Handgun ban should stay in Chicago

Chicago Tribune Editorial ^ | 03/04/2010 | Carol Hillman

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am dismayed that the City of Chicago's ban on handguns may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The second amendment to the Bill of Rights reads as follows: 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.

The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia. In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms. Of course, I cannot prove that my reading of the amendment is correct -- but gun rights supporters cannot prove that the right to bear arms extends to people who are not in the military!

Moreover, gun rights advocates always say that it is not a gun that kills someone, it is a person that does so. That may be, but much of the time, it is a person with a gun! To be sure, some people will always figure out how to get firearms illegally, but it stands to reason that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths.

This is what Police Superintendent Jody Weis said in regard to the ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban: "From a law enforcement perspective, this will no doubt make a police officer's job more challenging than it already is, particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago."

I can only speak for myself, but I would feel a lot less safe if the Chicago handgun ban is overturned. I suspect crime rates after the ban is lifted will prove me right!

[Lurker]

With my compliments.

[Laserman]

Ms Hillman is an IDIOT!

What is so hard to understand in the following:

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

Seems pretty damn clear to me.

And in any case, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow the People to protect themselves from criminals. It is to allow them to protect themselves from THEIR GOVERNMENT!!!!

[ansel12]

In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms. Of course, I cannot prove that my reading of the amendment is correct -- but gun rights supporters cannot prove that the right to bear arms extends to people who are not in the military!

WWII would have been entirely different if the founding fathers had overlooked creating the "right" for the military to have guns, we missed a bullet on that one guys, golf clubs, baseball bats and pocket knives would never have defeated the Nazis.

[Red in Blue PA]

Handgun ban should stay in Chicago

Fine. As long as Daley's Security Detail turns in all of their guns too. If we can't have them, neither can he. (but you would probably be opposed to this wouldn't you Ms. Hillman?)

Effin scumbag.

[ArrogantBustard]

I am dismayed that Carol Hillman wants to maintain a safe working environment for rapists, murderers, robbers, and other thugs.

I am unsurprised that Jody Weis wishes to protect armed thugs from self-defending citizens ... she's just protecting the Blue Gang's turf.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Hey, I'm with ya, Carol! Yep, the 2nd Amendment only pertains to those who serve or served. Because after all it states the "right to keep and bear arms" in there. So you gonna support me going back to the base and claiming the M4 and M9s that I was issued? C'mon fellow soldiers, let's go get our FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons that Carol so rightly points out we get to KEEP! No need to return them, the 2nd Amendment says so!

[BuckeyeTexan]

Whoops. Sorry. I meant to but was so focused on the complete idiocy of her comments that I just plain forgot.

[massgopguy]

Then every citizen should sue their municipalities for not mustering gun owners to the Militia. They are violating the Constitution.
“The 2nd Amendment should never be construed to mean anything other than the individual right to keep and bear arms.” - John Adams at the MA Con Con.

[Red in Blue PA]

In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms.

That's funny Ms. Hillman, around the time of the Constitution, everyone owned guns, not just those in the militia.

[Red in Blue PA]

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

[Shellback Chuck]

Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

George Mason

[Vermont Lt]

WE are the militia. The context of the day was that everyone would rally to the defense of the community. It was kind of like a volunteer fire department. The concept of the National Guard is kind of “new”.

[ZULU]

“The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia. In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms.”

STUNNING ANALYSIS CAROL!!!!! It floors me!! OF COURSE!!!

Why didn't I see that!!!! The Founding Fathers felt it necessary to add an amendment guaranteeing the right of the militia to have weapons!!! HOW CLEAR!!! Why, if it were not for this amendment our militia,our national guard, maybe event our MILITARY would NOT BE ABLE TO BEAR ARMS!!!! They would have to fight instead with - say dust mops or brooms. And THAT would be a severe HANDICAP!

Hmm. I just wonder how all those other countries manage to arm their military forces without a Second Amendment. Guess they weren't as smart as our Founding Fathers!!

Carol, I am happy you are dismayed. When someone so logically challenged as you are, is dismayed, I KNOW we are on the right track!!!

[Lazamataz]

The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia. In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed Services - have the right to bear arms. Of course, I cannot prove that my reading of the amendment is correct -- but gun rights supporters cannot prove that the right to bear arms extends to people who are not in the military!

Yes they can. DC Versus Heller.

[ctdonath2]

When DC’s ban was overturned, homicide rates dropped to a 43-year low.

‘nuff said.

[Cheburashka]

Carol is walking talking living breath proof of the fact that the only people with lower SAT scores than teachers are journalists.

---

What you say is definitely true, but the Ms. Hillman isn't a journalist. This is just a letter to the editor by some befuddled sap who lives in Chicago and wanted to demonstrate her stupidity to the world.

[VOR78]

She also ignored the DC vs Heller ruling. The 2nd amendment is not dependent upon militia membership, which is made quite clear.

Of course, she also neglects to mention that even the technical definition of ‘militia’ according to US Code includes virtually every man in the United States between the ages of 17 and 45 and who are US citizens.

[Celerity]

“That may be, but much of the time, it is a person with a gun! “

False. “Much of the time..” it’s with a car.

[Dead Corpse]

English fail. It doesn't say "Right of the militia", it says "Right of the People". In order to even HAVE a militia, folks need to be armed.

Morons or liars. Possibly both knowing libs...

[Dead Corpse]

14 million firearms sold last year. Crime went down 10% Nation wide...