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

How come they didn't complain when Roe v Wade took the abortion question out of the hands of the citizens?

I have to wonder if the folks at the Trib, or the dissenting Justices, are aware that before the preamble to the second ammendment, there is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights. One which specifically states that they are writing the Bill of Rights specifically to limit the power of the government, not granting it extra power?

It is plain English, it is not hard to understand, and we will defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

http://www.billofrights.org/
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Editors who advocate abolition of the Second Amendment should be deprived of their First Amendment rights and denied further freedon of speech or publication.
"No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should."
Turnaround is only fair. Right?

"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."
What kind of liberal psychobabble is this? This is one of the dumbest statements I have read.
I am a "citizen" who now has affirmation that my right to keep and bear arms is inviolate. The entire idea is to take it out of the policy debate dunderheads and place it where is is supposed to be, in the hands of the citizen.

the right to own arms, such as a handgun is coextensive with the right to life givent to us by our Creator. If I have the right to life, I also have the right to defend my life by all means necessary, that means A GUN! All these treasonous vermin have simply abandoned their committment to our basic, unalianable rights, they are simply un-American.

The problem here is that the legacy media, like the trib and the radical left, don't want to ban guns because they threaten safety. But rather because an unarmed populace is far less likely to stand up for themselves in the face of tyranny. Which is exactly what they are planning should they succeed in gaining control of all three branches of government.

Of course repealing the 2nd Amendment would not repeal the right to arms.

That right existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution (as the SC noted), and the Constitution is a document that enshrines the concept that the US gov't is only allowed to do what the Constitution grants.

One thing the Constitution does NOT grant to the Federal gov't is the "power" (moral and legal power anyway) to disarm the people.

So, in the event that the 2nd were repealed and the Federal gov't did try to disarm citizens, the citizenry would have the right (both morally and legally) to resist and if necessary re-place by violence the offending members of the gov't (or the gov't itself).

The problem here is that the legacy media, like the trib and the radical left, don't want to ban guns because they threaten safety. But rather because an unarmed populace is far less likely to stand up for themselves in the face of tyranny. Which is exactly what they are planning should they succeed in gaining control of all three branches of government.

First of all, I already spoke out on the wording of the Bill of Rights in another post. In every instance, the phrase "the People" is clearly intended to infer INDIVIDUAL rights, and is never argued about by the lefties. So why, in this one instance, would the founders leave the 2nd ambiguous? Simple answer - they wouldn't and they didn't.
Next, the Trib says, "neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns." WRONG. The D.C. gun ban only allowed assembled, functioning firearms in a place of business. Firearms in homes had to be locked or disassembled. So much for even glancing at the ban before arguing for it.
They go on to say, "...the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens." I'll allow that government intrusion is generally a bad thing. So I'll endorse allowing the citizens to decide. Put out a simple ballot. To allow or not allow private citizens, of sound mind and without criminal record, to own personal firearms, and carry such firearms about as they deem appropriate. The SCOTUS and the government can go pound sand. The citizens, as the Trib says, should make decisions such as this. And after a resounding YES to private gun ownership (and right to carry) is heard, I want all the anti-gun crowd to never, ever speak of it again. Let's see how well that goes over.

Out of my "cold,dead hands" you mean?

ANYONE who opposes the Founders' intent to allow individuals to arm themselves is in effect pro-tyranny. It's no coincidence that the same leftists who want to take away 2nd amendment rights are the ones who want to restrict 1st amendment rights as well (gagging of religious speech, "hate crimes", fairness doctrine, etc).

Scott: You nailed it. This is about government taking control to a point where citizens would have NO opportunity of physical redress.

It's simply about power. Theres or ours.

Ok, help me out here...

It's the Republicans that strip people of their rights?

It's the Republicans that shred the Constitutuion?

How come in reality, it always works out that the people who like to limit your rights turn out to be the same people who whine about loosing them the most?

(Or claiming they have rights that arent actually written in the Constitution?)

Of course, taking the free press part of the First Amendment should only be for newspapers (Like the "Trib") in big cities as a parallel process to limiting 2nd amendment rights for big city citizens.

The claim that the 2nd Amendment exists solely to protect the authority of the States to organize militias is just plain stupid.
Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 provide for the calling out, training, arming, and disciplining of the militia. The authority to appoint officers and conduct training is reserved to the States. Look at that again. Appoint officers. Train. Arm. Discipline. If that is not athorizing the states to organize the militia, I don't know what is. So why come back two years later and write an amendment to do the same thing?

"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."

Once again the Big Lie is repeated. Either the Trib does not know the meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment, or they hope their readers don't.

In the language of the day, "Militia" meant all free adult males not disabled. In other words, the people.

"Well regulated" meant well equipped and trained, or skilled and drilled....something that was well ordered and organized.....not regulated by a government necessarily.

In modern language, the Second Amendment would read something like "A well equipment and well trained armed civilian population being necessary to prevent tyranny, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even in Chicago, shall not be infringed."

It would be absurd to add an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the "right" of the government to have an army. The Constitution already allows for that. The President is the commander in chief, Congress has the power to declare war, etc. The part about the Amendment being "... intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias" is pure fiction without the slightest basis whatsoever in history or logic. Nowhere in any surviving writing of anyone associated with the formation of our Nation can be found the slightest scrap that justifies such an interpretation. That interpretation is purely the invention of modern times.

Hey wait a minute JAL we are not supposed to have these arguments based on an actual knowledge of the Constitution. I bet your one of those evil industry hacks that believe the argument about global warming should be based on an actual knowledge of science. You should be jailed along with the other enemies of the People.

@ James V Yount II

You raise a point that most people forget about our founding documents - the founders were concerned with limiting the powers of government. The Bill of Rights is there to keep the government in check so as to not infringe on the rights of it's citizens.

As anyone who's read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence knows, the founders perceived the rights enumerated in the founding documents as coming from a Creator, not from other men. To wit:

"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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

After reading that, can you really think that the Bill of Rights wasn't created to protect individual rights from government interference?

Stop this madness right now! As any schoolboy knows, it is written in the Constitution that none of the 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights can be subject to repeal.

When those very wise men wrote the Constitution of These United States of America they did not "grant" any Rights to their Subjects; they recognized, in writing, that the Citizens owned those Rights forthwith. The Framers insisted that Rights are not granted by government but are confered buy a Higher Power and that one duty of Government is to know and accept the limitations on power placed on Those that Would Be King.

Everybody relies on guns for protection, regardless of your position on gun control. I find it interesting people like Daley and Fenty make press releases surrounded by personal security details armed to the teeth. I also find it interesting that many pro-ban politicians own and carry guns. The difference between gun owners and those who would take the guns away, is that gun owners at least have the stones to take personal responsibility for their own protection. Everyone else relies on others for that protection, whether it be a PSD or the relatively safe environment provided by their local law enforcement department. I would suggest this little experiment to all supporters of gun control; before enacting more gun control, lets all give up all forms of tele-communication for a while. Just continue going about your daily life, but you can't use any telephones or cell phones for any situation, including emergencies. See how that works out for you. Oh, wait, that already happened in New Orleans. I wonder how that worked out for the non-gun owners?

Actually, from a ballistics point of view, a shotgun is better for home defense. Pellets don't immediately spread once they leave the barrel (meaning whoever you aim for is probably going to receive the entire payload, just as intended), and their lower velocity compared to most handguns and long guns decreases the likelihood of overpenetration.

But size is still a problem; you can mitigate that by installing a pistol grip on most shotguns, but even then they're somewhat unwieldly in close quarters.

In my opinion, the best handgun caliber for home defense would be .45 ACP; it's big, heavy and [relatively] slow, meaning most of the bullet's energy gets transferred directly to the target. If a shotgun won't cut it, go for a .45.

At what point does criticism of the constitution become anti-American? I understand very well the issues of free speech, but even there limits exist. I would suggest to you that if the Trib were to have suggested repeal of the 14th Amendment there would be more than a few howls of protest. Where, then, are the limits, if any?

"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." So writes the Trib.

Substitute for the words "handgun posession" the words "African-Americans" and see if the Trib laments that that takes "...public policy issue out of the hands of citizens."

Explain the difference, oh Wise Trib, and it destroys your public policy SA interpretation. Defend your premise that "policy" must triumph individual freedom and the 14th Amendment can also be repealed. Can't be done both ways. See? our Founders WERE smarter than you, after all. What a shock.

"The INARTFUL WORDING has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years."

Gee, from which famous Democrat politician's lips have we heard the term "inartful" lately? I'll give you three guesses...and two of them don't count.

To shut up a liberal about guns, just say the following:

I believe in gun rights for the same reason you believe in abortion rights:

-If you make them illegal, you won't make them go away. You'll just guarantee that people only have them in a very dangerous and unregulated manner.

-If you make them illegal, you will make criminals out of average, otherwise law-abiding, people. While at the same time channeling limited govt. resources in the wrong direction.

-If you don't want one, then don't have one. But don't take away everyone else's right to have one.

-Whether you understand it or not, access to them is a life and death issue for some people. The fact that you don't understand their reasoning nor circumstances does not make them wrong nor you right.

-Plus, I guarantee you that my guns have terminated fewer lives than any single one of the millions of abortions performed at any given time. In terms of lethality, abortions terminate more lives than guns.

So to be pro-abortion but anti-gun is logicially inconsistent if respect of Life and Liberty are the premises to your argument. Not necessarily so is the other way around.

The bottom line is that the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the constitution for the express purpose of helping the people to kill tyrannical politicians as a last resort to preserve essential liberty.

Is it any wonder the left opposses it???

Rick. Try this: guns have been banned in Chicago for 20-odd years and gun death rates have gone through the roof. Let's see what happens during the next 20 years.