The Chicago Tribune has lurched to the left of Sen. Barack Obama, at least on gun rights, marking the latest point in its evolution from a historically moderate-to-conservative paper to a reliably left-wing broadsheet.
That's how MRC Director of Media Analysis characterized the Trib's decision to issue an editorial last Friday calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. The editorial board's writers whined that the Constitution's Framers "could have used an editor" in writing the Bill of Rights. [audio available here]
Below is a transcript -- h/t MRC intern Peter Sasso -- from Graham's appearance on the June 30 "O'Reilly Factor" with guest host John Kasich:
JOHN KASICH, guest host: When I heard that the Trib called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, I kind of thought that it might be an April Fools Day I didn't believe it. Tim, I mean, were you shocked?
TIM GRAHAM, MRC Director of Media Analysis: Yeah, I was told by an office mate today and I couldn't believe it, I thought it was a joke. You know, we saw obviously a lot of liberal urban newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, take the Supreme Court decision where the justices basically said gee the second amendment actually means what it says about no infringement on the right. But this, this takes it to a whole new level. I mean this was so provocative, its sort of like somebody dancing in their underwear, very ah, sort of ridiculous to say the founding fathers were all rotten amendment writers and ah we think we could do better, we just think we should throw that second amendment out and start over.
KASICH: You know Tim, I wonder how many people who are living in a violent section of Chicago who now, or in DC or wherever who may now, mother and dad saying I might be able to actually have some protection for my family, you know, to protect me against one of these thug drug dealers that wants to break into my house. So in a way, has the paper lost touch with the people that are reading that paper?
GRAHAM: Papers like this don't see this as a people issue, they see it as a gun issue. They have such a hatred for the weapon itself that they don't really pay any attention to how its used. And we can chronicle on a day by day basis the way the news media ignores stories of citizens bravely defending themselves with their own firearms. It's the kind of story the news media just doesn't want to exist and so they don't tend to report it at all.
KASICH: Tim, how do they, how does a newspaper make a decision like this?
GRAHAM: Yeah, this one's a mystery, I mean a lot of time at an editorial board of a major newspaper, there's obviously not just one person writing the interviews, writing the editorials , there's a whole bunch of people. This clearly reads like its been written by one person who was having a bad day or just feeling, you know feeling feisty. Aah, but this really is a sad decline I think to a lot of people from what the Chicago Tribune used to be, it used to be a conservative sort of Republican newspaper, even a couple of decades ago, they were still seen as a moderate Republican newspaper. Now we're at a point where it sounds like they're more left than Barack Obama, At least the Barack Obama comments from the other day...
KASICH: You know, that's an interesting point you make. Because you know, Obama came out in favor of the Supreme Court decision, so how do they look at that, how does he look at that? How's he gonna defend this?
GRAHAM: I think he needs to be asked this question, I think the news media ought to say your home town newspaper has now suggested the second amendment should now be repealed. Do you agree with the Chicago Tribune and let him denounce the Chicago Tribune, we'd like to see that happen. But ah, clearly, Obama's position has definitely evolved.
KASICH: Yeah I thought that Obama had a good comment about this, I thought McCain did, it's clear that both sides believe in gun rights. And you know, obviously some people at the Tribune didn't get it and I am still waiting to see whether there are any letters to the editors from those people who are going to be able now to defend themselves and their children.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And we have Sam "you want
July 1, 2008 - 09:23 ET by red_dragon311And we have Sam "you want to buy a baseball team" Zell to thank
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
If the liberals went after
July 1, 2008 - 09:44 ET by misterbee241If the liberals went after non-existent abortion rights they way they do unalienable gun rights, this would be a far better country.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
I really think we ought to
July 1, 2008 - 09:38 ET by Dan The Man 2I really think we ought to shoot people who propose we rewrite the constitution. The major difference between us and Europe is our constitution and the brevity of it. It focuses on the rights of the individual that the Creator endowed to every human being whereas the constitutions and documents in other countries say what the state lets them have. This is a very important difference.
One other thing is the document is brief and common sense was supposed to be used even when the common sense changed. If we rewrote the thing it would be bloated beyond belief and would make up volumes. For reference just look at the tax codes.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I just wonder, how would
July 1, 2008 - 11:34 ET by bassndudeI just wonder, how would they react if we were to go with their idea, but start with the first amendment and go from there.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
...and re-word it according
July 1, 2008 - 13:00 ET by mattm...and re-word it according to modern usage:
So:
"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."
Would read something like this:
"A well armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to own and carry firearms and other weaponry shall not be infringed."
Then there is the Leftist version
July 1, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Prester John"A well armed citizenry being dangerous to the security of a socialist state, the right of the People to own and carry firearms and other weaponry shall be denied."
Well, at least they are advocating the correct method now...
July 1, 2008 - 09:48 ET by c5thenRather than lobby for an absolutely illogical comprehension of what the 2nd Amendment actually says. This is the correct way for people who are affraid of guns to argue that they have served their purpose and need to be regulated. To do that Constitutionally, requires the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. This allows for an actual cogent and rational debate.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
The correct method....
July 1, 2008 - 10:37 ET by trak65Exactly, C5 I wholeheartedly agree that this is the Left's only valid argument. Don't like something in the constitution? Make your case and go through the amendment process. Wish something were in the constitution that isn't? Same procedure. Amending the constitution was intentially designed to be hard, but not impossible. Those dismayed by its content and limits should have to do the heavy lifting instead of unconstitutional shortcuts that achieve a desired result.
Lets just take a piece at a time of the First Amendment also
July 1, 2008 - 09:51 ET by JTPShall we?
I think the letter E is dangerous, it is too often used improperly.
E is Repealed
So now w_ wil b_ saf_r from missus_.
T has caus_d h_art brak_ to too many famili_s so it will no long_r b_ us_d.
T is Repealed
I _hink soci__y will b_ fur_h_r aha_d now _ha_ w_ ar_ no long_r burd_n_d wih_ _hat nas_y l____r.
It makes as much sense as what the Chicago Tribne is saying.
The 2ND Amendment exists to secure the rest
The reason the Tribune can
July 1, 2008 - 09:53 ET by ConservativeRexThe reason the Tribune can print any/all the nonsense that it does is, ironically, due to the Second Amendment. Talk about ungrateful.
Then there's that pesky...
July 1, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Prester John...1st Amendment. Can we really afford to have people wasting their time speaking their minds, going to church and petitioning the government while Obama needs their labor to help save the country and the world? And we certainly can't have those media types pointing out what might be going wrong or not toeing the party line.
I mean, come on people, let's get our priorities straight.
"A few agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous..." 1984
"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you." 1984
Machiavelli’s The Prince
July 1, 2008 - 10:20 ET by dvdaughtryMachiavelli’s The Prince also notes that the first thing that the Prince's did to control the new land they just conqured was to "take away their arms".
However, those of like mind (read the government) were allow to keep thier arms.
This is such a simple issue. I truely have a hard time understanding why people don't get it.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Because most people do not know history.
July 1, 2008 - 10:31 ET by c5thenIt's that simple. History is no longer taught in schools it is mentioned and some of the highlights are discussed (in context that the teacher decides), but that is it.
There is no longer any chronological stepping through the decades and understanding what was going on in the various places. You have to find someone with a masters in History to find someone who actually knows the timeline in a general sense.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
"1984" regarding history
July 1, 2008 - 10:38 ET by Prester John"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
KASICH: Yeah I thought that
July 1, 2008 - 10:07 ET by Chris NormanKASICH: Yeah I thought that Obama had a good comment about this...
Kasich was showing the ex-politician trait of taking another politician's words at face value.
What part of "rights" do you not understand?
July 1, 2008 - 10:42 ET by KC MulvilleFrom the Tribune editorial:
Well, um, yeah, but that's what a right is. It's the ability to prevent or limit the government from taking something from you. The Tribune has hit the nail on the head, but they themselves are bewildered by this revelation.
What gets lost in this wailing about "public safety" is that the DC ban effectively got rid of all guns. It didn't just limit guns or regulate them. DC banned them. And so the argument was clear: if you have a constitutional right to something, can government get around your rights by regulating your right to death? The Court's answer was no. The whole idea of a right is that government can't take away from you, not even through indirect methods. Would anyone sit still if the city government passed a law that you have freedom of religion, but because religion is divisive, you cannot worship with fellow believers in public? The same principle applies here. If the constitution says it's a right, you can't regulate it to the point where the right can't be exercised. That was the driving force behind this case.
The Tribune is plainly advocating that if the constitution restrains the government from instituting a policy that the Tribune wants, then we should get rid of the constitution. And they think we don't understand. They think the Framers needed an editor ... so says the editor of the Tribune.
And how many times....
July 1, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Prester John...have courts at all levels taken "a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens" by throwing out any number of laws passed by referendums on illegal immigration, affirmative action, same sex marriages, taxes etc?
Are these people even aware of what has been going on in this country the last twenty years and do they even listen to themselves?
Chicago's control-freakery problems
July 1, 2008 - 11:07 ET by sarcasmoExtend far beyond just their useless gun grabbing laws.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I don't see anything that
July 1, 2008 - 11:17 ET by jdhawkI don't see anything that the Trib said that is shocking at all. I think it is reflective of most liberal thinking in our country, despite how scary that may be.
You have to still be flabbergasted that there were four Supreme Court Justices that voted against this case. The case was upheld by the narrowest of margins. Had President Bush not appointed two conservative justices and this case been before that earlier court, it would have failed.
Think about it. The 2d Ammendment of our Constitution would have been essentially repealed had President Bush not gotten elected, served two terms, and appointed two conservative justices.
With two of the liberal justices in their seventies and eighties respectively, the next president will likely be able to appoint one or more justices. Is there any doubt about staying home as a conservative come election day because you don't like the Republican candidate, Senator McCain?