Tribune: 'Repeal the 2nd Amendment'

What I wouldn't give to have a keyboard drool-b-gone franchise right now. The gun crowd is in full mouth-froth mode right now.

What's to debate dopeheads? The people make the laws in this country. If you think the gov't is somehow morally superior to the people, then you're in the wrong country. If you don't like it, then hit the bricks.

Yes, please repeal the 2nd amendment. It is totally irrelevant to today's world. And Daley is right: the whole world (especially the developed countries) are laughing at us. The U.S. has the highest gun-related murder rate in the world after Albania: this is appaling and humiliating. How can Chicago, one of the most violent cities in America, possibly attain the Olympic bid, after the supreme court's barbaric decision was on the front page of most international newspapers? Yet we desperately need the funding the Olympics would bring in to improve Chicago's communities and transportation system.

While Mayor Richard M. Daley (who said "the world is laughing at us") and others grapple with how to defend the city's handgun ban from the oncoming legal onslaught, the members of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board had a more radical idea.

In an editorial in Friday's editions, it called for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

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. ~ J.O.

No one is laughing at your fantasy world view of gun control, Mayor Daley. Chill.

Repealling the 2nd Amendment is a radical position, Chicago Tribune. Don't think that 75% of the states of the United States are going to be on board with that one. Can you really be serious about that.

Liberals / Leftists, don't have a cow over this. YOUR LIVES ARE NO MORE THREATENED THAN THEY EVER WERE BECAUSE YOUR STUPID GUN LAWS NEVER WORKED ANYWAY.

Liberals / Leftists, don't have a cow over this. YOUR LIVES ARE NO MORE THREATENED THAN THEY EVER WERE BECAUSE YOUR STUPID GUN LAWS NEVER WORKED ANYWAY.

Posted by: Django Scott - Houston, Tx | June 27, 2008 11:21 AM

Unless you are a woman. Repeated studies have shown that the presence of a gun in the home dramatically raises the risk of a woman being murdered by a domestic partner. The safety of women matters as much as the safety of men, Django, and putting more guns in more houses makes women less safe. I will "have a cow" over that, if you don't mind.

I always thought the liberalization, comparatively speaking, of the Tribune was, at best, a pose to garner more readers, including moderate and liberal!! After seeing this proposal, an incredibly astute one, I tip my hat to them, for their ability to see past the anachronisms of an astonishing and wonderful document, our Constitution. Let us have this debate, it is one that is as necessary, as a debate on the question, of whether or not, we are a democracy with an economic system that includes capitalistic elements, or are we a capitalistic nation with some democratic elements at play !!
The call for the debate covering the 2nd amendment is a reasonable request or should it be viewed as a reasonable demand!!? Far too many of our citizens and, incomprehensibly, too many of our children are being killed with the help of these tools, known as guns. Nobody is being held accountable. Cigarettes were killing people, we had recourse, we could go to the manufactures and we could sue them We could shine the light on them and let the nation know what these Corporations were doing to us, as a nation!! This was a great fight against the tobacco Corps and it is a fight we are winning. Let us look at the use of guns with the same light. Let us debate the issue, reasonably and not start name-calling and fear-mongering, that will not save lives, especially our children's lives. Come on, America, you know there is something wrong with our gun culture and gun laws, let's try to fix them and make our country safe for everyone, especially, our children !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...."

How is this even remotely debatable?

Judicial activism at its worst.

Nicole, how about vetting your spouse before marrying them?
If you're husbands ex-wives (Drew Peterson) are dead, then that may be a signal.

Those of you who prefer to model our policies on failed European policies are welcome to leave and I hope you do.

Repeal the 2nd Ammendment??? How really stupid of a paper are you? Then again, that's obvious by the way you write and have all the liberals on your paper. I sure all the gun violence was caused by "law-abiding citizens" who wanted to keep a gun in their home for protection. I'm sure the murderers, thugs, thieves, drug dealers and gangs are law abiding citizens, too. And, if a woman is scared of her husband in the house with a gun, she better know how to use one herself. My entire family knows how to shoot handguns.

People are losing their homes, the economy is in flames. Yes, lets talk about GUNS and any other DISTRACTIONS the GOP might throw our way. How 'bout we debate GAYS and GOD next? The GOP has no new ideas.

It is ironic that municipalities with some the strictest gun control laws(ie:Chicago, DC)have some of the worst violent crime. These laws haven't done squat All they do is leave the guns in the hands of criminals and politicians. By the way, the next time you are being threatened or some one is breaking in your home, call Mayor Daley and have him send over one of his ARMED bodyguard. Funny how the politicians who have the protection of firearms want to deny the same right to other law-abiding citizens.

The debate is over Don, and as usual, the liberals are wrong again. Why don't you take a look at how Canada's gun control law has worked out? The facts are there, but as always, liberals reject facts in favor of their rosy-world-view.

Gun Crimes Committed with Unregistered Guns In Canada
Most murder guns in Canada are never registered with the Canadian Firearms Centre, according to a new Statistics Canada report.

The new Juristat study - a version of which reported over the summer that Canada's murder rate jumped 12% in 2004 after a three-decade slide - says that registration information on murder guns was "unknown" to police in more than half of homicides reported between 1997 and 2004 where the gun was recovered.

Gun registry opponents say that proves the registry - two years and more than a billion tax dollars later - is a failure.

"First, 65% of firearms homicides involve handguns. We've had a handgun registry for decades, so obviously it didn't work either," said Dennis Young, a researcher in the office of Conservative MP and registry critic Garry Breitkreuz.

"But look at who's actually committing murders. Two-thirds of murderers - and half of their adult victims - already had criminal histories. The federal government decided with the registry to go after law-abiding gun owners, when the people doing the killing are overwhelmingly criminals who'd never think to register their guns. What a waste." . . .

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. LET THEM KNOW WE LOVE THEM AND APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO TO KEEP US SAFE!

Posted by: RCK | June 27, 2008 11:46 AM

Wow, RCK, are you actually blaming the victims of domestic abuse for their fate? Are you that out of touch with reality? I really hope that there isn't a woman around who has a low enough sense of self-esteem to be intimately associated with you.

The gun nuts who decide to vote for McCain will no doubt need to melt down those guns to sell for scrap mid-term.
Vote Obama in the Fall

In Britain we have less that 500 gun deaths a year. Multiply that by 5 to get a comparison for an equal population and it's still less that 10% of the rate in the U.S.

And we think we have a problem with guns.

RCk can you confirm exactly what failed policies youin Europe you are referring to?
The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations!!
2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 -- more than the number of American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in Iraq from 2003 to April 2006!!
The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)
If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA!
We're not playing cowboys and Indians anymore people!!

so 68% of all murders are with a firearm even though we already have laws that try to restrict their use. so the brilliant knuckle-dragger response is to throw out all laws surrounding gun control? what is an acceptable percentage of deaths by firearms? 80%?, 100? why does the right-wing fringe want to enable more murders by firearms?

RCK you are one big loser man, The total number of gun deaths in Canada last year was 128!! Thats hardly a sign of failure with our gun laws! regardless of which policies work or not the bottom line is that Americans are killing each other at an alarming rate and the majority of handgun deaths in the United States is attributed to private homeowners via accident, spousal abuse, suicide and plain murder! The fact that you right wing nuts are even arguing over this archaic and convoluted amendment is sophmoric at best!
Its easier to buy a gun then it is a car for goodness sakes!!

So, if the 2nd Amendment says I can have a gun, then why can't I carry it on a plane? This infringes on my rights!!!

Yes, the world is laughing at us. We guarantee citizens the right to own any kind of gun they want, and train pilots who only want to learn how to take off...

The debate is over. Liberals lost, as usual. Power to the people!

This will hurt Obama badly as it sheds light on just how important it is to ensure he doesn't get the opportunity to elect judges to the Supreme Court.

Ya RCK the liberals lost to a bunch of gun toting finatics and their cowboy mentalitites! I might remind you RCK that two of the Supreme Court Justices that voted AGAINST this ruling are Republicans and were appointed by Republicans! So keep a gun in your house and the statistics are high that someone will get hurt or die from it. So go ahead and have fun!

Can I walk into the headquarters of the Republican National Committee with my hand gun?

Can I take my handgun onto the floor of the Republican Cionverntion later this year?

Can I take my handgun into the chambers of the Supreme court?

No? why not? More guns make everyone safer, right?

Ok, gunskill. Give me the same security as your examples get and you've got a deal. But until the gov't installs a metal detector and security staff in my foyer, I'll hold onto the gun. Dopehead.

Hmmm. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guess their current hand gun ban isn't working.

And yes the world is laughing at Mayor Daly.

Why not just pass a law that says no criminals allowed in the city limits? Bwahahaha!

rck, what about a nuclear warhead? can i stockpile a nuclear arsenal in my garage? they qualify as "arms" right?

Why is it when the liberals want to shred the constitution it's okay? -Real men to the front, liberals to the rear!

Real men to the front, liberals to the rear!
Posted by: Michael | June 27, 2008 1:19 PM

Spoken like a true warmonger. Go ahead and find your glory on the frontline. I'm happy to stay in the rear and take care of those you leave behind because of your testosterone fantasies.

liberals shred the constitution? oh that's right, up is down, right is left and the sky is green. such a bizarro world the fringe right lives in.

Ok Michael, so the two Supreme Court justices who voted against this decision, appointed by Ford and the first Bush are now liberals?

"What I wouldn't give to have a keyboard drool-b-gone franchise right now. The gun crowd is in full mouth-froth mode right now."
Posted by: Doug "Hussein" Zook | June 27, 2008 11:01 AM
* * * * *
Actually, Doug, from reading the posts on this thread, it seems to me as though the anti-gun crowd has gone full mouth-froth rabid over the issue.

Actually Crud, learn your facts. Nuclear warheads and such would be considered ordinance. Get your facts straight. Gun control, by definitino, only affect law abiding citizens. And people say gun violence has gone down in Britian - fine. What they don't mention is that all other types of violent crime has gone up. Let us freedom loving Americans keep our guns, and you idiots can move to Cuba and live your socialist nanny-state fantasies.

I think we should ask ourselves why banks have a policy of not having armed security to thrwart robbers. Could it be because creating a shootout scenario is not safe for society at large? Sure you might kill the robber or you could create a scene where gunfire is exchanged and innocents are killed, or more likely a robber will enter and immediately shoot the security guard and then anyone who moves. The best policy is to allow them to take the money and leave without any shots fired.

June 26, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS A 3-year-old boy died after apparently shooting himself while playing with a gun Wednesday in Joliet.

The weapon, a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun, had been reported stolen.

****************************
June 25, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
HENDERSON, Ky.---- An employee shot and killed four people at a plastics plant before killing himself early Wednesday, police said.

The employee used a handgun he retrieved during a break... The shooting victims were scatted around the plant...
''It appears the shooting was random at this time,''

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
A man was injured Wednesday evening after he was shot in an apparent robbery at a South Side fast food restaurant.

The man, in his 30s, suffered a gunshot wound to the abdomen just before 5 p.m. during an apparent robbery...

*****************************
June 24, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
A 17-year-old boy was killed and three men injured Monday night when four males in a van opened fire on them in an apparently gang-related drive-by on the South Side.

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
Shots fired from outside hit a man in a bedroom Monday night in an Avalon Park community house on the South Side.

It was unknown whether the man was the target of the shooting.

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
A man slain on the South Side was involved in an argument before he was fatally shot late Monday, police said.

******************************
June 23, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
Three young women were shot and wounded while sitting on a porch early Sunday on the South Side.

The gunman, only described as a male Hispanic, approached on foot and fired shots, striking two females in the thigh area and one female in the abdomen...

***************************
June 20, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
A husband attempting to defend his recently stabbed wife was fatally shot early Friday in the South Side’s Englewood neighborhood.

Michael Tyner, 32, of the 2200 block of West Marquette Avenue, was pronounced dead at 1:09 a.m. at Saint Bernard Hospital, said the Cook County Medical Examiner's office. Police said Tyner was shot in the chest....
About 12:50 a.m., a 32-year-old woman was stabbed in the ear during an argument with another woman in the 6400 block of South Justine Street. Tyner then came to the aid of his recently stabbed wife and was fatally shot by a 22-year-old man, police said.

***************************

Why must you mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers always have to be "RIGHT", at the expense of your common sense? This is not a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue. A gun is not a tool, it is a weapon. A gun's sole reason for existence is to kill.

Think long and hard about that 3-year old, RCK. Was he supposed to leave the country?

Blakely, you can't win them all. Take comfort in your victory from the prior days Supreme Court ruling giving child molestors the right to live after they've destroyed the childs' innoncence. Up is down, right is wrong.

Since you liberals love the use of symantics to make something you think sounds bad sound good, I propose we change the word "gun" to "unicorn." You don't want to ban unicorns do you?

It is written right there in the 2nd Ammendment. You may like all laws and ammendments but you cant change them because you dont like them. The 2nd Ammendment states " the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon." How clearer could it be. The Founding fathers wanted people to have the right to buy guns if they choose. Their whole idea for setting up this gov was to limit the amount of incursion the gov could have on them. Thmoas Jefferson wrote that the beauty of the 2nd ammendment is you wont even notice it until they try and take it away." Anyway its pretty obviuos that the hand gun ban in Chicago is not working. We have had more murders here this year than any other city. I am not a huge fan of guns but I like knowing that if I want one I can get one. It is an individual choice, the government has business being involved. You have many chacks and balances to control who gets them. FOID cards background checks. Anyone who thinks the hand gun ban in Chicago is working is clearly an idiot. So what other rights does the Trib want to take away. How about the freedom of speech, should we do away with that one too. All of you using Europe as an example are forgetting Canada. Canada has very few if any gun laws and their murder rate is pretty much non-existent.

Vinny,
First of all, Jefferson never said that quote, it is a myth. Second, 2007 Chicago had the lowest number of murders since 1965. When was the handgun law passed? Before or after 1965? It works.

Um RCK I see you graduated from kindergarden bravo!

"Ok Michael, so the two Supreme Court justices who voted against this decision, appointed by Ford and the first Bush are now liberals?"
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | June 27, 2008 1:33 PM
* * * * *
Actually, Scot, if you had watched their transformation over the years like I have, you would have to agree with Michael. Justices Stevens and Souter may have been appointed by Republicans, but their views, as expressed in their opinions, have hardly been conservative by any stretch. In fact, most of the time, they vote with the two Clinton appointees: Breyer and Ginsburg.

pearlywhite, I don't speak for irresponsible parents. Why don't you do some follow up on the stories provided and tell us all how many of the weapons used were registered? I'll wait patiently for the results.

Vinny, let me correct you: The 2nd Amendmant says:
"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". How clearer could that be? Its clear as day to me that one statement does not give the people the right to bear arms without being in a militia. One sentance one thought.
You gun nuts love to leave out the first 13 words of this statement, as did the Supreme Court!

John W.,

I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. Nah, you're right.

Yes John W I have watched their transformations over the years but that still doesnt change the fact that they were appointed by republicans!
And I might add that these appointees are supposed to be neutral and not Conservative or Liberal in their leanings. They are to interpret the Constitution in the way they best believe it to be understood.
I might also add that Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton and approved by the majority of the house which was at that time Republican.

liberals shred the constitution? oh that's right, up is down, right is left and the sky is green. such a bizarro world the fringe right lives in.

Posted by: crud | June 27, 2008 1:29 PM

Crud:
*****
Pseudo-liberals have been shredding the constitution since the '30s and '40s, ever since the Supreme Court surrendered to F.D.R.'s court packing threat. The "New Deal" and the "Great Society" - both pseudo liberal mega-programs - were built upon the destruction of core constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government, and upon the encroachment of the same on the power of the States. It has also been largely at the hand of the so called liberals on the Supreme Court and in Congress that our rights to free speech and property have gone in the grinder. So, yes, think what you like about the hype that pseudo-liberals spout about the Constitution and freedom, but it is largely a pack of lies. And no, I am not saying that Republicans have been that much better on the issue of civil rights. I think the views of all so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" have become largely wrong-headed on many issues in ways that threaten our core freedoms. Yesterday's opinion was a breath of fresh air in that it preserved liberty against government encroachment. The reasoning of that opinion can be used in many future cases to stem further encroachments upon our core freedoms. Only ideological sheep from the left don't seem to appreciate that.

Repeal the 2nd? Sure if you like the government taking over your life. The 2nd was put in place to make sure that the people of this country always have a way to take down a tyrannical government if needed. You can say that it will never happen but you never know what will happen in the future.

Chicago and DC are some of the most crime infested areas in this country. Hmm, they have handgun bans. Would a criminal rather break in there where there is no guns? or break in somewhere where they don't have them?

We can argue all day long about this subject but Liberals will never understand that criminals will ALWAYS have guns, why take them away from Citizens.

Yeah, 200+ yrs. of legal unicorn ownership. Then the genius Scot Blakely comes along and finds the US has been mis-interpreting the bill of RIGHTS all along.

I must have missed the history class that studied how Americans were forced to turn in their unicorns on Dec. 16, 1791.

Maybe the ammendment was put into the Bill of RIGHTS by mistake. Perhaps it was actually intended for Bill of Restrictions or the Special Forces Bill of Rights.

Iraq has very well armed militia groups and individuals. It is working well for them.

John W.,

It was a Democratic controlled Congress that smacked down FDR on his court packing scheme. In recent times, its been the Republican be very, very afraid crowd that has tried to deep 6 the Geneva Convention and most recently is working retroactive immunity to the telecoms who may have violated the law and/or Constitution. Yeah, I know Hoyer & some other Dems are in colusion on this and they're wrong too.

RCK do you ever say anything tht makes sense6 Or how about something of mature value? Where does the Bill of rights mention gun posession? Curious, did your mommy take your unicorn away from you too early?

RCK do you ever say anything that makes sense? Or how about something of mature value? Where does the Bill of rights mention gun posession? Curious, did your mommy take your unicorn away from you too early? were you still sucking your thumb when she took it away?
Look, we all have our own interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the truth of the matter is no liberal or conservative is going to lean the other way on this matter. So time to move on folks. And RCK, I hope you find your unicorn someday, perhaps it will teach you how to respond in a mature reasonable manner.. Somehow I doubt it though.

Political Debris, You can not truely beleive that having a hand gun in your house is going to have any effect on how the goverment acts. The goverment can declare martial law at any time. You will not last long if you start shooting. This is not a movie. You have a very false sence of security. The Black Panthers thought the same way you do and look what happened to them.

crime is inevitable. however, if we want to reduce the murder rate, the way to address it is to oust the liberal judges that slap the dangerous criminals on the wrist and let them out of jail early so they can "get a second chance." the laws are meaningless to these people, they have little education and little hope to land a job due to their rap sheets. why do we expect these people are going to do anything other than going right back to committing crime. Three strikes and your out law is a good start, more states should jump on board.

john w, yeah, what doug said. here's an interesting look at what has happened to the constitution under the crazy psuedo-liberal bush administrations:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_vs._the_U.S._Constitution

yesterday's ruling was a disaster for america and the state's court systems.

Scot, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called The Bill of Rights. I'm through with you.

I have to laugh at the morons who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny with a handgun. I would love to see you try to stop the National Guard or police with your house full of handguns. It sure worked well for the Branch Dividians and Black Panthers. A handgun can protect you from an intruder, but not the government.

The Trib editorial is laughably stupid. So much so that it appears written by someone trying to discredit the Trib editorial board.

The worst line is when the Trib complains that the Heller decision "curtailed the power of legislatures."

It sure does. As does the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.."), the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc. In fact, the Constitution (at least the copy I have--maybe the Trib reads a different constitution) is chock full of provisions "curtailing the power of legislatures" and other government bodies. And the Trib has in past editorials applauded these curtailments.

The day before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court struck down the LA legislature's law making child-rape a capital offense. Did we see a Trib editorial complaining of THIS curtailment of legislative powers? Of course not.

The Trib doesn't seem to mind when the power of legislatures is curtailed, so long as the Trib approves the reason for the curtailing.

Yes RCK I know this but again I ask where in the Bill of Rights does it state the right to personal ownership of a gun, without being in a militia? did yo ufind your unicorn yet?

RCK- Why would you need the security? If guns aren't a safety issue, and if they do deter crime like you say, The Supreme Court should be thrilled to havre as many people in the chambers as possible carrying a gun. What are they afraid of?

Good point pd, but low and behold they still dont get it.

Scot, like you said, we'll interpret it differently. I do believe I can safely surmise that they were referring to the individual based on the fact that Americans weren't required to turn in their guns, and in fact continued purchasing them legally for the next 200+ yrs.
I'm officially through with you.

Wow I've been dismissed by RCK. As if I really cared. Um, we are in 2008 now RCK, these times they are a changin! deal with it. Come November and during his term, Obama will appoint a new justice and your gun toting cowboys will be history!

It is pretty clear Scott that the comma in that sentence as written is referring to 2 seperate events. The militia and the people are 2 seperate things. "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" It is stating that neither can be infirnged upon by the gov. I am not a gun nut. I do not own any guns and have not even seen one since I left the Marine Core. However the sentence is pretty clear. They were listing things that can not be infringed on by the gov. 1 is a state militia, the other is the peoples right to bear arms. Of they were talking about the militias right to bear arms they would have said the right of that militia to keep and bear arms. How did the people become a militia. The people is the public. If they were talking about the militia they would have worder it differently. You cant add your own words. The words are there. the people is the public. How can anyone claim that the people refers to the militia? Just because you do not like the law you can not make up your own interpretation of it. The Supreme Court has ruled. It is no longer debatable. Deal with it.

gun skill, why are you asking me stupid questions? Why don't you ask a judge why they don't want any guns in a courthouse.

i've always loved the "i'm through with you" response. it reminds me of the story al franken wrote about meeting barbara bush. the last harbor for the arrogant, clueless and annoyed.

And when America is invaded, and the army destroyed, who do you think will be left to defend this nation of ours????

Without guns????

You'll get my gun out of my cold dead hand!!!!!

Since Justice Scalia has discovered a right to "self-defense" in the 2nd Amendment, can he also accept that there exists a "right to privacy" implicit in the Fourth and most importantly Ninth Amendment?

RCK, who better to ask stupid questions than you?

I guess you just don't like the holes in your arguement shown.

Guns don't make you safer. The Judges own refusal to have guns in their presence shows that.

Laura Campbell-

Hate to tell you this, If the US is invaded by a military force strong enough to destroy the US Army, your handgun isn't going to stop them. It will simply ensure that your hand is, in fact, cold and dead.

I'm so glad the "conservative" members of the Supreme Court have such deep respect for stare decisis. And they would LOATHE to engage in "judicial activism," right?

Clearly the "well-regulated militia" opening clause is an anachonism from another age. So much for original intent.

And when America is invaded, and the army destroyed, who do you think will be left to defend this nation of ours????

Without guns????

You'll get my gun out of my cold dead hand!!!!!

Posted by: Laura Campbell | June 27, 2008 5:31 PM

Is that a promise or a threat?

* * * * *
It was a Democratic controlled Congress that smacked down FDR on his court packing scheme.
* * * * *
Posted by: Doug "Hussein" Zook | June 27, 2008 3:17 PM
* * * * *
This may be true. However, the Court caved in before Congress nixed the plan. The Court did a 180 with F.D.R.'s threat, and started approving the very same kind of legislation that it had been declaring unconstitutional just the year before. One cannot look at the companion cases of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), and Labor Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937), both of which vastly expanded the power of congress, and not know something had just gone terribly wrong. This is especially true since the Court, in opinions written by the same Justice, had strenuously disapproved of the same reasoning in earlier cases. (See the dissent in Labor Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. at 76-103; A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 542-551 (1935); and Carter v. Carter Coal Co. , 298 U. S. 238, 306-310 (1936).) A revolution had occurred which permitted the federal government to break out of the parchment barriers previously set by the Constitution. Unfortunately, those barriers were broken without a change in the text through the amendment process set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Thus, not only was there a change, the change was illegitimate. The constitutional government we had before then is no more.
* * * * *
I have no qualms with your criticism of Republicans and the "very, very afraid crowd," or the fact they have used the pretext of war to improperly limit civil rights and liberties. It is all too true. It is not, however, only the doing of the Republicans. I can distinctly recall both Senator Warner and Senator Biden stating, in separate television interviews, that we will have to give up some of our liberties to fight this war on terrorism. I remember thinking, "No, wait. What about Franklin's dictum regarding those who would give up their liberties for safety?" And then I saw the Patriot act delivered to Bush in a bi-partisan effort. (That should tell you, in the future, that bi-partisan doesn't always equal "good.") Have the neo-cons and their collaborators under Bush done worse with regard to wire-tapping? Probably so; and then we see a compliant Democrat dominated House of Representatives passing an amendment to FISA giving telecoms retroactive immunity. So, now who's responsible for perpetrating the tyranny? You see, Doug, the problem is that tyranny does not invariably come at the hand of evil rulers. Quite often, it is practiced by those who mean well. The problem with government is that those who occupy its precincts always look for the shortest path to attain their goals. Unfortunately, the shortest path is too often taken at the expense of individual rights.
* * * * *
Yes, there are those who are afraid and upset by yesterday's ruling on the Second Amendment; and I can appreciate that. However, one should let the significance of the decision sink in. The Court declared in no uncertain terms that the rights enshrined in the Constitution do not go away by being ignored; and neither Congress nor the courts can make them go away by policy decisions if those rights are found undesirable in the balance. The same decision requires all governments, at all levels, to treat the Constitution's limitations like they mean something. That language of Scalia's decision applies to all of our rights under the Constitution. How some cannot view this as a clear vindication of individual liberty is beyond me. I would much prefer the debate over the ramifications of freedom - which we must now have - to the total loss of freedom and the culture of governmental vassalage that we avoided.

* * * * *
"Clearly the "well-regulated militia" opening clause is an anachonism from another age. So much for original intent."

Posted by: TJ | June 27, 2008 6:02 PM

I can see you didn't read the opinion. You should read it before you make that judgment.

Guns are such an emotional topic. Witness this comment board as proof. very few of you knee-jerkers actually are debating the central point of the article. The SCOTUS has declared that the 2nd Amendment should be applied as written. The sad attempt by the anti-gun movement to use the well-regulated militia phrase to erase the "shall not be infringed" phrase has been turned back. So now the only recourse left, so long as precedent holds, is to pursue the only correct and legal avenue available: to repeal or rewrite the 2nd Amendment. But no, that's too hard: It's much easier to simply ignore it and pass unconstitutional laws, right? If you really want to outlaw guns -- and you think your argument can carry the day -- then introduce an amendment to repeal the 2nd. Amendments have been repealed before. And unlike laws, executive orders or judicial fiats, an amendment can never be declared unconstitutional. So let's debate it fairly and legally. Follow the Constitution.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | June 27, 2008 2:38 PM

Scot,
* * * * *
It doesn't matter who appointed them. What matters is what they represent in terms of the content of their work. Furthermore, unless you are speaking about people who have never lived in the company of other human beings, everyone appointed to a court is going to bring their own particular views and prejudices with them. That is an inevitable consequence of living. You can bet, for instance, that you bring quite a different set of lenses to look at a question than those that I might use.
* * * * *
I might remind you that Justices Earl Warren and William J. Brennan, probably the two most "liberal" Justices ever to sit on the Court, were appointed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Warren, in particular, had nearly perfect conservative credentials prior to the appointment. He was a Republican who served as the District Attorney of Alameda County, and then as Attorney General and Governor of California. After that, he ran for Vice-President on the Republican Ticket with Thomas Dewey in 1948. Clearly, Eisenhower neither foresaw nor approved how either of these two Justices turned out. Thus, there is no clear connection between the party of political appointment and the philosophy demonstrated in a judicial appointee's opinions. The same is true of Stevens and Souter. Both are quite at odds with the political philosophies of those who appointed them.
* * * * *
With regard to Breyer and Ginsburg, you should know that not everyone in Congress believes that political orthodoxy or agreement is necessary. The real question is whether they have the education, experience and judicial temperament for the job. Thus, their appointment does not particularly reflect the belief of anyone in Congress that they would be faithful to a particular political view.

Repel the 2nd amendment? Do that and the bread basket and south become instant war zones.

Repel the 2nd amendment? Do that and the bread basket and south become instant war zones.

Posted by: Mike | June 27, 2008 7:36 PM

And that is why an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment will never pass in the first place. It takes the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of all state legislatures to propose Amendments, and thereafter the ratification by three-quarters of the States, to adopt an amendment. (See U.S. Const., Art. V.) Count out the South alone and you have counted out any amendment.

A "well-regulated militia" is in my mind a factor to deal with
a government that has gone over
the line and a "well-regulated militia"might be used to put
the government back in line
or the worst case remove the
or to remove the same...

How many of you gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? How many of you are actually trained in using your gun in an adversarial situation (more than a one afternoon gun safety class)?

Repel the 2nd amendment? Do that and the bread basket and south become instant war zones.

Posted by: Mike | June 27, 2008 7:36 PM
And you'll get crushed again like you did last time. Your hand guns and shotguns will do you no good against a real army. Come on tough guy. Try it. Commit treason. Try and overthrow the legally constituted government if the US again. We're waiting.

Don't like guns?

Ok, don't own one.

But don't destroy my freedom to choose to own one.

the second amendment can be interpreted in a variety of ways. but the best understanding of it's meaning is to look at the historical context of its writing. the history behind it dates back hundreds of years and its foundation is based in the idea of actual militias or armies able to defend against their own. some of the original writings are paraphrased from european revolts.

the other thing to consider is whether the writers actually were able to foresee what "arms" would become and what societal influences would incorporate those uses.

i doubt they predicted urban gangs with uzis and tec 9's.

the intent was there but got distorted, as always, by the crazies from the nra.

First thing is I own a hand gun and I'm also in favor of the right to carry!. The criminals of today with hold you up and then shoot you so there are no witnesses. This would also be true in the case of the rapes. Dead men or women for that matter tell no tales. The reason for owning a hand gun is simple, I don't want to be at the mercy of some harden criminal that has nothing to lose and who would kill at the drop of a hat.
Here in Georgia as well as in other states that allow law abiding citizens to carry many crimes have been thwarted, including car jackings, rape, robbery and home invasions. So stop all the liberal smoke screen and obey the law.

"Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?

Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991.

Question: What’s the highest the murder rate has been in gun happy West Virginia in that time?

Answer: 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people.

Question: So why did Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post write: “The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia — and in just about every city in the nation, big or small — there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.”

Answer: Ignorance.

Question: So why did Colbert King of the Washington Post write: “If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it’s probably the fact that five of the justices — a slim majority, but that’s all it takes to win — have come around to seeing things their way.”

Answer: Ignorance.

Question: So why did E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post write: “In knocking down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.”

Answer: Ignorance."

from Don Surber, who I think is much too generous in assessing the enemies of the Bill of Rights.

"Yesterday's opinion was a breath of fresh air in that it preserved liberty against government encroachment. The reasoning of that opinion can be used in many future cases to stem further encroachments upon our core freedoms."

Posted by: John W. | June 27, 2008 2:43 PM

No. A slight majority of justices simply "interpreted" it for their own ideological purposes. The vagueness of the 2nd amendment, with its contradictory terms of "regulated militia" and "shall not be infringed" should be re-written and modernized at least. Either way, local communities do need to have the option to create restrictions as they see fit. You do have to at least admit, urabn and rural communities are vastly different. One size fits all federal gun laws would not work.

I agree with Vinny,the Constitution say what it said with Scot s. Blakeley spin on the Constitution.If Omaba become preisdent he may appoint Scot to the Supreme court.

This Country has gone soft all
you get is a lot of whining and
complaining.20 years from now
"Yankee" you just might want to kiss the rear of the Gun owners.That is if we still have a Country..Say what is Chicago famous for? Al Capone and crappy Pizza...

My question is this.

How does upholding the 2nd amendment hake anyone more in danger?

Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Almost every drug dealer, robber, rapist, murderer has a gun.

By allowing people to have a gun in their home gives them the option to defend themselves.

Bor the lady who states statistics are higher.. You may want to look at those statistics again.. When a gun is not present, Knives, Hammers, Blunt force objects are then used for Domestic assaults.. stating guns will increase risk is just insane.. If your partner wants you dead.. then he will find a way.. maybe even much more violent..
+
Would you rather be shot 1 time and be dead with no pain.. or would you want to be stabbed 1 to 5 times to bleed out and feel your life slip away in agony..
+
Your argument holds no water.
+
Now if your husband is trying to kill you and you have a gun, you can defend yourself.. makes your argument moot.
+
Consider that Chicago has one of the highest crime rates, mostly involving guns.. and the city has had a Gun Ban.. How is it then places like San Antonio, TX, which allows people to own as many guns as you want, have a much lower crime rate than Chicago?
+
Because Criminals do not want to be shot entering into a person's house.. In Chicage, a Criminal has no fear of being killed when they break in ro rob you using their gun.. you have no way to defend yourself. However here is Texas.. someone walks into your home with so much as a sharpened letter opener and threatens you, so long as they are inside your door.. you can shoot them. Make for a pretty good deterrent for criminals breaking in to your home.. Now they usually wait until your home is empty and then break in.. that is if you don't have proper security installed in your home.
+
So how exactly is the 2nd amendment hurting anyone?

What was the 1st thing hitler done when he took control of Germany.Went around and took up all fire arms.The 2nd thing in the middle of the night home was broke into and anyone hitler though mrigh be againt him was killed.we do not want history to repeat it self it was called the Night of the Long knift

* * * * *
Posted by: Yankee | June 27, 2008 11:26 PM

Oh, chill out. Mike simply stated what he believed might be a consequence of the Second Amendment's repeal. He did not say he advocated turning the bread basket or the south into war zones.

The word "militia" is being thrown around here as if it is part of the federal government. When the constitution was written, the PEOPLE were the militia, and it was not run by the government. The bill of rights was written to limit the control of the federal government and to list the rights given to the PEOPLE and the states. The word PEOPLE is in the second amendment, not the U.S. government. If it was a right given to the federal government, it wouldn't be listed in the bill of rights, and it would at least have mentioned the federal government in the sentence. And yes, I have been a member of the Arkansas militia. The Arkansas constitution provides that every man between 18 and 45 are automatically members of the militia.

"

I have to laugh at the morons who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny with a handgun. I would love to see you try to stop the National Guard or police with your house full of handguns. It sure worked well for the Branch Dividians and Black Panthers. A handgun can protect you from an intruder, but not the government."

Sure seems to be working for entire areas of Iraq. Or haven't you been watching the news? You know, that unwinnable war thing? We have an entire army over there - with much better weapons. Should be a cakewalk, right?

An army can only quickly defeat a like-minded armed populace by completely obliterating them. Let's say in the future, a crazed right-wing rogue general stages a coup and attempts to exterminate all homosexuals in San Francisco, and establish the city as the new capital of Jesusland (not exactly Red Dawn, is it?).

If that general wants the city, and not just a smoking crater, he's going to have to win an asymmetrical guerrilla war. The people could hold him off for years, perhaps long enough for more sane political powers to shut down the tyrant.
That's the point.

* * * * *
Posted by: David J | June 28, 2008 10:27 AM

One could not truthfully repeat your words after reading the majority opinion. Is reading 66 pages of single space type so daunting that you have to rely on misinformation to form your opinions? Go read it and then tell me what part of the opinion misinterpreted the language or history of the Amendment. After that, point out where the opinion said that neither federal nor state legislatures could implement reasonable regulations.

It's about time we get our rights back. I'm tired of politicians ruining our lives for their gain. Finally chicago will be able to protect themselves like other states. You can blame city politicians for all the killings. They left good honest people unarmed. Remember polititions you WORK FOR US THE PEOPLE>

Love the comment about the
Hand Gun rotflmao.Lots of us
kunckle draggers have something that will reach out
around 1000 yds.and give a one shot kill. and if the Country
turns totaly radical leftist and
Marksist whos to say the
Military wouldn't lead the way.

A poster stated earlier that UK has 10% of the rate of gun deaths of the US.
Not entirely a true-ism. The UK rate is rising exponentially because the population is now unarmed and can no longer defend themselves against people who are bringing guns in, thru the Chunnel and by many other means. Of course these are not the law abiding citizens. And of course the UK GUN BAN HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THEM. There is a BBC special on tonite called "DISARMING BRITAIN". UK disarmed a long time ago. Are they going to take non existent guns this time?
I bet the criminals are going to waltze into the police stations and had them over by the droves.
Yeah, I live in a fantasy world.

A poster stated earlier that UK has 10% of the rate of gun deaths of the US.
Not entirely a true-ism. The UK rate is rising exponentially because the population is now unarmed and can no longer defend themselves against people who are bringing guns in, thru the Chunnel and by many other means. Of course these are not the law abiding citizens. And of course the UK GUN BAN HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THEM. There is a BBC special on tonite called "DISARMING BRITAIN". UK disarmed a long time ago. Are they going to take non existent guns this time?
I bet the criminals are going to waltze into the police stations and had them over by the droves.
Yeah, I live in a fantasy world.