The Second Amendment is an anachronism in need of repeal

[Slim Pickens]

Pulling the Trigger

The Second Amendment is an anachronism in need of repeal

Published On Friday, November 30, 2007 1:15 AM

By THE CRIMSON STAFF

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. 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. Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.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, 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our best and brightest, the Harvard Crimson Review.

I wonder if there are any other anachronistic rights that should be eliminated in the name of the greater good....4th amendment, 5th amendment...10th amendment....1st amendment....
Slim

[TaePo]

2A is a contingency plan.

Better to have to fight off a few scoundrels than throw off the chains of an overbearing government.

Throw out all your fire extinguishers, first aid kits etc etc if you never have experienced an emergency. I know I have been a lucky one, but I would never get rid of my safety devices (including guns) because someone feels it is an anachronism.

Fools.

[Slim Pickens]

2A is a contingency plan.

Better to have to fight off a few scoundrels than throw off the chains of an overbearing government.

Throw out all your fire extinguishers, first aid kits etc etc if you never have experienced an emergency. I know I have been a lucky one, but I would never get rid of my safety devices (including guns) because someone feels it is an anachronism.

Fools.

Fools indeed. Why do we need the 4th amendment?? Afterall, someone might be harboring those dangerous guns...by the time the SS gets a warrant, you may have buried them in your backyard.

What about the 1st amendment? Surely no one is going to establish a national church in this day and age, right? No need for that one either.

Oh jeez, just too many anachronisms to count....

I love how these kids (let's face it, they're naive college kids) are so quick to throw their rights out the window- just because they have determined that you don't need that right. Notice how they also seem to agree that it's an individual right, but one that should be thrown out for the "greater good."

Slim

[billamj]

What do you expect from one of the Ivy League schools? This is the home of such notables as John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, Carl Levin, Barack Obama, Jack Reed, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck(the schmuck) Schumer and Teddy Kennedy. That's right my friends many of the Senate's top gun banners have all attended Harvard as either an undergraduate or, more interestingly, in post graduate schools. So why is anyone surprised that the poor kids who have been brainwashed there would have this type of attitude.