Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/chicago-tribune-repeal-2nd-amendment-5216/)

tracker 06-27-2008 04:30 PM

Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
 
Repeal the 2nd Amendment

No, we donít suppose thatís 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 didnít and it isnít. 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.

Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment

allmons 06-27-2008 06:03 PM

To hell with the Chicago tribune
 
Tell me again why it was a good idea to force the south to stay in a Union in 1865 with these retards? Well,sure, slavery is an abomination that had to go, but that could have been accomplished without a war.

Would every antigun person PLEASE move to Canada?!!!!


:mad:

allmons 06-27-2008 06:05 PM

Sorry, intelligent Canadians!
 
It would, of course, only be fair to allow gun loving Canadians to move to the US and occupy the houses of all those anti gun idiots we deport.

:cool:

Dillinger 06-27-2008 06:53 PM

What a piece of Leftist, Liberal Trash. Is THAT really a story in the Chicago Tribune?

"In doing so, they ( the 5 justices ) have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens."

What the F**K?!?! When??!?! I dare you to name one time, that a City Council Member or a Member of a Legistative Branch personally responded to a call needing help, from any citizen within a 5,000 mile radius of their office, when their constituents' lives or lively hood was threatened?

I didn't know that in Chicago, and Illinois in general apparently, that they have been installing phone booths and issuing capes to all sitting members since the birth of the City.

"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."

Did I miss a memo here?! Were the people of Washington, the residents, ASKING the City to step in and limit their ability to own firearms? Or, more likely, were the citizens asking the powers at be to do something about the crime, commited by criminals, within the City? Come to think of it, Wasn't the Mayor of D.C. doing crack in a hotel room with a prostitute at one point not that many years ago?!? And didn't he later plead guilty to charges and spend 6 months in prison? These are the people telling the law abiding people of D.C. - "Don't worry - we got this. We will protect you". :eek:

This clown needs to have a serious discussion with an informed source, instead of running off half cocked at the keyboard. And while he's at it, perhaps he would like to take on the First Amendment. I bet his tune changes pretty damn quick when that subject comes up....

JD

ScottG 06-27-2008 08:42 PM

Repeal the 1st Amendment.

No, we donít suppose thatís going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the founders had limited themselves to writing Congress shall make law prohibiting exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, the right of the the people to assemble and to petition the Government, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of our favored type of government. But they didnít and it isnít. The amendment was intended to protect the press while it divulges military secrets to our enemies in wartime. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court apparently still believe that Americans have freedom. We resent that.

/new, improved version....

bkt 06-27-2008 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracker (Post 29483)
The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

There isn't any way to get through to folks who believe this crap. That is dead wrong, and correspondence from the Framers proves it. The language of 2A proves it.

Feh.

(Nice, Scott. But that would be lost on our Chicago Tribune friends, I'm afraid.)


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.