Saturday, June 28, 2008

Chicago Tribune Advocates Nullification of Bill of Rights

You read it right, upset over the Heller decision which once and for all clarified the fact the Constitution says what it means, the Chicago Tribune has now advocated the “repeal” of the Second Amendment. Here’s a few key quotes from the “editorial” (warning – not for the squeamish):

"Repeal the 2nd Amendment

"No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.

"If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation."

Is this Pravda or the Chicago Tribune (or is there really any difference at this point)? Talk about editing history. The 1939 case said nothing about the individual right or mythical “collective right” to bear arms, just that “arms” was limited to those of use in military service. A sawed off shotgun was (erroneously) ruled not-suitable for military service. The Framers also would be absolutely SHOCKED at such a skewed interpretation of the Second Amendment. For them the right of the individual to bear arms was fundamental, and it was furthermore viewed as a safeguard against tyranny. I guess the “writers” and “editors” of the Chicago Tribune must have skipped about 150 years of American history.

One thing at least is clear – the veneer of Constitutionality of the extreme left anti-Second Amendment crowd is finally off. It is now clear to everyone that these individuals do not want “common sense gun control” they seek nothing less than the total disarmament of the American populace. For those of us who have been in the trenches for the last few decades, this revelation will come as no surprise, but for the average person I think it will come as a wake-up call.

The significance of this editorial is staggering. You have one of the largest papers in one of the largest cities in the United States advocating the revocation of one of the inalienable rights this nation was founded upon. They are advocating that we move from the United States of America to some “People’s Democratic Republic” where the rights of the individual are completely subservient to the will of the government and their efforts to control the “collective”. They won’t be so honest and say that, but they will use the term “public safety” which if you look at it in context has been mutated to mean “control of the collective”.

The comments in response of the editorial have been extremely negative – not surprising as an overwhelming majority of Americans understood even before the Heller decision that the 2nd affirmed an individual right. It would be basically like someone advocating repeal of part or all of the First Amendment. The response from the Second Amendment Foundation to the Tribune’s hit piece is right on the money:

“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.”

Truth apparently doesn’t matter to the Tribune, though (as noted above). SAF founder Alan Gottlieb went further:

“The Chicago Tribune’s editors have demonstrated an appalling short-sightedness. 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, 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. 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. 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.”

That pretty much says all that needs to be said. The disarmament crowd has now cast away the last vestiges of their cherished “common sense gun control” illusion and have made their ultimate goal clear: the repeal of the Second Amendment and revocation of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. As I mentioned earlier this week, the battle was won, but the war is just beginning, and it seems our adversaries aren’t afraid to use the nuclear option – and shatter the very cornerstone of our Republic – the Bill of Rights. I can’t help but wonder why these people hate freedom so much, but we shall continue to remain vigilant against their attempts to destroy our nation from within.

Those of you unfortunate enough to subscribe to the Tribune, I urge you to cancel your subscription - preferably with a politely worded letter indicating that you refuse to support publications disdainful of and hostile to our basic Civil Rights.

Until next time!!!

No comments: