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.

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.

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
9:36 am

Owning and carrying a firearm is an exercise of both freedom and responsibility. Thanks to legal canceled carry in Virginia, our crime rate is much lower that it is in Maryland and Washington D.C. Simply – criminals go to where the chances of them robbing an armed victim is minimal.

Most thinking people come to the inevitable conclusion that criminals and politicians are the only ones who prefer and unarmed populace.

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
9:44 am

Owning and carrying a firearm is an exercise of both freedom and responsibility. Thanks to legal concealed carry in Virginia, our crime rate is much lower than it is in nearby Maryland and Washington D.C. Quite simply – criminals prefer to go to where the chances of them robbing an armed victim is minimal.
Most thinking people come to the inevitable conclusion that criminals and politicians are the only two classes of people who prefer an unarmed populace.

prosehooter

July 28th, 2011
10:09 am

Maybe a few citizens should file a class action suit against the city. The only thing governments understand is getting hit in the wallet. A 100 million dollar judgment would get everybody’s attention.

ron

July 28th, 2011
10:44 am

Love the 2 comments by Marko and hsn and a bunch of others, it really shows how clueless you are. A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction it is not an “arm’ as you both have tried to argue in your comments above. Taken into consideration of when the constituition was written and how the second amendment states “”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I certainly would like to see someone carrying around his or her “A” bomb. The second amendment is provided for citizens to be called up as militia and to protect ones property and person. You can try to put your own spin on what “arms” means, but those things have already been decided by judges who are much more intelligent then a lot of the people posting here.
In Norway, one man just scarred a lot of people in that country for the rest of there lives by killing people and children to “make a point”. I want you to use your brain now when I ask you this; This extremist attacked an island camp for youths KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE WOULD BE NOBODY ON THAT ISLAND THAT WOULD BE ABLE TOO SHOOT BACK AT HIM! If the laws were different in Norway where law abiding citizens could obtain and carry firearms for their protection or the protection of children, do you really think this individual would have attacked that camp? I doubt it. I certainly don’t think there would be the number of dead that there is if anyone on that island were themselves armed. Criminals, and mentally ill people attack individuals who are weaker and that they know cannot fight back. When was the last time you heard of a police station being attacked? or an NRA function or building for that matter.

Greg Camp

July 28th, 2011
11:38 am

caslosgvv at 8:47,

I’m well aware that fighting A-10s and Abrams tanks cannot be done with a handgun or the like. Various insurgencies have done the job with IEDs, though. In addition, movements like that use other techniques of asymetrical warfare–attacking softer targets, for example. In no sense am I advocating attacking our military or starting a revolution. In our history, our military has been subordinated to the civilian leadership and, with a few exceptions, has served with honor to protect our rights. I’m not crazy or deluded to recognize that this present blessing could change, even though it’s highly unlikely to do so.

As for the notion of guns as phallic symbols, can we please allow Freud to fade from our discourse? I have no doubt that some gun owners use their firearms as substitute masculinity, just as some car owners or stock holders or office holders do, but your remarks are the equivalent to saying that because my neighbor who belongs to race X is a slob, all members of race X are slobs. I would appreciate you not making judgements about my character or mental state until you know me. Isn’t that supposed to be one of the lessons of the civil rights movement?

Greg Camp

July 28th, 2011
12:07 pm

Tory II, Illinois,

The Second Amendment isn’t about crew-served weapons or warships. As I wrote above, “arms” refers only to the personal weapons that a gentleman possessed in the period. It certainly does apply to military rifles, as a flintlock Kentucky was state of the art at the time, but it doesn’t mean artillery or nukes.

Jefferson

July 28th, 2011
12:10 pm

Fear drives one to arm, good thing its legal.

Jim Biggie

July 28th, 2011
1:05 pm

Liberals will never just “get it” They believe killing unborn babies is a right, yet protecting ones family is not. 2012 is going to be a wake up for all American liberal constitution hating people. I although I disagree with 99.9% of liberal views, I fully support their right to voice and protest them. Unfortunately liberals do not believe non liberals are entitled to that same right and freedom. America’s shift to the right is going to change everything the left has done because of its radical approach. I have carried for 30 years in Illinois, I will continue regardless of the $1500 -$2000 it costs in fees and fines when I have been caught. I would rather be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.

DeanOGuns

July 28th, 2011
2:45 pm

Maybe Chicago and/or the state of Illinois will also proclaim the right to issue a First Amendment card. You can’t speak out against Chicago democrats unless you have a permit.

FWIW, recent SCOTUS rulings have said that the 2nd amendment applies to all, it cannot be restricted on a state-by-state basis. The 14th amendment protects us from states like Illinois and cities like Chicago. What do you want? Another civil war?

Who in the hell elected a Chicago democrat as president? Were you all stoned or something?

DeanOGuns

July 28th, 2011
2:48 pm

One more thing… whatever happened to punishing criminals? Quinn is setting them free as fast as he can. Better yet, we could offer Chicago to Wisconsin, but Wisconsin wouldn’t want that corrupt POS.

Joe B Virginia

July 28th, 2011
3:27 pm

Those who say the 2nd Amendment is outdated or only applies to those who belong to a militia are the unfortunate products of our failed public education system. Not to say they shouldn’t have strived towards self improvement later on.

Penn and Teller have a funny and yet educational clip posted on YouTube that explains the 2nd Amendment so that even public education dropouts can comprehend it.

Voice

July 28th, 2011
5:54 pm

DeanOGuns

Pat Quinn is laughed at all over the midwest. Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin all laugh because Quinn and his commie cronnies are sending business elsewhere. Caterpillar already threatened to move south.

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:08 pm

Hello Greg Camp,

I do have a Florida Concealed and Carry Permit and will be taking class in Ohio for the Utah Concealed and Carry Permit. I teach the Personal Protection in the Home through the NRA. With this class students may apply for Concealed and Carry Permit where it applies. It would be nice to see Illinois get on board with the Concealed and Carry Permit. Thanks

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:16 pm

Hello Jim Biggie,

I beleive how you do about Concealed and Carry. I still follow the law in Illinois on how I carry my pistols. It will just take me a minute longer to load and fire theml. Good luck. Just be careful.

John E. Reif
Carrollton, Illinois

John E. Reif

July 28th, 2011
7:23 pm

Hello Joe B. Virginia

Only people who break the law with a Pistol do not have a Concealed and Carry Permit. They feed on those who do not have a weapon to protect themselves. With a Concealed and Carry Permit the bad guys will think twice about trying to rob or hurt you. The police response time is what people need to be thinking about. Good Luck

John E. Reif
Carrollton, Illinois

Warm Springs, Georgia

July 28th, 2011
8:18 pm

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

Earnán

July 28th, 2011
9:45 pm

When some :nice little fellow” pulls a nuke out of his backside we’ll take your silly nonsense seriously.

The Second Amendment is about weapons. The right to KEEP them and the right to BEAR them.

So while there may not be an “unrestricted” right there sure as hell is a RIGHT to do a lot more in the way of KEEPING and BEARING than gun-fearing victim-disarming liberals such as yourself are able to stomach.

Starting with no registration: registration serves no purpose other than to facilitate the sort of bans that the Supreme Court has ruled unConstitutional.

No bans on guns because they’re scary-looking or “military-style”—those are precisely the sort of “militia” weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment.

No more bans on concealed carry by ordinary citizens—40 states already agree on this, but Illinois continues to disarm the honest and decent while ignoring those who use guns to commit real crimes against innocent people.

ray3221

July 29th, 2011
12:07 am

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you morons not understand? What a bunch of libtard nonsense.I don’t want a nuclear bomb idiots but I do want what has always been legal in this nation left alone.First it was the “Saturday Night Special” (take the handguns away( then the assault rifles ( there goes our semi automatic firearms) Next? the “sniper rifle”? Our hunting rifles.The urban idots crying for gun control are always those that know the least.I swear if I hear one more urban libtard say clip (it’s not a clip it’s called a magazine) or assault rifle (an assault rifle is a slect fire machinegun already regulated by the US government) So sick of the anti-gun morons out there trampling all over my 2nd Amendment rights.

John

July 29th, 2011
1:33 pm

I really need to clarify some of the comments on our constitution.

The constitution DOES NOT grant any rights, such as free speech, right to bear arms, religious rights ETC.

Those rights were determined by our forefathers to be inalienable (God given) rights, and as such are granted to everyone just for being human. What the constitution does is attempt to protect those rights.
And yes self defense is one of those rights.

Bob Johnson

July 29th, 2011
6:42 pm

The second amendment does not grant a right. It simply states that a right that was always in existence shall not be infringed. You anti-gun people have the mentality of a grape.