Repeal the 2nd Amendment, says the Chicago Tribune

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's this guy talking about, the 2nd has been repealled in chicago. Its not enough that a liberal like this has helped create the cess-pool we call chicago, now he wants to extend it to the rest of america.

The way I see it is I figure that I have more life behind me then ahead of me. If a nightmare situation like this were to occur that is where I draw the line. YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I wish the antis would actually have paid attention in high-school history to understand what "militia" means in the second amendment.

On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Five members actually understood history, and the other four are so incompetent that to have them sitting as justices is an embarrassment.

Instead of crying foul that the 2A was "rewritten" you should be upset about why you were eating paint chips as a child when you should have been reading your textbooks and doing your homework. If nothing else, you would do yourself a service by reading up on what you missed - but of course you won't, because like most left-wing media journalists, rather than actually firing neurons in a rational manner, you simply throw a tantrum until somebody is so sick of hearing you whine that they give you your bottle.
 
Chicago. :barf:
The Chicago Tribune.
icon_puke.gif



-T.
 
Steve Chapman always seems to have level-headed and down to earth articles. Make sure you guys send him an email thanking him for speaking for the truth.
 
I would respect an honest attempt to repeal the Second Amendment more than the current back door approach of ignoring the it. The gun control crowed does not want to open that can of worms because they might get their heads handed to them. It might also open the door to repealing other amendments.
 
I think what he espouses is treasonus and exposes the US to a "Terror Within".

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should start an investigation into subversive activities. Perhaps put Chicago under a "Federal Conscent Decree" ?
 
Last edited:
Freedom of Speech..

...

*Is alive and well, even if full of twist/turns, slightly misleading, etc..

***This is how I see it as printed in the below quote:

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.
Click to expand...

***Just read after each apostrophe the ending "shall not be infringed.."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed..

,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall (also) not be infringed..

I hated my English classes because it seemed at the time so confusing using proper grammar, with the use of apostrophes in the same sentence etc., but this is very clear and correct.

So, I see no need for our founding Fathers of an editor as, they wrote it perfectly with clear meaning of both, each States right to have an armed Militia, along with, each States citizens/people to also have The_Right to keep and bear Arms.. And neither the States-Militia, or its people's, Rights shall be (taken away) infringed.

But what do I know, I got D's in English.. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night..


Ls
 
Justice Antonin Scalia

I watched a very interesting interview with Justice Antonin Scala.

He calls himself a believer in trying to figure out what the founding fathers actually meant when they wrote the constitution and the amendments. That entails a lot of research and very little interpretation.

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.
Click to expand...

Scala's research found that the "people" were actually expected to keep arms and know how to use them so that the government could call upon them to help defend this country with their own arms. Those arms could be supplimented by more government arms but the founding fathers knew the value and importence of having an armed populace. The general population could not only be the main force in protecting this great country from outside take-over attempts but it is the ONLY force able to keep our own government in check and be a government "of the people".

Other justices want to "bring the constitution into modern times" and interpret the constitution and it's amendments using "up-to-date" values. Huh?!? :banghead: Why would anyone want to use today's screwed-up values to re-write THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever written? :cuss:

Let's keep it as the F.Fathers meant to have it. Let's keep it "as written and as meant".

P.S. Steve Chapman of The Chicago Tribune. A definite "Thumbs UP"!!
 
7mmRemMag asked;
section 22???? Anyone care to interpret?
Click to expand...

Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution says:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. There is no right to keep and bear arms in the Illinois state constitution. Any body of government at any level in the state that has police powers may pass a law restricting the right to keep and bear arms. We could not have less RKBA if the state constitution didn't even mention it. In fact we might be better off if the state constitution didn't address RKBA at all.

Jeff
 
George will suggested repealing the second amendment back in the 90s. He got converted after 911 and decided that it was more important now than ever.

The elder Chafee, a faux republican from one of the northern state, introduced a bill in one of the congresses. One of the shortest bills ever introduced in the US congress:
" The second amendment is hereby repealed."

Amendments have been repealed-eg: prohibition but I wonder if it's even possible to do away with any part of the bill of rights aside from applying Marxist/Leninist interpretations or holding a constitutional convention to toss the entire document.
 
No, those first words do not permit the states to regulate a militia. What they say is that we must first have a militia in order for the states to regulate it. In order to have a militia (us "good guys" carrying arms) the 2d amendment guarantees that we may do this---carry arms. If we are not allowed to "bear arms" result is: NO Militia!!

Now, for the good part. What is the "militia" and who is in it? According to the Militia Act of 1792, every male citizen between ages of 21 and 45 is in the militia. Just also remember this: The "Minite Men of revolutionary days were "the militia." George didn't have an army, guard, reserve, or anything else remotely resembling anything "military."
 
In late 18th Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant something like "well-trained," or "disciplined."

Translated into late 20th - early 21st Century language, the Second Amendment could read something like this: "Because it is necessary to have a well-trained militia in order to protect the country, ordinary citizens must have their right to own suitable weapons protected against infringement."
 
Someone should point out to the Chicago Tribune that as of 1792, all adult males in the United States are considered to be part of the Militia. So, whether its a collective right, or an individual right, the antis lose. Put that in your pipe, Daley, and smoke it.
 
Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Really? I think whoever is behind this bullsh*t should be charged with Treason, 1st Degree, Criminal Contempt for Law, 1st Degree, and Facilitator for Crime(s), 1st Degree.

Treason: For violating the United States Constitution.

Criminal Contempt for Law: For utter contempt against the Constitution, the supreme legislative document of the land.

Facilitator for Criminal Activity: By banning guns, you made countless people defenseless against common city street scum, which means you are helping criminals commit their crimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top