Posted on 06/27/2008 5:13:44 PM PDT by RetiredArmy
NEWS RELEASE
SAF CALLS CHICAGO TRIBUNE PLEA TO REPEAL 2A ‘UNCONSCIONABLE’
BELLEVUE, WA – The Chicago Tribune’s call for repeal of the Second Amendment following the historic Heller Decision is an “unconscionable attack on the entire Bill of Rights and the freedoms it protects,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
In an editorial published on the day after the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 ruling, the newspaper called the Second Amendment an “anachronism” that should be repealed. The newspaper supported its argument by falsely claiming that a 1939 case, U.S. v Miller, established the amendment as a “collective right” that applied only to service in some type of militia.
“The Chicago Tribune’s editors have demonstrated an appalling short-sightedness,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “If they are so willing to abandon one civil right for an entire class of American citizens, what’s next? Perhaps they would strip some citizens of their First Amendment rights to free speech or religion. Heaven help us should the Chicago Tribune editorial board one day decide that they don’t care for the editorial slant of their competitors at the Sun-Times, and call for a restriction on that newspaper’s freedom of the press.
“Once you make it acceptable to destroy one civil right,” Gottlieb observed, “it does not take a very big leap to embrace limitations on, or the abolition of, another civil right.
“Not once, in all the years that gun rights organizations have been vilified in the editorial columns of the Tribune and other newspapers did anyone from the firearms community suggest we should repeal the First Amendment,” he stated. “Unlike elitist newspaper editors, gun owners understand that the Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing document, not a civil rights buffet from which we can pick and choose the rights we want to enjoy and those for which we have no stomach.
“We have always known the Second Amendment affirmed an individual civil right, and a truly objective reading of history by the Chicago Tribune would – if they had any notion of objectivity – lead them to the same conclusion,” Gottlieb concluded. “A generation of parents and grandparents of those now writing such nonsense in the Tribune risked, and all too frequently lost their lives to defend all of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Tribune editors may as well just spit on their graves.”
-END-
Sigh, as right as you are we barely got 5 justices to agree on this, if you read Kennedy’s concurring opinion he is itching to make clear that while it is individual right it is subject to reasonable regulation.
As an aside, Chicago has already announced it is going to ignore the decision, claiming the right does not apply to state (as opposed to federal) action. First round has been narrowly won, but now the real fun begins.
Bravo and dittoes.
Let anybody who wants to change the Constitution use the system laid down by the FFs, not depend on Justice Kennedy’s whim of the day.
Incorrect. The only part of the original Constitution that was written to be unchangeable was the delay before laws could be passed against the importation of slaves. 20 years, if I remember correctly.
The idea was kicked around again in several amendments that were proposed to appease the Slave Power in 1860, but never got anywhere.
You can make a moral case that the Bill of Rights is irremoveable because they are just enumerations of our "unalienable rights" we received from God, but you can't make a case that the Constitution itself prevents any change whatsoever, as long as you go through the unbelievably arduous amendment process. This process ensures that no amendment can be passed without almost unanimous support by the people. Which works for me.
Beg to differ. Any almost universal revolt by the American people against their government, which includes the military, would be unable to "take over" as long as the military stuck by the government.
Such a widespread revolt might indeed make it very difficult for the government to enforce its will everywhere, perhaps impossible if the military would be unwilling to use extreme measures. But that's a very different issue from "the people" being able to defeat the government and its military.
Your statement would have been true up to about 1939, not since.
Since military men take an oath to the Constitution, not to the government, I don't get heartburn over this. I cannot imagine any issue that would divide the people sufficiently to lead to civil war that would not also divide the military. God forbid it ever comes to this.
“introducing communism into a country is tough when the populace is armed.”
such beautiful words.
those democrat scu&bags in congress are holding back their anti-gun sentiments. apparently, they’re waiting until the “american electorate” elects them en-masse to both houses and the presidency. then watch the drip, drip of constant assault on one of the final things standing in their way; an armed populace that knows the face of evil when it sees it and one that has freedom in its blood.
IMHO
What part of the Constitution says that?
If an amendment were legitimately ratified that in clear and unambiguous terms gave the President the authority to seize anyone's property he wanted for any reason and without compensation, the President would have that authority. That having been said, I can't imagine 38 state legislatures ratifying such a thing.
Given that 38 states already allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons for self-defense, I'm rather curious why the Tribune would expect 26 of those states to ratify an amendment to disarm their citizens. If HCI et al. want to introduce such an amendment, let them go ahead. I'd rather have them trying to amend the Constitution de jure than have judges modify it de facto.
Ownership of Chicago Tribune Group
In April 2007 the Chicago-based Tribune Group announced that it had agreed to be acquired by property billionaire Sam Zell in a US$8.4 billion takeover.
...
In 1991 the News was acquired by Robert Maxwell, whether as a diversion or to spite Rupert Murdoch (owner of the New York Daily Post). The paper went into receivership with Maxwell's death that year and in 1993 was purchased by property magnate Mortimer Zuckerman.
Isnt' that pretty much what the Supreme Court said when ruling on McCain-Fiengold "campaign finance reform"?
As a Chicagoan, I am looking forward to the repeal of many of the city’s gun laws. With more armed law-abiders, the city will be a lot safer.
Umm. What Kennedy concurring opinion? There were no concurring opinions written. There were two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Bryer. All of four in the minority either authored or concurred in both dissenting opinions.
FWIW, my lawyer daughter called Bryer's opinion, "Just Crazy".
Amazing too that the founders put them in that specific order.
1. You can say anything you want (particularly sbout the government).
2. You have the right to be armed (to protect that right to speak freely).
Many do not pay as close attention to the document and the time they took to write it as the founders did. They were careful and deliberate, and many say obviously divinely guided.
It has never been matched in any country since. How dare the libs think they know better.
Partly because it means we were not able to convince enough people of our position and beliefs.
Nice. Thank you!
I didn’t mean to insult your city. I am originally from Cleveland and a big city needs responsible gun owners.
Here in Florida our crime is less in many areas because of armed citizens.
Thank for the information, appreciate it.
We must attack and free Chicago now.
Such a call should be thwarted with an ammendment to the First ammendment that muzzles big press. The press is our worst enemy
Such a revolt would not be against just the military. It would target the entirety of the federal government: politicians, bureaucrats, file clerks and secretaries. And without people to administer the payroll, buy ammo, and pay for stuff, the army ceases to exist
A few years back, just two men (the "DC snipers") came close to shutting down DC. Visualize the effect of a few hundred individuals deciding to become quiet serial killers of federal employees.
Put more succinctly, in the movie "Fight Club" to a certain politician: "Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do NOT f**k with us."
If the Federales start a “political” military along the lines of the KGB, SS, Republican Guard, etc., you the know the end is here. (Arguably, in various militarized law enforcement organizations, like the FBI and BATFE, they have already begun the process...)
Ah, ci cago, so expert on the elimination of crime and such a breeder of clean politicians better than the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.