More absurdity on the opinion page of The Daily D. Today’s lowpoint was written by Zachary Hyatt ‘09. In his piece, Mr. Hyatt takes aim at the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, albeit by a rather circuitous route. Aparently unable to fill up space in the article with germane information or arguments, he spends a considerable amount of type relating the plat to a Camus story—reminiscent of a Dürrenmatt play called Der Besuch der alten Dame (The old Lady’s Visit). What this story had to do with gun control, much less the Second Amendment is unclear. Mr. Hyatt vaguely tries to insinuate that we should all feel partly responsible for the tragedy at Virginia Tech because we ‘allowed’ the killer to buy a gun. To be fair, the Camus story appeared to have something to do with guilt, but the connection between the story and the recent tragedy is tenuous at best.
Mr. Hyatt’s real argument can be summed up thus: “No militias needed, no arms needed. No militias, no right to bear arms. . . . A strict constructionist method leads us to a progressive conclusion.” Yes, but it would also do-away with the “emanating penumbras” that protect privacy, i.e. abortion.
My point is this. If one wants to make a serious argument, do it. Just don’t dress it up in an allegory hardly fit for a Comp-Lit paper.
Be the first to comment on "2nd Amendment Under Fire"