Contact
Subscribe

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Jun 30, 2008
Author: James
Government, Media Bias

That’s what the Editorial department of the Chicago Tribune had to say this past Friday following the landmark ruling on the second amendment and the D.C. Gun Ban.

“The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias”

Funny, since the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.‘ appears, separated by a comma, following the statement about militia. How dare they write an amendment to our Constitution that contain more than one point… we wouldn’t want to cover similar topics in one swipe would we.

According to the CT, the ruling disregarded the first portion of the amendment regarding militia. I don’t see it that way. The “preamble” to the 2nd Amendment says ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State‘…

The CT claims that this statement is regarding militia gives the authority TO the state to regulate a militia, or military… when with the inclusion of the right to the PEOPLE (conveniently avoided by the CT) would give the power to the people to protect themselves and form a regulated militia if so needed to protect their state (or in my opinion FROM the state).

There are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the CT would have you believe that only 9 of them pertain to you, and that a random amendment was tossed in to enable government when the whole of the Constitution is set up to free the people and REGULATE government.

It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths that government junkies will go to undercut the freedoms afforded to all in our Constitution.

6 Comments

  1. Mike  •  Jun 30, 2008 @4:00 PM

    Your link to the Chicago Tribune is broken. I totally agree with you, though. I’m just waiting for someone to push this further and point out that to “bear arms” means to carry arms. Every law abiding citizen should have the right to obtain a conceal carry license.

  2. James  •  Jun 30, 2008 @9:26 PM

    Link should work now.

  3. Emma  •  Jul 6, 2008 @6:36 AM

    “There are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the CT would have you believe that only 9 of them pertain to you, and that a random amendment was tossed in to enable government when the whole of the Constitution is set up to free the people and REGULATE government.”

    at what point in recent history has the US Government required regulation by the people taking up arms? At what point in recent history have the people of the USA been required to pick up a weapon to repel a force that threatened the country?

    Also, the US government has the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force, I think they can take you and your merry band of 2 amendment half wits, most of whom wouldn’t have the courage or the requisite skill to actually shoot at anything and hit it.

    the greater threat to the United States is violent crime, specifically gun crime (to say nothing of the catastrophic suicide problem associated with guns). It is not terrorism or a foreign force or home invasion by crack addicts.

    The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago and they could not possibly have conceived of the development of the type of firearms in use today.

    You know what though, this is a waste of time. You know all of this, as do most gun rights advocates (left or right) with an IQ in double digits. This is about empowerment. You feel like a man when you have a gun, you feel weak without them, the 2nd amendment is a penis issue, admit it!

  4. Emma  •  Jul 6, 2008 @6:41 AM

    “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.”"

    you also chose to ignore the end of the editorial, but that’s because you’re an idiot, and for that I forgive you!

  5. James  •  Jul 6, 2008 @10:17 AM

    Sorry, Emma… there’s a line between debate and argument. I don’t debate with people who can’t get themselves out of 3rd grade when it comes to personal insults.

    When you can actually carry on a discussion like an adult, I’ll let you comment again. Shoot me an email when you can converse.

  6. James  •  Jul 6, 2008 @9:34 PM

    I will go ahead and answer some of your arguments to show people I’m not ignoring the discussion.

    At what point in recent history has the US Government required regulation by the people taking up arms?

    I seem to recall a point in the history of my country, where militias formed by citizens helped end British rule and aided in the creation of this great nation. We started the war with no formal military, it was local militia made up of armed citizens willing to die for their country.

    Look, it’s not about gun owners vs. the US Army, it’s about our right to personal protection. If you know full well that the citizens of Dallas, TX are fully and completely unarmed and have no means of lethal force to protect themselves and their property, but the city of Longview is chock full of registered and trained gun owners willing to shoot you in your tracks rather than “wait and see” what your intentions are, where would you rather strike up a crime spree?

    The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago and they could not possibly have conceived of the development of the type of firearms in use today.

    Well, I’m pretty sure they didn’t conceive Talk Radio and the impact that popular messages can have over wide spread access networks like the internet either… guess we need to regulate speech now too since that giant piece of scrap paper known as the rule of law in this country doesn’t address it. Give me a break, the Constitution specifically states “ARMS”

    ARMS are known as weapons used to attack or threaten - but also to defend and protect.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. For further information please see my Comments Policy.