Repeal the 2nd Amendment

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

There are 1416 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jun 26, 2008, titled Repeal the 2nd Amendment. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

haha

Athens, AL

#827 Jun 29, 2008
Repeal it all you want. The Constitution merely enumerates God-given (or natural/common/pre-existing) rights. Anyone with common sense and an honest reading of historic documents can see that. So you erase a sentence from a piece of paper. I will still defend myself.
ala

Montgomery, AL

#828 Jun 29, 2008
What about Shay Rebellion, during Jefferson's Presidency, He understood, and approved of the rebellion.
Stads wrote:
Just a quick question...when was the last time the United States citizens attacked the big bad government to exercise the use of its second amendment? I don't recall a revolutionary thing happening since the second amendment was put in place....no wars with the government...maybe that's why it's worded poorly?
steven

United States

#829 Jun 29, 2008
if you dont like guns then move to england you socialist punk.
K Koplish

Oklahoma City, OK

#830 Jun 29, 2008
You're editorial on the Supreme Court ruling shows the same intellectual dishonesty as used by the justices in the dissenting opinion.
On every point the minority's arguement was soundly rebuffed and it was embarressing that justices appointed to uphold the Constitution could even propose the convoluted arguments they put forward.
The twisted logic of the socialist elite with those in the mass media that bow to the same alter have done more damage and have been directly responible for more deaths in the last 60 years than all the firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens since this country's founding.
straight-shooter

Washington, PA

#831 Jun 29, 2008
Handguns in the possession of law-abiding citizens have saved more lives than all the gun control legislation in the country, and more lives than the police departments of all the cities in the country.

Why? Because a handgun in the possession of a law-abiding citizen is the first line of defense against a criminal with the willingness and intent to do bodily harm in the commission of a crime.

Based on county by county assessments of crime statistics, author John Lott of "More Guns, Less Crime" estimates that literally millions of crimes are thwarted by the defensive presence of a gun. Note, I did not say the USE of a gun but the defensive PRESENCE of a gun. The fact that the potential victim of a crime had a gun sufficed to deter crime.

It is a fact that the lowest crime rates in the country are in rural area, where the ownership of guns is the highest, and the highest crime rates in the country are in cities of 500,000 or more, where the ownership of guns is lowest... mainly because those cities tend to have the most restrictive gun control laws.

Ask your major city police departments how many crimes they prevent by responding in timely fashion to a 911 call. They respond in time to put up the yellow crime scene tape, collect the evidence, and interview the survivors, if any. Meanwhile, the victims, who might have had a chance to defend themselves and their loved ones, are often prohibited from even owning a gun by the restrictive laws that the local police officials claim are necessary to "help them do their jobs". Right.

So the Second Amendment is an anachronism, and it really doesn't mean what it says. Funny, from looking at the big city crime rates, and the anarchy that gun control laws have created in England, Australia, and big city America, I'd say it is needed even more today than ever before.

Since: Jun 07

Waukegan, IL

#832 Jun 29, 2008
when i'm knighted by the queen of england i'm going to ask for a gun instead of a sword. yup. that's what i'm going to do.
Douglas Schoen

Poway, CA

#833 Jun 29, 2008
Stads wrote:
Just a quick question...when was the last time the United States citizens attacked the big bad government to exercise the use of its second amendment? I don't recall a revolutionary thing happening since the second amendment was put in place....no wars with the government...maybe that's why it's worded poorly?
“I don't recall a revolutionary thing happening since the second amendment was put in place....no wars with the government...maybe that's why it's worded poorly?”

You never heard of the civil war?
Andrew

United States

#834 Jun 29, 2008
Tony D wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll help you pack.
Me too, I'll bring the beer.
Eric

United States

#835 Jun 29, 2008
Just how are states supposed to form militias if the people who serve don't have arms? Does the Tribune think that in banning handguns criminals will just turn their in? What kind of moronic logic is this article?

Instead of repealling the second amendment, we should be impeaching Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Bryer. It's the moronic thinking of liberals that necessitate to right to own guns.
Douglas Schoen

Poway, CA

#836 Jun 29, 2008
Concerned Citizen wrote:
What pathetic dishonesty.

Finally,this is not a case of overturning precedent. There was little precedent before. But Miller v. US, the 1934 decision regarding the National Firearms Act, did not embrace a collective rights view of the Second Amendment. It recognized an individual right, but said the contours of that right are defined by whether the arms in question are appropriate for militia use, that is, ordinary arms used for self defense and defense of the state. In other words, under Miller, assault weapons and other military issue small arms have the highest degrees of constitutional protection, which is as it should be.
The right to keep and bear arms is ultimately about self-reliance and protection of freedom from run-amuck government. Judging by Mayor Daley's latest intemperate screed at gun owners, all real Americans in Chicago should keep their powder dry. It sounds like you have a would-be tyrant in your midst.
Just to add a little detail for those who don’t know.

The 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that weapon “in commonly used by the MILITARY” were protected under the 2nd amendment.

The Miller case found that a sawed off shotgun was NOT used by our military or hunting, therefore NOT protected under the 2nd amendment.

Prior to WW2 submachine guns also were not “in commonly use”“by the MILITARY” and therefore NOT protected under the 2nd amendment.
foolishness

United States

#837 Jun 29, 2008
it never ceases to amaze me the lack off common sense that permeates the liberal mindset. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals will STILL FIND GUNS! Use your fucking brains you morons! Are you stupid or do you just simply ignore the fact that violent crime rose 80% In just the 1st ten years of the gun ban being put in place in DC. Stop trying to take our rights away you fascist peices of shit!
Patriot

Brooklyn, MI

#838 Jun 29, 2008
Whoever wrote this editorial is a certifiable moron...the first part of the 2nd Amendment states the reason for the Amendment, not the procedure for implementing it.'The Militia' is always considered to be all able-bodied men of an age to fight, not some organization with government sanction.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect the government from some outside threat, it's to make sure the government remains accountable to the people.
Patriot

Brooklyn, MI

#839 Jun 29, 2008
M-o-r-o-n gets censored? Nice to know the Tribune cares as much about the First Amendment as they do about the Second.
Andrew

Chicago, IL

#840 Jun 29, 2008
Just curious, with all this talk about how Americans have the right to bear arms so that they can protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government... why do all the pro-gun people then go on to talk about using guns for self-defense against criminals? Which is it, that you have a constitutional right to protect yourself from the government, or that you need to protect yourself from rogues?

By the way, isn't he #1 reason why a gun ban would be ineffective because guns have already proliferated throughout the U.S.? The point being that gun control is not inherently ineffective, it's just ineffective in a country like the U.S. where gun lovers have already saturated the place with guns so thoroughly that banning them now would deprive law-abiding citizens while only slowing down access to guns for some of the other gun owners/users.
Sage Jeff

Plainfield, IL

#841 Jun 29, 2008
John D wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been hearing that "Dodge City" prediction for forty years. Everytime restrictions are eased on firearms or people are allowed concealed carry that hoary old "Dodge City" prediction gets trotted out.
The old saw is that a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's a better record than this trope.
On the other hand, maybe the people of Chicago are just not up to the standards of citzens elsewhere and cannot be trusted with handguns.
That Dodge City old saw must refer to Hollywood westerns. In reality, in the 4 roughest years of the frontier, the 4 toughest cow-towns in Kansas (including Dodge City and Abilene) had 18 homicides between them. Dodge City was safer than Chicago.
Andrew

Chicago, IL

#842 Jun 29, 2008
foolishness wrote:
it never ceases to amaze me the lack off common sense that permeates the liberal mindset. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals will STILL FIND GUNS! Use your fucking brains you morons! Are you stupid or do you just simply ignore the fact that violent crime rose 80% In just the 1st ten years of the gun ban being put in place in DC. Stop trying to take our rights away you fascist peices of shit!
By the same logic, flu vaccines will never be 100% effective, therefore we should all stop getting flu shots. The flu will STILL FIND A WAY TO SPREAD.

Also, I'm sure that all other variables remained constant before/after the DC gun ban.
Douglas Schoen

Poway, CA

#843 Jun 29, 2008
“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.”

Its called the “Bill of Rights” meant to be understood by the common man.
NOT
The “Bill of inartful, malleable nuances consisting of distractions”
Please Do

New London, CT

#844 Jun 29, 2008
Joe Guzzardo wrote:
Welcome to Dodge City, USA, and we consider ourselves one of the most advanced nations on the face of this planet. The rest of the civilized world is laughing at us. I'm moving to Denmark.
Good bye!
Mcguyver

El Paso, TX

#845 Jun 29, 2008
Dear <em>Moron</em>,
I WILL EDIT THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOR YOU FOR YOU!!:

"The right to bear arms for
a) A well regulated Militia - being necessary to the security of a free State -
b) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There now, you got that kemosabi?
Glenn

Mesa, AZ

#846 Jun 29, 2008
The author of this article would have you believe the founders didn't intend the 2nd Amendment to protect your right to live. Instead, this author believes that life - and the preservation thereof - is a privelege granted to you by the government, and that the state alone shall have the power to decide whether your life is worth protecting, or worth taking. This says much about the authors own philosophy, and much about his lack of understanding of the principles of this country.

Let's allow those founders to speak for themselves...

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, author of the 2nd Amendment

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

Clear enough for you, you frickin retard?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sports Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 2013 NFL Mock Draft: Current Info for All 32 Fi... (Jan '13) 11 min BearsPhartz 190
News Brendon McCullum rejoining Middlesex for NatWes... 25 min NatPhartce 1
News Martin Guptill masterclass sets up decider betw... 3 hr ZealPhartx 1
News Dan Evans continues fine form in Dubai Duty Fre... 6 hr FreePhartss 1
News Pep Guardiola plans goalkeeping review but Joe ... 6 hr HartsPhartss 1
News Andy Murray wins in first match since shock Aus... 6 hr WinsPhartss 1
News Bizarre finish has Raptors crying foul after lo... 15 hr Probably phart 247
More from around the web