Profile
Photos
Comments
Originally posted: June 26, 2008
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Read the Tribune's Friday editorial on the Supreme Court ruling on firearms. Repeal the 2nd Amendment No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor. 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. If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation. On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count. (Click here to read the full decision) In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens. The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 11 1/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms." But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent. They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policy-making on gun control. The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association. The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous." Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this. We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city. (Click here for gun-related crime statistics) But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns. Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders. Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism. We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate. Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it. |
| Permalink
Comments
Sour grapes, the US Supreme Court has made
its decision. This is a beautifully written and well-thought out
document, please read it at: https://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Posted by: Chuck | Jun 26, 2008 5:11:41 PM
"In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens."
First, I don't own a gun. I don't have a FOID card. I don't belong to the NRA.
But how on earth are gun laws protecting citizens?
Bruce, read your own paper. How many people have been shot over the
past week? Year? Yeah, that gun ban is really working.
Posted by: Craig | Jun 26, 2008 5:14:22 PM
Actually, the Supreme Court did have the
debate - and ruled against banning the possession of handguns by
*law-abiding* citizens. The Chicago ban will be gone within a year and
then we can get to the serious business of allowing the law-abiding
citizens of Illinois to protect themselves from street crime by passing
a concealed carry law like 48 other states.
Posted by: Newton, Chicago, IL | Jun 26, 2008 5:17:07 PM
Are you at all familiar with the
constitutional term "inalienable"? The decision does not remove any gun
law except the DC gun ban. The only reason we will have the lawsuits
and legislative struggles now is the decision confirming the right is
so very, very long in coming. Why whine about due process of law and
legislation? The lawsuits and legislation activity is exactly what we
now need-Define a reasonable level of handgun accessibility, for
defense and hunting etc, and continue to ban guns from felons, the
mentally deranged, and schools.
Or shall we also debate repealing the other inalienable rights?
Posted by: Daniel Ballard | Jun 26, 2008 5:21:29 PM
I have a better idea. Instead of a handful of pompous, self-centered politicians making the decision...
Put the question to vote. On all 50 states. Ask the people who actually own this county.
Should a US Citizen be allowed to own guns?
Posted by: Amber M | Jun 26, 2008 5:27:45 PM
My response to your call to repeal the Second
Amendment is to call on you lot to look for a new job. If the falling
sales of your newspaper don't tell you that no one is interested in
your balderdash, perhaps it would help to remember that you are now
owned by a real estate magnate.
When will we see condos at your Michigan Avenue properties? Bye, bye, bozos!
Posted by: Mehul Kamdar | Jun 26, 2008 5:33:25 PM
The RKBA pre-dates the US Constitution, much like the rights to free speech and free press.
Since you don't believe we should protect freedoms you don't agree with, perhaps we should repeal the First Amendment as well?
Posted by: Leethal | Jun 26, 2008 5:36:48 PM
The 4th word of the last 14 must also be
interpreted as "the body of people" and not "individuals". This is the
way that I have interpreted it since elementary school in the 1930's.
Excellent editing.
Posted by: Charles Pierce | Jun 26, 2008 5:36:50 PM
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns. If I had been permitted to carry a concealed firearm, the guy who
robbed my restaurant would have been carried away in a bag.
Posted by: Mark | Jun 26, 2008 5:38:19 PM
Three points:
You are incorrect in stating that the Second Amendment has been debated
for 200 years. Until the last 50 or so, no one questioned the right of
indvidual Americans to possess firearms.
You claim that gun crimes are on the rise but miss the irony that they
are highest in places like Chicago and D.C. that restrict the ability
of law-abiding citizens to own guns. Those gun control policies are
clearly failures.
Finally, your outrage over the Court's alleged activism in ruling on
specifc clause in the Constitution is absent when the Court makes up
rights such as abortion or Habaeus Corpus for terrorists out of thin
air. Be consistent.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 26, 2008 5:41:43 PM
I'm very happy that the Supreme Court came
down with the ruling that it did. I really don't understand why people
are up in alarm about law-abiding citizens being able to legally
possess handguns in Chicago.
In order to legally own a handgun in Illinois, you
must first apply for a FOID card and then pass a criminal background
check that's done by the Illinois State Police before the card is
issued. People with FOID cards are not the ones you need to worry
about; it's the _criminals_ that are the problem.
Posted by: Damian | Jun 26, 2008 5:42:16 PM
This writer need arrested for treason and
striped of all his rights ,then lets see how he feels. down state there
are tens of thousands of legal law abiding gun owners ,so why do these
lop sided liberals like this confused person think banning all guns
will be the cure . just look at the other countrys that banned guns and
post for your readers how many times the crime rates doubled . I live
in central ILL and we don't even have to lock our doors or even remove
the keys from our vehicles bacause people know we aim to protect our
property and watch our neighbors backs . most of the down state
shooting are from gang members that relocated her from the city of
chicago the great cancer that spreads out and harms everything it
touches
Posted by: Leland | Jun 26, 2008 5:45:37 PM
Sorry, pal, you lost! Go cry in the corner with Dick Daley.
Posted by: joe from chi | Jun 26, 2008 5:45:59 PM
How can MORE guns be safer? If you take the
communities currently considered "high crime" due to gun-related
incidents, couldn't one argue that the presence of guns in those
communities do not ensure the safety of residents? Even if you
disregard that the guns are in the hands of criminals, the escalating
violence tends to disprove the argument that arming citizens makes them
safer. People, whether society considers them "good" or "bad" are being
shot on a regular basis, where is the deterrent?
Posted by: tb | Jun 26, 2008 5:52:23 PM
Instead, lets Repeal the 1st Amendment.
Newspapers print garbage...as noted in declining circulation...and they
also use it to destroy the rest of the Constitution.
Posted by: John Holliday | Jun 26, 2008 5:56:14 PM
If we are going to strike amendments to the
Constitution let's repeal the 1st amendment and then we wouldn't have
to put up with elists newspaper men who think they know what's good for
the little guy. Bah!
Posted by: linda | Jun 26, 2008 5:59:03 PM
WRONG - The Fifth Circuit concluded that
Miller can at least as easily be read to stand for the opposite
conclusion: that if a weapon were of the sort that could be used by the
military, there would be an individual right to possess that weapon.
Thus, a sawed-off shotgun, because it is not a military weapon, falls
outside the Second Amendment — but a more "military" weapon would not.
Don't you guys do any research?
Posted by: Joe Mama | Jun 26, 2008 5:59:12 PM
Crime statistics.....yeah right. You want to
see where violence has gone down? Do you want to see where all manner
of crime has gone down? Not because of gun bans either, but because
each head of household is required by local law to own a
firearm.....Kennesaw, GA. The only deterrents in Chicago are police
officers. That is not a deterrent, they are understaffed and underpaid.
Don't misread me...they do their best. But how many times has the Trib
reported on off-duty police in Chicago repelling a viscious attack,
because they were armed. Do background checks, have firearm
certification classes, do let the law-abiding citizens of Chicago and
Illinois legally and responsibly carry.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 26, 2008 5:59:29 PM
So, within The Bill of Rights, amendments all
dealing with individual rights of the people, the framers just decided
to throw one in there that tells us that state militias are a good
idea? That makes a lot of sense Bruce. You should read John Lott's
book. Then you would understand why the people arming themselves
against criminals is a good thing. You should be more afraid of cars
and motorcycles. I guess we should outlaw those too huh? Oh, and
swimming pools, those are just flat-out evil. They snatch up children
like hotcakes.
Posted by: Robert | Jun 26, 2008 6:01:06 PM
Given the lack of cause and effect
relationship between gun bans and murder rate, I believe that the only
thing a repeal of the 2nd amendment would lead to is an increase in
violent crime. Chicago and Washington DC have (now had, in DC's case)
some of the strictest gun control laws, but still have an obscenely
high incidence of gun violence. Based on the quote from Police
Superintendent Jody Weis "particularly since a firearm is used in 75
percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago." In no place
have I seen any statistics showing the number of arrests the CPD has
made and the number of criminals put in jail for violation of the gun
ban. "It just works, trust us" seems to be the city government
position.
Posted by: Wayne | Jun 26, 2008 6:01:16 PM
Don't you just hate it when despite the most
well worded convolutions of rationale, statistics, and logic in protest
fail to overcome the problem that the facts simply aren't on your side?
The overwhelming majority of Americans believe just what the Supreme Court announced today.
You do, of course, have the option of having the Consitution amended to your approval. Better get busy with it.
My right to own a gun, is as one with your right to own a pen.
Posted by: Browning | Jun 26, 2008 6:01:22 PM
Facts, it has been clearly shown by numerous studies that "right to carry" LOWER crime.
Posted by: nonein2008 | Jun 26, 2008 6:02:00 PM
You Sir, are wrong on every level of this
topic. Please get an education, and understand the statistics that are
plainly obvious. Newsflash! Criminals don't follow rules, and will get
their guns no matter what inane laws you may wish to pass or
Constitutional rights you may want to abolish. To outlaw the possession
of firearms for law-abiding citizens only serves to make honest people
easier targets for criminals. Nothing more. Shame on you for suggesting
that our constitution needs updating! You, Sir, need updating!
Posted by: John H. | Jun 26, 2008 6:10:00 PM
How ridiculous, you just don't get it. People
who write this crap don't look at or live in the real world. A gun is
an inanimate object, it's the drug dealers, felons, and the judges who
refuse to properly punish and put away the just plain maggots of
society that cause the problems. If we would start exterminating these
maggots we'd solve the crime problem. Quit blaming guns, buy one, the
way things are going you're going to need it to protect your family.
Posted by: Bob Caldwell | Jun 26, 2008 6:10:35 PM
The Bill of Rights are no ordinary amendments
and repealing anyone of them, like freedom of speech or the right of
the people to keep and bear arms would literally kill our nation and
what it stands for.
"no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended
to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms"
Wrong, Prohibition is not regulation.
"The amendment was intended to protect the authority
of the states to organize militias." Yes, that was part of it, but why
in the world would all the Bill of Rights except one (the 2nd) protect
the individuals from authoritarian government, police or military? It
wouldn't make any sense.
"In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the
legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens." Just the
opposite, Citizens can't protect themselves when power grabbing
councils (whom are protected buy taxpayer paid guards) take away that
right.
"The people of Washington no longer have the
authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will
prohibit handgun possession within their borders." Nonsense: First of
all, don't you bother to read the polls. regardless of being urban or
rural the people always overwhelmingly vote for the right to bear arms,
including handguns. Also, public safety means protecting yourselves at
home from criminal who might be carrying illegal guns.
"We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal
handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at
best, had limited impact" Your puny attempt at a disclaimer is
laughable. Only the crooks had the guns and gun crime was way up while
honest people weren't allowed to defend themselves. Look at your own
quote, "The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year."
"Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism"
Just a slogan with no meat to it. And off course most murders are
commited with guns. Take them away and number 1 will be knives then
hammers or cars etc..
Guns are unsettling to you personally. Some people
find Muslims unsettling. That does not give you or them the authority
to take away peoples rights.
Posted by: kent | Jun 26, 2008 6:12:16 PM
Dear Sir:
Your suggestion to repeal the Second Ammendment is silly at best. Please review some facts before you present any arguement.
1) How many of "hand-gun" related crimes are commited by law-abiding citizens trained in their use?
2) If someone breaks into my house and threatens my
family with a weapon, do I not have a right to defend my family? Or so
I just wait to get killed and hope the police show up days later to
take a report.
We have ample gun laws on the books and I agree with 99% of them, however, when you make my
right to defend myself a crime, that is where I draw the line.
Posted by: Adam D. Smith | Jun 26, 2008 6:12:35 PM
While we are at let's repeal the First
Amendment too. Or at the least license newspapers. Register reporters.
Submit all stories for government review. Have a three day cooling off
period for all news stories.
Just common sense regulation of the press is all I'm asking. Who could be against that?
Posted by: John Birch | Jun 26, 2008 6:14:54 PM
Why not save time and scrap the whole thing?
You malvolent morons have shredded habeus corpus, abrogated the rights
of prisoners to fair trial, your administration actively supports
torture and operates torture cells around the world, directly and under
contract to some of the most heinous despots on earth.
Nobody overseas respects you boobs anymore, so why
not shred your constitution, your bill of rights, and do the first
honest thing in years by declaring that you are the heir apparent to
the soviet empire? or call your people home, pull up the drawbridge and
take the phone off the hook. we can check up on one another in, say,
ten years.
Posted by: s masty | Jun 26, 2008 6:14:57 PM
"The amendment was intended to protect the
authority of the states to organize militias" This idea has been tossed
around by ignorant people for decades. The fact is, this Amendment,
along with the others of the First Ten, were intended as protections
for the people against excesses of government (state, fed, local).
Along with that, the word "people" when used with the other Amendments
always denotes individual rights, not those of the government. As for
crime, stop letting repeat offenders out of jail. Build more facilities
and keep them locked up forever.
Posted by: Allan | Jun 26, 2008 6:19:35 PM
Repeal the 2nd if you wish. The right to self
defense would still exist under the 9th, and depriving citizens of the
means for that defense would still be unconstitutional.
Posted by: Mark | Jun 26, 2008 6:22:03 PM
This piece by Bruce Dolt is cloying and
cheaply written, as well as ill-informed. Calling Justice Stevens'
dissent "compelling" is rediculous. The man doesn't understand that the
bill of rights exists primarily to prohibit government from infringing
on the rights of the individual. Both Dolt and Stevens should read the
Federalist Papers sometime.
Posted by: Alf | Jun 26, 2008 6:23:51 PM
Thank you tribune for saving me money. Since
you post this commie loving drivel by this piece of excrement I am
canceling my subscription. Go burn in hades.
Posted by: greg | Jun 26, 2008 6:26:53 PM
I think the second amendment is important, but there's really no need for handguns in civilian hands whatsoever.
The only purpose for a handgun is to have a
concealed weapon, and the only reason for that is because you're
probably doing something illegal.
I'd prefer it if people who absolutely had to have a
firearm carried a rifle or a shotgun. It's more accurate and easily
visible.
Posted by: kevin | Jun 26, 2008 6:28:04 PM
Zell's cost cutting has not gone far enough if you people still have jobs.
Posted by: Lawrence Martin | Jun 26, 2008 6:33:13 PM
One should look at the meaning of the word
"militia" at the time of the writing of the second amendment. It is a
reference to citizens militia. Ordinary men and women who will organize
and fight for their country and also keep their own government honest
is a "militia". We are all part of the Militia if necessary. If you do
not have the right to own a gun then how can you keep the other rights.
The word "Militia" is in no way related to the National Guard, Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines or to the government run Military. The second
amendment was intended to give the citizens the right to keep and bear
arms and to form militias and if necessary against its own government.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 26, 2008 6:34:37 PM
A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state,” sure we need an organized military force
to defend your country BUT “the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.”
This is the people in contrast with the militia. It
doesn’t say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed” it says “the right of the people.”
Now why the word “people” ? Because the people who
wrote this just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state
militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that
again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia
could never take away.
Posted by: RSM | Jun 26, 2008 6:36:45 PM
The people have the rights that they can
defend. There is a reason why the 2nd Amendment is second and not thrid
or frist. It is second because it is the guarantor of the first, of the
freedoms outlined in the 1st Amendment. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is
one step to repealing the 1st Amendment
Posted by: Sir | Jun 26, 2008 6:38:36 PM
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Please, how many guns in DC are legal?
Posted by: Michael A | Jun 26, 2008 6:40:50 PM
Of course the founding father's made a
mistake that we need to fix. To save some time and money, why don't we
repeal a couple of other amendments at the same time.... starting with
the First Amendment.
Don't you journalists find it a little hypocritical
that you support repealing the the Second Amendment while at the same
time complain about how the Bush Administration is trampling your
"rights?"
Each right in the Bill of Rights is equally
important. To a journalist, perhaps some are more important to everyday
life than others, but to the country they have equal standing. Your
take on the Second Amendment reminds me of the Bush Administration's
take on the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search
and seizure). Next time your paper criticizes the Bush Administration
for stomping on constitutional rights, look yourselves in the mirror
(as in pot-kettle-black).
Posted by: Andy | Jun 26, 2008 6:45:02 PM
chicago is a joke and so is daley... it funny
that all the people who are so anti gun walk around protected by armed
body guards.......so if more guns make more crime arnt your body guards
making you less safe by being armed? or do you understand that GUNS
MAKE YOU SAFER
Posted by: ccw for life | Jun 26, 2008 6:47:17 PM
I'm inclined to think that various
governments, from the federal down to municipal, have occasionally felt
freedom of speech and freedom of the press to be inconvenient
anachronisms. Perhaps we should debate whether those are appropriate
also.
While we're at it, the freedom to avoid self-incrimination is really bogging down the judicial system as well.
May as well toss the whole Bill of Rights while
we're at it. Law abiding citizens don't need any of those protections
anyway . . .
Posted by: James Boschma | Jun 26, 2008 6:48:05 PM
What is wrong with the politicians. I live in
Chicago, and with the Supreme Court decision on the gun law, all I hear
is how the right to bear arms is going to increase gun related crimes.
The right for a law abiding citizen to have a gun in
their home to defend themselves with, is not going to increase the
number of guns on the streets. Chicago has proved that gun control does
not stop criminals from getting guns or reckless people from leaving
guns around the house for kids to play with.
In my mind, the only control that is needed is for a
national gun database and a central clearing house for all
registrations. Every person who has or applies for a legal gun should
be vetted thoroughly by a federal agency. Take the control away from
local government. Every gun dealer should be required to provide the
federal agency with a spent bullet that can be associated with the
registered gun.
Gun control will not stop guns from being used in
crimes. Gun crimes are rising in the U.K. and they have very tight gun
control. Very few people there have guns.
In my mind it is simple. It should be against the
law for ANYONE to have or be in possession of a gun in a public place,
unless it is secured or locked to prevent use. Obviously rules have to
be provided for hunting, but these should be easy considering hunting
licenses are generally required. Certainly handguns are not used in
hunting.
Posted by: Robert Harford | Jun 26, 2008 6:59:21 PM
Even the notion of repealing the 2nd
Amendment is nonsensical. To repeal the 2nd Amendment another amendment
would have to be added to the COTUS. Now the problem with this is that
at least 3/4 ths of the states would have to ratify such a proposed
amendment. With 50 states that means that as few as 13 states failing
to ratify such would doom said proposed amendment to the ash heap of
history. If one includes West Virginia, and Kentucky as southern states
then the southern states alone would preempt any such proposed
amendment. One could also count on the plains states, and Rocky
Mountain States to also oppose such a proposal. The notion of repealing
the 2nd Amendment is a flat-out non-starter.
Posted by: The Fishing Physicist | Jun 26, 2008 7:00:36 PM
Yes, while we are at it let's repeal the
Fifth Amendment too! We could convict the criminals faster and as long
as you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Why do we need this amendment anyway? Do you know how many criminals go
free and commit violent crimes again because of this amendment?
We should also get rid of the fourth amendment as
well...do you know how many lives we could save if officers go door to
door and search houses for illegal weapons/drugs/crime/child abuse,
etc???
You would save A LOT of lives and maybe even break up a few terrorist cells while we are at it....
(If you couldn't tell this was written as sarcasm)
It's funny because people like you will COMPLAIN up
and down about how Bush is violating your rights as a citizen because
he is "listening" to your phone calls but you will gladly give up your
rights to own a weapon or force others to give up their rights because
you are scared.
You need to reread the 1939 court ruling again they
DIDN'T state that it was only militia's that could be armed AND if you
know anything about our history you will know the reason they wanted
people to bear arms.
People like you scare me greatly; you are willing to
give up your rights just to be a little more secure. It's a very scary
fact because people like you will eventually make the same arguments I
have made above to feel even safer.
Unless you kill everyone in the WORLD that knows how
to repair a gun, make a gun, knows the physics about a gun, they will
always be here, yes, even if you ban them totally in the United States.
Criminals do NOT listen to laws; Police are NOT here
to protect you (look up the recent court ruling about police). They are
only here to enforce the law after a crime (and maybe try to stop it if
a crime is in progress).
Anyway, as John Adams said:
"Facts are stubborn things"
Here are some facts:
https://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm
You have a better chance of dying from these accidents then being killed with a hand gun:
Traffic/Car accident
Falling
Poisoning
Dying in a fire/flames
DROWNING
Inhalation and ingestion of objects
Complications due to medical procedures
So, with this logic you state, we need to get rid of
cars (imagine if everyone road a bike to work! Oh the lives and gas we
would save!)
We should have rails every where
We should remove all toilets/pools/etc that have water where kids could drown
Get rid of all small objects that we could choke on
and get rid of surgery
Please, before you blog something check your facts,
know your history and PLEASE stop spreading myths about what the Second
amendment was for and how many people actually die in firearm related
deaths.
I will leave you with one last quote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Maybe you should leave our great Country and give up
your rights in Cuba where you think you would be more safe? You won't
have rights to keep firearms and the fifth amendment will not even be a
concern so the governmet will protect you.
Posted by: Rob | Jun 26, 2008 7:00:42 PM
I don't personally believe that owning a
handgun makes you any safer than not owning a handgun. Too many "law
abiding" gun owners lose their lives or those of their children at the
hands of their own guns. While I tend to lean towards supporting bans
on handguns, I understand the court's decision and think it a
reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it was poorly written.
However, you "gun nuts" are CRAZY if you think that
anyone who is not a convicted felon or mentally ill should be allowed
to carry a concealed firearm. If we make this leap, there are going to
be a lot dead drunks in bars throughout the city. Darwin at work?
One question, how many of you celebrating this
decision as an affirmation of our Constitution, celebrated the
restoration of habeaus corpus for so-called "enemy combatants"? My
guess is the answer is almost none.
Posted by: Chaz | Jun 26, 2008 7:03:11 PM
The Editor states in part, "...The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. ..."
Errr .... excuse me Editor, but did you consider the
question: where did the Minute Men and other individual militia members
keep their firearms when not mustered? I'll guarantee you they did not
keep them in the armoury. Sure, there were firearms in the armoury, but
the individual members maintained their own weapons and would carry
them to muster.
Proponents of repeallin the Second Amendment constantly grasp at straws.
Posted by: ghp95134 | Jun 26, 2008 7:03:40 PM
This comment is for s nasty. You are right,
we should have pulled up the drawbridge back in 1939, why the hell we
saved europe i'll never understand. Hopefully with a little luck,
another hitler will ravage through that liberal cesspool so we can sit
over here with our phone off the hook and laugh. You really think the
american people have any control over what the CIA does in their
torture cells? We cant even find out what happens in the nevada desert.
Get a clue, you don't have any control over your govt either.
Posted by: King | Jun 26, 2008 7:03:48 PM
Shame on you.
The ruling is clear and unambiguous. They've stated that you cannot
strip your fellow citizens of their fundamental human rights. That sort
of conduct is not only despicably unethical, but unconstitutional.
Kudos to the Supreme Court and congratulations to the people of the
United States. Your rights are being restored.
Posted by: Thomas | Jun 26, 2008 7:06:16 PM
I don't want to live in a country where the
government has all the guns. The people that wrote the constitution
were free men that took up arms against a corrupt government. Do you
really think they meant to deprive the people of the ability to do it
again. Sheep like the guy that wrote this article have no clue how
lucky they are to be in the minority.
Posted by: peterg | Jun 26, 2008 7:07:39 PM
So, the Tribune has taken a position against the Bill of Rights.
Fine, we now know how the enemies of our rights are--you!
Posted by: Kirk | Jun 26, 2008 7:20:04 PM
Here's a figure the author didn't seem to
think worthy of mentioning: robbery and violent crimes increased 63% in
the five years following the gun ban in DC. The issue of taking a
"significant public policy issue out of the hands of the hands of the
citizens" is a red herring... and a dangerous one at that. Would the
author be so dismayed if the SC overturned a local ordinance against
public worship of any religion except Christianity? Even when the
citizens support it? No, I think not. Why not? Because its
unconstitutional! Tada! See how that works?
Posted by: Ed | Jun 26, 2008 7:21:43 PM
Claim:
"The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to
organize militias. ... But in its last major decision on gun rights, in
1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the
correct interpretation."
Rebuttal:
Miller certainly did _not_ unanimously find that this was the correct
interproetation. Miller sent the case back to the lower court to
address the question of whether possession of a short-barreled shotgun
could be related to 'a well regulated militia.' Since Miller was long
gone, that question was never addressed. Nowhere in that case was the
question of "who comprises the militia" addressed, neither the question
of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right or a
"collective" right.
Claim:
"On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In
essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count."
Rebuttal:
So what? They rationally concluded that while the preamble may have
outlined a reason for affirming the right, the right wasn't limited to
that narrow context. If it instead read "Starvation being a terrible
scourge upon humanity, the right of the people to eat shall not be
infringed." would you seriously assert that only people who were
starving had the right allowed to eat?
Claim:
"But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the
right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as
shotguns."
Rebuttal:
Not in D.C., they didn't. They had to be locked up and unloaded.
Check your facts, guys. I'm tired of uninformed
media shills mis-stating the Miller decision and claiming this is a
stark departure from past holdings of the court. They've really never
addressed this question in 217 years, and it's not revisionism or
activism for them to take this position today.
Posted by: BDM | Jun 26, 2008 7:24:40 PM
The language of the Second Amendment is crystal clear:
".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is no middle ground or wavering. There is no
qualifying statement. The language is plain and simple. Although I tend
to have liberal views on most social issues, the right to bear arms is
one of the fundamental strengths of American citizens. It has little or
nothing to do with a militia or the National Guard. At the core, this
right is about keeping an oppressive government at bay. Without gun
ownership, the citizens would be helpless in the face of the Federal
thugs. As bad as the Bush cartel has been for this country, imagine how
much worse it would be without the right to bear arms.
Posted by: liberal patriot | Jun 26, 2008 7:26:21 PM
1. How many handgun crimes are committed by registered gun owners each year?
2. How effictive have gun bans in major US cities been on stopping violent crime by criminals?
3. In other countries like Australia, how well have gun bans performed?
With a little unbiased research, you amazingly
brilliant journalists would realise that the rot you are preaching is
garbage, and if you took the time to look at the public reaction polls
you'd realise that you are in a very tiny minority. I guess that makes
you smarter than everyone else, eh?
Posted by: WesternMind | Jun 26, 2008 7:47:28 PM
Unbelievable! It pains my ears to hear the
National Guard described as militia they are not. State militaries as
they exist today are regulars because the men serve under contract,
receive wages and take their orders from a central staff. Uugh!
And for the love of liberty, common criminals
represent no threat to The People with respect to the freedoms
guaranteed in the bill of rights, for instance: no pedophile ever
kidnaped an entire town's children. The second amendment's guaranty of
the right to keep and bear weapons is specifically a defense against
tyrannical government!
Posted by: Evan | Jun 26, 2008 7:54:44 PM
While you're sitting up in what ever lala
land that government hungry liberals like retreat to at the end of the
day, real people are being mugged at gun point. And not by, dare I say
it, your average citizen, but by criminals. The Supreme Court did not
say anything about giving guns back to felons or the mentally unstable.
And have you ever looked at the statistics in England, where they have
out right banned guns? The amount of gun related crimes are at
unbelievable highs. And not just because of violent crimes, but because
they have turned your average Joe in to an outlaw, because he has a
gun. Now, I'm sure you're an intelligent person, so I wish you would
stop and think about turning your pen and taking some time to evaluate
your political positions on this and many other things... you might
find the outcomes a bit unsettling.
Posted by: Moriah Martin | Jun 26, 2008 8:09:43 PM
Terrible article. A United States citizen
should be able to defend him/herself, his/her property, his/her home
& children by use of a fire arm if her/she thinks life is in
danger. The founding fathers did it the correct way. Your left wing
liberals should makes certain the laws of this land are followed
instead of trying to change our constitution.
If you want my gun, you'll have to take it out of my cold dead hands (someone else said that, remember?)
Posted by: William Arnold | Jun 26, 2008 8:22:27 PM
The trouble with your argument is that the
last 14 words do not say, "the right of the states to organize and
regulate militias shall not be infringed." The 2d amendment is the only
one in the Bill of Rights written in the passive voice. It is the only
one that does not expressly restrict the federal government. It says
the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed",as in "by anyone". The right belongs to the people, not the
state. The founders had just fought a long and bloody war against
tyranny that began when the right of the people to keep and bear arms
was infringed upon at Lexington and Concord. The 2d Amendment is
designed to guarantee the people have the means to overthrow their
government should it become tyrannical. You may not like the result,
arms technology may have overwhelmed the original intent, it may be an
anacronism. But today's decision was the correct interpretation of the
founders' intent. If you don't like it, organize a movement to repeal
it. But the Supreme Court did its job today.
Posted by: Glenn Harned | Jun 26, 2008 8:24:58 PM
It's obvious, isn't it? One person commented that the murder rate in Chicago has risen 13% the past year.
The reason: That city is run by Obama's croonies.
Let him win, and we'll really have a crime infested country.
Posted by: Jerome Jenkins | Jun 26, 2008 8:26:26 PM
I spent the first 30 years of my life in the
city (pilsen) and surrounding suburbs. For the past 15 years I have
been living in Alabama. In my heart I am still a Chicagoan.
Now, I have a concealed weapons permit and several
rifles, shotguns and pistols. I carry a firearm every day except in
bars, government buildings and schools.
I feel much safer being in a part of the country
where nearly everyone owns a weapon than I ever did in the city. For
the most part, legal firearm owners are responsible and observant of
the legal and moral responsibility of gun ownership.
I can see how a firearms ban in Chicago has done
such a fine job of curtailing handgun violence. It is such a sunny
outlook that you should let your children wander around on the south
side.
Posted by: Tish | Jun 26, 2008 8:27:28 PM
"But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy out of the hands of citizens."
Bruce, just think about that line for a minute . . .
You couldn't write anything more stupid on your worst day.
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Jun 26, 2008 8:29:26 PM
Sir, your drivel is not even worth reading.
Go back to your hole and figure out something else to do, like cook
fries in Macdonalds. And maybe Daley can join you making burgers.
Both of you need to stop trying to impune rights
that are our birthright as Americans and go do something more in line
with your respective abilities.
Burger King is calling, they need more whoppers. Don;t keep them waiting on our account.
Posted by: David Rowden | Jun 26, 2008 8:33:31 PM
End the War on Drugs, end to gun violence
Posted by: dean | Jun 26, 2008 8:34:40 PM
*Bang* *Bang* *Bang* YeeHaw! We should have a
shoot out after yer done here comment'n. Cuz after the rest of the
civilized world has put guns behind them only we will have that ther
constitutional right to kill each other with guns! Yeeehaw! *Bang*
*Bang* *Bang*
Posted by: Adam | Jun 26, 2008 8:35:46 PM
Were macrching in the belly of the beast on
7-11-08, yep thats right, there is going to be a first of it's kind
"second amendment freedom rally" at the thompson center in Chicago on
7-11-08. starts at 11am and ends at 1:00pm. One of the guest speakers
is Dr. Suzanna Hupp.
You want King Dick daley to really crap his shorts, come down for the rally. We need thousands of gun owners to show up!
For info on the rally:
https://chicagorally.isra.org/
or illinoiscarry.com:
https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10581
Posted by: Dave | Jun 26, 2008 8:38:01 PM
The above article is nothing but statism and
elitism wrapped into a messy garbage bag. The Second Amendment will not
be repealed, there will be no discussion by any politicians, and
Chicago's gun ban will be gone within a few years. Rational thinking
people have always agreed with the right to bear arms for protection.
Ban all guns and fascism will rear its ugly head once again. Thank God
the Supreme Court has five justices who understand the meaning of the
Constitution and the intention of the framers. The Chicago Tribune
obviously needs a history lesson.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 26, 2008 8:39:36 PM
The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states:
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Our creator has endowed us with the unalienable
Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If we have the
unalienable right to Life, then we also have the unalienable right to
protect that life. If we have the unalienable right to Liberty, then we
have the unalienable right to protect that liberty. Go ahead, try to
repeal the 2nd amendment. What happens if you succeed? Do you send
armed men to take my guns? If you succeed in taking my guns, will
violent crime cease? If you really think that violent crime will go
away with more restrictive firearm laws, you are an idiot. If you are
the least bit logical and understand that gun control laws do not
control violent criminals, then what is the purpose of this editorial?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting
or gun collecting. The Second Amendment is to ensure that the people
have the ability to enforce their right to "...whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Posted by: JR | Jun 26, 2008 8:41:08 PM
Statically Car’s kills and injures more
people every year then guns, but then again probably don’t hear about
that in the 6 oclock News as much. Can someone provide the statics for
how many murders were actually commented by people that legally own a
hand gun, but not in self defense? Probably not!
Do not believe this is the end; it’s only the being of this battle. I
use to transport prisoners throughout the states, the majorities are
over crowed, hence the revolving door. It’s not going to get any better
and if you’ve very had to call the police you know what to expect.
Enpower yourself People depend upon yourself, take responsibility for
yourself and take that power away from the Government. I for one do not
want or Need them to tell me what I can or cannot do. I am a man, I am
responsible for the decisions that I man and I am fully responsible for
those actions. Stand up and let yourself be heard.
Posted by: BubbaCheese | Jun 26, 2008 8:44:04 PM
Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment was added to
the Bill of Rights so that the people could defend themselves against
the abuse of power by the government. Anyone that researches the
background behind this argument would see that the Anti-federalists
were so against giving the Fed the power to have an Army that James
Madison added this to the Bill of Rights to make them feel secure in
their ability to combat a "state gone wrong," in essence, the one we
are turing into. People, do everything you have to to protect this
right because it's the only one we have that can protect the others.
Despite the Supreme Court's decision, any law that infringes your right
to bare arms is not the law of the land and technically has no merit.
The Amendment is clear with "shall not be infringed" and I find it
convenient that this part of the amendment is constantly ignored.
Whoever created this blog is a perfect example of the worst kind of
ignorance. He fails to mention, of course, that the ridiculously huge
majority of firearms murders are committed by criminals, people that
ignore firearms laws. All you have to do to see that gun control
doesn't work is look at Great Britain and Australia's crime statistics
since they've passed harsh bans. Firearms related crimes and murders
are WAY up. By the way, there were 15543 firearms related homicides in
the US in 1999. In 2000, 85000 people died alcohol related deaths and
112000 people died from Obesity related deaths. Are we going to ban
beer, ice cream, and spoons next? Soon, we're going to need a concealed
spoon permit to carry one to the restaurant.
Posted by: Justin | Jun 26, 2008 8:53:52 PM
I am highly impressed with the well thought
out decision of our Supreme Court. I carry a concealed firearm
everywhere I go. I have never pointed it at someone, I have never shown
it to someone to scare or threaten them. I am a law abiding citizen, so
please tell me why I should not have the right to defend myself, my
family, or my domicile? Those citizens who chose to break the laws and
rob, rape, and murder would be the only ones with guns if the High
Court's decision would have gone the other way , thus it would leave me
and other law abiding citizens defenseless. This would become a country
completely ruled by lawlessness and thugs. Remember, when seconds count
the police are only minutes away!
Posted by: Scott Bittner | Jun 26, 2008 8:54:36 PM
I don't like the way you play...I'm takin' my ball and going home!
Posted by: notPC | Jun 26, 2008 8:56:13 PM
Finally, Bravo Supreme Court !!! What was
done by the supreme court now is what should have been done 32-years
ago when Washington DC took away the rights of its residents to protect
themselves and their families from criminals. "In doing so, they have
curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to
protect their citizens." Bologna,I haven't heard of any legislatures or
city councils coming to the defense/rescue of any citizens being raped,
mugged or killed, where as, had the law abiding citizens been allowed
to arm themselves they could have at least attempted to protect
themselves instead of being sitting ducks depending on the goverment to
come to the rescue, thats a joke! I hope you don't find yourself or
your family in a city that disarms you and throws you to the wolves
like DC did.
I hope every citizen that has been victimized by Washington DC over the
past 32 years by not allowing them to defend themselves appropriately,
files suit against the city for their neglect of their citizens and
abuse of their power.
Posted by: Fred | Jun 26, 2008 9:04:14 PM
You cannot repeal the "right" to bear arms.
If you read the decision carefully you might discover that the "right"
to bear arms preceeds the Constitution and that the 2nd Amendment
simply says there should be no law infringing a right that had always
existed. It existed before this nation did and anyone who says the 2nd
Amendment created a new "right" is sorely mistaken. What is there to
repeal? How do you repeal a right that really wasn't "conferred" in the
2nd Amendment? Lick your wounds and go back to your drawing boards
Liberals.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 26, 2008 9:18:55 PM
Has gun related crime gone down in Chicago
after the handgun ban was put into effect? I would like to see the
numbers on that. You only have to turn on a Chicago station, or look at
your paper on a daily basis to see the city's law did not work. I live
in Marseilles, IL. Last I heard, through our local news, we have the
highest per capita FOID card holders in Lasalle County. Except for a
domestic killing that happened a few years back, involving a family
that moved here from the Joliet area to distance themselves from the
killer, I have not heard of a violent gun crime in my town in recent
memory. Most violent crime of recent was an elderly couple from Seneca,
who were robbed in their home, and beaten to death with a shovel by a
mentally disturbed person. Should whe outlaw shovels as well as
repealing the 2nd? Alot of gardeners will be upset! Criminals will
always have access to what ever weapons they want. Why deny the law
abiding citizen?
Posted by: John Battles | Jun 26, 2008 9:20:34 PM
This decision was a monumental victory for
gun owners and the general public as well … and a bitter pill to
swallow for the enemies of freedom.Here's hoping they choke on it. All
along I was never sure what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ wasn’t
understood. If you did the research and bothered to read what the
framers of the constitution actually said about the RKBA it‘s a no
brainer. So it’s not surprising to see the trib now calling for the
repeal of t