http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related
Posted on 06/29/2008 11:47:26 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
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........."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The Democratic Party is anathema to a “free state.”
It is not surprising to read this in the Tribune. Chicago is the center of Obama’s power base.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees.
As do 73% of the American public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related
John Paul Stevens, and the other three traitors need to impeached, then hung, after a fair trial.
And just how does the editorial staff of the Chicago Tribune think such an amendment would get enacted? Gun control is an issue that only appeals to leftists in large urban centers. Such an amendment couldn’t even make it out of committee much less get a 2/3’rds vote in both the House and Senate. Furthermore getting 3/4’ths of the states to ratify such an amendment is tricky. The 13 smallest population states can block any amendment.
I have a better idea, let’s repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments that way we won’t have to deal with B. Hussein’s anymore and we’ll have more money available to exercise the 2nd Amendment.
You’re welcome, Chicago Tribune.
I really wish these ignorant, arrogant, stupid SOB’s would take the time to read the minutes of the COnstitutional Convention. There is absolutely no doubt at all that the Founding Fathers wanted armed citizens, PERIOD, END OF DAMN ARGUMENT!!
Senator Joseph McCarthy is again vindicated.
I disagree with, but respect people who want to repeal the 2A. I disrespect people, including judges, who try to misinterpret it based on their emotions.
Tell me you don’t like the 2A and I’m OK, but don’t tell me it means something else when it doesn’t.
What!!!???? Didn’t they hear??? Obama says RTBA is an individual right. There will be turmoil in dino land, I predict.
Since the editorial was unsigned we do not know which balloon head at the Trib wrote this, but I bet it is one with a long history of drek like this.
....not that you prejudge their guilt or anything....
There other amendments that discuss related topics in the same context. The first discusses establishment of religion, free speech, a non-regulated press, right to assembly and petition for example.
The leftists in this country want to ignore the fact that someone who is willing to commit rape, murder and mayhem could care less about the legality of using a gun in those acts.
“The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.”
Some people are utter idiots. NO PART of the Bill of Rights grants any rights to a STATE. The bill of rights was specifically added to the constitution to guarantee the states would not trample the rights of CITIZENS.
When the constitution starts granting rights to anything other than humans, it will be time to opt out.
Exactly. As written, it is a demand that every able-bodied man (and let's through in women, and with the ADA toss on the disabled as well) MUST own a gun so that they can secure the State as needed.
“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 failure to understand the timeless relevance of the 2nd Amendment, is a failure to understand the entire foundation of our Republic. I believe it was deliberately the second right enshrined, only behind freedom of speech.
Got that right, because the speaker is either:
-stupid
-ignorant
-a liar
Or a combination of the three.
**I disagree with, but respect people who want to repeal the 2A. I disrespect people, including judges, who try to misinterpret it based on their emotions.**
I agree. I don’t have a problem either if people disagree with my opinion, BUT when they twist the actual words of a document such as the Bible or the BOR, and lean it favorable towards their own agenda (such as homosexuality in the Bible), then I have a simmering issue with those people.
I find it amazing how such ignorant individuals have so much voice in this country. Is it truly that difficult for these people to comprehend the meaning of the first part of this Amendment? If the “people” are already armed, the “Government” then does not need to mobilize a force to provide arms to those who will be needed to protect the citizendry. This is how a “well regulated militia” may be quickly formed - and the framers knew enough to understand that the citizens may have to form a militia to defend itself from it’s own government - something which could not be done if the only ones armed are those controlled by that government. Even a fourth grader can understand this simple idea.
There you have it. Newspaper editors are smarter than everyone else.
-PJ
What part of “Right Of The People” don’t they understand?
My response: “Keep your friends close and your enemies in your rifle-sights”
FMCDH/BITS
Call 911. When seconds count the police are just hours away.
We can now add Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, Chavez, etc.
Repeal the first amendment, it is used by the idiots in Chicago to attack our very Constitution.
The only positive comment I saw was from somebody who also supported gay marriage. Maybe the left should really start pushing these two issues and see what the electorate really thinks. The result would be a disaster for the left that even the RINOS couldn’t sabotage.
They’ve already admitted their guilt. Their votes constitute a confession of treason.
Stevens is now a laughingstock because of that opinion.
The number of inaccuracies and outright lies in that editorial is staggering.
The writings of the time are quite clear as to intention; but fine then, freedom of speech is only guaranteed to the government; obviously the interpretation that it applies to individuals is just plain wrong...
What? Oh, sorry, explain, oh exulted Tribue, why it is called the Bill of Rights, and almost exclusively LIMITS government’s power. Explain why, for the following hundred years, that cannons were owned by individuals and brought to the militias?
Of course the editorial is unsigned.
Blood would be flowing if they repealed the 2nd Amendment...and they don’t want it to be theirs.
Kinda says it all, eh? There are many ways to "protect" the citizens; gun control legislation is not on the list.
I recall the recent 911 dispatcher who is on tape saying "I don't care if you live or die" after the caller had given her details and hung up.
Breaking News: Totalitarians have a problem with the second amendment.
Local governments should pass laws that limit the size of newspapers, to protect the environment and save energy. Background checks should be made on editorial writers and journalists before their work can be published.
Hint: the above is sarcasm. But if the 1st amendment were treated in the same manner as the 2nd, local governments would restrict free speech.
Any orignalist reading of the debate and comments of the founders directly concerning the 2A leaves absolutely no doubt about what it means. “The right of the people” is not a state right.
Guns DO protect the citizens. Cops don’t. Cops write tickets. Courts employ laywers and judges and an overburdened prison system.
Violent offenders and home invaders can under the laws of this land be shot and killed on site by the home owner.
But that denies a lot of other people in the law profession their own job.
Hard to defend having police on staff just to write tickets for city revenue. They aren’t there to protect and serve. NJ Supreme Court has said as much.
The police don’t want you to have a gun because ANYONE with a gun could be a “threat”. They already have the attitude that everyone is guilty of “something”. Therefore their paranoia gets them at times and they are convinced that if you have a gun and are detained you just MIGHT use it against them.
Our ousted (by scandal, not election) RINO DA (Houston) acted in outright disregard for the state legislature when he said publicly he would prosecute anyone with a gun in their car as a felon (even though the state made it legal) and let it go through appeals up to the state supreme court.
I can’t count on the police for defense (the drug dens are just up the road from the main police station, illegal immigrants gather publicly, there is no will to prosecute criminals even in car jackings). I certainly don’t need them for city revenue with random ticket enforcement.
And for police forces that want to arm up with military grade firepower, they are in over their heads. Call in the ATF and National Guard. I don’t want my local police force doing the job of other agencies that are better trained for such situations.
They somehow imagine their windy proclamations manufactured in their control-freak Editorial Room make their continuing oft-repeated lies into truth. This may have worked for many years in Daley's little fascist empire, but the cat is out of the bag now.
They are just sycophantic blow-hards living in the wishful bubble of their own imaginations.
Me?
No friend, there is ample evidence.
“...NO PART of the Bill of Rights grants any rights to a STATE. The bill of rights was specifically added to the constitution to guarantee the states would not trample the rights of CITIZENS. ...”
Sorry friend, but you are wrong here. The “Bill of Rights” was added to prevent the new Federal Government from trampling on the Rights of the Citizens. Indeed, the 10th Amendment reserves the rights of the States. It was the 14th Amendment that made the “Bill of Rights” applicable to the States.
Nonetheless, the writer for the Trib has it very wrong, and should take a remedial course on the Constitution.
Let the ample evidence be revealed to all. Then a jury can decide.
And then a penalty, as well.
But to determine that a person is guilty and should be hanged even before an indictment or trial smacks of Soviet kangaroo courts.
Let’s save such certain punishments for the summation, or for present-day pleasant daydreams.
The Constitution disagrees with the 2nd Amendment giving the states the right to form militias. The Constitution grants Congress the power to provide for arming the militias, among other things, and gives the states the authority of appointing officers and training the militias.
The states therefore are given the right to form militias in the Contitution prior to the writing and adoption of the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendment acknowleges, does not grant, the right of The People to keep and bear arms and then goes on to state that this right shall not be infringed.
The well-regulated militia is a reason the right to keep and bear arms is acknowleged and protected.
No, I certainly do not agree with the Chicago Tribune's editorialist on this particular issue; but left-of-center types usually prefer to make law by judicial fiat. To observe liberals calling for a change in the Constitution--whether by way of the passage of a new amendment, or the repeal of an existing one--is to see liberals respecting proper procedure in a way that is almost unprecented. Or, at least, acquiessing to it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sheesh, look at that mess. Whatta we got there? Let's see.
Congress shall make no law respecting ....
But if you want to get series about repealing a confusing Amendment, lets repeal that Abortion Amendment. The 'rights' under that one have expanded from abortions being legal during the 1st trimester to killing babies that are 80% out of the birth canal. Annnnnd allowing children to have them No One is Prosecuted. Better still - and this is a laugher - the kids parents aren't even allowed to know they were raped by some pervert! Now that is one screwed up amendment, yes siree Bob.
Oh ... wait. There isn't any 'Abortion Rights Amendment', now is there. Oh well, lets get rid of the 2nd one anyway, it's dangerous. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
