The “brilliant” students at Harvard have published an editorial in their student paper so ignorant, it is breathtaking. Here’s is my take on their ideas.

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 Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.

First of all, the Constitution cannot be “repealed and replaced.” It must be amended. And that requires a lot of heavy lifting. I suspect the Harvard types know this, and have figured we need a new system in which they tell us what the Constitution should say and we accept it. Secondly, I love the idea of “nuanced federal legislation.” What a meaningless turn of a phrase that is. Please elaborate, oh great oracles of Cambridge.

They go on.

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.

Honestly, now. Read that long and hard. It appears that The Crimson is arguing that gun violence (as it relates to other countries?) proves that the Constitution is preventing aggressive gun regulation, which would consequently prevent the gun violence allowed by the Constitution.

First, try to construct a study to prove that convoluted theory. And secondly, explain how states with aggressive gun regulation regularly experience higher levels of violence than those with more permissive gun laws. It’s completely nonsensical.

The Crimsons have apparently developed a particular aversion to handguns as well.

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

I, for one, don’t want to be limited to a rifle or shotgun if a nutcase at the liquor store pulls out a gun and starts threatening the patrons, as happened here in my town. Thankfully, another patron had legal handgun and put an end to that nonsense. Guns are not all about hunting. They are about protecting the innocent from the vile.

But the Crimson stumbles blindly on:

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.

Ya gotta admire the persistence of these ignoramuses. They say the expiration of the “Assault Weapon” ban, which regulated mostly small caliber, high velocity rifles of a certain appearance has somehow increased handgun violence. How the availability of one weapon increases violence with another is beyond me. They then dismiss well documented (see John Lott) claims of lives saved by guns by blithely claiming the argument moot in the face or their wholly unsupported speculation of lives that “might be saved” under their draconian rules.

To the gun control crowd, I say this: Amend the Constitution if you can, and be prepared for what that entails. I suspect the Harvard types are not up to the fight, intellectually or otherwise.