Let's take the safety off common sense

[Conservative1]

By Burt Constable | Daily Herald Columnist

 

"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

[Bill Matio]

This guy is so clueless I don't even know where to start!

[Lou]

Using his logic, journalists like this guy should also be limited to only hand powered printing presses which was the only form of media at the time. No TV, no radio and certainly not the internet.

 

He lost any semblance of credibility when he labels himself as a liberal in the second paragraph.

[Conservative1]

Most of the comments at the link are classic.

[seanmiller]

This...person starts from one very wrong premise, and that is that violence dosent solve problems. Thats not true.

 

In many cases violence does solve a problem.

 

In any situation in which one person initiates a conflict with another, bringing physical violence into that person's life, they should expect a response in kind. I take particular exception to his mockery of grandmother killing Al Quedia terrorist. Now 4 gangbangers breaking in to rape and rob her, leaving her with a broken body, broken spirit, and destitute...that is a real threat grandma faces, especially if she never could move out of her neighborhood as it slowly slid down the abyss. Guess what though, most little old ladies can hold and fire a gun just fine.

 

At least with a gun she has a g**damn chance, because we all know without one she has none at all.

 

He was half right about one thing though: Guns are good at killing people, AND THEREFORE EXCELLENT AT PROTECTING PEOPLE.

 

And make no mistake, what this person says in the end is more akin to the Government taking control of the internet and only allowing broadcast media (no forums or blogs). All journalist must register with the state and submit to annual training sections where they learn what is acceptable to report. People who try and get the news anyway would be taxed to kingdom come.

 

PS: This crap is so full of factual errors that its hard to understand a cohernt point other than they dont want to believe that guns are anything but a source of evil. The people at Hood that were shot were mostly civilians, but beyond that soldiers are DISARMED while in garrison. Only MPs have guns. He was more likely to find guns and armed people in a Chicago bank than that Ft Hood one. Also, civilians have a MUCH higher hit percentage in violent encounters than cops do, if you care to read the FBIs statistics on such things. Theres more, but while this person's ignorance is unlimited my time is.

[Johnnybgood]

Ya gotta read the comments. They are great. And this is a Chicago newspaper.

[Don Gwinn]

What a maroon. But he did provoke me to leave a comment:

If Mr. Constable really believed what he's selling, he wouldn't be advocating ignoring the Constitution because it's an outdated document written by hypocritical neanderthals like Madison, Jefferson and Franklin.

 

No, if he really believed his central thesis (the world has changed since 1788, so we should chuck the parts of the Constitution we don't personally agree with) then his side wouldn't have to resort to this kind of whining. They'd have the votes on their side, and they'd simply amend the Constitution and remove the 2nd Amendment or rewrite it to fit what they currently pretend it says. All it takes is enough votes. It's been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was ratified. If "the world has changed" and the 2nd Amendment is no longer important to the American people, by all means, get your petitions out there and amend it out of existence.

 

But of course, Mr. Constable, you know you can't get that done, because the world has NOT changed in the way you claim. Human beings have the same right to defend themselves, their families, communities, states and nations today that they had back then. Good luck with your bold new program of wishful thinking.

 

Next.

[Lou]

Most of the comments at the link are classic.

 

The comment show more understanding of the Constitution and common snnse than his lame views.

[Heavy]

That was the best pro gun article I have ever read.

 

 

If this is the best they can come up with then we have already won.

 

 

A bush league article by a guy who obviously has never read the Constitution and has no grasp of reality in the modern world.

 

 

Sad really...but good for those of us who stand for truth.

 

 

[Lou]

His reply to my e-mail:

 

 

Dear Lou,

 

Didn't I point out that our Founding Fathers said people could have the same weapons used by the military? If you can't infringe my right to arm myself, I don't see why I can't have a machine gun and a rocket launcher. If I'm protecting my family from foreign invaders or even the government, shouldn't I be able to take down a helicopter?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Sincerely,

 

Burt Constable

 

The word "clueless" doesn't even begin to describe this "journalist."

[templar223]

The author is an idiot. In the literal sense.

 

You can't cure stupid like his.

 

John

[abolt243]

His reply to my e-mail:

 

 

Dear Lou,

 

Didn't I point out that our Founding Fathers said people could have the same weapons used by the military? If you can't infringe my right to arm myself, I don't see why I can't have a machine gun and a rocket launcher. If I'm protecting my family from foreign invaders or even the government, shouldn't I be able to take down a helicopter?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Sincerely,

 

Burt Constable

 

The word "clueless" doesn't even begin to describe this "journalist."

 

Actually, if he's not using those weapons to attack me or to commit a crime, I don't see why he can't either!! And, if the helicopter is attacking him or his house, why not?? Extremist??Too far out there??? Maybe, but it's the PERSON that commits the crime, not the object. The guns in my possession have never hurt a human being. The thousands of legal, civilian owned machine guns and class III weapons are not comitting crimes. But you'll never get Burt and his ilk to understand that concept.

 

AB

[Conservative1]

Dear Lou,

 

Didn't I point out that our Founding Fathers said people could have the same weapons used by the military? If you can't infringe my right to arm myself, I don't see why I can't have a machine gun and a rocket launcher. If I'm protecting my family from foreign invaders or even the government, shouldn't I be able to take down a helicopter?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Sincerely,

 

Burt Constable

Arguing with IDIOTS is SO ABSOLUTELY FRUSTRATING!

[Xwing]

 

Common sense means “Shall not be infringed” I suggest that author grab a dictionary and look up infringed.

[doubletap]

LOU

you got more of a reply than I did , his reply to me was "thanks for reading" ....wonder why

 

my letter to him thanked him for the AMMO to get concealed carry laws passed

seeing as trained police officers miss with the 1st 2 shots , what better reason to have citizens protect themselves

i have alerted my grandmother of the pending 4 AlQuida members that may attack her

she also said thanks and she did like the machine gun offer ........

 

 

i did send a copy to the editors and Pres. and V.P. of the daily herald

they didn't reply ...wonder why .....

[Johnnybgood]

I refuse to have a war of words with an unarmed idiot.

[Drylok]

Look at those comments! Among my favorites is-

"Right now the only people who can have guns in Chicago are criminals, politicians, and police. In Chicago, it's hard to tell those three groups apart"

 

Also saw this in one comment-

"What Burt fails to understand, or, what he understand but feigns ignorance about because of his left-wing gun hating effeminate stance, is that the only part of the 2nd Amendment that actually is 'operative' is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

I know I read discussion about the operative clause in the transcripts of McDonald. Anyone else recall that dialog between Scalia and Clement I think it was.