Chicago thumbs nose at courts with anti-gun ordinances

Chicago, long a city in the grip of anti-firearms politicians like former Mayor William Daley, has again had its hands slapped by a federal court. Still, the Windy City, now headed by former Clintonista, Rahm Emanuel, is unlikely to change its ways without further challenges by firearms-rights groups and citizens who desire only to be able to defend themselves with a firearm if they so choose.

The first legal blow dealt Chicago was just last year ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the city’s long-standing ban on private ownership of firearms. Since that decision (known as McDonald v. City of Chicago) was handed down, anti-firearms politicians have openly thwarted the decision and tried every trick in the book to avoid complying with the High Court; including a ban on gun ranges within city limits. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling, and enjoined the city from enforcing the gun-range ban.

The appellate court noted that such a ban constitutes “a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.”

The circuit court opinion slammed the anti-gun ordinance passed by the city’s Board of Alderman in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. The law required that all residents of the city must have training, including an hour of live instruction. The court wrote that “[t]his was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.” The appeals court panel added, “The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits.”

City leaders, including Emanuel, apparently saw the writing on the wall, and passed new regulations that purported to allow gun ranges in the city before the decision by the Seventh Circuit was announced. This move, however, was a cynical ploy to keep the city’s law-abiding citizens disarmed. The regulations make it virtually impossible to construct or manage a gun range in the city. Such establishments, for example, as noted by the Chicago Times, “could be built only in areas of Chicago zoned for manufacturing and would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals.”

Moreover, as the Washington Times recently pointed out, the latest ordinance requires “so many bureaucratic approvals, fees and requirements that nobody could possibly run a successful operation meeting the conditions.”

While anti-firearms advocates may cheer Chicago’s continued efforts to thwart directives from the highest courts in the land, law-abiding citizens of the Windy City continue to suffer, by being victimized daily by criminals who have no trouble finding guns on the black market.

It is high time for the courts to start imposing sanctions directly on the politicians themselves who are abusing their oaths of office to uphold the law and the Constitution, and who are in open contempt of the federal courts.

by Bob Barr — The Barr Code

120 comments Add your comment

marko

July 27th, 2011
6:00 am

The second amendment doesn’t say you have an unrestricted right to own guns. It gives us the right to bear arms. Arms are weapons. Atomic bombs are weapons. Should a nice little fellow In Texas be allowed to take his A bomb to church? When common sense is outlawed, only outlaws have common sense.

hsn

July 27th, 2011
6:28 am

Bob –

Marko is spot on. The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. ARMS can mean a whole array of ammunition. Why do conservatives in particular, only restrict the “bearing of arms” to rifles, pistols and general handguns?

Are H-bmbs, grenades, IEDs, spears, swords, etc not arms? Will it be okay to have the National Association of IEDs, the National Association of Grenades, or the National Association of H-Bmbs?

The NRA has you right-wingers by the balls and so, your ability to responsible thinking on this issue is out the window . It is your irresponsible violent gun culture that will push this nation over the edge, not the anti-gun ordinances in Chicago.

Despite the hype about the “safety” of guns the NRA and its followers would like to throw around about every citizen arming themselves in America, would you say America is the safest country in the world?

When basic responsible ordinances that ensure people who buy guns register are met with fierce opposition by the NRA and its minnions, the country experiences more Columbine-like thugs, Jared Lee Loughners, and others.

Gerald West

July 27th, 2011
7:13 am

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of participating in local militias to defend their community. The need for this is based on an obscure incident in British history: a village in Devon was unable to defend itself from an incursion of dragons from Cornwall because King John had forbidden anyone but his own retainers to possess arms.

Only a Republican dominated Supreme Court could interpret the Second Amendment as giving every swaggering, pimple-face teenager in West Texas the right to arm themselves with assault weapons.

AJT

July 27th, 2011
7:34 am

Don’t be silly with the A-bomb arguments. The concept behind the second amendment was that the general citizens kept their own arms, which at the time were flintlock muskets and handguns. The corollary of those arms today are in fact “assault weapons”, so yeah, it does mean I can own an AK-47 or AR-15. It does not mean I can own a hand grenade or an A-bomb.

The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law” regarding the exercise of free speech. But obviously, we have laws that restrict free speech. There is nothing wrong with Congress, state governments, or local governments banning individual ownership of A-bombs. After Heller, they just can’t restrict the exercise of bearing arms – that is, the typical arms of the day – that would be permitted to be owned by a citizen who would voluntarily show up for militia duty if needed.

DeborahinAthens

July 27th, 2011
7:53 am

Darren Huff, a member of the “Georgia Militia”, was arrested with several weapons, including an automatic weapon, going into a Tennessee courthouse to make a citizens arrest of a jury foreman because this “patriot” had an arrest warrant granted to him by his organization giving him the “right” to arrest this person. He said that he was willing to do what was necessary,including violence, to exercise his rights, including the right to bear arms. Bob Barr, do you really support the lunatic fringe in tees rights, with no checks? Really?

sean in the Mtns

July 27th, 2011
8:21 am

Bob whines about chicago politicians using every underhanded trick in the book to restrict firearms. Yea kind of like those politicians in the midwest using every underhanded trick in the book to block abortion.

jconservative

July 27th, 2011
8:27 am

This kind of activity by Chicago was invited by Justice Alito in his majority opinion in the McDonald case.

Alito wrote: “Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

So laws “regulating” firearms are allowed. Just how far cities and counties can go in regulating will be worked out on a case by case basis by the courts.

This is what is happening in Chicago and other municipalities. How far can the envelope be pushed.

ConlawBloganon

July 27th, 2011
8:28 am

Wow, these are some of the most off-the-wall comments I’ve ever seen.

First things first. The founding fathers wanted the citizenry (not some formal military organization) to be as well armed as the federal government. Indeed, most of the founding fathers were against the very notion of a standing army controlled by the federal government except in times of war. The right to bear arms does not refer to a government right. It refers to an individual right. Read some quotes by the founding fathers. For that matter, read a book. Any book. You can’t possibly get any dumber than you already are.

And for those of you clowns who think the NRA is a puppet for the gun industry, lol. Yeah. How much revenue does the gun industry have compared to, say, the car industry, or the alcohol industry, or the petroleum industry. The NRA and other 2A lobby groups are powerful because MILLIONS of people pay dues to these organizations to have their rights protected. Maybe if gun control were such a fantastic proposition the Brady Campaign would have more than 30K members. (Brady campaign has <30k members, NRA has over 4 million). Put another way, 130 times more people are interested in gun rights than gun control. That puts gun grabbers in the minority, and people who can read a book and understand the constitution in the overwhelming majority. But thanks for playing.

http://conlaw-bloganon.blogspot.com

Big Tent

July 27th, 2011
8:51 am

Bob Barr is……wrong. Hands down. Not even Murdoch’s wife can save him from the Stooge-slapping I’m about to give ‘im..

In close combat, it’s possible to use one’s thumb to prevent the hammer of an adversary’s handgun from falling upon the bullet. Bruce Lee was really good at it. And thus Chicago has a Kung-Fu grip on the gun ownership rights of the second ammendment fringe-ninjas.

Chicago evolved it’s gun ownership laws after enduring the handy work of people like Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson, (not to mention Mrs Oleary’s cow). With so many fire-fights around, life became Crouching citizens, Hidden Government Teet. I suppose the century-long ban on cows within a 1000 feet of residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals is unconstitutional too. Does the constitution mention life, liberty and the pursuit of pastures? No, it doesn’t.

The only thing legal in Chicago now, thank God, is the pie throw. I suggest the AJC editorial staff stay far, far away from the Windy City. If’n they be diggin’ what I be a intimatin’ this day.

SaveOurRepublic

July 27th, 2011
8:57 am

Look at the astronomical crime rates in “anti-gun” cesspools like (city of) Chicago & D.C. That speaks volumes regarding the ineffectiveness of their (2nd Amendment bashing) “anti-gun” laws. For you cultural marxist duped lemmings…the 2nd Amendment is the key Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Without the 2nd, there’d be no 1st.

jconservative

July 27th, 2011
9:12 am

“the 2nd Amendment is the key Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Without the 2nd, there’d be no 1st.”

I disagree. Without the 1st Amendment you cannot say what you just said.

The First Amendment was “first” for a reason and the Second Amendment was “second” for a reason.

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

July 27th, 2011
9:14 am

People will buy and own guns regardless of the retards who run Chicago. There is NOTHING the city can do to enforce gun laws. Chicago has the highest gun crime rate in the country and the police are powerless to do anything about it.

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

July 27th, 2011
9:15 am

“When basic responsible ordinances that ensure people who buy guns register are met with fierce opposition by the NRA and its minnions, the country experiences more Columbine-like thugs, Jared Lee Loughners, and others.”

Gotta love stupid people. How about all the crazy Muslims who gun down people all over the world? Are they NRA members?

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
9:18 am

“Jared Lee Loughners”

Jared Loughner is a communist and a left winger. He hated George W Bush and that makes him a left winger like you.

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
9:19 am

Cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest gun crime rates in the country. Face it libs, you’re all a bunch of bed wetting sissies.

Common Sense

July 27th, 2011
9:59 am

I’m pretty sure they are wishing there was just one person bearing arm in Norway last week.

Liberals are always willing to allow the sheep to be prepped for slaughter. The question is why?

JV

July 27th, 2011
10:04 am

This past May the FBI estimated that the number of violent crimes decreased 5.5 percent from 2009 to 2010, including a 4.4 percent decrease in the number of murders. Because the U.S. population increased during the period, the figures imply that the total violent crime per capita rate and the murder rate decreased more than six percent and five percent, respectively. Based upon the preliminary data, it appears that violent crime fell to a 37-year low and murder fell to a 47-year low. The FBI will report final figures for 2010 later this year.

As has been the case for quite a while, the decrease in crime coincided with an increase in the number of privately owned guns—particularly handguns and detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles. For example, Americans bought over 400,000 AR-15s in 2009, and trends in AR-15 sales over the last few years suggest a similar number for 2010.

Adding to the bad news for gun control supporters, the District of Columbia and Chicago—the handgun bans of which were repealed following the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases in 2008 and 2010—experienced decreases in murder of eight percent and six percent, respectively.

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
10:35 am

McDonald needs a statue put up in Chicago. He’s a hero to all law abiding citizens who are tired of corrupt Democrats.

BigFED

July 27th, 2011
10:36 am

As usual, the perspective here is warped by idiocy. It is really simple! You don’t like guns, don’t get one. Just don’t try and force YOUR fears on those of us who do want to exercise their RIGHT to own a firearm in the defense of themselves, their families and, possibly, your dumb butt.

This is the major difference between the “anti-gun” folks and the “pro-gun” people. Not ONE of us pro-gun folks are advocating the YOU MUST HAVE A firearm! However, you anti-gun folks are trying to demand that because of YOUR fears, we MUST not be allowed to exercise what the courts have determined to be our constitutional right.

If one of you anti-gun folks ever get into trouble and one of us pro-gun folks start to come to your aid, be sure to tell us you don’t want our help! We certainly do not want to offend your political sensitivities!!!

gscott

July 27th, 2011
10:39 am

Saying things like “uh well according to the consitution you could own an atomic weapon” just makes you sound like an idiot. I hope that is not the pinnacle of your reasoning capabilities.

Matthew

July 27th, 2011
10:43 am

The right to bear arms is YOUR right. You keep going to the government and requesting that they regulate themselves – and one on ten they do, and you celebrate your victory because you won one in ten – and it only took a lifetime to accomplish.

Folks, seriously, the right belongs to you. It is YOUR right. The people that oppose you need to know that you are not going to sit for it any longer. Start picketing, start protesting, start making noise. Start carrying plastic water guns in holsters, and start recall elections on the politicians. Inundate their email with constitutional arguments, and challenge them with attacks on their office by accusing them of violating their oaths. Get VICIOUS with them! A thousands emails a day will get some results, and a hundred people protesting will get the media involved. Go after them at home! Protest in front of their houses, burn effigies of them, DO something besides file lawsuits!

You need public opinion to change. EVERY death that was a victim that had been disarmed needs to have a tombstone made with the Mayors name listed as the killer. In the districts with gang violence, use the same attack on them, by listing the alderman who is over that district and list him as the killer! Talk to the DA and try to convince him to file charges of MURDER against the city council. Petition the DA, protest and picket him!

Go after the tourism in the city and start running advertisements saying that the city is too dangerous to visit because of the violence the city council has caused by disarming the victims.

Guns are YOUR right, and you are asking the government to protect you from… itself. How do you think that will work? How did it work in the 60’s? It didn’t.

Chad

July 27th, 2011
10:51 am

Wow, some of these comments are unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions, gun grabbers!

“Chicago evolved it’s gun ownership laws after enduring the handy work of people like Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson, (not to mention Mrs Oleary’s cow).”

Pretty sure we’re talking about the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, not criminals. By the way, gun laws do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining weapons… they only stop the law-abiding citizen from protecting themselves.

Jerry Bane

July 27th, 2011
10:54 am

Forget your own opinion about gun ownership for a moment.

Under existing law and Supreme Court precedent, government entities may not place an undue burden on the ownership of conventional firearms. Similarly, governments may not restrict your right to free speech, peaceable assembly, religious worship, etc.

We are a nation of laws, not men. That means you don’t get to pick and choose which constitutional rights will be respected. Second amendment opponents should take note. Once you’ve established the precedent that certain rights and Supreme Court decisions can be ignored, you have effectively nullified all of your rights. It just becomes a matter of which political hacks happen to be in power at any given time. Just as you may hate gun ownership, there are plenty of people who despise free speech…and would happily pass laws to restrict yours.

To paraphrase Rev. Bonhoeffer, “And when they come for you, there will be no one left to speak…”

MY VICE

July 27th, 2011
10:55 am

I tell you what since you anti gunners are so sure of yourself that you don’t need a gun in your home to protect yourself from crime then why don’t you do this test just to see what happens. I want you to put up a sign in your front yard stating that this home is “A gun free zone” that is unarmed and has NO GUNS at all inside ,right next door to a home that has no sign at all but the home owner does have guns inside and then wait and see what house gets a visit from crime first.

Darwin

July 27th, 2011
11:02 am

Recently it was Bob’s rant against Florida doctors and guns, and now this. It looks like when Bob can’t find something to rant about against the liberals, he pulls out the gun issue. Soooooo boring!

Ron Berg

July 27th, 2011
11:02 am

William Daley is an Obama aide.
Richard Daley was Mayor (both of them).

David

July 27th, 2011
11:22 am

To you limp-wristed liberals, if you don’t want to own or carry a fiream, then don’t. Simple.

jconservative

July 27th, 2011
11:23 am

If I may offer the following in regard to the type of kind of weapons that are allowed. This is from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller case.

” Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s ( Miller v. Texas, 1984) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. (snip) …the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

This seems like pretty plain language to me.

gman

July 27th, 2011
11:26 am

Annie Oakley could handle a firearm, and she certainly had the right to bear one. However, the conservative lunatics who are drooling on this blog should be disarmed and sent to Siberia. They are dangerous morons.

Fact, Jack.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
11:39 am

Marko, et al.,

Claims that the Second Amendment must mean the right to carry nuclear weapons show a misunderstanding of the term “arms” as it was used in the eighteenth century. Arms, at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, referred to the weapons that a gentleman was expected to possess–as seen in his coat of arms, a sign that he belonged to the class that was permitted to have personal weapons. (Recall the scene in Hamlet when the gravediggers discuss whether Adam was a gentleman. One tells the other that he was because he dug in the soil, and one must have arms to dig.) This tradition goes back to the days of knighthood, when the local nobility needed an armed force to resist barbarian invaders.

The reason for the Second Amendment is that our Founders created a society in which all of us are citizens. (Yes, we haven’t fully realized that even yet, but that was the goal.) In other words, we are all full participants. Since arms were the right of the citizen, our Constitution guarantees all of us that particular right.

The Second Amendment doesn’t refer to artillery or ships of the line. Private citizens who wished to fit out an armed ship to do battle with our enemies had to receive a letter of marque, granting permission to perform that service. The amendment refers only to the kind of small arms that individuals were expected to possess–knives, swords, handguns, muskets, rifles, and fowling pieces (shotguns). Those were the state of the art at the time. The implication is that in the modern world, I have the right to a fully automatic M-16, a Glock with an extended magazine, a small, concealable handgun, a hunting rifle with a scope (a sniper rifle is just a camouflaged hunting rifle), and so on. It does not mean that I get to have and use nuclear bombs. That’s a canard that some opponents of gun rights love to use, but it shows a lack of historical knowledge.

On another subject, the word “automatic” gets tossed about in these discussions, but it means different things to different people. It can mean a self loading weapon, as in a Colt automatic from a noir crime novel, but that’s just a semiautomatic handgun in today’s standard usage. Fully automatic, today, means that the weapon continues to fire as long as the trigger is pressed–commonly, but often erroneously called a machine gun. The two are different mechanisms and need to be distinguished in the reporting.

Darwin

July 27th, 2011
11:57 am

To David at 11:22. That’s what we say about conservatives and their anti-choice rants.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
12:06 pm

Darwin,

Agreed. Personal choice means that each individual gets to choose. What I do with my body and what I carry on or about it is my business.

Jimmy62

July 27th, 2011
12:19 pm

Just want to point out that almost all the mass murders by psychos with guns, like the guy in Norway on that island, happened in “gun free zones.” “Gun free zone” is a synonym for “Please come kill us, no one here can stop you!”

Jimmy62

July 27th, 2011
12:21 pm

gman: I judt want to carry a gun, you want to ship off everyone who disagrees with you to Siberia. You are far more a danger to peace and prosperity than I am.

Tom

July 27th, 2011
12:32 pm

Are you really using that argument?

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
12:37 pm

Tom,

To whom are you speaking and to what argument do you object?

seabeau

July 27th, 2011
12:39 pm

Its been proven time and time again,that arms in the hands of honest citizens prevent,reduce and stop crime. The Supreme Court rulled years ago that the police are under no legal compulsion to risk their lives in order to prevent a crime from being performed. We gun owners,along with the police will continue to protect our loved ones and any other citizens who need our help. You liberals moral cowards can continue on your way ,safe and secure in the knowledge that someone who you have never met is helping protect you and yours.

A dad

July 27th, 2011
12:44 pm

Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. And so do people in cars, etc. Am really interested to see actual, accurate statistics at whether Chicagos’ repeated efforts to ban gun ownership by its law abiding citizens had any effect whatsoever on the crime rate where a gun was invovled. Anyone have those figures, and list the source thereof as well, please.

Greg Camp at 11:39. Way too logical dude. Bet your argument went right over the heads of the gun control wingnuts. Yeah, like I want to walk around with my own personal nuke….

Don't Tread

July 27th, 2011
12:49 pm

Disarmed people are easier to subjugate. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Tyrants and wannabe tyrants really hate an armed populace.

Peter

July 27th, 2011
12:53 pm

When the NRA convinces the Legislature to allow guns in government buildings I’ll accept the argument that more guns mean less crime. (While they maintain the fortress mentality I’ll be unconvinced.)

Jefferson

July 27th, 2011
1:00 pm

Nothing wrong with handguns, they give their owner’s fear of the world some sort of peace of mind. Good for them.

mpercy

July 27th, 2011
1:03 pm

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of participating in local militias to defend their community.”

No, the 2nd amendment exists because the Founders realized that tyranny can always arise. They were very familiar with this notion, having just fought the Revolutionary War, and recognized that an armed populace would be able to stand up to or even overthrow a tyrannical government (and its armies).

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point “shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection.” Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, “if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
—Richard Henry Lee

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?
Patrick Henry

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

mpercy

July 27th, 2011
1:04 pm

It would be hard to abolish a tyrannical government; the people cannot readily throw off a Government if the people are unarmed…

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Peter

July 27th, 2011
1:04 pm

“mpercy” – Did you sleep through Waco and Ruby Ridge ?

mpercy

July 27th, 2011
1:07 pm

“Does the constitution mention life, liberty and the pursuit of pastures?”

Little mixed up there, how about “Does the Declaration of Independence mention life, liberty and the pursuit of pastures?”

I'm Denny Crane

July 27th, 2011
1:13 pm

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
1:13 pm

Peter,

Waco and Ruby Ridge demonstrate that massive force can overcome small groups, to be sure, but notice how inept the government was in those two incidents and in the case of Waco how long a group of citizens can hold out. Do we know about those events because of the resistence posed to the government? We learn about police abuses because citizens file complaints, as well. The point is that small arms are one tool (and an extreme one) for resisting a government out of control.

I’m a gun owner, and I also write articles, teach writing, and vote. We aren’t like to get to the extreme moments that you named if we exercise all of our rights, but we mustn’t surrender any of them.

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
1:16 pm

“That’s what we say about conservatives and their anti-choice rants.”

Oh you mean like how left wingers want to force health care on people?

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
1:17 pm

“However, the conservative lunatics who are drooling on this blog should be disarmed and sent to Siberia. They are dangerous morons.”

I’d love for you to come to my house and try that on me, Gump.

Libs are retarded

July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm

” Did you sleep through Waco and Ruby Ridge ?”

Oh, you mean the Waco where Bill Clinton and Janet Reno got a bunch of people killed? That Waco?

How’s about that left winger who shot up her co-workers at the U of Bama all because she was a communist?

How’s about that left winger who shot Sen. Giffords in the head because he hated George W. Bush and read the Communist Manifesto?

I can go on, tard.