Time for a good ol' fashioned fisking!

Rand Simberg links to an editorial from the Harvard Crimson, calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  He asks readers to fisk it, so hear goes!

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.  Actually, it was motivated by a young nation's memory of warrantless search and seizure, a military not subservient to civil power, the end of trial by jury, hauling colonists back to Britain for mock trials, plundering the seas, ravaging the coasts, burning towns, and destroying the lives of people.  You know, those things we wrote about in The Declaration of Independence.  That thing we used to declare our nation free to write the Constitution.  Look it up. 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.  Actually, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with our national defense.  It has to do with our individual right to keep and bear arms for defense.  We can't rely on our military might to protect us against an intruder in the night.  In fact, federal laws expressly prohibit the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.  Nuanced.  Like John Kerry.

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.  Interestingly, in that case, SCOTUS determined that the Second Amendment expressly applied to arms suitable for militia use.  By that logic, it today would guarantee the right to own a .50 cal Browning machine gun.  But I digress. 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.  Yes, because federal regulations have done so well with other things, like drugs, abortion, etc.  Hey, aren't you people the same ones who fear government power when it comes to thinks like wiretaps, the USA PATRIOT Act, and Gitmo?

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.  And in Switzerland, where every able bodied adult male is given a machine gun - to keep in his home - as part of the military ready reserves, violent crime is low.  I guess that shoots holes in those theories.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, 68 percent of the 14,860 homicides in the United States were gun-related. So... 32 percent had no guns?  How is that possible?  I thought you needed a gun to cause a crime?  I guess the gun doesn't cause the violence, and the violent criminals might use knives, baseball bats, fists, or other weapons to commit crimes?  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. Uneven gun control... interesting thought.  Guess where the most strict gun laws are?  Places like Washington, D.C., where the violence is.  So... banning guns doesn't result in low violent crime rates?  Interesting... Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting:

Like this?

There's an entire industry devoted to handgun hunting.  But I digress...

It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being.  Or to merely present force (most cases of self-defense involving guns end when the gun is drawn, without a shot).  Or to hit a target in competition.  It is even an Olympic sport!  Yet little is done to prevent its distribution: In Virginia, any person over the age of 18 can buy a handgun... Actually, federal laws require anyone purchasing a handgun to be over 21.  Do your homework! ...and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, there is no background check required.  Well, in most states, private party sales aren't regulated.  If you buy a gun from someone through the classified ads, no checks are required.  Why should a gun show have different laws?  If you want to end all private party sales, why are you afraid to say so?  Do you fear people will object to that level of government interference?

Supporters of a constitutionally enshrined individual right to bear arms argue that state gun control laws have “reinterpreted” the right to gun ownership.  Most states have their own "second amendments" in state constitutions, guaranteeing, often in stronger terms, the right to bear arms.  Maybe it's because people in most states don't want government getting in the way of their rights. These limitations on gun ownership, they say, demonstrate that gun ownership itself is not linked to increased violence. More gun control in D.C., higher crime.  Less gun control in Utah, less crime.  See a pattern?  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. Ah ha!  You prove the point!  The AWB lapsed, and crime didn't go up! 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.  Actually, many experts estimate that handguns used defensively prevent violent crime up to 2 million times per year, often without a shot being fired.  I guess you want 2 million MORE violent crimes then?

In the context of today’s society, the Second Amendment is outdated. By that argument, we should also repeal the First Amendment, since in the context of today's society it is outdated.  The Founding Fathers never envisioned television, the internet, or other modern communications.  Instead, the First Amendment today has been interpreted to have much stronger protections that the Founders would have imagined: rights to nude dancing, for instance?  Perhaps we should echo First Amendment jurisprudence and grow the Second Amendment into a BROADER individual right?  Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy. Yeah, that damn Constitution protecting rights getting in the way of government intrusion again... 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. Well, at least you admit the Second Amendment gets in the way of gun control... something you folks haven't really been willing to admit in the past.  I guess that's "progress."

Comments

[Leland]

Fairly good fisking. For the first paragraph, I would have added that at the time, the German military was more than capable of defending its population in 1938. The right of Jews to bare arms was banned, and shortly after, we had Krystal Nacht.

I think the second paragraph is fairly honest, even if I disagree and consider the opinion based on bad reasoning seen in other paragraphs.

The third paragraph is just bad. You do a damn good fisking. I would only add that automobiles kill more people than guns, yet I bet we would find the Harvard Crimson editors would agree with Spitzer in giving illegal aliens drivers licenses. What we really need are tighter regulation on who gets driver licenses, rather than gun licenses.

They miss the point with the fourth paragraph. The reason "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed" is precisely to prevent firearms from only being a military or police weapon. You make that point well.

The fifth paragraph is simply not based on fact.

Finally, the 2nd amendment is not dated. It's as important today as it was over 200 years ago. It is why the USA remains free, and Darfur and Bangladesh are not.

Again good job... just adding to the fisk.

[SGT Jeff (USAR)]

Very nice.

[Romney and Mike for president 2008]

[this comment, which consisted entirely of entire copyrighted articles that were illegally copied and pasted, has been deleted - Resistance is futile!]

[The Brottons make Republicans look bad - maybe they are really democrat pagan activists in disguise?]

[do NOT copy/paste huge articles (most of which are violations of copyright) into my comments, you stupid ignorant idiots - paste the article onto your own blogs, post a LINK in my comments, and do it ONCE and ONLY once - if you do this crap ONE MORE TIME then I will have no choice to not only ban you, but to encourage every Oregon, conservative, or Christian blogger I know to shun you - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! - Resistance is futile!]

[Dragon Deuce]

Way to stick it to those Haaaarvard sophomores. They should probably try to get their tuition refunded as bad as their education must be.