Posted on 04/09/2002 9:32:37 AM PDT by SJackson
For a purported conservative, #3idiot sure doesn't respect the rule of law.
Thanks for the ping/bookmarked. bttt
You guys may have to rethink this one.
Chicago is the town of the mob, the Democratic machine, windy politicians, and vote fraud. That doesn't have much in common with my downstate mid-size town of German heritage, Catholic chuchgoers, manufacturers, and a discernable southern drawl. (I'm British descended and non-denominational, by the way.) For a big city Chicago is the greatest, though. Every city is liberal. Chicago is a more polite, rust belt city. It'd be less liberal if we could stop the Democratic vote fraud. Dan Rostenkowsky personifies the loudmouth corrupt Democratic politician.
Some day you might be forced to make a horrible choice as a gun owner...hope that day never comes
If that liberalism spreads this far south, that choice will be: Move to Texas!
I can't really criticize you for that. I'd love to see a viable third option (at least a Perot-in terms of support, not my guy-in the early days, a chance). I hope you can produce one. But without that option, a protest vote, or a write in, may be an act of conscience (that's what primaries are for), but it helps elect Governor rod.
Who, no fun if I can't read about him.
Funny isn't it, for all the Dems, Chicago really isn't a liberal city.
There are other "choices" that can be made.
I think you'd have a strong case, IF the judges follow the law, which is probably doubtful.
I also thing the proponents of gun control are guilty of sedition.
Sedition is defined as "conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state".
In America, the "authority of the state" is "We the People". Our will was expressed over 200 years ago in the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme authority. That Constitution includes a clause recognizing our Right to keep and bear arms.
Under the "authority of the state" (i.e., the Constitution), the ONLY way that Constitution can be changed is by an amendment. All other methods are unlawful, and represent a "rebellion against the authority of the state". Therefore, such behavior (attempting to implement unconstitutional gun control) is seditious, and should be dealt with as such.
100 miles north of Chicago puts you a little north of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I wonder if Richie Daley is working on clearing guns out southern Wisconsin too?
I hope you're talking about hiring a lawyer. If it passes, that's the way this will be resolved.
It won't be resolved in court. The way the Illinois Second Amendment is written the law is legal. The amendment reads: Subject to the police power, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means they can do whatever they want until there is a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. What are the odds of that happening? Last time they didn't want to hear the case. Given time, Illinois is going to be an island of gun control surrounded by CCW states. I don't think anyone can imagine how bad crime will be then.
You're right. Tell that to the conservative "third party" voters.
You're involved too, Texan. Little town, Morton Grove, next door, banned handguns. Federal appeals and all, lawyers, judges, even the Supremes (Court not singers). Now it's the law of the land. Your town can do it too. It's about all of us.
What happens here impacts gunowners everywhere.
What some states have done is enact a premption law which states that no municipality can enact any gun law that is more restrictive than the state's. Obviously, Illinois doesn't have one of those.
http://ericzorn.com/rhubarb/concealedcarry
I have to say Thomas, you are sadly correct that Republicans chose liberal candidates to run in November. I am a Republican Precinct Committeeman and it galls me to admit that you're right about Republicans in Illinois. They picked machine Republicans (Jim Ryan and Jim Durkin) to run in November and that means they picked RINO'S. (Republicans In Name Only.)
I am distressed that Senator Pat O'Malley did not win the primary, as his victory would have given the voters a real choice. As it is, Blagojevich and Ryan are two sides of the same leftist coin and I don't see myself going door to door getting the vote out for Ryan. As things stand today, Blagojevich is our next governor and gun owners stand ready to be punished. We see the handwriting on the wall. The only question in our minds is "will Blagojevich go too far and push gun owners into 'civil rights' mode to defy his laws?"
While I would like to see a Republican defeat Dick Durbin it's clear Jim Durkin is not the man to do that. Durkin has been my state representative for years and he's a staunch foe of gun rights. A real "Soccer Moms Rule" kind of guy.
The only joy I see in November is that it will be fun to watch Durbin stomp Durkin decidedly on Election Day. The only difference between Durbin and Durkin is the letter "K" and the voters will soon know that. I can't say it makes one whit of difference to me who wins as both have never learned to read…the Second Amendment.
And Thomas, it get better! As a bloc, gun owners are a powerful voting force. But this year we are not a bloc. Some are going "GOP party first" and will hold their collective noses and vote for Ryan. A whole bunch of otherwise "Ryan voters" plan to jump ship and vote for Libertarian Cal Skinner.
Here is the kicker, a rather significant group is voting for Blagojevich both to punish the Republican party and to finally settle the issue of gun rights once and for all in Illinois. Can you spell "Showdown?"
If I were an Illinois politician in this election season I think I would write off the gun- rights voters and concentrate on other issues. Gun owners were routed on March 19th and are no longer players in this election unless some unifying entity emerges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.