Mayor Daley and the Chicago Trib: 'Repeal the 2nd Amendment'

Last week when the Heller decision came down, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley suggested that the states should repeal the 2nd amendment.

Now those of us fortunate to live in Chicago or its beautiful suburbs and ex-urbs have gotten used to hizzoner's moods. Daley can be sarcastic in front of reporters and can usually be counted on to deliver at least one colorful quote.

Whether he really means it when he says we shoud tear up the Constitution is suspect. Daley, who came out of the womb a politician (his father Richard J. Daley was Mayor of Chicago for two decades), no doubt realizes it would be political suicide to even suggest such a stupid thing.

Then there's the Chicago Tribune. While Daley might have as excuse for proposing the wipe out of gun rights in that he was emotional about what will probably happen to a similar law in Chicago, the Trib has no such reason for what they write here under the headline "Repeal the Second 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.

Funny, I was going to say exactly the same thing about the Trib - which makes the rest of their editorial all the more ironic:

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.



Why is it the default position of the anti-gun crowd that allowing law abiding citizens the opportunity to defend themselves will place them in greater danger? The illogic - on its face - of this position is astounding.

The gun control crowd readily admits that handgun bans like that struck down in DC and soon to be history in Chicago do not, in the slightest, prevent criminals from getting guns. All the handgun bans do is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who wish to use the weapon for self defense - against criminals who can get guns regardless of what stupid law is passed by idiot politicians.

In short, where is the logic in saying citizens who are now able to possess handguns legally are in more danger from criminals who could always get handguns regardless of what law was on the books?

Madness!

No matter. How's this for pretzel logic by the Trib:

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.

Oh really? Is that a fact? Let's follow this by the numbers.

1. Handgun bans don't work. Criminals can easily still get guns.

2. Handgun bans are fine anyway because citizens can use a "shotgun" to "protect themselves - even though I would have a hard time fitting a shotgun in my nightstand (no children in the house) not to mention spraying the house with buckshot if I was ever forced into using it thus endangering a loved one.

3. Public policy decisions are taken "out of the hands of citizens" (they mean "anti-gun citizen groups"). And if it were a matter of "public safety," being placed "into the hands of citizens" wouldn't allowing the purchase of handguns fill that bill nicely?

The Trib can be counted on as being one of the few major newspapers in the country to occasionally endorse Republicans for office and they have a stellar record of reporting on the corruption of city government, digging deep to ferret out dirty aldermen, judges, policemen, and others.

But this editorial is just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that any politician who would propose such insanity as repealing the second amendment better have a one way ticket back home because the chances of his being sent back to Washington would be slim and none.

Last week when the Heller decision came down, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley suggested that the states should repeal the 2nd amendment.

Now those of us fortunate to live in Chicago or its beautiful suburbs and ex-urbs have gotten used to hizzoner's moods. Daley can be sarcastic in front of reporters and can usually be counted on to deliver at least one colorful quote.

Whether he really means it when he says we shoud tear up the Constitution is suspect. Daley, who came out of the womb a politician (his father Richard J. Daley was Mayor of Chicago for two decades), no doubt realizes it would be political suicide to even suggest such a stupid thing.

Then there's the Chicago Tribune. While Daley might have as excuse for proposing the wipe out of gun rights in that he was emotional about what will probably happen to a similar law in Chicago, the Trib has no such reason for what they write here under the headline "Repeal the Second 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.

Funny, I was going to say exactly the same thing about the Trib - which makes the rest of their editorial all the more ironic:

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.



Why is it the default position of the anti-gun crowd that allowing law abiding citizens the opportunity to defend themselves will place them in greater danger? The illogic - on its face - of this position is astounding.

The gun control crowd readily admits that handgun bans like that struck down in DC and soon to be history in Chicago do not, in the slightest, prevent criminals from getting guns. All the handgun bans do is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who wish to use the weapon for self defense - against criminals who can get guns regardless of what stupid law is passed by idiot politicians.

In short, where is the logic in saying citizens who are now able to possess handguns legally are in more danger from criminals who could always get handguns regardless of what law was on the books?

Madness!

No matter. How's this for pretzel logic by the Trib:

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.

Oh really? Is that a fact? Let's follow this by the numbers.

1. Handgun bans don't work. Criminals can easily still get guns.

2. Handgun bans are fine anyway because citizens can use a "shotgun" to "protect themselves - even though I would have a hard time fitting a shotgun in my nightstand (no children in the house) not to mention spraying the house with buckshot if I was ever forced into using it thus endangering a loved one.

3. Public policy decisions are taken "out of the hands of citizens" (they mean "anti-gun citizen groups"). And if it were a matter of "public safety," being placed "into the hands of citizens" wouldn't allowing the purchase of handguns fill that bill nicely?

The Trib can be counted on as being one of the few major newspapers in the country to occasionally endorse Republicans for office and they have a stellar record of reporting on the corruption of city government, digging deep to ferret out dirty aldermen, judges, policemen, and others.

But this editorial is just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that any politician who would propose such insanity as repealing the second amendment better have a one way ticket back home because the chances of his being sent back to Washington would be slim and none.