Monday, June 30, 2008

Credit and Scorn to the Chicago Tribune

Reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision holding that the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually means what it says, today's editorial in the Chicago Tribune calls for a repeal of that portion of the Bill of Rights.

This call to action must not be heeded.  If the people are not allowed arms, there is one less check on tyrannical government.  The Tribune (no surprise) is wrong on the issue.

But they also deserve some credit.  An amendment to the Constitution is the right way to change what you don't like about it.  Unfortunately, we live in a country that allows unelected judges to "interpret" the Constitution and morph its clear language into whatever they want it to say.  In this way, the cornerstone document of our nation has been twisted so much that it now hardly resembles what was enacted by our founding fathers.

Maybe the Tribune will start a trend . . . instead of enacting policy by judicial fiat, maybe we'll go back to the people - or at least our elected representatives - having a voice.  (Just wishful thinking?)


thetimman said...

One fewer check. :-)

Dameon said...

The problem is that the second amendment is NOT clear. There are two legitimate ways to interpret what it says, and each person typically does that based on what he or she wants it to say.

I've road the fence on this issue, and took a serious look at it back when the concealed carry law was on the ballet in Missouri. My conclusion was that the stats don't support either position - concealed carry or gun ownership in general, neither protects nor endagers the general public to any extent.

My basic test is this: If it doesn't enfringe on the life, liberty or pursute of happiness of other citizens (in that order), it should not be illegal.

The stats don't support the position that the availablity of guns increases the murder or violent crime rates, so "liberty" rules and the Republican interpritation should rule.

D.C.'s gun laws are asinine, and I'm glad the Supreme Court over ruled.

St. Louis Conservative said...

I agree with your conclusion Dameon, but I think that history and grammar also support our reading of the Second Amendment. The right is "of the people" not the Militia.

I also think that your basic test is a good one. An excellent way to look at issues.