Tribune Calls to Repeal 2nd Amendment

[flynnguy]

I don't mind a liberal viewpoint, sometimes I do agree with them. However for someone to write an article with so many factual inaccuracies is astounding. Just a couple things....

In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.

Ummm... hate to break it to you but it's not the government's job to protect it's citizens. (Except maybe from a foreign invasion) The court have ruled countless times that the police are not obligated to protect you. They are Law Enforcement which means after someone breaks the law, they can start to do something about it. And remember kids, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact.

He can argue all he wants, I know at least for D.C. (I haven't looked at Chicago) since the ban there has only been an increase in crime despite a national downward trend. So guess what, Gun Control doesn't work to reduce crime. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it go away, if it did, we wouldn't have a war on drugs right now. Whatever side you stand on the war on drugs, I think we can all agree that you can still get drugs pretty easily. If this is true with drugs, what makes you think it wouldn't be true for firearms. In fact, I'd bet most people involved with drugs, at least on the dealing end, probably have illegal guns. All gun laws do is disarm those law-abiding citizens that will comply with the law.

But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.

Actually in D.C. yes, you can own a shotgun in the home but it has to be locked and unloaded. Let's see you defend yourself when a bad guy has a loaded and unlocked gun pointed at you. I don't think he'll wait while you unlock your gun and find some ammo. I'd call that overly restrictive. Let's start to apply the same measures to the 1st amendment and see how quickly you yell foul.

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.

Wait, you didn't mention D.C., how come? Ok, so Chicago saw a decrease in gun violence along with the rest of the nation. Guess what 40 states or so allow their citizens to carry guns whenever they want. (well maybe not whenever, there are some restrictions like courthouses, etc...) I don't know what the murder rate is nationally for this year is but I'm going to guess it's either going to continue on the downward trend or at least not raise much. Except for places like Chicago and D.C. which have (or should I say had ) gun bans. Hmmmm.... I guess banning guns don't work.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.

Let's replace 2nd with 1st and see if you still feel the same way. I feel the 2nd amendment is just as important today as it was back when the founding fathers constructed the bill of rights. The ability to defend oneself is important. If I can't defend myself, who will defend me? The Police? Nothing against the police but they are already stretched thin, especially in big cities like Chicago, D.C., etc... Hey, these cities also have restrictive gun laws so guess where the criminal element is going to thrive? If you allow the people to arm themselves, you've now increased the 'militia' so that they can defend themselves. I've seen interviews where they talk to prisoners and they basically all say the same thing, the most terrifying thing to them is a homeowner with a gun. If you increase the odds that a criminal will face a gun, there will most likely be less crimes. I doubt it will eliminate crime altogether because there will always be people willing to take a risk but it's a good thing if you can reduce it.

Unfortunately most people who are strong anti refuse to have a debate with me. They typically just start saying no and shutting down without offering any facts or offering incorrect or misconstrued facts. The 2nd amendment needs a PR company to help combat the media doing everything it can to make guns seem scary.

 

[cracked butt]

And we can have that debate because of the 1st. How about we repeal that also? Just because our founding fathers found a value in free speech back in the 1700's doesn't mean it's still a good idea.

The more I see and learn, the more I understand that the left doesn't want the power of the 1st Amendment in the hands of the people either despite their claims as being champions of free speech. Their idea of 1st Amendment rights are to expunge any residue of religeons other than atheism from the public eye, to allow for free unihibited access to porn in public places such as libraries, to quash the common man's ability to speak out against candidates before elections, and to try to kill successful free market driven conservative talk radio while propping up state funded left wing propaganda radio.

There are a lot of people out there that have been duped into thinking that leftists care about human rights, only one of which is free speech.

 

[everallm]

As for that pesky 1st Amendment, irrelevant in todays world, we have our politicians to inform us of what is necessary to know.....

 

[Phil DeGraves]

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves from criminals and from criminal governments. Why do you think DC and Chicago are so upset?

 

[seed]

Thanks Baba Louie and JWarren.

It should be noted that there other sources of the Founding Fathers intent clarified that include personal writings, letters among themselves, and other publications.

While the Federalist Papers are a cornerstone of the process of creating this country, they are not alone in establishing the mindset of our Founders.


Hence I say again that only a twit with an agenda feigns confusion as to what the Founding Fathers were thinking. Some were quite vocal on the matter.


I find it amazing how ignorant anti's can become on history when it comes to an issue they don't WANT to objectively explore, and how insightful they become when something pushes THEIR agenda.

You wouldn't happen to know where to quickly find some of these personal writings, letters and publications, would you? If you do, that would be most cool.

 

[JWarren]

seed,

I don't have them at the tips of my fingers at the moment, but I'll post here as well as send you a PM when I can go through my things.



-- John

 

[wheelgunslinger]

The only thing ANY newspaper is good for now is to use a couple wads to start my charcoal chimney. They'll all be looking for new jobs in the near future.

Way ahead of you, Omaha. I've bailed out of the journalism gig and only do it part time due to the kind of stuff you see here. It's too much like sleeping with the enemy.

 

[seed]

Thanks JWarren. I appreciate your efforts. No rush though...

Thanks again.

 

[Cuda]

These idiots are just afraid that the Heller ruling is the start of us THE PEOPLE taking back our country.. We will be in control not them.

C

 

[ARTiger]

So the Chicago Tribune wants to repeal the second amendment? Why not this little tweak to the first amendment as well . . .
. . . "all rights previously granted herein shall be null and void should untruths be purported as fact".

 

[Cliff47]

Before anybody opens that can of worms, make sure that a larger can is available to put the result.

Maybe this is what my GrandFather meant when he said: You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back, you've got something.

 

[M60]

Forget the worms.

I think a different kind of can would get opened up.

-Mark.

 

[Rugerlvr]

So who's going to re-write the entire editorial substituting the 1st for the 2nd and send it to them?

 

[Gun Slinger]

My two posts in response to the Tribune's Un-American stance:

You state in the article above:

"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."


Wrong.

The United States Supreme Court just declared otherwise by affirming D.C. v. Heller and finding it to be an individual right. They found it quite clear and it is apparent that your grasp of reality could use a little "fine tuning".

Your call to "Repeal the 2nd Amendment", anacrohronistic and whatever other twenty-five dollar, multisyllabic words you might wish to drag out in order to sound educated and intelligent, is perhaps the most cruelly Anti-American sentiment that I have ever heard.

Shame on you for expressing such a seditious, treasonous proposal. Although I view the First Amendment as being just as sacrosanct the rest of the BIll of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it is a shame that it also protects those such as yourself (and the rag that you write for) who would tear asunder the Bill of Rights and all of its component Amendments that protect you from tyranny and enumerate your many freedoms solely for the purpose of satsifying your own questionable values.

Since your obvious disdain for the Bill of Rights causes you such discomfort, I heartily encourage you to leave now while you still can. You owe it to yourself and us.

Chalk up another cancelled "Trib" subscription.

After speaking with my Uncle who has been a lifelong subscriber (both Daily and Sundays) to the Chicago Tribune, he has cancelled his subscription after reading the editorial garbage spouted above.

I encourage everyone reading and offended by this Un-American article to cancel their subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune immediately and support our God-given freedoms with the discontinuation of your financial patronage to the Chicago Tribune.

I also suspect that this post will not make it into the public's view either. Of course, those at the Tribune should have no probem with Censorship since they are calling for a total "rewrite" of the U.S. Constitution anyway.

 

[gopguy]

Repeal it, and nevertheless the right remains. An attempt to break the social contract is not a good idea, the sort of thing starts revolts. As I recall Montana warned they might leave the union had this decision not come down as it did.

 

[dm1333]

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

So it would be reasonable to assume that other amendments such as the First were also sloppily written? But why am I talking to you guys when I should be writing to the Tribune.

 

[captainamerica]

Wow! Our society is out of whack thinking they know more and understand more than the framers. Changing or dumping amendments? These things are supposed to be virtually untouchable and don't require revision or removal due to societal trends or public opinion. Brave military personnel have died protecting them and they think of them as outdated suggestions.