense.

Also, consider that it was the founders belief that all people had "natural rights" just by virtue of existance. It was and is a radical idea. All people have rights, but sometimes those rights are oppressed by the powerful. If you think of rights in the same way you think of your own volition, you begin to understand their perspective.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I believe the Second Amendment does no more—nor any less—than recognize and protect an intrinsic human right. It states the obvious.

If not for leftist extremists and their scheme to turn America into yet another socialist hell hole, the Second Amendment would need no more defense or clarification than the Third.