Undergraduate Groups Debate Gun Control

In a sometimes-heated debate, 13 members of the Harvard Republican Club and the Harvard-Radcliffe College Democrats last night discussed the issue of gun control before two spectators.

One of the main topics addressed was whether the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which gives Americans the right to bear arms, still applies today. Participants cited statistics, personal experiences and constitutional scholars to support their arguments.

"The Second Amendment is dead and gone. It's not applicable in today's society," said Eric S. Olney '98, vice president of the College Democrats.

Five members of the College Democrats and seven representatives from the Republican Club took part in the conversation, which began with a welcome from club presidents and continued with statements from two members from each side.

Members of both sides praised the informal format of the event, which College Democrats president Seth D. Hanlon '98 termed a "free-for-all."

College Democrats focused the debate on "innocent children" killed by guns, while Republicans pointed to the right of individual citizens to protect themselves.

Participants disagreed on whether the Second Amendment was intended to allow organized militias or to allow individual citizens to protect themselves.

"[The right to bear arms] is not just a right of the national guard, but of all the people," said William M. Jay '98, a member of the Republican club. "It's not a collective right, but an individual one."

Olney, however, said the intent of the founding fathers was to create a militia and nothing more.

"There was no debate [when the Constitution was created] about whether individual rights should be protected," he said. "This was not their intent."

Some participants said they thought debaters were manipulating the original aims of the amendment to their own ends.

Republican club member Travis D. Wheatley '99 said he was appalled by what he called "the 'Let's Play with the Constitution' game."

Other speakers said they were concerned that members of the discussion were ignoring opposing arguments, creating a situation which College Democrats executive board member Roy E. Bahat '98 described as "two ships passing in the night."

Members of each side challenged the other to produce statistics which proved their position reduced the crime rate.

The only spectator who was not a member of either club, Dan J. Hopkins '00, said he came to the debate because he thinks the issue of gun control is interesting.

"People don't know all that much background about it," Hopkins said.

He was hesitant to choose a winner of the debate.

"It was pretty much a draw. Each group addressed issues pertaining more to their case. Neither argued their case perfectly," he said.