Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Anti article from Harvard

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    95

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

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

    You can read the unmarked up version at the link above, my comments are to address specific points and are better served accordingly.


    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. ...so that each man was ready and able to defend against a tyrannical government which had the most powerful security forces on the globe But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe Oh wait... echo?, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful. Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.

    Despite the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not surfaced in the Supreme Court since 1939,false as well as an entire book on the subject when the justices merely touched upon the issue in United States v. Miller. 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. Finally. 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. Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership. don't like an amendment? STRIKE IT DOWN with another amendment. Writing laws which are not constitutionally legal to patchwork the legislative system is the reason why we're in a big snafu in the judicial one. What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing? The only question has ever been whether or not the "right" is protected by the constitution to the people, or to the people's militia. In confusion people believe that the constitution grants rights. That's ridiculous. The constitution protects the rights already inherent from tampering or restriction by the government

    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. 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. ...target shooting and self-defense withstanding, and you can hunt with handguns. Yet little is done to prevent its distribution: In Virginia, any person over the age of 18 can buy a handgun, 100% false and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, there is no background check required only true if the seller is a private individual... something which a person in Virginia could do irregardless of the venue.

    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. 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. Wait... so in the last 3 years, while crime has decreased nationally since the AWB has passed, the lack of gun control is responsible for the declining crime rate? Wonderful. 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. Two points. One, the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime is ALREADY illegal. Making the gun itself "illegal" will only disarm those who would turn them in, i.e. law-abiding citizens, NOT criminals. Two, guns are used in self-defense ("saving lives") 2.5 million times a year (Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997) if you want to play the "if it only saves one life it's worth it" card you're playing for the wrong side.

    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. Public policy must fall in line with what is legal in the United States regardless of what is decided, and how quickly people want it implemented. 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.
    On that last paragraph, I'll touch upon this very briefly because it is the most controversial part of the 2nd amendment, and not one I particularly agree with or want to think about, but I think that Penn & Teller put it quite nicely.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Here's some other good reading on the issue:
    The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
    August 24, 2004
    MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

    www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
    -Unrequited

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Take this guy, throw him into Detroit, New Orleans, somewhere, let him walk around without any means of protection, I'd like him to revise his story afterwards...

    A quote from his article:
    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.

    This is like "global warming" (which is a crock anyway), even if we shut down all the power plants, stopped driving, doing anything that creates any harmful by product, heck, stop farting, everything, the temperature would contine to rise because of this effect for 30 years.

    You can apply this same logic to making handguns illegal. Make handguns illegal tomorrow, and I guarantee you that gun violence will contineue for at least 30 more years, even if you destroy every gun you can get your hands on...and when they don't have guns, they will have knives, they will use cars, anything.

    And people will make their own handguns, and sell them to others, it will never end. And this is really only feasible if everyone in the entire world would destroy every gun in the world immediately, otherwise, well it won't work.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to think this way. A firearm happens to be a very effective way to defend yourself in a personal defense situation. It is unfortunate that gun violence happens, and I am all for responsible firearms ownership, but some people fail to see what is feasible.

    EDIT: What moron allowed them to print this crap anyway?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    I know my post is preaching to the choir... I wrote it up for a gaming forum I'm on where a lot of anti's hang out to spell it out for them.
    -Unrequited

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    I know my post is preaching to the choir... I wrote it up for a gaming forum I'm on where a lot of anti's hang out to spell it out for them.
    But the choir does appreciate it - well done too, but next time preceed it with a major duct tape alert!
    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    I have written a letter to the editors addressing this article. Here it is:

    I am completely amazed. After reading "Pulling the Trigger" by the Crimson Staff, I was left with more than a few questions. I would appreciate a response containing logical answers addressing my concerns, if that is possible.

    I noticed the article was penned by "The Crimson Staff" and not any particular individual. Whether this was an attempt to "brainstorm" or to provide the means to self check the logic being used, the overall end product was startlingly devoid of any intelligence. I have always assumed that the name "Harvard" was synonymous with quality education. An article such as this has served to remove the scales from my eyes.

    In an attempt to rectify my previous high regard of your institution with the anomalous emergence of an entire group of people espousing faulty logic, I would like to ask The Crimson Staff several logical questions:



    1) The article states that the "United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe". This obviously refers to the military protecting our entire country. Please explain how this is relevant to an individual being secure in one's own person. The second amendment has nothing to do with military protection. I'm surprised an entire group of Harvard students was unaware of this. If The Crimson Staff was alluding to the general police force used to enforce the laws of our country, This creates more questions.

    2) Is The Crimson Staff aware that it has been found, and is recorded in law, that the police have NO DUTY to protect? This is why a person who is robbed cannot sue the authorities for negligence. The police aren't required to protect each individual. The statement "to protect and serve" is merely a statement. It is not a declaration of law.

    3) Since the police have no duty to protect an individual, and you can't call the police for a crime of opportunity before it happens, (How do you call the police before the car-jacker jumps in your car and shoots you?), and you certainly can't call the police AFTER you are murdered, how is it possible to prevent your own murder? This could be the reason police officers carry guns. To prevent their own murders.

    4) How is it acceptable for you to allow one human being (a police officer) the right to protect his or her self, yet advocate the removal of that right for others? How can you morally advocate another human risking their life to protect something you are unwilling to protect yourselves?



    Of course the logical argument will most certainly be "If all the guns were removed from society, there would be nothing to shoot another person with available." This also leads to only more questions:



    1) Logically, people who obey the law will turn in their guns if required to do so. This would mean the police as well. How does one enforce thatcriminals (who, by definition, refuse to obey the law) turn in their weapons if the law abiding people have given up the means to enforce it?

    2) Logically, wouldn't a law requiring a person to become unarmed only be obeyed by a person who agrees to follow it? Therefore, doesn't this disarm the very people who could be trusted not to break other laws such as "Thou shalt not kill"?

    3) Wouldn't this allow someone who refuses to obey it to remain armed? Therefore, if a person has no qualms against breaking other laws such as "Thou shalt not kill", why would that person obey a law merely requiring their disarmament?



    I hope that The Crimson Staff can somehow provide logical answers to some of these questions. I know that Harvard has a renowned reputation for providing the world with some of the greatest individual minds in history. Certainly, an entire collective of these minds at your institution can somehow "brainstorm" and provide a reason that one of the amendments in our Bill of Rights has become antiquated and needs to be removed. As ignorant and sightless as you propose the framers to be, I propose that they, at least, had the courage to sign their individual names to the document guaranteeing our freedoms. The least you could do is sign yours to one trying to remove them.

    Awaiting your reply,

    (Name removed)





    Well, do you think I'll get a response?



  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    I have written a letter to the editors addressing this article. Here it is:

    I am completely amazed. After reading "Pulling the Trigger" by the Crimson Staff, I was left with more than a few questions. I would appreciate a response containing logical answers addressing my concerns, if that is possible.

    I noticed the article was penned by "The Crimson Staff" and not any particular individual. Whether this was an attempt to "brainstorm" or to provide the means to self check the logic being used, the overall end product was startlingly devoid of any intelligence. I have always assumed that the name "Harvard" was synonymous with quality education. An article such as this has served to remove the scales from my eyes.

    In an attempt to rectify my previous high regard of your institution with the anomalous emergence of an entire group of people espousing faulty logic, I would like to ask The Crimson Staff several logical questions:



    1) The article states that the "United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe". This obviously refers to the military protecting our entire country. Please explain how this is relevant to an individual being secure in one's own person. The second amendment has nothing to do with military protection. I'm surprised an entire group of Harvard students was unaware of this. If The Crimson Staff was alluding to the general police force used to enforce the laws of our country, This creates more questions.

    2) Is The Crimson Staff aware that it has been found, and is recorded in law, that the police have NO DUTY to protect? This is why a person who is robbed cannot sue the authorities for negligence. The police aren't required to protect each individual. The statement "to protect and serve" is merely a statement. It is not a declaration of law.

    3) Since the police have no duty to protect an individual, and you can't call the police for a crime of opportunity before it happens, (How do you call the police before the car-jacker jumps in your car and shoots you?), and you certainly can't call the police AFTER you are murdered, how is it possible to prevent your own murder? This could be the reason police officers carry guns. To prevent their own murders.

    4) How is it acceptable for you to allow one human being (a police officer) the right to protect his or her self, yet advocate the removal of that right for others? How can you morally advocate another human risking their life to protect something you are unwilling to protect yourselves?



    Of course the logical argument will most certainly be "If all the guns were removed from society, there would be nothing to shoot another person with available." This also leads to only more questions:



    1) Logically, people who obey the law will turn in their guns if required to do so. This would mean the police as well. How does one enforce thatcriminals (who, by definition, refuse to obey the law) turn in their weapons if the law abiding people have given up the means to enforce it?

    2) Logically, wouldn't a law requiring a person to become unarmed only be obeyed by a person who agrees to follow it? Therefore, doesn't this disarm the very people who could be trusted not to break other laws such as "Thou shalt not kill"?

    3) Wouldn't this allow someone who refuses to obey it to remain armed? Therefore, if a person has no qualms against breaking other laws such as "Thou shalt not kill", why would that person obey a law merely requiring their disarmament?



    I hope that The Crimson Staff can somehow provide logical answers to some of these questions. I know that Harvard has a renowned reputation for providing the world with some of the greatest individual minds in history. Certainly, an entire collective of these minds at your institution can somehow "brainstorm" and provide a reason that one of the amendments in our Bill of Rights has become antiquated and needs to be removed. As ignorant and sightless as you propose the framers to be, I propose that they, at least, had the courage to sign their individual names to the document guaranteeing our freedoms. The least you could do is sign yours to one trying to remove them.

    Awaiting your reply,

    (Name removed)





    Well, do you think I'll get a response?

    You might get a generic "Thank you for your comments" type of repsones.

    As for a response that actually deals with the issues you brought up, I doubt it. They probably don't want to be called out on what they did wrong, just like MMM'ers.

    I did like the letter though.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    Good letter. I think the big thing is this is a paper run by their undergraduate body, and not their law school body. Don't forget their law school journal publishes articles like this:

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

    Which are VERY fair, well researched pieces. It's a far cry from the school newspaper.
    -Unrequited

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    I hope that The Crimson Staff .................. As ignorant and sightless as you propose the framers to be, I propose that they, at least, had the courage to sign their individual names to the document guaranteeing our freedoms. The least you could do is sign yours to one trying to remove them.
    You've got to love that statement - telling them to have the courage of their convictions!
    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    SNIP I have written a letter to the editors addressing this article. Here it is:
    Great letter!!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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