See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com ... op/2008/06/repeal-the-2nd.html
Published: Jun 28, 2008
Author: //
Post Date: 2008-06-28 07:39:06 by Kamala
Keywords: None
Views: 248
Comments: 13
Originally posted: June 26, 2008 Repeal the 2nd Amendment Read the Tribune's Friday editorial on the Supreme Court ruling on firearms. Repeal the 2nd Amendment 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. (Click here to read the full decision) 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 11 1/2 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 policy-making 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. (Click here for gun-related crime statistics) 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 firearms, 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Here is the EXTREMELY SIMPLE answer that goes directly to the source of the problem: Put violent criminals in jail and do not let them out. Period.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
this blogger should read John Lott's, More Guns, Less Crime Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime? John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws— called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness. Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results? John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Molon Labe
It means that they blinked. The rising tide of insurrection was in the offing and had they ruled as they seemed to wish (it appears they originally intended to greatly weaken and debase the ability of the free citizens to be armed against a tyrannical government) but did not, it thus seems that in the end, they did have the nerve to do it. Perhaps their collars got to feeling a little tight? The meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous contrary to attempts to imply otherwise. The Founding Fathers understood English, and English Grammar. The key is simply to understand what a "dependent clause" is. A dependent clause is an incomplete thought which is subordinate and requires a second clause, or additional words, to complete its meaning. The clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." does not stand alone as a sentence and hence requires, in this case, an additional clause to complete its meaning. The clause "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is an independent clause i.e., it stands alone as a complete thought and hence requires nothing additional to complete its meaning. So, with our new found understanding of basic English Grammar we can see that the first clause is dependent upon the second to complete its meaning and that the meaning of the second clause stands independent of the first. That this plain understanding of English Grammar managed to elude the Supreme Court can only be thought intentional. That this plain understanding of English Grammar managed to elude the author of this piece is less clear and requires further to complete his understanding.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils from sending in their jackbooted thugs to terrorize unarmed citizens in those no-knock witch hunts. My advice to all law abiding citizens is to purchase a weapon, keep it loaded and by your side. When anyone, and I mean anyone, breakes down your door in the middle of the night, shoot at them immediately. The cops do it all the time. Maybe this this quickdraw mcgraw police bullshit will be reconsidered. Look how many times they have gotten the wrong address. This is exactly what the founders feared would happen and exactly why they included the second amendment.
Like we need men in black and a huge debate to determine what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. duh "Hey pa, whats'at 2nd mendment all'bout?" "Well sonny, the guvment rule book says they have no right to mess with how we protect ourselves."
............ I recently made the perfect DVD combo: Freedom to Fascism, Keep and Bear Arms, Zeitgeist II & III. A well regulated convoy, being necessary for the delivery of food and shit, the right of a trucker to operate his own rig, shall not be fucked with.
............ I recently made the perfect DVD combo: Freedom to Fascism, Keep and Bear Arms, Zeitgeist II & III. What a jackass. In Mexico and most Central American countries, it's virtually impossible for a citizen to own a handgun, but the streets of many Mexican cities are a lot more dangerous than America's. Why? Because only bandits, drug gangs, and venal police and military officials are armed. Maybe that's the lefty gun grabber's vision of what America should be.
Impossible! You cannot put the Judges, Lawmakers, Social Workers, Police, and the other violent ciminals in jail. They are our masters and we are their serfs.
The author of this peace needs to be in a mental ward. Insane.
The unnamed author of the article neglected to explain an often ignored point concerning the context in which one finds the word militia and people in the 2nd Amendment. "We the people..." had firearms before there were states. Indeed, the Brits went to Lexington and Concord to seize the weapons and powder of the local militiamen there. When the US won its independence from Britain, with the help of militias, "We the People..." retained our right to keep and bear arms not only for hunting, but when the Governor of the state called forth the militia. So who comprised the militia? "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." George Mason "The militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves.: Richard H. Lee According to U.S. Code: Title 10, Section 311, The militia consists of two classes. The organized militia such as the National Guard, and all the rest, the unorganized or reserve militia." Further, In an opinion handed down in 1939, the US Supreme Court stated that militia members, when called to service, were expected to appear bearing arms, supplied by themselves, of a common kind in use at the time. So what is the militia? It is the common man who supplies his own weapons in defense of a free state; it is "We the people...." RO
Excellent!
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The operative phrase is "new evidence". No, there is only the old evidence which they would dearly love to ignore as a matter of "precedent". Justice Stevens, why wouldn't the people ratify the new constitution despite the soothing promises of Publius? (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) Because it was missing a bill of rights. And, just how did it guarantee rights? Certainly not my granting specific privileges or guaranteeing federal power over us in the first ten amendments. No, it shackled the govt from the same well defined and understood mischief we experienced under King George, and let's face it Mr. Associate Justice, tyrants are an unimaginative lot. They all try the same stuff to control subjects and the founders would have no parts of that. And not until this was made clear with the addition of the bill of rights would the people's states ratify the constitution. Now, in light of this "old evidence" what was the purpose of the 2nd amendment? Once again, this time with feeling, folks..... Some justices' have a slavish dedication to precedent, that is, the erroneous decrees of previous legal midgets which are more sacred to them than the intent of the framers. (Which is why one need not be a lawyer to serve as a justice of the high court. Lawyers invariably hold themselves up as the supreme authority rather than the document they've sworn to uphold. "Oh yes, he's a certified law judge! Top of his class at Yale! We can't disagree with his opinion that the 2nd amendment guarantees the National Guard's right to hunt ducks!") And, these black robed tyrants would have us believe that they can conjure up new law through years of distorted opinions piled on each other, totally ignoring the fact that the amendment is more easily understood than their arrogant, self serving reading of the legal tea leaves in the form of twisted opinions they worship as "precedents".
"I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh lord Ive been waiting for this moment, all my life, oh lord Can you feel it coming in the air tonight, oh lord, oh lord"
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
#3. To: Kamala, All (#0)
#4. To: Kamala, all (#0)
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." So what does that mean?
#5. To: Kamala (#0)
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
#6. To: Kamala (#0)
All four are on one DVD and it is a great wakeup call.
#7. To: Kamala (#0)
" 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."
All four are on one DVD and it is a great wakeup call.
#8. To: Kamala (#0)
#9. To: wbales (#1)
Put violent criminals in jail and do not let them out.
#10. To: Kamala (#0)
#11. To: Kamala (#0)
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.
#12. To: ReallyOrnery (#11)
#13. To: Kamala (#0)
(Edited)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest