Because, after all, it's not like you'd ever need to defend yourself in Chicago

Our betters over at the Chicago Tribune, in addition to being the only people qualified to comment on the news, are now more adept at Constitutional law than the Supreme Court. That isn't too objectionable, as I've often thought you plunk out 9 Morons and have infinitely better decisions handed down.

However, I've never thought that I knew the Constitution better than the people who wrote it:

No, we don't suppose [repealing the 2nd Amendment]'s going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

You see, if only they had been clearer about the need for Chicago's city police to steal the handguns of every citizen, this could have all been avoided. But forget that, Chicago is the official home base of Hopenchange. Who are we to judge his Masterful Works? But let's continue reading this garbled crayon-scrawl of an op-ed:

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms."

But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.

You see, the main problem with Scalia's majority opinion is that it spend too long talking abotu what the "right to bear arms" meant.  You originalists and your silly explanations of historical truth.  Don't you know that the Constitution is a living, breathing, hoping, changing document?

Also, what "new evidence" did Justice Stevens require?  If you can't use the words our founding fathers wrote as evidence, what other evidence would have compelled him to think differently?

But, I think we are forgetting the most important point of all this.  The Chicago gun ban has been wildly successful:

Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

You see, we must keep our restrictive gun laws.  Yes.  They ones that don't work.  Don't questions us.  It's for The Children^tm.

(h/t)

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 03:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.