Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Repeal The 2nd Amendment?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    I came across this and I don't know if it's been brought up already but this just goes to show exactly what some media thinks about our rights:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,2350076.story
    Repeal the 2nd Amendment June 27, 2008 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.[/i]

    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.

    They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."


    •••

    It's a relief that the majority didn't go further in its policymaking on gun control.

    The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago's 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.

    The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous."

    Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.

    We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don't have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that's prohibited within the city.

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

    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.


    •••

    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. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

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

    We won't repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.

    Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, "forget about it."


  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    This guy is obviously a Brady Bunch fan and has not read the Federalists Papers to find out what the founding fathers intended it for. That, or he just plain don't like guns and don't care what the intent was.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Nothing good ever came out of Daleygrad. If all of Cook County fell into Lake Michigan, downstate Illinois and the rest of the country would be much better off.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    like_the_roman wrote:
    Nothing good ever came out of Daleygrad. If all of Cook County fell into Lake Michigan, downstate Illinois and the rest of the country would be much better off.
    It wouldn't be missed by many.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    This is just to show those who say "they don't want to take ALL of our guns. Just regulate them..." Yes, they really do.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    In theory, it doesn't matter whether or not the Second Amendment is repealed or not. The national government has no power to regulate arms (see Article I), and the right to self-defense is an inalienable human right inherent in all men by virtue of being born.

    Unfortunately, in an overzealous and oversized government that will exercise every little bit of extra power given to it, such an amendment is necessary.

    Also ironic that one claiming to be a journalist can't read. There is nothing ambiguous about the Second Amendment, as far as I could tell.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Yeah, well, there's nothing in it that says they can steal my money and give it to crumbs that don't want to work either, but they do it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •