‘Repeal the 2nd Amendment’?? Dumb Ass Libs In Chicago React To OUR Right
From The Swamp
June 27, 2008
by James Oliphant
Reaction in Chicago was fast and mostly furious among city officials to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to gun ownership and struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns.
While Mayor Richard M. Daley (who said “the world is laughing at us”) and others grapple with how to defend the city’s handgun ban from the oncoming legal onslaught, the members of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board had a more radical idea.
In an editorial in Friday’s editions, it called for a repeal of the Second Amendment:
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Chicago Tribune
June 27, 2008
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.
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 111/2 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 policymaking 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.
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 firearm, 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.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
My question is, and this should be THE question everyone is asking, is:
If you had a ban in place for 30 year why do you have a handgun problem????
WFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They love the ban and it has done NOTHING!!!
Jesus H Christ! Lib: “Oh, we need the gun ban which we’ve had in place for 30 years so we don’t have to worry about guns problems… And we have a serious gun problem now as it is”
Why are the media bastards not asking this questions??? What the FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!
(Clearly I am mad and ranting… Sorry)
June 27th, 2008 at 9:39 amOK Libtards … cipher this: If criminals by definition don’t obey the law when they rob, kill, or whatever, why do you think they will obey you gun ban?
Gun control laws accomplish only one thing .. disarming the law-abiding segment of the population and making it easier for predators to take advantage of them.
Statistics show quite clearly the sharp decrease in crime when concealed carry permits are authorized. If you’re a bad guy do you want to take a chance robbing someone who might be armed when you can drive across a state line and find lots of unarmed victims?
Get a grip … (hopefully on a hand gun)
June 27th, 2008 at 9:43 amI’d love to see his reaction if we wanted to repeal the First Amendment…. what a putz.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:47 amThe Virgina Tech murders … if just one college student who had a CCW permit was allowed to carry his gun on campus and was in the area, lives would have been saved.
If that father who beat his son to death on the side of the road recently … if one of the people who tried to grapple with him to stop him but failed had a gun, the child may have had a chance to live.
Law abiding citizens far outnumber criminals and the police can’t be everywhere. An armed population reduces crime. Yes, there will be shooting accidents but, I can guarrantee, far, far, far less deaths than automobile accidents. As far as people buying a gun leagally then turning criminal or buying a gun specifically to commit a crime, I am sure that will happen but they are taking a very large risk when committing that crime if the populous is also armed. Finally, as far as people who suddenly ’snap’ and go on a rampage, possible but no more possible than them hopping into a car and mowing down a crowd of people. Also, people who suddenly snap usually do not know how to shoot very well, they would probably have better aim with their car.
Remember, the 2nd protects the 1st.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:01 amToo bad for Dailey. Statistics show cities with gun bans have higher murder rates. How do you explain that?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:10 amAnd the Collective WWWHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! begins lol!
June 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am“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.””
Bullshit.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:19 amRoe v. Wade you spineless POS? A lib SCOTUS inventing rights that NEVER existed?
We get to own a fire arm. Get over it. The only people in Chicago allowed to have guns are cops and criminals.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:29 amWho is this dork. And what is he doing running an American city.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:47 amThis is EXACTLY why I don´t and won´t debate a liberal. IT. DOES. NO. FUCKING. GOOD. I´d rather argue with a wooden indian.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:09 amI agree with AmericanJarhead. WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. I have to wonder what our Founders would think of America even “debating” the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I’d hope they’d all go haunt Mr. Oliphant.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:17 amIn doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
How’s that working for Chi-town and DC so far, douchenozzle? Not too well, from what I can tell.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
All I can say I am so glad I do not think like them
June 27th, 2008 at 11:41 amSOC: He is running an American city into the ground. That’s his job as mayor.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amThe Daley family has had a hold on Chicago for decades.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pmNot suprising considering that this is Hussein’s neck of the woods.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pmThe author of this trash article is an ASS who doesn’t know how to read. What the idiot Justice Stevens doesn’t get is govt. is what needs to be limited because the previously lame militia interpretation of the 2nd A threatened the basic right of self defense.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pmDaley, you’re an illiterate asshole. If you want to know how the Founding Fathers really felt about the Second Amendment and what it meant to them, don’t even bother reading the SCOTUS report. Read the Federalist Papers, you dickwad!
June 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pmSore losers. They should just do us a favor and move to Canada. Or challenge us to a Duel: their words can try and stop my bullet.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pmI’m suprised they aren’t going to appeal it like the DC mayor who is going to take it up to the UN, cause you know, the UN is the final say these days…
June 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pmRichard M. Daley, you corrupt skank. yes, the world is laughing at YOU! and i’m laughing at YOU, and the Dollard Nation is laughing at YOU, you putrid piece of dung. illinois is so corrupt i’m ashamed to admit i was born and raised there. thank God i left that marxist state and moved to MO. where liberty still means something.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pmThe 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.
————————————————————-
You see, the problem here is that this ignorant fuck thinks he knows what the founding fathers meant, so he suggests that he should edit the 2nd amendment….
Guess what, fucktard, the founding fathers were pretty fucking sharp. They agonized over every word that was added to the founding documents. They fought over the exact wording in fact, and so much so, that I am fairly certain that the wording is correct, so that they would in fact be able to overcome fatuous, arrogant little pricks such as this reporter who think they know better.
So, in short the words were exactly what should have been written as the intentions of the founding fathers were upheld as they should have been.
Don’t believe me eh? I guess the Supreme Court would beg to differ with you then..
Gun owners - 1
Ignorant reporters/libs - 0
June 27th, 2008 at 8:40 pmI’ll give you my gun….bullets first!
June 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pmDear Mayor Daley,
Now that kids are being killed in your streets on a nearly daily basis, I can see your gun ban is working well. Since two kids were killed via baseball bats, are you going to ban those too?
Its time you put your focus on treating the Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings and the rest of the scumbags in your city as if they were Al Qaeda. You know who they are, but you do nothing but worry about the law abiding gun shops in the suburbs.
Why is it that you have the luxury of armed protection, but you deny your citizens of the same right?
June 28th, 2008 at 6:45 amAll the gun-grabbing politicians and their commie counterparts are absolutely red-faced, seething mad, and can’t do a damn thing about it……………..
I’m lovin it!!!
June 28th, 2008 at 7:34 amThe murder rate is higher in Chicago than in Iraq. Must be all those legal gun owners causing all those murders.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:43 amAsshats that cling to the notion that Govt. will protect them and see to their every needs in time of crisis (or anytime) should remember what happened in LA and New Orleans.
Los Angeles- The Rodney King verdict spawned mass riots that overwhelmed law enforcement. Remember the cops in full retreat, abandoning the neighborhoods? Armed Korean shop owners on their rooftops shooting at the mobs and protecting their property? How about the interviews with the victims trapped in their homes, left helpless for 3 days, fearful to step outside.
New Orleans- Civil disobediance in the aftermath of Katrina, the thugs takeover. Local govt.,(Mayor Nagan)orders local law enforcement, National Guard etc. to go door to door and confiscate all guns. Law obiding citizens were now denied the means to defend themselves, their families and their property.
I’m sick of gun-control asshats trying to queer the debate on the 2nd amendment. In both cities, there were examples of local citizens forming armed volunteers, neighborhood watches, i.e. small militas to protect themselves and their homes. This happened both in Algiers (NO suburb), and Koreatown in LA. NOT state National Guardsmen, but local (armed) citizens. I live in earthquake country, and in addition to my cache of emergency supplies; rations, water, med’s etc, I also will be armed to protect my family and property, as was guaranteed in the constitution.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:20 amLaw enforcement are people and have families. Who do you think they will protect first.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:37 amWhat is the ratio? I think its 1 officer for every thousand people.
My biggest concern, and so should it be for everyone else, is that it only passed by 1 vote. If Obama wins say goodbye to
.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:58 amI find it funny that libs are the first people to pull out that Ben Franklin quote whenever warrantless wiretapping comes up in conversation but don’t understand that he was talking about this sort of thing.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm