In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Land: Citizen's right to bear arms undeniable
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Land: Citizen's right to bear arms undeniable
By Dwayne Hastings
May 14, 2002
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--American citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a Southern Baptist public policy expert affirmed May 13.
Richard Land said it was a 1939 Supreme Court decision centered on the government's right to ban sawed-off shotguns that institutionalized the faulty view that the Second Amendment pertained only to the states' right to organize a militia. The Clinton administration and others made the argument that the nation's founding fathers intended for the right to keep and bear arms to refer only to a state militia or National Guard before them, he explained.
"There has been a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms," continued Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and host of the nationally syndicated radio program, "For Faith & Family."
"Our forefathers understood that a free people had to be able to defend themselves against the government which seeks to gather more and more power to itself and wants to disarm its citizenry," Land said. He expressed appreciation for the Bush administration's calls to the U.S. attorney general and solicitor general to argue for a reversal of the specious argument before the Supreme Court that denies individuals the right to own firearms.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court May 6 that the Constitution's Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms.
"The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right," Land said. "It is your constitutional right as long as you are a law-abiding citizen."
In a May 9 Washington Post story, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh affirmed Land's perspective, saying the Bush administration's view is "tremendously orthodox." He said the "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment was the "only view around until the early the 1900s," falling out of favor in the 1930s.
Land said the Bush administration's move to secure the people's right to keep and bear arms is a "tremendous step in restoring your Second Amendment rights under the Constitution." He said Solicitor General Ted Olson's plea before the Supreme Court is "absolutely essential to the defense of our liberties in the U.S."
"It is a ridiculous and dangerous argument that says the Second Amendment is referring only to the armed forces of the United States," Land said. "The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals."
He said the nation's founding fathers understood the need for the Constitution to secure the individual citizens' rights against government encroachment.
"Examined in the context of history, the framers of the Constitution would not have dared to prohibit individual citizens from owning guns. This was a citizenry that had just freed itself from the tyranny of a power-hungry government -- England. It is inconceivable that they would have submitted to a new governing authority that demanded they turn in their weapons," Land explained.
The militia was defined as every able-bodied man between 17 and 45, and now would probably include women within that age range, Land said. When the militia was called up, they were expected to have their own firearms, he continued. "The Minute Men showed up with their own weapons and ammunition to resist the British at Concord and Lexington," Land said, explaining, "The militia are the people, not just the National Guard."
Quoting from an April 22, 1775, letter by a British officer to Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, that describes an encounter with the Minute Men, Land noted the letter said the British regiments came upon a "body of the country people drawn up in military order, with arms and accoutrement, and, as appeared after, loaded" as the British were moving "to seize the two bridges on different roads beyond Concord."
These were volunteers who would be ready at a minute's warning to take up arms to protect their families and their liberty, Land continued. "This was not a standing army. These were farmers and shopkeepers who zealously guarded their right to keep and bear arms," he said. "There is no question that our Constitution's framers likewise sought to preserve this right in the Second Amendment.
"I am grateful we have an administration that puts Americans first and the defense of our rights over what some gun-control activists want," Land said. "We must expect assaults on the tremendous freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. It is the nature of government and of people who want power."
This does not mean everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, he noted. "If you are a lawbreaker, have served time as a prison or can't be trusted with the judgment and responsibility of having firearms, there are laws in place to restrict your possession of guns.
"Yet for all but a few Americans, we need to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to our protection and our liberty," Land said. "It is a right enshrined in the Constitution."
Weapons can be dangerous if they are not handled properly, Land admitted. But blaming a gun for killing someone is like blaming a fork and knife for someone's obesity, he said.
Gun owners must practice proper safety measures when handling or storing their weapons, Land said. "Guns are not the problem; it's people who use guns improperly," he said. "We have laws in place that if properly enforced will take guns out of the hands of criminals."
Land suggested that such firearms as sawed-off shotguns might not be constitutionally protected weapons because their sole purpose is to allow the concealment of a powerful weapon that can be used at close range to harm or threaten people. "It doesn't have any military significance," he added, saying as well that individuals should not necessarily have the right to own artillery pieces, howitzers or machine guns. He said ownership of these weapons should be addressed by state or local governments and not by the courts or the federal government.
"The right for individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution," Land said. "The government ought to have to prove its case when it wants to take away a particular kind of weapon from you or restrict your right to own that type of weapon. The burden of proof ought to be on the government, not on the citizen."
--30--
http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=13370
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Dwayne Hastings
May 14, 2002
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--American citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a Southern Baptist public policy expert affirmed May 13.
Richard Land said it was a 1939 Supreme Court decision centered on the government's right to ban sawed-off shotguns that institutionalized the faulty view that the Second Amendment pertained only to the states' right to organize a militia. The Clinton administration and others made the argument that the nation's founding fathers intended for the right to keep and bear arms to refer only to a state militia or National Guard before them, he explained.
"There has been a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms," continued Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and host of the nationally syndicated radio program, "For Faith & Family."
"Our forefathers understood that a free people had to be able to defend themselves against the government which seeks to gather more and more power to itself and wants to disarm its citizenry," Land said. He expressed appreciation for the Bush administration's calls to the U.S. attorney general and solicitor general to argue for a reversal of the specious argument before the Supreme Court that denies individuals the right to own firearms.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court May 6 that the Constitution's Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms.
"The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right," Land said. "It is your constitutional right as long as you are a law-abiding citizen."
In a May 9 Washington Post story, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh affirmed Land's perspective, saying the Bush administration's view is "tremendously orthodox." He said the "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment was the "only view around until the early the 1900s," falling out of favor in the 1930s.
Land said the Bush administration's move to secure the people's right to keep and bear arms is a "tremendous step in restoring your Second Amendment rights under the Constitution." He said Solicitor General Ted Olson's plea before the Supreme Court is "absolutely essential to the defense of our liberties in the U.S."
"It is a ridiculous and dangerous argument that says the Second Amendment is referring only to the armed forces of the United States," Land said. "The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals."
He said the nation's founding fathers understood the need for the Constitution to secure the individual citizens' rights against government encroachment.
"Examined in the context of history, the framers of the Constitution would not have dared to prohibit individual citizens from owning guns. This was a citizenry that had just freed itself from the tyranny of a power-hungry government -- England. It is inconceivable that they would have submitted to a new governing authority that demanded they turn in their weapons," Land explained.
The militia was defined as every able-bodied man between 17 and 45, and now would probably include women within that age range, Land said. When the militia was called up, they were expected to have their own firearms, he continued. "The Minute Men showed up with their own weapons and ammunition to resist the British at Concord and Lexington," Land said, explaining, "The militia are the people, not just the National Guard."
Quoting from an April 22, 1775, letter by a British officer to Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, that describes an encounter with the Minute Men, Land noted the letter said the British regiments came upon a "body of the country people drawn up in military order, with arms and accoutrement, and, as appeared after, loaded" as the British were moving "to seize the two bridges on different roads beyond Concord."
These were volunteers who would be ready at a minute's warning to take up arms to protect their families and their liberty, Land continued. "This was not a standing army. These were farmers and shopkeepers who zealously guarded their right to keep and bear arms," he said. "There is no question that our Constitution's framers likewise sought to preserve this right in the Second Amendment.
"I am grateful we have an administration that puts Americans first and the defense of our rights over what some gun-control activists want," Land said. "We must expect assaults on the tremendous freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. It is the nature of government and of people who want power."
This does not mean everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, he noted. "If you are a lawbreaker, have served time as a prison or can't be trusted with the judgment and responsibility of having firearms, there are laws in place to restrict your possession of guns.
"Yet for all but a few Americans, we need to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to our protection and our liberty," Land said. "It is a right enshrined in the Constitution."
Weapons can be dangerous if they are not handled properly, Land admitted. But blaming a gun for killing someone is like blaming a fork and knife for someone's obesity, he said.
Gun owners must practice proper safety measures when handling or storing their weapons, Land said. "Guns are not the problem; it's people who use guns improperly," he said. "We have laws in place that if properly enforced will take guns out of the hands of criminals."
Land suggested that such firearms as sawed-off shotguns might not be constitutionally protected weapons because their sole purpose is to allow the concealment of a powerful weapon that can be used at close range to harm or threaten people. "It doesn't have any military significance," he added, saying as well that individuals should not necessarily have the right to own artillery pieces, howitzers or machine guns. He said ownership of these weapons should be addressed by state or local governments and not by the courts or the federal government.
"The right for individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution," Land said. "The government ought to have to prove its case when it wants to take away a particular kind of weapon from you or restrict your right to own that type of weapon. The burden of proof ought to be on the government, not on the citizen."
--30--
http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=13370
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
2002-05-12
WE commend Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department for officially altering the government's view of the Second Amendment, recognizing an individual's right to possess a firearm.
The largely symbolic legal brief, filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with two cases it is considering for review, is attracting plenty of criticism from gun- control advocates and as such shows no shortage of courage.
At the same time it reflects a principled view, grounded in history, that individual gun rights are just as constitutionally protected as other individual freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights.
We say the action is symbolic because the mere act of the government stating its position on the Second Amendment is neither evidence nor case law.
It may become important as future gun-rights cases rise to the high court, in the arguments that could lead to interpretation of laws or rulings that could block attempts to restrict gun rights.
For decades the government's default interpretation of the Second Amendment, "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", has been that gun rights extended only to organized state military organizations, such as the National Guard.
Yet a number of scholars think the Founding Fathers understood that states preferred a population of firearms-trained citizens to a standing federal army and therefore wanted to guarantee individual gun rights.
"(The Justice Department's) view is tremendously orthodox," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the Washington Post. "It was the only view around until the early 1900s, and only fell out of favor in the 1930s."
As we say, it remains to be seen how the Bush administration's positional shift will come into play. Still, we welcome the government's "enlightened" view.
Firearms researcher John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute writes for USA Today that guns are used defensively 2 million times a year, and are especially beneficial for potential victims such as women and the elderly.
Lott also notes that strict gun laws enacted in Europe in the mid-1990s have not stopped serious shooting incidents, such as the recent tragedy at a school in Germany, and that most violent crime categories have worsened the past four years.
In the hands of law-abiding, trained citizens, firearms are an important defensive measure for individual safety and freedom. We, and now the federal government, think that's exactly what the writers of the Second Amendment had in mind.
http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=859929
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Constitution should reflect that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right
By THE CRIMSON STAFF
When two-thirds of the murders in the U.S. are committed with guns, one would hope that politicians would be taking prudent steps to restrict access to firearms. Against all common sense, Attorney General John Ashcroft is working to make guns more easily available. Last Monday, the Justice Department reversed its longstanding position on the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms," reinterpreting it as an individual right to own guns rather than a collective right to bear arms in a militia. Ashcroft's policy reversal confirms many concerns about his appointment and verifies the National Rifle Association's boast during the 2000 election that it would be working out of the Bush White House.
Ashcroft's new interpretation flies in the face of the Supreme Court's last decision on the Second Amendment. In the 1939 case United States vs. Miller, the court established that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms only with some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia. In fulfilling his oath of office, Ashcroft must respect that the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is "the supreme law of the land." He should encourage the Justice Department to follow the justices' directive and not push his own personal interpretation on the department or on the American people.
Regardless of the Supreme Court's current position, it is frightening that Ashcroft, in the position of the nation's top crime fighter, wants to liberalize federal firearm policy. A good attorney general would work to take the country in exactly the opposite direction. America needs tougher laws to keep weapons away from criminals and children, ban handguns and create a national gun registry to keep track of weapons and their owners.
The obstacle to taking these steps goes beyond Ashcroft's hard-line policy. The vague wording of the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility that a future Supreme Court will reinterpret the Constitution the way Ashcroft does. The amendment has the potential to obstruct future federal gun control legislation that could prevent thousands of needless deaths. Therefore, the American people and the individual states should vocally push for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Repealing a constitutional amendment is not an action to be taken lightly; America is obviously a nation that prides itself on the rights and freedoms of individuals. But the time has come for the U.S. to weigh the right to bear arms against the right to be free from gun violence in schools, workplaces and city streets. Over 13,000 people were killed by guns in 1998, not including suicides, which would more than double that number. While a right to bear arms may have made sense in early America, it is hardly necessary now. Americans are protected internationally by the world's most powerful armed forces and domestically by the dedicated men and women of local law enforcement.
The Second Amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the individual states under the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving states with more freedom to regulate guns than the federal government. But much of the regulation needed on this issue must come at the federal level; it is far too easy for criminals to cross state lines to purchase guns at currently unregulated gun shows. Repealing the Second Amendment would remove an obstacle to increased, comprehensive federal legislation.
Americans' safety does not necessitate the total elimination of guns; many Americans use guns safely and responsibly. Rather, America should view gun use, much like automobile use, as a privilege-not as a right. This shift would allow the federal regulation necessary to reduce crime and save thousands of lives. The Constitution is a cherished document, but there are provisions to amend it to change with the times.
Dissent: Americans Have Right to Own Guns
The staff's knee-jerk condemnation of Attorney General Ashcroft is completely misguided; he is hardly imposing his "personal" views on the rest of us. Throughout America's history, it has been implicitly understood that the Second Amendment protects the guns rights of individuals. Last week's Justice Department announcement merely supported a fundamental freedom that many jurists had accepted until some concerns arose over the precise language of firearm rights in the early twentieth century.
The Supreme Court ruling that the Staff cites, Miller v. U.S. (1939), did hold that guns rights were only protected with regards to militias. Still, consider how the court defined "militia" in that decision: "[A]ll males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." These "males" it should also be noted, "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves," according to the court. The Miller case, therefore, is hardly a ringing endorsement of widespread gun-control.
More disturbing than the Staff's position on Ashcroft, though, is its ludicrous call for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Individual gun rights have been a sacred element of American freedom since the colonial era, and no U.S. Congress in its right mind would ever choose to repeal this right.
The Staff's ultimate hope, it appears, is for the enactment of prohibitory gun measures. Yet historical evidence shows that gun control is a totally ineffective means of reducing crime. From 1900-1930, for example, there were relatively few changes in U.S. per capita gun ownership, but our nation's murder rate increased tenfold. Between 1937 and 1963, however, handgun ownership increased by a whopping 250 percent, while the homicide rate actually fell by 35.7 percent.
There's no way to ever have a society where there are no guns; likewise, it's impossible to have a soci.
- Duncan M. Currie '04 Katherine M. Dimengo '04 , Emma R.F. Nothmann '04, Paul C. Schultz '03, and Luke Smith '04
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=214705
ety where the bad guys won't be able to acquire firearms through illegal avenues. The only reasonable solution is to vigorously enforce the federal government's existing gun statutes-of which there are many-and afford law-abiding citizens the freedom of self-protection
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2002
"THIS ACTION IS PROOF POSITIVE that the worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true," grumbles Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy."
Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article
The "extreme ideology" that Barnes denounces is the radical notion that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually means what it says. Unlike many Democratic and Republican attorneys general before him, Ashcroft holds that the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of individuals-not just abstract collectives, well-regulated militias, or the National Guard-to keep and bear arms.
As far as extremists go, Ashcroft is in good company.
Thomas Jefferson argued that "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." James Madison boasted about the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Alexander Hamilton wrote that "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." And George Mason warned that "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
But for the last 63 years, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller, American jurisprudence has placed a tortured emphasis on the first half of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,") at the expense of the explicit meaning of the second, ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). According to this interpretation, only militiamen under the direction of their state governments maintain the right to gun ownership-the rest of us have no meaningful right to self-defense whatsoever.
Enter Ashcroft, who has ventured on a noble mission to right the historical and constitutional wrongs.
In the footnotes to the briefs that Ashcroft's Department of Justice filed last week in the cases of Haney v. U.S. and Emerson v. U.S. (links require free Adobe Acrobat Reader), Solicitor General Theodore Olson makes the case that the Second Amendment "more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
This is radical stuff, inasmuch as it rejects an unfounded but widely accepted bit of conventional wisdom, thus returning to the letter of the Second Amendment and the original intent of those who authored it.
Among the many editorialists, gun-control activists, and politicians who were quick to denounce Ashcroft's unorthodoxy was New York Senator Chuck Schumer. "During his confirmation hearings," Schumer complained, "John Ashcroft made it abundantly clear that he would enforce the law as it is written, not as he'd like it to be. What happened to that pledge? It's hard to look [at] his actions and not question whether he's going back on his word."
For leftists like Schumer, constitutional law is tricky business. The "right" to abortion, for example, which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and which an activist judiciary only discovered in the document's "emanations and penumbras" nearly 200 years later, is sacrosanct. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, as clear and direct as it is, doesn't really exist. When leftists like Schumer talk about enforcing "the law as it is written," what they really mean is enforcing their agenda as though it were constitutional law.
In the Seven Myths of Gun Control, Richard Poe neatly demonstrates how the "militiaman" understanding of the Second Amendment reflects modern left-wing values far more than it represents the framers' original intent. In the Eighteenth Century, the term "militia" referred to all able-bodied men, who were expected to own and maintain their own weapons. The militia was considered a safeguard against the potential abuses of a centralized government and a standing national army.
"Militia," as originally understood, was not, as gun-control advocates now claim, some variation of today's National Guard, which is funded and armed by the federal government. The country's founders recognized the need of an armed populace-not only as a safeguard against tyranny, but also as a way to deal with domestic unrest and run-of-the-mill thugs.
Individual rights, of course, have their limitations. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as the classic example about shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater illustrates, but permissible restrictions are narrow and few. The Second Amendment interpretation that Ashcroft has advanced is comparably conservative but flexible. The Emerson and Haney briefs that have aroused such consternation on the left actually support limitations on the right to bear arms--specifically, denying that right to an accused wife-beater and holding that machine guns don't qualify for constitutional protection.
All that Ashcroft urges is that the Second Amendment enjoy the same deference generally afforded to the First, which may be restricted only in narrowly tailored ways to achieve a compelling state interest. In other words, the most common justifications for antigun legislation-political demagoguery and statist ideology-would no longer be sufficient.
That prospect has gun-control enthusiast terrified. Politically and legally, it would leave them completely disarmed, which is as appropriate as it is ironic. Now they know how it feels.
Chris Weinkopf is an editorial writer and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News. To read his weekly Daily News column, click here. E-mail him at chris.weinkopf@dailynews.com. http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/weinkopf/2002/cw05-15-02.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
2002-05-12
WE commend Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department for officially altering the government's view of the Second Amendment, recognizing an individual's right to possess a firearm.
The largely symbolic legal brief, filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with two cases it is considering for review, is attracting plenty of criticism from gun- control advocates and as such shows no shortage of courage.
At the same time it reflects a principled view, grounded in history, that individual gun rights are just as constitutionally protected as other individual freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights.
We say the action is symbolic because the mere act of the government stating its position on the Second Amendment is neither evidence nor case law.
It may become important as future gun-rights cases rise to the high court, in the arguments that could lead to interpretation of laws or rulings that could block attempts to restrict gun rights.
For decades the government's default interpretation of the Second Amendment, "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", has been that gun rights extended only to organized state military organizations, such as the National Guard.
Yet a number of scholars think the Founding Fathers understood that states preferred a population of firearms-trained citizens to a standing federal army and therefore wanted to guarantee individual gun rights.
"(The Justice Department's) view is tremendously orthodox," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the Washington Post. "It was the only view around until the early 1900s, and only fell out of favor in the 1930s."
As we say, it remains to be seen how the Bush administration's positional shift will come into play. Still, we welcome the government's "enlightened" view.
Firearms researcher John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute writes for USA Today that guns are used defensively 2 million times a year, and are especially beneficial for potential victims such as women and the elderly.
Lott also notes that strict gun laws enacted in Europe in the mid-1990s have not stopped serious shooting incidents, such as the recent tragedy at a school in Germany, and that most violent crime categories have worsened the past four years.
In the hands of law-abiding, trained citizens, firearms are an important defensive measure for individual safety and freedom. We, and now the federal government, think that's exactly what the writers of the Second Amendment had in mind.
http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=859929&pic=none&TP=getopinion
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"There's no way to ever have a society where there are no guns; likewise, it's impossible to have a society where the bad guys won't be able to acquire firearms through illegal avenues. The only reasonable solution is to vigorously enforce the federal government's existing gun statutes-of which there are many-and afford law-abiding citizens the freedom of self-protection."
Positive comments about the Second, even if it is a rebuttal & undoubtedly a minority view, in the Harvard Crimson . . . will wonders never cease?