Comments on: McDonald v. Chicago: Gun Rights Lawsuit Brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association in the Wake of D.C. v. Heller

By: Stone

Stone — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:30:58 +0000

The second amendment is the teeth by which all the other rights are preserved. This is what most of you “anti” folks don’t get – That the Bill of Rights does not “grant” you rights, rather it enumerates “Natural Rights” that we are all born with and that the government cannot take away…

Freedom of thought, i.e. Freedom of Speech, Press and to believe as you will…Freedom to gather (assemble) with other folks for any “lawful” purpose.

Freedom from governmental intrusion into our homes and businesses

Freedom to defend yourself and others. whether it be from a criminal element or a government run amok…i.e. Tyrannical – That abridges and offends our “Natural Rights” Even a wild animal has a natural right to protect itself and its young.

Notice what is NOT listed as a “Natural Right” – Health Care, Energy policies, and all the other crap that modern Americans seem to “expect” the government to provide. Sorry you do NOT have a Natural Right to Health Care, Gas for your car, money to pay your mortgage etc…

Basically the Constitution’s Bill of Rights spells out the freedoms that all humans are born in possession of and yet so many governments (including our own) want to abridge…

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:25:34 +0000

And by the way, know thy guns. An “ASSAULT WEAPON” is a manufactured term made up by politicians to ban certain features on guns. Frankly, crime has nothing to do with banning features like high capacity magazines. It’s all about background checks, getting rid of street gangs, and stopping straw purchases (which are already illegal). I don’t need a 10 shot (or less) pistol, I need a 15+ shot pistol and who are you to tell me I can’t have one. Arguably an ‘assault weapon’ is the ONLY weapon the Constitution protects…it’s not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about arms used for fighting, i.e. tactical weaponry. In the 18th century that was a musket, in the modern world that’d be an AK-47…I love mine.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:10:50 +0000

Because with the TOTAL and COMPLETE lack of violent crime in cesspits like Chicago there is no reason to own a gun. Oh wait…

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:08:21 +0000

Can’t wait until this case is over. It is pretty obvious that states and cities have no authority to negate portions of the Constitution. It’s very simple. Bloomberg, just like Daley, dislikes guns in the hands of private citizens. They’re all about a “ruling elite” and seriously think that we plebeians have no brains and therefore cannot be trusted in their big city with firearms. Ha! Hell, I’ll trust a CCW holder over a governor/mayor/congressman any day. I bet half of them couldn’t obtain security clearances if you looked into their corrupt backgrounds. Pathetic, really.

Chicago’s laws are invalid and are going down. Hopefully they’ll take on the bullshit over in NYC next. This is America and LA, Boston, NY, Chicago, etc. should be forced by the feds to comply with the Constitution and stop acting like city-states.

By: bugin70

bugin70 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:29:00 +0000

It always seems to me that city’s with strict “gun control” have MUCH higher crime rates than city’s that don’t.

I agree with Jonesy. Wouldn’t a criminal much prefer to rob, or break into a house where they know the residents are unarmed?

I hope we can undo these laws. I don’t see how it could be any clearer. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

-Simple as that. Or at least it should be. IMO

Thanks

By: Jonesy

Jonesy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:46:47 +0000

I was born, raised in Chicago and lived there for thirty five years. I relocated to Indiana where I have resided for about twenty two years. I not only believe Chicago should do away with it’s hand gun ban but do as Indiana does and grant concealed carry permits to people with out a felony record. I would think that the perpetrator of a crime against you might just think twice if there were the possibility you were carrying a gun legally. Thank You

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:17:52 +0000

Why would gun control be a Local or State issue?

It’s in the Constitution and to me it seems like a National Guarantee.
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

By: BIGMAC

BIGMAC — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:16:56 +0000

Lets put it this way, if you deny me my right to defend myself, you are violating my civil rights. If you legislate that conceal carry is illigal and my wife cannot defend herself, then you are violating her rights as well. I have a civil and moral right to have the ability to stop an attack that will cause grave bodily harm and or death. Yes, CIVIL and MORAL right, thank you.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:18:11 +0000

Brian,

Thanks for stopping back by.

Regarding “how was I saying “skin color” was a basis for a civil right,” I refer you to the very beginning of your original post where you stated “Gun rights are not the same a civil rights. The inability to vote, eat where you like, marry who you like and learn where you like, etc. because of your skin color is not the same as gun rights.” So, at the very start of your post, you juxtapose gun rights with discrimination based on skin color.

If this was not your intent, fine, but then you continued “However, you are doing a disservice to the cause by frankly being insensitive to the events of the civil rights era. Also you are coming off as a pompous ass, please don’t make us all look like this.”

By referring to the civil rights era, most people would believe you refer to a time in the United States which was about ending segregation and other injustices based on skin color.

If you wish to show up on my site and espouse your views on freedoms, I’m ok with that (within reason). But to call my viewpoints stupid because I don’t appreciate your level of nuance is just plain rude.

Additionally, to say that I am a pompous ass because I do not share your same views is the height of hubris. I, like many others, have worked long and hard to protect the freedoms of the people of this country for many years. I’ve certainly earned the right to espouse whatever view I wish on my own site. Feel free to start your own.

That being said, I suspect we share similar views on gun rights. I’d rather you work with me toward a common goal than to spend time and energy tearing down the views of others that differ slightly from your own.

–Richard

By: Brian C. West

Brian C. West — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:29:58 +0000

First, off I am an Atheist and believe in no creator or rights that are given from any higher authority. We have to assert our rights, by force if necessary.

Also how was I saying “skin color” was a basis for a civil right, gays are not all one color mind you. You seem to have missed much of my post on civil rights being not race but negative freedoms. I see a civil right as a negative freedom, a freedom not to have something done to you. Negative in this context is not “bad” it is just a freedom negating the power someone else wants to hold over you. Gun rights are then a positive freedom a freedom to defend yourself, but that you cannot have one without the other. They are interrelated but not the same.

I was merely expanding and adding nuance. I did not make it about race at all I made it about an understanding of philosophical grounds of freedoms as positive and negative. I was making the argument that positive freedoms are there to defend negative freedoms. Or more to the point gun freedoms protecting civil freedoms.

We should remain vigilant and exercise our positive freedoms in order to defend against the government who may wish to encroach upon them. A positive freedom cannot be granted it must be taken and a negative freedom must always be defended.

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.”
– Thomas Jefferson