Second Amendment piece up at The American Spectator

Here it is. It's a response to The Harvard Crimson's editorial arguing for the Second Amendment's repeal.

Main point:

It's rife with problems, but the editors get more right than most of the gun-control movement does.

When it comes to guns and the Constitution, there are three main areas of importance: Historical (in what context was the Second Amendment written, and how has that context shifted?), legal (precisely what forms of gun control does the amendment proscribe?) and practical (does the Second Amendment prohibit more good policies than bad, and therefore, should we repeal it?). All told, the paper is about half-right.

They get half a cheer for their history (the context in which the Second Amendment passed has changed, as they argue, but they get the particulars wrong), a full cheer for their law (to pass strict gun control, we'd need to repeal the Second Amendment) and no cheer for their practical arguments (there's no case that the Second Amendment does more harm than good).