Harvard Newspaper Gets Something Right

A recent editorial from the staff at The Harvard Crimson calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment:

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 Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.

First of all, the Second Amendment reflects the belief of the founders that "we, the people," have the right to defend ourselves -- not just from foreign invaders, but from our own government. So, as long as cops and soldiers have guns, we should have them.

Secondly, "the most powerful security forces on the globe" were unable to protect the United States on September 11, 2001. And those who attacked us used box cutters, not guns. I would submit that those attacks succeeded precisely because the passengers and pilots aboard those planes were denied their Second Amendment rights.

But this editorial did get something right, and I must give credit where credit is due.

While the views expressed are misguided, and what passes for logic is dubious at best, the staff at the Crimson at least recognize the fact that the Second Amendment is the law of the land. That's something politicians haven't figured out yet.