Harvards Opinion On The 2A - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Harvards Opinion On The 2A

  1. #11
    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.:(
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  2.   
  3. #12
    http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...-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.........

  4. #13
    I am sure that is the article I was refering to. Thanks for posting the link.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  5. #14
    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.
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  6. #15
    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.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida,Port Richey
    Posts
    212
    It`s kind of ironic that the supposed intelligent people can be so stupid at times,and talk like complete morons.

  8. The governmment will protect them. Wrong

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    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?

  10. #19
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    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 by ishi; 12-03-2007 at 12:44 AM.
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  11. #20
    [QUOTE=ishi;8396]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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast