Chicago Tribune gets desperate and hysterical over Heller

[possum]

There is nothing, and I do mean nothing quite as sweet as the sound of blue-state urban editorial writers having a good old-fashioned conniption fit.

This is better than watching a cat fight.

This is better than putting fire crackers down ant hills.

This is better than, than....well, go see for yourself how hysterical and desperate the Chicago Tribune got today.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,478588.story


And remember. This is BHO's home town.

This is where BHO has his power base.

And he's coming out in favor of Heller?

You think that's not gonna cost him with folks who think like this in his own hometown?

possum

 

[nate45]

But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.

Odd take on it I didn't find his dissent very compelling at all. What precedent? Was there one I missed that previously ruled the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right?

 

[WhyteP38]

But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms.

Probably because the majority found old evidence: the stuff written before and during the time the Bill of Rights was written ... the stuff that actually tells us what the authors meant.

They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.

Why should decades of recent court precedent trump about 150 years of previous precedent?

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.

Easier, you could do what a lot of lawbreakers do: buy them within the city on the black market.

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.

Actually, it takes the 2nd Amendment out of the hands of politicians, for the most part, as is true with other rights. The politicians of Washington no longer have the ability to trample on one right of the people living under their rule.

Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year.

Maybe that has something to do with “... municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact.”

 

[Nemsis]

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.

I love when they use this argeument, I guess since it's illegal to buy crack everywhere in the U.S. their is no crack sold in Chicago

 

[Oldphart]

There has been one more thing in all this that has caught my attention: The editor of the Trib said something much like Justice Stevens did in referring to the local politician's efforts to keep their citizens 'safe.'

First, it isn't the job of a politician to keep us safe. He/she is only supposed to give us the breathing room to keep ourselves safe without worrying about being prosecuted for our actions.

Second, what about politicians who care nothing for our safety but are only interested in getting reelected. We all know there are plenty of these tin-pot dictators in elected offices who serve just as long as they are able to keep power and make money off the taxpayers (why does Chicago come to mind when I mention tin-pot dictators?)

Stevens and a number of others all seem to have the idea that Americans need "keepers" to look after them and see to it that we are safe and well fed. While many Americans have fallen into that Socialist pit over the past few generations, five members of the Supreme Court have now shown them a ladder with which they can effect an escape. I guess it's up to us to teach them how to use a ladder.

 

[apr1775]

There's a reason that the anti-gunners get so hysterical over stuff like this: their ideology is being proven to be a fraud. They've promoted the idea that disarming citizens will make them safer. Over the past 15-20 years the trend has been most states going to "must issue" conceal carry, and remember all the dire predictions about minor disagreements turning into shoot outs? Well it never came true. Remember all the dire predictions about what would happen if the 1994 AWB were allowed to expire? None of it came true. The last hold out of the anti-gunners has been urban areas such as DC, NYC, and Chigaco. "Guns might be ok for rural areas but they are just too dangerous for the big city". Now they are about to be proven wrong again. So when the push comes to get must issue conceal carry in these areas, they'll make dire predictions about what will happen if people actually carry these guns outside their homes. These anti-gunners are going hysterical because they are being exposed as the frauds they are.

 

[ConfuseUs]

More or less all the gun control laws the antis really want are a legal house of cards built on the legal fiction that the 2nd is a collective right. Until the right is incorporated that house still stands for the most part. They know their agenda is doomed.

 

[shurshot]

I wonder why no major journalist has asked the question yet? Why are Chicago pro-gun control people so worried about giving the ppeople a right to defend themselves with handguns? After all, after close to 3 decades of a handgun ban, only the badguys have handguns, and Chicago is one of the most violent places in the US. Obviously the ban is not working, as Criminals don't obey the law...