Handgun ban should stay in Chicago

Chicago Tribune Editorial ^ | 03/04/2010 | Carol Hillman

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am dismayed that the City of Chicago's ban on handguns may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The second amendment to the Bill of Rights reads as follows: 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.

The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia. In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms. Of course, I cannot prove that my reading of the amendment is correct -- but gun rights supporters cannot prove that the right to bear arms extends to people who are not in the military!

Moreover, gun rights advocates always say that it is not a gun that kills someone, it is a person that does so. That may be, but much of the time, it is a person with a gun! To be sure, some people will always figure out how to get firearms illegally, but it stands to reason that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths.

This is what Police Superintendent Jody Weis said in regard to the ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban: "From a law enforcement perspective, this will no doubt make a police officer's job more challenging than it already is, particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago."

I can only speak for myself, but I would feel a lot less safe if the Chicago handgun ban is overturned. I suspect crime rates after the ban is lifted will prove me right!

[Oldpuppymax]

Ms Hillman, you should REALLY read something about our nation, it’s founding and the men who did it. You really should. Of course FACTS won’t change your leftist “MIND”, but at least you would KNOW you are full of SHITE!!

[iacovatx]

“The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia”

Logic just doesn’t quite grace this author’s (Carol’s) doorstep. She almost gets it in this sentence. Yes, it has something to do with a militia. Barring the gov’t from infringing on the right to keep and to bear arms enables a well-regulated militia (the armed population at large) to ensure the security of a free state. Without arms, the people will not be able to secure a free state.

I am amused by the author’s choice of phrases:
“I cannot prove...” followed by an illogical, incorrect statement
“it stands to reason...” followed by an illogical, incorrect statement
“I suspect...” followed by an illogical, incorrect statement

Being Carol must be a life full of frustrations as she pits her suppositions against realities and loses again and again.

[Kozak]

I think if the citizens of Chicago are unarmed, so should the the police. Also all the bailiffs in the courtrooms and the security guards for the city officials.

[broken_arrow1]

Chicago Mafia and street gangs must be members of the Militia if they have guns! This libtard is f-cked up!

[the lastbestlady]

No kidding.
It's an easier amendment to understand if you have a little knowledge of grammar. (she obviously does not)

[crazydad]

And in any case, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow the People to protect themselves from criminals. It is to allow them to protect themselves from THEIR GOVERNMENT!!!!
DING DING DING WE have a winner... These Liberal touchy feely idiots dont get it...

[VeniVidiVici]

Of course, I cannot prove that my reading of the amendment is correct -- but gun rights supporters cannot prove that the right to bear arms extends to people who are not in the military!

[MrB]

She also needs to read John Lott’s book as well,

since she seems convinced that removing the handgun ban will INCREASE crime.

Someone keep her email handy and when the crime rate DROPS dramatically, demand that she print a retraction.

[Graybeard58]

Hard to know where to start with such idiocy. Does the author think she has come up with some new argument? It's just as stupid now as it has always been.

[Gilbo_3]

is this chick retarded ???

welcome to the 21st century where the collectivist theory isnt even supported by leftcomms anymore...

[SECURE AMERICA]

Ms Hillman like the rest of her ilk are not much of a historian. Tje militia in the days of our founders who wrote the Constitution were not soldiers per se they were farmers, shop owners etc. In plain words the people. Not the standing Government military..

[windsorknot]

One day Carol may find herself in a situation when a handgun would be handy.

[MrB]

It takes a special combination of ignorance of reality and the arrogance to think you know what’s best for everyone else

to be a “good liberal”.

[cbkaty]

.......and freedom of speech is a right of only those associated with the press.......BWAHAHAHAHA.

These people have university degrees? They must be giving them away at....kool-aid stands......

[Digger]

50 yrs of commie public education & we see the effects.

[Wolverine83]

I could not believe that this was actually published in a major newspaper in the editorial section. The writing and reasoning appears to be at the 3rd grade level. Perhaps one of her children wrote the article.

So I checked. This is actually a letter to the editors. Perhaps it was published (though I don’t really believe this) to illustrate the general reasoning skills of the anti-gun crowd.

[KrisKrinkle]

“It would be the first time ever that a liberalized gun law resulted in more crime. DC crime is down since the Heller decision.”

Given that it’s Chicago, it wouldn’t surprise me if the crime rate went up.

I see Chicago as corrupt but more organized down to the street than DC. It wouldn’t surprise me if an order came down from the top to “do your worst, we won’t look for you too hard”. The goal would be to drive crime up to support their contention crime would go up after the decision went against them.

[dread78645]

I can only speak for myself, but I would feel a lot less safe if the Chicago handgun ban is overturned. I suspect crime rates after the ban is lifted will prove me right!

Another triumph of Hope over Experience?

[Manly Warrior]

Here is my commet to her blog:

“The Second Ammendment is a complex, compound sentnce that simply is two thoughts, connected to each other and with clear relational association/modification of and to each other.

The concept of the “militia” in our founding history has always been the people, every able bodied male. The fact that the militia was/still is the people, nothwithstanding that the national guard was created in 1913 or so out of the states’ Organized Militias, remains. How can one be a self-armed and equipped member of the general/unorganized militia if you may not possess arms?

Also, and probably more important to your analysis, no one in the military has a “right” to bear arms, rather we can do so only under orders of commanders and ultimately the President. Military arms, other than those in use by such direction, are secured in a 2 person-controlled access arms room. If you think soliders are armed at their whim (as one endowed with a “right” would be so empowered) you are out of touch with reality. The terror attack at Fort Hood shows that fact.

You may not like arms yourself, so don’t buy one or exercise your right to self-defense via firearm, dial 911; best of luck, as LEOs are under no legal requirement or mandate to respond to anyone, rather, per SCOTUS ruling,which indicates that LEOs are required to generally enforce/protect us.

Please Do not think of treading on my right.”

[DesertConservative]

Ms. Hillman should be forced to wear a T-shirt reading:

“Unarmed and helpless, and proud of it!”