Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2008, 04:30 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 59
Default Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment

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.

Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment



__________________

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't
pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend
our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it
was once like in the United States where men were free." -- Ronald Reagan

"We The People"
"The Pro Gun Blog"

tracker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 06-27-2008, 06:03 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
allmons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Athens
Posts: 364
Angry 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?!!!!




__________________

Fire everyone in Congress NOW.

allmons is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2008, 06:05 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
allmons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Athens
Posts: 364
Thumbs up 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.

__________________

Fire everyone in Congress NOW.

allmons is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2008, 06:53 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3475 Times on 1607 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

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".

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

__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2008, 08:42 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,614
Liked 9 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Repeal the 1st Amendment.

No, we don’t suppose that’s 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 didn’t and it isn’t. 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....

__________________

9x18=Makarov

ScottG is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2008, 09:49 PM   #6
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tracker View Post
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.)


__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
NY Senators call for repeal of Tihart Musket Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 04-21-2009 12:53 PM
Canadian PM urges repeal of long gun registry Musket Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 03-24-2009 04:12 PM
Repeal twenty-second article of Amendment Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 01-21-2009 08:13 PM
Tulsa lawmaker wants repeal of gun tax sculker The Club House 3 12-17-2008 02:03 PM