No, James Oliphant, another Corrupt "Journalist," the conventional wisdom for decades HAS NOT been that the Second Amendment is meant for state militias. It is clear except to the Corrupt Media and its Far Left Loons, that the Second Amendment applies to the citizens of the U.S.
Is it even possible that the LIBune can provide its subscribers with actual journalists who do not corrupt the news and facts with lies, distortions, misreporting of facts and their own left-wing biases?

The ammendment does not read "the right of state militias or standing armies to keep and bear arms". So John D is right in as much as the conventional wisdom is that the 2nd ammendment was written to provide for the avearge citizen to grab his personal gun and defend the Republic.

That said, it must be noted that this was written over 200 years ago; that the founders did not anticipate gang bangers nor the pschologically unhinged shooting up public places (nor automatic weapons, BTW); and that if we could speak Frankiln, Jefferson et al today, we can be reasonably certain that they would push for very stringent, uniform, enforcable and enforced restrictions on individual gun ownership. They would not see the need for the average citizen to own an arsenal, or even so much as one automatic weapon.

PS: John D you're right to couch the word "journalist" in quote marks here. However, it's so easy to slap around the Tribune DC Bureau without being hyper about it. Best to calm down.

"John D", calm down. It's the DNC Swamp, it's Oliphant, so of course it's anti-2nd Amendment, anti Bill of Rights propoganda.

Who expects anything different from the DNC's Swamp affiliate?

Certainly not the Far Leftists who post here. They also recognize the DNC Swamp as mere biased Left wing propoganda, not reporting, and praise it for that very reason.

Having a gun is worth the lives of 17 school kids so far in Chicago.

Most of them would have grown up to be losers or criminals anyway, right RKBA wackos???

I can't believe how irresponsible this "report" is. I hope James Oliphant has to live under a dictator like Castro and be able to do nothing about it because the nation he lives in bans gun ownership.

Two points:

The other nine amendments to teh Bill of Rights all deal with individual rights, so why would the 2nd Amendment not also deal with the rights of teh individual? It does.

MJ - I'm sure the founders never thought of a inner cities with street thugs that used weapons. There is a process in the constitution for creating an amendment - it shoudl be followed. Therefore, those in favor of outlawing guns in this country should start that process just as they did with Prohibition. BTW, the amendment to counstitution that gave us prohibition didn't stop drinking did it? Do you not think that the criminals will not find a way to get hand guns?

Is there a constitutional right to own a gun ? There is just as much of a right as anyone printing a leaflet to hand out, a newspaper, or any other printed matter. Our rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS unless it specifically says so otherwise.

Terry, here's a report on how well gun control is keeping kids armed in Britain.

Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed data in April that showed that 14 percent of all high school students and 21 percent of all boys had carried a weapon to school at least once in the past year.

Addressing these findings, a representative for Handgun Control told
Time.com, "The least we can do is keep guns out of kids' hands." That's
exactly what Britain's strict gun laws aim to do.

But according to a survey for the British government's Youth Justice Board released last week, fully 26 percent of high school-age students there have carried a weapon for aggressive or defensive purposes in the last year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b32cc4304cb.htm

Yeah Jeff,

Everyone in Iraq owns a gun. We've seen how well that worked out.

In America when someone cuts you off in traffic and you yell at them they shoot you. Now that's a healthy situation.

When we were kids in high school, you didn't have shootings every week, you never even heard of them. But things are much better now with more Glocks and AK-47's on the street.

Never get between a Republican and his guns (or his slogan supporting more guns). Out my way they like to give concealed weapon permits to every one and his dog. The other day an "outstanding citizen" and the owner of such a permit unloaded a magazine into his estranged wife in front of their kids in a church parking lot. Do you guys have a slogan for that?

GUNS, guts and Christ made America free!!!

Believe it.

Posted by: Terry | March 16, 2008 12:46 PM

Terry, I agree, as would the Founders, I'm sure.

But like banning alcohol, an outright ban of private gun ownership is simply undoable (practically speaking) but also wrong in principal. There are legitmate reasons for an individual to own a gun. I won't list them all, but one that is scarcely metioned is that there are still places in America wherein hunting supplements the family diet and/or income.

Nevertheless, gun ownership must be strictly, uniformly regulated. For instance, a hunter doesn't need an assualt rifle with a 30-round magazine... much less multiple assault rifles.

Do I carry - Yes., LEO-Yes,
Carry off duty-yes, Retired & carry-yes.. Fed.law says yes I can and I WILL carry
nation wide.......
IT is ashame that one or two teachers or instructors
wasn't armed( to carry) at the schools when the ding bat started shooting all them kids ... He or she
may well have saved a
lot of the kids from being killed.....But-thanks to
%&*$# HandGunControl
people- they wasn't ---
enough said.
ONE THING - WHEN R
the crooks/criminals/killers
going to "obay" and follow the law. ?????

MJ,

You are missing one point - the people you really want to keep the guns from are the criminals. By deinition, its the criminals that will break the laws/regulations that are put on guns, just as criminals break other laws and regulations.

Why not try to chnage the culture that creates these thugs in the first place? That starts at home - until the parents of these thugs get it thru their heads nothing will change.

Terry,

My point is that law abiding citizens should not object to strict control over gun ownership. They should not object to a ban on assault weapons. Criminals and psychos of course will.

Society can not legislate the good parenting that you say will reduce thuggery. Society can, however, and should make it a crime to own certain kinds of weapons. Of course that will not eliminate these weapons from circulation, but it will add to the price that criminals have to pay (both in terms of dollars on the black market and penalties when caught). In short, since we can't make it impossible, we should make it more difficult for the bad guys to arm themselves.

It's not a perfect solution, but then there isn't one.

The exact same logic that declares "should make it a crime to own certain kinds of weapons" can be used to make it a crime to refuse to INCRIMINATE oneself -- after all, only "criminals" will be affected by such laws, right?

The practice of turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals by passing laws that make it a crime for them to use this form of self-protection is in itself a crime because, by so doing, "the state" attempts to take away the individual's right to defend themselves by limiting "how" such a defense may be mounted. Gun possession is, and always has been, and always will be, about accountability. It is not about a person having a gun or carrying a gun, it is about what that person DOES with the gun in their possession. Used for legitimate self-defense should never be a crime. The normal routine police investigation of any gun incident would clearly lead to the establishment of accountability in any given situation involving discharge of a gun. Instead, an element of our society strives with unending vigor to render the individual defenseless in the face of potential life threatening situations by criminalizing the individuals efforts to defend themselves. Such efforts should never be given life and where enacted should be repealed in favor of that which has always been the legitimate yardstick - individual accountability.

Posted by: Herb Martin | March 16, 2008 10:52 PM

So tell us Herb, why do you want to own a machine gun?

MJ,

Read the following:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

Here's what happens when "well intentioned" laws get passed.