Last week when the Heller decision came down, Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley suggested that the states should repeal the 2nd amendment.Now those of us fortunate to live in Chicago or its beautiful suburbs and ex-urbs have gotten used to hizzoner’s moods. Daley can be sarcastic in front of reporters and can usually be counted on to deliver at least one colorful quote.
Whether he really means it when he says we shoud tear up the Constitution is suspect. Daley, who came out of the womb a politician (his father Richard J. Daley was Mayor of Chicago for two decades), no doubt realizes it would be political suicide to even suggest such a stupid thing.
Then there’s the Chicago Tribune. While Daley might have as excuse for proposing the wipe out of gun rights in that he was emotional about what will probably happen to a similar law in Chicago, the Trib has no such reason for what they write here under the headline “Repeal the Second 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.
Funny, I was going to say exactly the same thing about the Trib – which makes the rest of their editorial all the more ironic:
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.
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
Why is it the default position of the anti-gun crowd that allowing law abiding citizens the opportunity to defend themselves will place them in greater danger? The illogic – on its face – of this position is astounding.The gun control crowd readily admits that handgun bans like that struck down in DC and soon to be history in Chicago do not, in the slightest, prevent criminals from getting guns. All the handgun bans do is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who wish to use the weapon for self defense – against criminals who can get guns regardless of what stupid law is passed by idiot politicians.In short, where is the logic in saying citizens who are now able to possess handguns legally are in more danger from criminals who could always get handguns regardless of what law was on the books?
Madness!
No matter. How’s this for pretzel logic by the Trib:
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.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.
Oh really? Is that a fact? Let’s follow this by the numbers.
1. Handgun bans don’t work. Criminals can easily still get guns.
2. Handgun bans are fine anyway because citizens can use a “shotgun” to “protect themselves – even though I would have a hard time fitting a shotgun in my nightstand (no children in the house) not to mention spraying the house with buckshot if I was ever forced into using it thus endangering a loved one.
3. Public policy decisions are taken “out of the hands of citizens” (they mean “anti-gun citizen groups”). And if it were a matter of “public safety,” being placed “into the hands of citizens” wouldn’t allowing the purchase of handguns fill that bill nicely?
The Trib can be counted on as being one of the few major newspapers in the country to occasionally endorse Republicans for office and they have a stellar record of reporting on the corruption of city government, digging deep to ferret out dirty aldermen, judges, policemen, and others.
But this editorial is just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that any politician who would propose such insanity as repealing the second amendment better have a one way ticket back home because the chances of his being sent back to Washington would be slim and none.
This article originally appeared in The American Thinker
2:16 pm
The one statistic that is hardly ever highlighted is that of John Lott’s effort to put a number on the use of firearms in defense of the home. Lott travelled to over 2,000 police departments to read their crime logs for incident reports.
What Lott found was that on the average, as many as 3.6 million or as few as 760,000 incidents a year occurred where the home defender halted a crime by using a handgun or shotgun. He further found that in states where concealed carry laws were put in place that the mean per-capita mass death rate from public shootings fell by 69%.
You have to recognize that the statistics are actually suppressed in the MSM and by the police, since it is fatal to the gun control freaks’ arguments.
Suggested reading: “The Seven Myths of Gun Control” by Richard Poe, Forum publisher, 2001, from which the above Lott findings were taken.
6:14 pm
Three words for you liberal fascists:
COLD.DEAD. HANDS.
6:28 pm
This is a very tough issue. I was raised with guns and hunting in a very rural area, so there is a bias toward the necessity and recreational use of guns. Gun bans are effective in some other countries. Japan and Great Britan have very strong anti-gun laws and very low rates of gun related deaths (annual rate of about .04 per 100,000 in Japan and .05 per 100,000 in England). The United States consistently rates around 14 or more gun deaths per 100,000 obout 30,000 per year. Regardless of one’s politics, this is a very troubling figure, but it doesn’t mean gun bans should be used here.
Given that we have the Second Amendment, it would seem that effective mental health treatment (50% or more of gun deaths are suicides), better enforcement of gun related criminal laws (the use of guns in crimes) (40% of gun deaths are homicides), and widespread education about the safe use of guns would be far more useful solutions than gun bans which will not happen.
8:28 pm
The second amendment seems pretty clear to me – people have the right to own firearms. Local politicians and agencies should simply comply.
Stop by and read my: “Iraq tells Bush to go to hell…twice”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/201225/9943/763/540291
9:09 pm
“In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.”
Exactly, the Constitution limited the power of government, not the rights of the people.
No one has limited the power of the legislators to protect their citizens, you just have to do it in the boundries of the Constitution.
Like, isn’t that what the democrats (ie: socialists) have been screaming about since 911?
9:46 pm
The UK and Japan have paid for their gun bans and “be nice to your criminal laws” with very large increases in home robberies, armed holdups and horrific knifings.
The knife has become the weapon of choice now, and in many ways the threat of being sliced and diced is even more frightening than a gun threat, especially to the defenseless elderly.
10:07 pm
thank you rick, thank you very much for this piece.
one thing that wasn’t mentioned is the creation of new crimes when you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, such as in australia’s case, where the criminals in the outback (and elsewhere) actually quite waiting for people to leave their homes before robbing them (home invasions).
http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=30&issue=015
11:11 pm
R. Bruce Dolt(Dold), the editorial page editor, is a GFW of the first order. Therefore, this editorial is not too surprising. After Columbine, he pretty much laid the blame at the feet of the NRA.
If you read the VoxPop section of the online Trib and look at the comments on Brucie’s editorial, you’ll see that about 90% of the commenters rip him a new one-mostly very politely. Of those who agree with the editorial, about 90% are nothing more than drive-by trolls with no knowledge and nothing useful to add.
BTW, I get the impression you’re from the area. Are you planning to attend the ISRA rally on the 11th?
1:31 am
Liberals don’t like a part of our Constitution they find a “extra-legal” way to circumvent the will of the people and subvert the rights of citizens then delusionally think they are the ones on the moral high ground.They must lead truly boring lives to find nothing better to do than pester their fellow citizens with their incessant bellyaching over everything others do that they don’t approve of.
7:45 am
I find it interesting, so many communities have “public safety” departments or offices. Yet ,by far ,they are neither. They generally aren’t very public, until they remove some right, nor are very effective at providing safety to the public. They tend to be more about rights restrictions than anything else save ,perhaps, patronage jobs.
8:53 am
What is especially rich here is that the left has no problem taking the decisions out of the hands of the people for such things as gay marriage, abortion, or other such things that are the pet causes of the left, but jurisdiction over a specifically ennumerated federal right shouldn’t be held at the federal level.
That’s really rich.
11:29 am
“The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.”
‘Tis a pity it isn’t possible to go back in time and explain to the founding fathers how the defition of “militia” would be twisted in time and that it might be wise to leave that reasoning out. It wasn’t necessary to explain WHY other rights were enumerated and it should have been obvious why the right to bear arms exists.
“The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.”
That unsupportable opinion has, at last, been eliminated as a possibility.
“... in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.”
Only if a) you agree that states have rights as opposed to powers given to them by the people, b) that the Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the people with the inexplicable exception of the Second Amendment, and c) that you misinterpret the actual results of that decision.
“On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.”
I see … you didn’t actually READ what the court decided or are incapable of understanding it. Your lack of an intelligent response is beginning to make sense.
“... they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.”
They have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to disarm you. How disarming you is supposed to protect you is unfathomable.
“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.”
Where’s the “argument” about the effectivness of bans? They have limited impact and people can obtain firearms anyway, THAT’S your best argument?
“But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.”
So another of your arguments FOR gun bans is that it’s OK to have and use one?
“... the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens.”
Have to agree with another’s response that the typical gun banner has no problem taking other public policy issues out of the hands of citizens, so where does this argument go?
“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.”
He got something right! That’s EXACTLY what it means.
9:12 am
Funny how they can get selective with the Bill of Rights.
2:41 pm
2. Handgun bans are fine anyway because citizens can use a “shotgun” to “protect themselves – even though I would have a hard time fitting a shotgun in my nightstand (no children in the house) not to mention spraying the house with buckshot if I was ever forced into using it thus endangering a loved one.
No, a shotgun (no sneer quotes) won’t fit in the nightstand. It will fit nicely behind the closet door or under the bed. Also, when loaded with birdshot, it’s much safer than a handgun. Would you shoot a handgun in a room with a loved one near by? If so, you’re either a crack shot, a fool or both.
A shotgun can take down a bad guy without the necessity to have to aim carefully. In the heat of the moment, it’s point and shoot. Also, the shot won’t make it through two layers of wallboard to kill a child or wife in the next room, or a neighbor in the next house.
The only problem you have with a shotgun is cleanup. It makes a real mess. The added bonus is that the sound of a shotgun slide racking is the most frightening sound a burglar can hear, so if you rack the slide, and wait a couple minutes, you may not even have to confront the bad guy.