Dang, I wish I was smart like those folks at Harvard.
Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice, the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own safety and stability.
No Doubt! Except for all those letters those guys wrote about it they just forgot to put that part in there. I think they were called the founding fathers people like James Madison and Patrick Henry and John Adams. They just forgot, or maybe their files got deleted off of their computers.
But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful.
Sure! if the first statement is true then this one must be also. Oh wait... well anyways even if it wasn't it isn't like any government would ever use the military to suppress it's own populace. That would never happen, not here.
Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy,
It sure is! Socialism is most certainly public policy and the 2A stands clearly stands in it's way. Also facisim and a general repeal of the constitution as has been tried in the last few years.
and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.
Like a gun ban. This is a great idea! It will help change this country like nobody's business.
Despite the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not surfaced in the Supreme Court since 1939, when the justices merely touched upon the issue in United States v. Miller.
If you say so.
But early this month, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the central consideration is the right of an individual to own a firearm as protected under the Second Amendment. The case specifically addresses private handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. 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 bear arms is detrimental to the country.
Wow, why don't you tell us how you really feel? This is great! honesty is so refreshing! But what is interesting is that you believe that there is a right. You Harvard boys sure are smart.
Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership.
Because the government is running this country, not us. We do as we are told.
The high level of violence in the United States as compared to other developed countries, if not directly related to the culture of gun ownership and distribution, is at least a strong argument that the Second Amendment is preventing aggressive federal gun regulation.
I understand completely. Get rid of guns and you get rid of the cause of violence. The gun culture is just a collateral casualty. But is it not worth to live in a violence free society like Great Britain?
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, 68 percent of the 14,860 homicides in the United States were gun-related. Given the pervasiveness of gun violence that occurs in this country every year, this sort of uneven gun control is unacceptable, especially when it comes to handguns. 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. Yet little is done to prevent its distribution: 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.
I understand. Rifles and shotguns don't kill people, hand guns do. Get rid of the hand guns and we are GTG. Rifles and shotguns are not built for the purpose of killing people. They are good guns and used to break clays and kill fox in a sublime non-threatening way.
Supporters of a constitutionally enshrined individual right to bear arms argue that state gun control laws have “reinterpreted” the right to gun ownership. These limitations on gun ownership, they say, demonstrate that gun ownership itself is not linked to increased violence.
Yes, but this "evidence" although logical does not support your position. Therefore it needs to be gotten rid of.
But in the wake of the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, gun control remains relatively lax in many states, especially when it comes to handguns, which are responsible for many, if not most, gun-related murders.
"Many if not most?" don't be shy how about 80%+ on average depending upon where you live, with shotguns taking up a good 15%. Hand guns are just absolutely crazed criminals that kill people every day. I don't know why banning rifles did not work to reduce crime....
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.
Just look at the number of lives saved in DC and Chicago! Much fewer people have been murdered with handguns since they were banned. Next we can get rid of knives and shotguns, also psychopaths as well!
In the context of today’s society, the Second Amendment is outdated. Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy.
Socialism, facism, one world government, whatever the government wants, it is for your own good.
Instead of wasting time attempting to fix this anachronism, we should repeal this amendment and focus our efforts on legislation that will actually protect the “security of a free state”—a charge explicit in the Second Amendment.
Absolutely. That is brilliant! The best idea I have yet heard of. We repeal the second ammendment and restrict the Federal government from passing any laws in order to protect the security of free states. We let the non-gun states pass their own laws and ban all firearms. The smart Harvard grads can all move to the non-gun states (or stay there in most cases) and the dumb people get what they deserve in the gun states.
If only I had gone to Harvard, I could have come up with that idea all on my own.
