bltzkrg
03-04-10, 18:26
Feel free to leave a comment for this clown. I'm not sure how this cleared the editor's desk. I wrote a rebuttal piece and sent it to the editor, we'll see if it gets published.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=363301
"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."
I'm one of those liberals who advocate gun-control laws. But as I understand "infringe," the second amendment seems to say that people of this nation have a right to keep and use whatever weaponry they deem necessary for the militia to secure our free state. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they were well aware that citizens had access to the most modern and deadly weapons in the world, and they specifically demanded the people's right to own those weapons not be infringed. They didn't say the people's right to bear arms was limited to rifles and swords. They let citizens buy the same bayonets and the latest flintlock muskets used by soldiers.
So our modern government and Supreme Court already dismissed the 2nd Amendment the day they said we private citizens can't keep machine guns and grenade launchers. How can we secure our free state from invading terrorists if we are limited to weapons far inferior to the ones of our enemies? Do you trust a Naperville grandmother to wake up out of a dead sleep, grab a handgun at her bedside and repel four al-Qaida members breaking into her house? A machine gun might be necessary to the security of her freedom. Maybe even a hand grenade or a flamethrower would be warranted. People thinking they need to protect themselves from our own government better be armed as well as some cave-dweller in Afghanistan.
Unless, of course, the world has changed since the days of our Founding Fathers. While certainly smart guys, they would be considered Neanderthals or at least hypocrites on some issues today. They could speak eloquently about all men being created equal and then go home and sell a slave. When they talked about guns being a fundamental right, they never could have envisioned a society in which about 30,000 citizens are shot to death each year, about seven times as many Americans died during the entire Revolutionary War.
I also have my doubts that in today's world a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But for argument's sake, let's say that in order for Illinois to be free, we must arm a well-regulated militia, and by that we mean making guns available to frightened old ladies, gangbangers, people who don't look like you, emotional teens, angry middle-aged men and safety-minded, law-abiding citizens.
Politicians from both major parties talk about "common sense" gun laws. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley talks about it a lot. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and U.S. Senate-hopeful Mark Kirk talk about it. Former Palatine Mayor Rita Mullins and Gurnee Police Chief Robert Jones have talked about it.
Common sense to me means we must recognize that guns are great for killing people but not so good at protecting people. We've got around 235 million guns in this nation, and we don't seem that safe. People still shoot other people who have guns. Drug dealers who make a big deal about having the best guns with them still get shot to death. Even in Fort Hood, where highly trained soldiers are armed with guns and military police are constantly on guard, a single gunman managed to kill 13 people and wound another 30.
When police officers trained in firearms fire their guns on duty, they generally miss with the first shot or two. Shooting people is tricky. It's not like that new movie where John Travolta whips out handguns and kills bad guys in all directions. It's more like the movies where James Bond runs through a warehouse and every shot fired by a regiment of machine gunners misses. Common sense says people who want to defend their homes should have a shotgun, which makes it much easier to hit a target and less likely that wayward shots don't zip through walls and kill the child sleeping in a crib in the next apartment.
Common sense says we might want to treat guns the way we do cigarettes since they both can add to health care costs. Make anyone buying a gun pay hefty taxes, and then more taxes on the ammo. Common sense says we might want to treat guns the way we do cars. Make every owner carry insurance. Make them bring in their guns to state facilities periodically for safety checks. Make new owners go through training, competency tests and then make them get a learner's permit and spend 50 hours shooting with a licensed shooter.
If the Supreme Court closes the door on Chicago's handgun ban, it might simply open the window to all kinds of new regulations to add common sense to the gun laws.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=363301
"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."
I'm one of those liberals who advocate gun-control laws. But as I understand "infringe," the second amendment seems to say that people of this nation have a right to keep and use whatever weaponry they deem necessary for the militia to secure our free state. When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they were well aware that citizens had access to the most modern and deadly weapons in the world, and they specifically demanded the people's right to own those weapons not be infringed. They didn't say the people's right to bear arms was limited to rifles and swords. They let citizens buy the same bayonets and the latest flintlock muskets used by soldiers.
So our modern government and Supreme Court already dismissed the 2nd Amendment the day they said we private citizens can't keep machine guns and grenade launchers. How can we secure our free state from invading terrorists if we are limited to weapons far inferior to the ones of our enemies? Do you trust a Naperville grandmother to wake up out of a dead sleep, grab a handgun at her bedside and repel four al-Qaida members breaking into her house? A machine gun might be necessary to the security of her freedom. Maybe even a hand grenade or a flamethrower would be warranted. People thinking they need to protect themselves from our own government better be armed as well as some cave-dweller in Afghanistan.
Unless, of course, the world has changed since the days of our Founding Fathers. While certainly smart guys, they would be considered Neanderthals or at least hypocrites on some issues today. They could speak eloquently about all men being created equal and then go home and sell a slave. When they talked about guns being a fundamental right, they never could have envisioned a society in which about 30,000 citizens are shot to death each year, about seven times as many Americans died during the entire Revolutionary War.
I also have my doubts that in today's world a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But for argument's sake, let's say that in order for Illinois to be free, we must arm a well-regulated militia, and by that we mean making guns available to frightened old ladies, gangbangers, people who don't look like you, emotional teens, angry middle-aged men and safety-minded, law-abiding citizens.
Politicians from both major parties talk about "common sense" gun laws. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley talks about it a lot. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and U.S. Senate-hopeful Mark Kirk talk about it. Former Palatine Mayor Rita Mullins and Gurnee Police Chief Robert Jones have talked about it.
Common sense to me means we must recognize that guns are great for killing people but not so good at protecting people. We've got around 235 million guns in this nation, and we don't seem that safe. People still shoot other people who have guns. Drug dealers who make a big deal about having the best guns with them still get shot to death. Even in Fort Hood, where highly trained soldiers are armed with guns and military police are constantly on guard, a single gunman managed to kill 13 people and wound another 30.
When police officers trained in firearms fire their guns on duty, they generally miss with the first shot or two. Shooting people is tricky. It's not like that new movie where John Travolta whips out handguns and kills bad guys in all directions. It's more like the movies where James Bond runs through a warehouse and every shot fired by a regiment of machine gunners misses. Common sense says people who want to defend their homes should have a shotgun, which makes it much easier to hit a target and less likely that wayward shots don't zip through walls and kill the child sleeping in a crib in the next apartment.
Common sense says we might want to treat guns the way we do cigarettes since they both can add to health care costs. Make anyone buying a gun pay hefty taxes, and then more taxes on the ammo. Common sense says we might want to treat guns the way we do cars. Make every owner carry insurance. Make them bring in their guns to state facilities periodically for safety checks. Make new owners go through training, competency tests and then make them get a learner's permit and spend 50 hours shooting with a licensed shooter.
If the Supreme Court closes the door on Chicago's handgun ban, it might simply open the window to all kinds of new regulations to add common sense to the gun laws.