Harvard says repeal 2A

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,254
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
Unbelieveable but understandable considering the source.

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 Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.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

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

Fricken Commies
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,848
Likes
692
Location
Boston
For the record, The Crimson is a publication of a small, self-selected, group of Harvard students. It is not an official publication of, and does not necessarily represent the institutional opinion of, President and Fellows of Harvard College (the technical name of the University).
 

Twigg

NES Member
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
14,440
Likes
5,327
Location
Live Free or Die !
Harvard article re-written

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, with our government bureaucracy distancing themselves from running our nation as a Republic, and imposing the practices of Socialism and Communism upon our citizens, the Second Amendment is relevant and useful. It has become vital to public policy for an armed citizenry, according to Title 10 of the US Code , citing the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age..

Police departments across our country are overcome by out of control illegal immigrants and have been neutered by recent Supreme court (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) ruling where the police have no duty to protect individuals.

Clearly, the Second Amendment is intended for the average citizen and not just the military as the government would have us believe. The Second Amendment has been used once to overturn an abusive domestic government. During the Battle of Athens , in Tennessee on August second 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it.

Fixed it. [smile]
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,202
Too bad there's no section to post a comment and leave a message stating the opinion that the 1st amendment should be revised to prohibit college and university newspapers and limit the age of those wishing to express themselves (and their opinion), to 21 and older.

That would probably raise a few hackles.






Ahhhh... WTF am I thinking, they'd probably censor that message anyways.
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
Police departments across our country are overcome by out of control illegal immigrants and have been neutered by recent Supreme court (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) ruling where the police have no duty to protect individuals.

What patent nonsense. [puke2]

As is obvious to anyone who can read the citation, the case in question is neither "recent" (1981) nor from the Supreme Court (D.C. Ct. of Ap[p]).

The claim for the holding is equally absurd. That the police have no duty to a specific individual, but rather the public as a whole, absent specific criteria, well predates the decision. Moreover, the case is notable for its invocation of that rule, while egregiously flouting it.

Nor was it a fluke. While not as shameful as the Warren decision, the case immediately following it is an identically reasoned abuse of law and logic.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
98
Location
Nashua, NH
At least they are only reported hommicides in their statistics (unlike the Brady Bunch that tends to include suicides as well).

I've always wondered though, out of that 10105 murders (14,860 homicides with 68% gun deaths), how many are "gang related", and crimes commited with guns owned "illegaly" (i.e. firearms owned by a felon). Figures that no amount of changes to the 2A, or new gun laws will effect.

More importantly how many are guns owned by non-felons? My gut tells me it's probably pretty low. And of course, out of those figures a good portion (such as crimes of passion) would have resulted in a homicide with another weapon.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
1,924
Likes
196
I've always wondered though, out of that 10105 murders (14,860 homicides with 68% gun deaths), how many are "gang related", and crimes commited with guns owned "illegaly" (i.e. firearms owned by a felon). Figures that no amount of changes to the 2A, or new gun laws will effect.

Excellent point. I remember back in the days when I was young and foolish enough to actually read the Boston Globe Democrat they ran a special insert with photos and short biographies of all of the murder victims in Boston the preceding year, at that time about 100 individuals. I took the time to read about each one, and the one thing I took away from doing that was that virtually every "victim" was a doper, a dope dealer, a gang banger, or in some other way a cancer on the body of decent society.

Sure, every now and again there was a decent person who lived an honest life, got up every morning and went to work, and was making their contribution. Those were tragedies to be sure, but the clear message was that if you lived that type of life your chances of being murdered were very slim.

I don't think that's what the Globe wanted me to learn from the exercise, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one who figured it out.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,025
Likes
5,159
Location
Stoughton
Liberals are all for the judicial system until it looks like a court might decide a case against them. They're not used to having judges who won't legislate from the bench.

It's all fine and dandy when a court holds that abortion or gay marriage are rights. However, when a court holds that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, without "nuance" then it's a radical court.

Gary
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
558
Likes
16
This is just the type of article we want to see. When the gun grabbers lobby for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment they are admitting that their position is on the wrong side of the Constitution.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
111
Likes
4
Location
North of Boston
For the record, The Crimson is a publication of a small, self-selected, group of Harvard students. It is not an official publication of, and does not necessarily represent the institutional opinion of, President and Fellows of Harvard College (the technical name of the University).

Yes, that may be true, but there is very little in the teaching or atmosphere of Harvard that would counteract the students' thinking about the Second Amendment. The whole Boston area, including the state government, is a hotbed (to put it mildly and politely) of liberalism, and I have not met many liberals who support the citizen's right to bear arms. [angry]
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
81,675
Likes
67,289
I'm not surprised at this at all- everything out of cambridge is
basically dripping with communism. I have to work there and I almost
feel compelled to take a shower to wash the communism off. Thankfully the place I work at most people are too busy working to
talk about communism... but go down the street a ways and you see
and hear all kinds of communism.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
81,675
Likes
67,289
This is just the type of article we want to see. When the gun grabbers lobby for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment they are admitting that their position is on the wrong side of the Constitution.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"

+1.... I have to agree with you on this... see, the bradys, etc,
are very "snarky" in regards to the 2nd amendment, they'd rather
dodge around it and pretend that they don't want to ban all
guns, they'd rather try to "massage" the fudds and so on before
they put a knife in their back when they're not looking.

It gets considerably easier to deal with the problem if they just
come out and say what they really want to do, which is to repeal
the 2nd.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
28,489
Likes
6,969
Yes, that may be true, but there is very little in the teaching or atmosphere of Harvard that would counteract the students' thinking about the Second Amendment. The whole Boston area, including the state government, is a hotbed (to put it mildly and politely) of liberalism, and I have not met many liberals who support the citizen's right to bear arms. [angry]

Of course, it is probably illegal to dump tea into Boston Harbor now as well. [rolleyes][crying][angry]
 

Twigg

NES Member
Rating - 100%
77   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
14,440
Likes
5,327
Location
Live Free or Die !
What patent nonsense.

Thank you
captain_obvious_rescue.jpg


Obviously I'm not the legal scholar you are.

Glad you got a laugh out of it.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,848
Likes
692
Location
Boston
Yes, that may be true, but there is very little in the teaching or atmosphere of Harvard that would counteract the students' thinking about the Second Amendment. The whole Boston area, including the state government, is a hotbed (to put it mildly and politely) of liberalism, and I have not met many liberals who support the citizen's right to bear arms. [angry]

I agree (though, once again, under the "Academic Freedom" principles of the Harvard faculty constitutions (which are not different from most universities), the school itself has little ability to tell a professor what to teach). My point, and my only point, is that the absurd statements to which our attention is directed are those of the editors of a student newspaper, not of the corporation itself.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,848
Likes
692
Location
Boston
Too bad there's no section to post a comment and leave a message stating the opinion that the 1st amendment should be revised to prohibit college and university newspapers and limit the age of those wishing to express themselves (and their opinion), to 21 and older.

That would probably raise a few hackles.






Ahhhh... WTF am I thinking, they'd probably censor that message anyways.

You might go further: no one who has ever been convicted of a felony or is a habitual user of drugs or alcohol, or has ever been committed for mental health issues would be entitled to express an opinion. Those not disqualified would first have to apply for a license, be fingerprinted, and pay a fee of $100 every 6 years, provided their local chief of police considered them to be a "suitable person" for speaking. And, of course, each licensee would be limited to four expressed opinions per year.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
1,285
Likes
22
Location
Central MA
You might go further: no one who has ever been convicted of a felony or is a habitual user of drugs or alcohol, or has ever been committed for mental health issues would be entitled to express an opinion. Those not disqualified would first have to apply for a license, be fingerprinted, and pay a fee of $100 every 6 years, provided their local chief of police considered them to be a "suitable person" for speaking. And, of course, each licensee would be limited to four expressed opinions per year.
[laugh2][rofl] They will go for that!
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
5,872
Likes
221
Location
North Central MA
I agree (though, once again, under the "Academic Freedom" principles of the Harvard faculty constitutions (which are not different from most universities), the school itself has little ability to tell a professor what to teach). My point, and my only point, is that the absurd statements to which our attention is directed are those of the editors of a student newspaper, not of the corporation itself.

a distinction without a difference. They don't tell them to teach ultra-liberal drivell. They just hire ONLY people who will teach ultra-liberal drivel.

The students just parrot what they are taught...
 

Blooglo

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
602
Likes
217
The Article is Anonymous!

I notice that the article is bylined "The Crimson Staff". This will help any of the Harvard students who wish to run for office someday.

Ms Soanso, did you write an anti-second amendment article back in 2007?

"I have no recollection, there is no record, you can't prove it!"
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,942
Likes
22,368
tell a professor what to teach
Correction - "tenured professor". While untenured professors supposedly have the same freedom, they have to play the game to get invited into the club.
 
Top Bottom