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

Voice

July 27th, 2011
1:21 pm

“Did you sleep through Waco and Ruby Ridge ?”

Did you sleep through 9-11?

Voice

July 27th, 2011
1:22 pm

Hey anti-gun advocates,

Without guns you’d be living under communist rule.

Without guns, you wouldn’t be living in America.

Without guns, you probably wouldn’t have been born.

Peter

July 27th, 2011
1:23 pm

“Greg Camp” – Too bad the Second Amendment didn’t apply in Iraq, so they could defend themselves against an American tyrannical government. (You guys are dreaming.)

  

July 27th, 2011
1:27 pm

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
1:30 pm

I do wish that these discussions could take place without rants and insults. Gun ownership is not exclusively a Republican characteristic, nor is a belief in gun rights. Those who oppose such things are not retarded for that reason. The debate here is between a collective view of human beings and an individual view.

My position is that while society requires some limits on the expression of an individual’s freedoms, the operating principle needs to start with those freedoms. We each give powers to our government for our benefit, but rights stay with us. I see groups as made of individuals. Others may see individuals as units of a group. The question is one of what we each value.

One other thing that I do value is civility in discussion.

mpercy

July 27th, 2011
1:31 pm

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“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.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
1:33 pm

Peter,

Iraq is a different culture, and I’m loathe to say too much about those complexities. That being said, I note that we have hardly restructured that society after our own wishes. The Iraqis resisted us, and we are withdrawing.

Peter

July 27th, 2011
1:40 pm

“mpercy” – The thoughts of 200 years ago are certainly out of context today. To say their positions wouldn’t be any different diminishes their intelligence. To imply we know how they would interpret positions today (given there have been changes in society and technology) is a stretch. The founding fathers (emphasis on the male nature of their time) cannot be relied on to project today’s standards, try as you will.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
1:43 pm

Peter,

Perhaps we ought to discard such wild ideas as freedom of speech or religion? Allowing people to believe and speak freely just creates disorder in society. Allowing people to vote for their governments just makes it hard for the government to do what it wants.

But then, I like that kind of disorder.

Peter

July 27th, 2011
1:44 pm

“Greg Camp” the U.S. embassy in Baghdad would be an indication that “we” are not withdrawing. The hundreds of thousands displaced and tens of thousands who died as a result of the U.S. invasion would hardly rejoice in the defense of their country, nor were their arms a deterrent to our incursion as implied by others.

mpercy

July 27th, 2011
1:50 pm

Peter @1:40 pm

We could say the same about the 1st amendment then, too, and say that our times require different interpretations as a reason to outlaw Islam in this country. Or the 5th, saying we *need* to be able to compel people to testify against themselves. Or the 16th, since income taxes aren’t enough, we *need* more, we can just interpret it differently for our times.

No thanks. You don’t like the Constitution? Amend it.

dbm

July 27th, 2011
2:25 pm

When I saw that about “would have to be more than 1,000 feet away from residential areas, schools, parks, liquor retailers, libraries, museums and hospitals”, a thought occurred to me. Maybe the Chicago politicians and the Georgia politicians could get together and work the law so that only convicted child molesters are permitted to have guns.

Pablo

July 27th, 2011
2:33 pm

I have met a good number of gun owners in my time, to include some who have impressive collections of firearms. If I were to describe them all, I would say that they tend to be very sane and normal people who like to be armed to hunt, or defend themselves if the need arises. But, the criminals and the deranged are the ones who grab the headlines, and then pointed to as the reason why people should not be able to possess guns. If we were to use the same reason and logic, motor vehicles should be banned because some people kill innocents while driving irresponsibly, or ban aircraft altogether because the number of casualties involved in an air crash. Sensible, responsible regulation is critical to ensure that people who have no business owning or carrying a firearm do, but the right to bear arms has to be protected for the sake of our society.

DG

July 27th, 2011
2:41 pm

It’s virtually impossible to have a reasonable conversation with the anti-gunners – the first things out of their mouths are “No one needs a gun!”, “If we didn’t have guns, we wouldn’t have crime”, and “Do you also want to own a {tank | battleship | Bazooka | Missile launcher | or atomic weapon]?”

The simple fact of the matter is that I, and other law abiding Citizens, are under daily threat from cabals of criminals who could care less what the law states. That’s what makes them criminals after all.

Even if you if you took all the guns out of the equation somehow, criminals will find a way to commit their nefarious acts. They’ll use bats, knives, shanks, screwdrivers, hammers, wood sticks sharpened up, golf clubs, or even melted jolly ranchers rolled up and sharpened to a point. To wit: UK – guns are highly restricted, and now they have a severe knife problem; even with all their useless CCTV blanketing the country, they still have severe issues – to the point where they posited not selling sharp point dinner knives, but rather only rounded ones… *sigh*

Look at Prisons and all the weapons that are found in them on a daily basis. Criminals will find a way.

I as a law abiding citizen, want a method to defend myself, my loved ones, and my fellow law abiding citizens from threat, or actual/perceived harm. It’s a proven fact that as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down because criminals don’t know if the intended victim will be armed or not.

Chicago’s ordinances are ludicrous. The elected officials claim that everything’s fine, just call 911, etc. Yet, Daley had a phalanx of bodyguards with him at all times, and indeed, he demanded such when he left office. How about we give Mr. Daley a cell phone, and tell him to call 911 when he has an issue. Then he can wait in the corner while some lunatic kicks in his door to rape his wife, beat him senseless, and steal his flat screen TV?

When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away – if they come at all. Defend yourself from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Support your right to bear arms – IF YOU WISH. If you don’t, then that’s your choice, but don’t you dare presume to make my choice for me.,

gman

July 27th, 2011
3:53 pm

the fact here is that none of the 2nd ammendment rabie-scabs voicing their wet-gunpowder on this blog can shoot.

There are very few of us NRA members who can shoot and handle guns safely. and we alone deserve our guns. Why do you think there are so few snipers, morons?

The rest of you can use your faces as weapons. bwa.

Desweetest

July 27th, 2011
5:03 pm

“Chicago, long a city in the grip of anti-firearms politicians like former Mayor William Daley,…”

Daley, Emanuel, and the Board of Aldermen did not elect themselves. The good people of Chicago consciously voted those individuals into office, which tells me what they’re getting is what they want.

I am a 2A proponent and I disagree with the anti-firearm maneuvers these politicians are trying. But I have zero sympathy for the voters who put them in office. Let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity!

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
5:06 pm

gman, 3:53 p.m.,

1. What is the source of your evidence regarding the shooting ability of those who have commented here?

2. What standards are you using to define a good shot or a safe gun handler?

caslosgvv

July 27th, 2011
5:22 pm

Anti-firearms people are only pleading for some common sense to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children in America every year. The NRA uses every method of brainwashing and propaganda it can get from its Corporate sponsors in the Advertising Industry to con the public into thinking gun ownership is a “right” and will protect them from the Big Bad Government. So far, it’s working.

mtallit

July 27th, 2011
5:23 pm

As expected the anti-gunners have nothing left but far-reaching, wild, broad, false statements about guns & what could happen. They have nothing left to argue that makes sense to the reasonable, knowledgable citizen. They rely on your ignorance to believe their statements.

See Marko and hsn staements about regarding citizens owning nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Really?!?

And Gerald West regarding the purpose of the 2nd amendment, “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.”

Have you read any of the statements of the writers of the US Constitution? Countless writings from Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Mason & others celebrating the guaranteed right of CITIZENS to carry guns for their personal defense, defense of the country and from the Government, if needed.

It’s obvious what they meant and it’s not what you falsly state! It’s not some obscure town from the British Government that we overthrew. The “militia” back then was not some organized army of a nation that didn’t even exist. They were commonfolk: farmers, lawyers, doctors and other normal citizens with no standardized training, except their personally gained skill at arms for hunting and protection.

Besides, the US Supreme Court already decided those facts after careful study in Heller and McDonald. Final decision. Get over it.

Come on people.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
5:27 pm

caslosgvv,

Please explain how my belief that the amendments to our Constitution that refer to “the people” actually means the people is a con on the part of the NRA.

The term “common sense” is an easy one to use, and it’s one that I immediately distrust. What we are saying is that legal gun owners aren’t the ones killing thousands of innocents, so stop trying to take away from us what bad guys will get regardless.

caslosgvv

July 27th, 2011
5:53 pm

Greg

The “right to keep and bear arms” refers to a Milita which, at the time, was to only real Army the US had. Since the “people” were the Army, it made sense for all to have guns. The NRA knows this and they know their US history. They also know how to brainwash people like you. You will probably never know that the NRA and gun manufacturers could not possibly care less about you and your “rights”. The one and only thing they care about is your money and, judging from your comments, I’d say they have gotten a good bit of it already.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
6:15 pm

caslosgvv,

The well-regulated clause is merely an explanation for one reason to support the right of gun ownership. The right is defined in the “shall not be infringed” clause. You are correct to point out that America had no standing army at the time of the writing. That was because our Founders feared what such government power could do. The protection of our right to own small arms was, in part, designed as a brake on Federal power. Other reasons for owning weapons were obvious and didn’t need to be explained. (Hunting, for example, in a nation with a wide frontier)

Moving into the present day, I don’t need the NRA to tell me how to read the Constitution, and my support of gun ownership and rights is not proof that I’ve been brainwashed. If you disagree with me, fine. Give me your reasons. But I see no need for disparaging remarks about my mental state simply because we disagree.

I teach literature and have degrees in history and liberal arts. In my studies, I have read a good deal in the cultures that are America’s ancestors, the traditions of knighthood that lie behind the status of gentleman, and the documents of our founding. Those are the sources of my original remark. My others come from those and from my own reasoning. I am not quoting any source unique to the NRA in anything that I’ve written.

Perhaps you could give us your source for your assertions?

TruthBe

July 27th, 2011
6:46 pm

Arrest the politicans that are breaking the laws at once and make them pay for their legal defence out of their own pockets and this will stop at once.

TruthBe

July 27th, 2011
6:58 pm

NOTICE: caslosgv is a paid blogger for the left wind democrats at the DNC. So what ever he speaks about is just more of the left wing nutcases agenda and cheap words.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
7:52 pm

TruthBe,

I don’t mind discussing things with representatives of the DNC. From time to time, I have voted for their candidates. I focus on the ideas.

[...] under Rahm Emanuel, the city pretends to comply, but once again they’ve put so many restrictions in place to prevent firearms ranges, that there’s not many who will try. Chicago is setting themselves [...]

Painful Truth

July 27th, 2011
8:07 pm

I’m waiting for Barr to have more to say about our current debt ceiling issues.

Much like when he was stalking Clinton during his time in Congress, he seems to be avoiding major issues and focusing on cheap headline knee-jerk stories.

I kid Bob, you know I’ve always loved you.

chris

July 27th, 2011
8:13 pm

Evidently the leaders of Chicago think they are Above the Law? It’s high time that the higher courts start doing more than just giving these Antis a slap on the wrist. Hit them where it hurts with Huge and Massive fines with the proceeds going directly to build a Free Public Shooting Range inside the city limits and centrally located so as to be within reasonable reach of every citizen inside the city of Chicago.
I also agree that by fining the crap out of the politicians themselves it adds a personal penalty and hits them on a much closer to home level that maybe they will finally “Get it”
That would be my solution.

John E. Reif

July 27th, 2011
8:24 pm

At least with a Concealed and Carry Permit, I have a chance to defend myself against those who just carry, What is the police responce time to your home or where you are? Think of this. It could take 5 minutes, 10 minutes or even hours.

John Reif
R.R. 3 Box 230A
Carrollton, Illinois 62016

e-mail johnereif@hotmail.com

chris

July 27th, 2011
8:31 pm

@Greg “caslosgvv

July 27th, 2011
5:22 pm
Anti-firearms people are only pleading for some common sense to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children in America every year. The NRA uses every method of brainwashing and propaganda it can get from its Corporate sponsors in the Advertising Industry to con the public into thinking gun ownership is a “right” and will protect them from the Big Bad Government. So far, it’s working”

All the more reason why we need to protect ourselves. If it were not for the 8 Million gun owners in this country we would already be implanted with RFID’s and tatooed with bar codes, standing in bread lines. Why don’t you anti’s get it? The gun owners in this country are trying to ensure that Every American Citizen including yourself remain free and still have rights. If we fudge on a single one of our Rights, including the Right To Bear Arms it will open up a flood gate to alter or take away every one of our Rights until there are no Freedoms left. Our 8 Million gun owners backed by the NRA and other firearm freedom organizations in the United States is about the only thing standing between absolute complete rule and being able to enjoy a somewhat free and uncompromised quality of life in our society.
Your right to shoot off your mouth is also included in those Rights that we all stand strong to protect, I’m sure you would hate to lose that one wouldn’t ya?
In other words, you and others like you are biting the hand that protects you. Disarming your protectors, libertarians, patriots, and freedom fighters is the worst thing you could possibly do.

If every single citizen in this country owned a firearm and knew how to use it, the mass killings would stop because there would be no where to go that someone wouldn’t see what you were doing and make an attempt to stop you. If the citizens of Norway had all been armed during the recent mass shooting I think the ending would have been quite different. Afterall, how could 1 man fire at will on unarmed helpless civilians if they all returned fire with a hail of bullets?
Starting to see the point now? An unarmed society is a sitting duck for anybody who intends to do us harm, a well armed society is a free society.
I’ll end my comment with a quote from Benjamin Franklin.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch…..Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote” Ben Franklin

Enjoy your freedoms while you still have them.

chris

July 27th, 2011
8:32 pm

That last comment was directed at Caslosgw and not Greg, I agree with Greg. Sorry for the name mix up.

Greg Camp

July 27th, 2011
8:32 pm

John E. Reif,

A Florida or Utah carry permit, I take it, since Illinois doesn’t issue such.

NowHearThis

July 27th, 2011
9:03 pm

OK. If you are a liberal/progressive. Then you most likely believe that “The Military Industrial Complex” is the MOST dangerous threat to freedom not only in the United States but to the whole world.
Obviously then you believe that the Republicans are the leash handlers of that same “Military Industrial Complex”. This means you probably believe that the Republicans would love to eradicate homosexuals, environmentalists etc. Basically anyone who might conceivably get in the way of making profits and profiting off of war.
If you truly believe that the Republicans are hell bent on taking away your rights to free speech, your right to be openly gay and your right to control your own body. Why then would you support surrendering completely and for all time the ability of the American people to prosecute a civil war? The ability of minorities to defend themselves. Obviously the Republicans want to subjugate the left, kill all the black and gay and “brown” people. Disarming the American people prevents this how? If you truly believe these kinds of things about conservatives what rational does making the “Military Industrial Complex” the only armed group in the United States make sense. If the Republican goal is total domination wouldn’t a disarmed citizenry make it easier for the “Military Industrial Complex” to declare martial law? Do you truly believe that there will never be another Republican President or government? Do you believe that non-violent protest would stop the “Military Industrial Complex?

DSTIEBS

July 27th, 2011
9:26 pm

Reading these Anti-Second Amendment comments make me wonder about your logic behind these ridiculous comments. I hope you don’t feel helpless as a intruder (black market gun owner) holds you at gun point while he rapes your wife or daughter. Only then will you wish you could protect them and yourself, but remember, you don’t believe in the second amendment. To bad for you.

BillyRob

July 27th, 2011
9:27 pm

Does the first amendment give us the right to free speech but not to “unrestriced by the local city council free speech”? Liberals like Rham argue that only the feds can pass an immigration law but any pissant council can abridge our constitutional right to bear arms as they choose..

NowHearThis

July 27th, 2011
9:31 pm

OK. If you are a liberal/progressive. Then you most likely believe that “The Military Industrial Complex” is the MOST dangerous threat to freedom not only in the United States but to the whole world.

Obviously then you believe that the Republicans are the leash handlers of that same “Military Industrial Complex”. This means you probably believe that the Republicans would love to eradicate homosexuals, environmentalists etc. Basically anyone who might conceivably get in the way of making profits and profiting off of war.

If you truly believe that the Republicans are hell bent on taking away your rights to free speech, your right to be openly gay and your right to control your own body. Why then would you support surrendering completely and for all time the ability of the American people to prosecute a civil war? The ability of minorities to defend themselves. Obviously the Republicans want to subjugate the left, kill all the black and gay and “brown” people. Disarming the American people prevents this how?

If you truly believe these kinds of things about conservatives what rational does making the “Military Industrial Complex” the only armed group in the United States make sense. If the Republican goal is total domination wouldn’t a disarmed citizenry make it easier for the “Military Industrial Complex” to declare martial law? Do you truly believe that there will never be another Republican President or government? Do you believe that non-violent protest would stop the “Military Industrial Complex”?

In effect then you are supporting the creation of a caste system in which the rich connected elites. The Bush’s,Cheney’s, etc. would have total control with a military/police force as the middle class and of course everyone else on that bottom rung.

Now I know your going to point to Gandhi, MLK etc. That they proved non-violent protest works. Well, problem is it didn’t. Remember Tienanmen square. How the one guy halted the tank by standing in front of it on camera? Thing is is once Chinese intelligence radioed down to the soldiers in the tank that the camera was off. They ran that man over with that tank.

The monks that lit themselves on fire in Vietnam in the 1960’s to protest that war. The NVA decided that that was too awe inspiring, and dangerous to the new communist government. They eventually executed the rest of the remaining Buddhist monks from that monastery.

Now I hear you saying that the United States Military would never fire on the American people. Kent State. Reference the Milgram experiment. Google it. The United States Military has NEVER disobeyed the elected civilian government. “Exactly. “Good” you say.

Well neither has the German Army. The German Army faithfully obeyed the commands of duly elected Adolf Hitler. Exterminating over 4 million Jews and , don’t forget the pink triangles, homosexuals.
Yet you Democrats want to disarm the American people to protect us from…Yeah I’m just not quite getting your logic.

DSTIEBS

July 27th, 2011
9:31 pm

When the citizens are disarmed the government has won. With no opposition you will do what they want.

Voice

July 27th, 2011
9:57 pm

“Anti-firearms people are only pleading for some common sense to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children in America every year. ”

Cities with strict gun laws have the highest gun crime rates in the country. People will kill no matter what due to sin, carlos.

Voice

July 27th, 2011
10:00 pm

Without guns, America wouldn’t exist. Neither would Great Briton, Germany, or any other country on Earth. Think about that left wingers.

gman

July 27th, 2011
10:28 pm

Without guns, people would have to kill each other with kindness.

And that only a lunatic would want. Good clean killin’ is whats most often called for. Some folks just plain need killin’. That’s a fact, and my name is Jack.

Ken

July 27th, 2011
11:19 pm

Well I found out where the communist’s hang out, right here !!! I don’t dial 911. I depend on myself for my security unlike you pacifists on this sight. Oh and regarding your talk of a few gun laws and ordinances being necessary. Read the Constitution it is THE LAW, THE LAW OF THE LAND, it keeps your left wing agenda in check. You want LAW read the sixteenth American jurisprudence, second edition, section 177. Second late edition section 256.

Ken

July 27th, 2011
11:30 pm

(This logic is to simple.) Thomas Jefferson quoting (Cesare Beccaria) “LAWS THAT FORBID THE CARRYING OF ARMS… DISARM ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NEITHER INCLINED NOR DETERMINED TO COMMIT CRIMES… SUCH LAWS MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THE ASSAULTED AND BETTER FOR THE ASSAILANTS; THEY SERVE RATHER TO ENCOURAGE THAN TO PREVENT HOMICIDES, FOR AN UNARMED MAN MAY BE ATTACKED WITH GREATER CONFIDENCE THAN AN ARMED MAN”

Athens

July 27th, 2011
11:51 pm

As has been said in this era of internet expression: “You can’t fix stupid”. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson “EXAGGERATION is the last refuge of an idiot with no substance upon which to base his argument!”. The last of an old three-part Chinese proverb states that: “He who knows not but thinks he knows, he is a fool – - – shun him”. The comments by the liberal anti-gun “life controllers” who would be dictators deciding who will live by exercising their right of self-defense and who will die due to prohibiting firearms are so ignorant of current events and world history should immediately be shunned as the fools they are and do not have enough intelligence to recognize their plight !
And neither do they have enough sense to admit in a thousand years they have blood on their hands as they would accuse those exercising their natural inbred, God-creator-given survival instincts of doing.

Dewey E. Du Bose, SGM, USA, Retired

July 28th, 2011
12:12 am

Leftist/socialist wish that the illegal alien in the Peoples House would save them from those of us who understand what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says and means. Life is heard, but it really suck when you are stupid.

I spent 30 years of my life defending your rights to be stupid, and it looks like I was completely sucessful.

Remember, you do not have to own any guns. I own guns because it helps keep the bad guys and gals out of my life.

Ken

July 28th, 2011
12:38 am

DEWEY, Thank You for serving and God Bless.

Tory II, Illinois

July 28th, 2011
3:22 am

In the 2nd amendment, where does it say “except”, “if”, “or”, “unless” ?? The 2nd A speaks to the govt (not the people). It tells the govt, GOVT cannot regulate weapons (ARMS). There are no exceptions. The 2ndA is a simple single sentence containing an independent and dependent clause.

The first clause, the first half of the sentence, the dependent clause is not a law, does not require anything or does not prohibit anything. Here:

“A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state,…”

That above militia clause is not telling the govt anything it must do or can’t do (thus is not a law). It is simply an opinion (it was the preamble to the independent clause, the actual law). At the time the amendment was written, the authors typically used ‘PREAMBLES’ (from the JFPFO). The militia clause was the preamble to the law. Why mention the militia ? Who cares ?

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That means rockets, full auto rifles, grenades, battle tanks, F22’s, or nuclear powered submarines. The reason we can’t posses most of those “ARMS” is because ‘we the people’ (dummies, sheep, and cowards that we are) have allowed our NAZI govt to stop us from possessing them.

101 Airborne

July 28th, 2011
8:06 am

@Ken 11:19pm:
I have a few problems with your comments, Sir–
I think it is ridiculous that you appear to fear the big, bad “Communist” in this day and age. By any measure, and from what I’ve seen during my years of service, it is not Communists that pose the biggest threat to our safety (yours individually or that of our nation). When you make blanket comments such as “I don’t dial 9-11″, I would be willing to bet that as any law-abiding citizen (and I trust that you fancy yourself as one), you would in fact, call 9-11 when you see someone slinking outside your house at night. Now, like you, I too would retrieve my pistol, and prepare myself for any escalation…but would still call the police. Why? Because they are the organization to actually apprehend criminals. Or are you going to do it all by yourself?
Do you think that the Constitution was developed to keep the “left-wing” agenda “in-check” solely? What about the “right-wing” agenda? I had considered myself a true, conservative Republican during my time in the military but felt violated and insulted when G.W. Bush and company felt it necessary to conduct illegal wire-tapping, indefinite confinement of American citizens, and more because they felt it necessary to protect our safety and “liberty”. I say to you that agendas are prevalent no matter the political position. I think that wealthy Americans should bear the brunt of any increase in personal tax levies. Does that thinking make me a Communist and if that be the case, also makes me a liberal, anti-gunner who wants to take your pistol away? Hardly. Good ideas can and do come from any political camp.
People that align themselves with any one political party because of fear and hate-speak are the ones that worry me. because they tend to not think with an open-mind. I agree with the person who posted on page one that insightful blogs should not include bashing or name-calling. I can imagine who is going to label me a “Communist” or a “tard” (I’m also a teacher by the way)….however, I cannot resist–slugs like you have likely never served your country and own a Glock because you think it tough and cool…

Big Tent

July 28th, 2011
8:13 am

Our founding snipers woulda made short work of the traitor-loyalists on this blog!!! The common good would have demanded it, and they would have risen to the task. The French would have helped them out with lend-lease guillotines. (Insert emoticon of old hag knitting here)

Let’s see what the founding snipers knew about arms: There was the Constitution, a ship of the line. The founding snipers did not want that weapon in the hands of average conservative morons. There were cannons. The founding snipers did not want that weapon in the hands of drooling conservative losers. Then there was a little thing called the Gatling Gun. The founding snipers did not want that weapon in the hands of little conservative girlie-wipes.

There were creme pies too. The founding stooges definitely din’t want no creme pies, the most dangerous of all the hi tech weapons of the era, in the hands of complete conservative imbeciles.

That’s for sure. That’s for dang sure.

Hey loser trolls: King George called. He wants his surrenderers back. bwa

caslosgvv

July 28th, 2011
8:47 am

Greg Camp

Do you really think our founding fathers would approve of all the gun slaughter that takes place in this country each year? And do you honestly believe you could fight off our Army and Marine Corps if they were coming after you? Could your pistols and rifles and shotguns stand up against A-10’s and Super Hornets and Abrams tanks? If the answer to the above is yes then I am quite accurate in my assesment of your mental state. Guns are actually a phallic symbol for many men and if they would spend their money on Viagra instead of guns they would save a lot of lives and money.

caslosgvv

July 28th, 2011
8:49 am

TruthBe

You are a real poster boy for the NRA brainwashed simple tools so loved by the Gun Industry.