The Chicago Tribune's take on the 2nd amendment
- Thread starter 9A Pilot
- Start date
I would love to stand toe to toe with the idiots that wrote that editorial and tell them what a bunch of worthless traitors I think they are.
I say after the NRA has they'er fun with Chicago then some individual should then sue for a good sum just to rub it in that they no longer have absolute power like they did.
werd
How about the whole state?
read some of the comments on that editorial.. very few of them are in support of gun bans.. most are for the 2nd Amendment and the ruling the Supreme Court put down..
The Chicago Tribune can go pound sand.
I am not a Constitutional Expert by any means, so someone correct me if I am wrong,the Bill of Rights confers rights to THE PEOPLE not the Government,if that is Correct (and I am sure it is)then why would all the Amendments confer rights to the people Except the Second Amendment? We are supposed to believe that the Second Amendment is the only one confering rights to the States? I call B.S on these Anti Gun Morons!
Here's the thing... these people against the 2nd like the Chicago Tribune don't care what the amendment was originally intended for. Most likely they know exactly what it means and that's that we have the right to bear arms. But they have an agenda and they're willing to twist the founding fathers words any which way possible to get their agenda across. That's why fighting these issues is so important because these traitors are trying to change the country from what it was meant to be. They think that if they can make us believe the founding fathers believed the contrary than there is no debate. That's why I have a very hard time with the fact that these things are left up to a small group of men to decide, especially in these times.
I agree 100%,these Anti Gunners will Push their Agenda at any Cost,they can't be Dumb enough to believe the Second Amendment only allows states to Form Militia's,they just hope WE are Dumb enough not to realize it.A second question just for fun,how many time has the Anti Gun Brady bunch changed the name of their organization,VS the NRA who has never changes it's name?
Chicago = consider the source
'
Anywhere with liberal politicians & a high rate of Drive By Shootings, Home Invasions & Car Jackings, it's a wonder why they want to ban guns & repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Thing is, dumbass politicians are out of touch with reality, they fail to realize that criminals rarely buy guns LEGALLY.
For criminals, guns are just like drugs, they never buy them legally & will ALWAYS have a supply whenever they need it.
I'd relinquish all my right to bear arms, IF, the same guys who want to ban could 100% guarantee me & my family's safety.
Until then, the 2nd Amendment FTMFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'
Anywhere with liberal politicians & a high rate of Drive By Shootings, Home Invasions & Car Jackings, it's a wonder why they want to ban guns & repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Thing is, dumbass politicians are out of touch with reality, they fail to realize that criminals rarely buy guns LEGALLY.
For criminals, guns are just like drugs, they never buy them legally & will ALWAYS have a supply whenever they need it.
I'd relinquish all my right to bear arms, IF, the same guys who want to ban could 100% guarantee me & my family's safety.
Until then, the 2nd Amendment FTMFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this guy is a ****ing moron. and anyone who agrees with him is a ****ing moron.
Because until the 14th Amendment was ratified and adopted, the interpretation was that the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Govt alone. Then, with the 14 Amendment, it was held that the "Due Process" clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and the people.
Thanks for the Clarification. :beer:
I'm surprised the Chicago Tribune let this fly. From what I'm reading, it is a fairly right wing newspaper.
Users who are viewing this thread
