Second Amendment in Kane? Time to just say no to bullies

[GarandFan]

In this piece, the writer attempts to criticizes and humiliates the pro Second Amendment resolution movement (and gun owners in general). He's mad that it passed in Kane, and pulls out the stops to tell us that.

 

And don't give the me that bull about defending yourself: Most of you can barely handle a car, much less a firearm.

 

Take that, you "downstate ninnies!"

 

 

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/courier...-090621.article

 

Second Amendment in Kane? Time to just say no to bullies

 

June 21, 2009

 

I don't like bullies. And a group of downstate ninnies calling themselves "Illinois Pro 2A" have certainly earned my scorn. In another case of some folks having way too much time on their hands, they're demanding each of Illinois' 102 counties pass a resolution supporting the Second Amendment by taking a stand against any form of gun control. So far, they've managed to harass 90 counties into signing on.

 

Never mind that county boards have no power to effect gun-control legislation. Never mind that forcing any government entity to support the Second Amendment is like making them come out in favor of breathing. None of that matters to bullies.

 

These thinly disguised NRA thugs pick on county boards because anyone else would summarily dismiss them. Inexplicably, despite the inherent headaches of the job, many board members are fearful of losing those jobs. Others see it as just another opportunity to pander.

 

You see, truly accomplished bullies never come right out and make overt threats. If they did, people might stand up to them. They rely on implicit intimidation because it plays on a victim's unspoken fears. Their implied threat is, if you're foolish enough to vote against our resolution, just wait until the next election.

 

Organizations like the NRA recognize that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. They're experts at employing the platitudes that turn complex political campaigns into single-issue contests. And that scares most politicians, who tend to be fearful creatures by nature.

 

Once they coerce the majority of counties into capitulating, they'll use that to apply similar scare tactics to the bigger fish in Springfield. That's how bullies work.

 

I wish I could count Kane among the five Illinois counties that stood up to this assault rifle mafia. But by passing a very watered-down version of the resolution, Kane didn't exactly hand over the lunch money, either.

 

And my hat's off to those board members who saw these Illinois Pro 2A bullies for who they really are. Gerry Jones of Aurora said, "To me, this is insulting. This is totally unnecessary." Bonnie Lee Kunkel, also of Aurora, added, "I'm not sure why we need to debate any amendments to the U.S. Constitution. We're not in any position to change them."

 

Despite the inevitable e-mail onslaught, for the record, I am in favor of handgun control. Just take a look around Elgin, or Hanover Park for that matter, and you'll see why no one needs to own a handgun. And don't give the me that bull about defending yourself: Most of you can barely handle a car, much less a firearm. Reasonable gun control doesn't mean completely abandoning the Second Amendment.

 

But even if I clung to my Glock with some inordinate tenacity, I'd still have a serious problem with these Illinois Pro 2A/NRA bullies. We've just come off eight years of special-interest-beholden politicians reducing elections to some absurd least-common denominator. And look where it's gotten us.

 

The Kane County Board is facing some serious budget issues that aren't about to evaporate any time soon. I think our board does a good job, but let's hope going forward, they won't be as susceptible to bullies and their distractions.

 

jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net

[2nd amendment forever]

I have one question for Mr. Ward, which I am going to email him with:

 

1. Chicago has a law banning hand guns. Would you please cite one instance where a criminal has obeyed this law?

 

[GarandFan]

Here is my "fart in the wind" to the author ...

 

___________________________________

 

Dear Jeff:

 

You seem to have pulled out the stops in attempt to vilify those that worked to pass the resolution supporting the second amendment. I too think they are somewhat meaningless, other than a way to let state senators and reps know better where their constituents stand on the issue. All over the nation, there has been a groundswell of awakening and support of second amendment rights. Illinois is certainly no exception. People are coming to realize that the guarantee is very simple, and very forward. Not only does it guarantee their right to own guns (keep arms), it guarantees them the right to carry them around (bear arms) wherever and however they see fit. But even more pointed, the guarantee is not the right to own and carry arms. That's a given. The constitution guarantees only that the right shall not be infringed. If you take that lightly, I recommend you review the definition of "infringed." Sir, that is just the way it is, and your not liking it isn't going to change reality, though the frustration might reduce your quality of life. That's your choice.

 

To me, it just sounds like you're just angry, and the only thing you know how to do is to criticize and stamp your feet. How old are you?

 

This one took the cake. And don't give the me that bull about defending yourself: Most of you can barely handle a car, much less a firearm. I hope you realize that belittling people is no way to approach discussing an issue, or to get a reasonable person to consider your views.

 

For the most part, I view firearms as a highly useful tool ... a tool very rarely to be needed, but when needed, needed urgently. Given your short-sighted comment, you should know that I have taken professional training and am very proficient in handing handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I also fully understand my lawful authority to use deadly force under the law. And, several years ago in Colorado, I successfully and lawfully defended myself and my property from a car-jacking by a felon-on-parole. So please ... don't give me that bull about presuming to know my needs or capabilities.

 

You believe in handgun control? By this do you believe in various regulations like waiting periods, background checks, and so forth? Or do you believe that the government should prohibit them entirely? If it's the latter, please read the following.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up...8/06/07-290.pdf

 

And if you wonder whether the future will bring a further repeal of infringments on our right to own and carry arms, you should read the following petitions to the Supreme Court. Go on ... they are really good reads and could help you understand the legalities being dealt with. And remember ... this is your right, too. You certainly may choose to keep and bear arms, or you may choose not to. But I will be damned before you shall command my decision on the matter.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up...tionchicago.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up...rt_petition.pdf

 

Sincerely,

[2nd amendment forever]

Here is my "fart in the wind" to the author ...

 

___________________________________

 

Dear Jeff:

 

But I will be damned before you shall command my decision on the matter.

 

Sincerely,

[GarandFan]

OK ... if you folks are interested, Jeff's response to my message above is pasted far below, and my response to him is immediately below.

 

_______________________________________

 

 

Hi Jeff. I appreciate your response, and I do respect your views as far as they are your own, and as far as you don't attempt to impose them on me.

 

I know what you mean about the "gun lobby." They are immensely powerful ... and in a way, perplexingly powerful. But on the other hand, the gun lobby is also made up of dues-paying members ... something it seems that the gun control groups lack. The NRA membership number is usually reported to be about 4 million. I read a few months ago (can't remember where) that since October of '08, their membership has gained 30%. That would mean the current membership is around 5.2 million. That's a lot, and what's more, polling suggests that some 95% of them vote. I've read NRA rhetoric, and much of it is strong, if not over-the-top. But I have also read various gun control group rhetoric (Brady campaign, Violence Policy Center, Illinois council to prevent gun violence, etc.) and their rhetoric is equally over-the-top. I guess at some level they all will do what they do.

 

Regarding the prefatory clause of the second amendment ... I have thought quite a bit about this. I have followed the Heller supreme court case pretty closely, and have read the briefs on all sides, as well as the decision. It's my opinion that the court struggled with this issue on the basis of policy concerns, as well as public opinion. It's clear (and they stated as much) that the purpose of the right to arms is at least twofold. There is a private purpose (based on the right to self-preservation), and there is a civic purpose (based on the need for a citizen's militia ... which is necessary to the security of a free polity). The private purpose facilitates private defense of self, family, and home (property in general) from lawless individuals such as common criminals. The civic purpose facilitates community, state, and national defense from rioters, gangs, insurrections, or foreign invasion. But the difficulty for the court was that history and plain logic shows that the private and civic purposes interdigitate with one another ... they are intractably linked. For example, lawlessness by individual criminals can threaten a particular person, or particular families' home. But their presense, either individually or in organized criminal gangs) can also threaten the well-being of a community ... it erodes the "feeling safe" factor. My friends in the south side of Chicago feel this very much. Gang activity threatens the real and imagined safety of those entire communities.

 

But back to the court's conundrum, and to Alan Gura's conundrum (google him if you don't know who he is). The civic versus private purpose of the second amendment discussions in Heller in my view were complicated because of one main factor ... machine guns. It is clear that the court didn't want to go there, and it was clear that Gura didn't want to go there. Ginsburg very much tried to swing the discussion that way, but was unsuccessful. For Gura would have gone there, he would have lost Kennedy ... heck, he might have lost all of them save Scalia and Thomas. That is because people, and supreme court Justices, are freaked out over machine guns. Never mind that only 9 of 50 states prohibit ownership of machine guns by civilians. The point is, most people don't know that, and most people just freak out over machine guns. So what the court did was to decouple the private purpose (self defense) from the civic purpose (militias) much more cleanly than what could have been done if they'd have been intellectually honest. Not only do people freak out over machine guns, they freak out over the thought of militias. I think one reason for that is they have no idea what just, constitutional militias really are. They wrongfully equate militas with radical right or left-wing fringe groups, or with individuals like Timothy McVeigh, or something equally marginal or insurrectional. Historically, the militia were just any able-bodied person in a particular community who would come toghether for their common defense against insurrections or other threatening crisis. Historically, the militia would protect society from the Timothy McVeighs of the world. But I can understand why the court saw this as a conundrum. As an aside and in as much as machine guns might be worrisome to most of us ... at some level and in my veiw, they are really just "guns" not that much unlike other guns. In truth, the "spray-fire" of machine guns is horribly inefficient. Far more deadly are single, aimed shots. That's why most military small arms these days don't even have a "full-auto" mode. But people are just "scared" of machine guns, and think someone can just "spray-fire" and kill everyone in sight. Patently false. Anyway ... I think that if the court would have really delved into this issue in an intellectual manner ... into the prefatory clause, it's purpose, and it's intractable link to the private purpose ... they would have been forced to conclude that private guns (regular handguns, shotguns, etc.) are protected due to their utility in private self-defense, and also that military small arms are protected due to their utility in the civic, militia purpose of community defense. But they ... and our society ... were just not ready to face that truth. So it goes.

 

I wish to comment on your statement that the 2A does not automatically grant the right for anyone to own a gun. You are absolutely right ... but perhaps not in the way you think. You have to realize that the second amendment does not grant anyone anything. For many people this seems like a trivially subtle difference. Subtle it might be, but it's profound. Let's look at the relevant passage of Heller (this is not just word from the high court ... it's consistent with history).

 

From page 19 of the majority decision:

 

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

 

So in this passage, the high court affirms that the right to arms pre-dates our nation, and our constitution. The right it inherent to all of us ... it's considered a natural right, because it flows so easily from the human right of self-preservation. Recognizing this, we conclude that the second amendment doesn't grant or give anyone a right to arms, or even guarantee a right to arms. It simply commands the government that it may not infringe the right. It's very strong stuff. This is in part why I get so irritated with some media people for using phrases as "today, the legislature voted to allow guns to be carried into restaurants that serve alcohol." You see that kind of thing all the time in the papers and on TV. It's total BS ... legislatures don't have any authority to "allow" the bearing of arms. They simply have a mandate not to infringe the right of the people to bear arms. But anyway ... that is amendment at face value, and of course, the Heller decision allowed for reasonable restrictions. In effect, the court stated that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed. Talk about amending an amendment without invoking Article V. It all boils down then to what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. That is where all the fights will be over this issue in the coming years and decades.

 

Finally, I agree with you that training with guns is a very good thing and should be encouraged. In fact, I believe the NRA does a great deal of this ... training in safe and proficient use. In fact, that is how the organization got started ... basically, Union officers had noted that too many of their soldiers just could not shoot worth a damn, so they formed the National Rifle Association as a group for training civilians in safe and proficient use of rifles. It was not until the late 70's that the NRA got so involved in politics, and they did so because of the rise in gun control groups liek the National Coalition to ban handguns, and other such groups. That was the time when DC passed it's handgun ban, and a few years later, Chicago and several surrounding burbs also banned handguns. The gun banners truly thought they could pass a national handgun ban at the federal level, and the NRA stepped up to stop them. For they, then like now, believed that a ban on handguns was flatly inconsistent with the guarantee that the government shall not infringe the right to arms. So while we surely agree that safety and proficiency training is a good thing and should be encouraged ... we might disagree that it should be mandated as a requirement before the government gives us "permission" to keep and bear arms.

 

Again, I thank you for the time. I study constitutional law as a hobby ...

 

Best regards,

 

PS: Just to be honest, I forgot to mention that the successful defensive incident in Colorado ocurred before I'd had any formal handgun training whatsoever. And I was young, perhaps 21 years old, and the parolled felon must have been in his mid-40s. I just employed common-sense and a will to protect myself and my property. I absolutely did not want to hurt the man ... but he didn't know that. It was scary to be sure ... but thankfully it worked out well, without either of us suffering any physical harm.

 

I favor training because it immensely increases one's odds of success and safety in a defensive situation. But I also know that training is not an absolute pre-requisite for the ability to use defensive arms safely and successfully.

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Ward <jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net>

To: GarandFan

Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:18:26 AM

Subject: Re: bullies

 

Dear GarandFan,

 

Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to write.

 

Though I certainly came out on the side of handgun control in the column, my greater point - and the reason this issue does make me angry - is how the gun lobby can reduce the political process to a single issue. That has far reaching effects and we're right smack in the middle of one of those "effects!"

 

And we can argue this all day, but the 2nd amendment also says something about "A well regulated militia." It does not automatically grant the right for anyone to own a gun. In the case of omeone in the military or someone like yourself who's had serious training, I have no problem with even handgun ownership.

 

As far your comment about belittling people, the implicit point I was trying to make is, you need a license to drive a car, but no training whatsoever to own a gun. Also, because you live in [Cook], this is probably the first time you've been exposed to my stuff. I tend to use hyperbole and irony. It's something sorely missing from journalism these days.

 

You successfully defended yourself because you had training which only proves my point!

 

Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to write!

 

Jeff

[2nd amendment forever]

OK ... if you folks are interested, Jeff's response to my message above is pasted below,

_______________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Ward <jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net>

To: GarandFan

Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:18:26 AM

Subject: Re: bullies

 

Dear GarandFan,

 

but the 2nd amendment also says something about "A well regulated militia."

 

Jeff

If Jeff wants to quote, why doesn't he quote the ENTIRE Amendment???

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I'll post my wife's explanation of that one sentence.

 

Among her various credentials is an endorsement in language arts.

 

Because of the placement of the commas our founding Father's saved ink by condensing three sentences into one:

 

1. A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

 

2. The security of a free State shall not be infringed.

 

3. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

Why is this so hard to understand????

[SirMatthew]

OK ... if you folks are interested, Jeff's response to my message above is pasted far below, and my response to him is immediately below.

 

You did an excellent job GF.

 

_______________________________________

 

 

"Though I certainly came out on the side of handgun control in the column, my greater point - and the reason this issue does make me angry - is how the gun lobby can reduce the political process to a single issue. That has far reaching effects and we're right smack in the middle of one of those "effects!"

 

 

A lobby for any cause generally has a single purpose in mind, but is driven by people who have a special passion for that particular issue. Gay rights, abortion, gun rights...there are so many of them and they all try to reduce the political process to a single issue. That is why they exist. The only reason the gun lobby upsets Jeff so badly is because they promote an issue he doesn't support. Too bad, most people DO support the Bill of Rights.

 

What makes ME angry is the fact any and all of my personal efforts to regain 2A rights are automatically credited to the gun lobby. The implication is the gun lobby is a loud but small group of activists who do not represent the ideals of the average American citizen. I don't recall ever signing up to be part of the "gun lobby" and I am not paid to lobby for any cause. I am merely doing what ALL Americans should do when their rights are being infringed in direct violation of our Constitution. Support for the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2A, should be a priority for all Americans and taking greater importance than budgets, zoning, taxes, and other similar governmental issues.

 

As most of you know, I've helped promote the Pro2A resolution, but I am not an NRA member (submitted the free trial twice and never heard from them). I am just one of many average citizens: married, father of two teen boys, work full-time in a computer-related field, live in a $70K condo, and drive a PT Cruiser. I wear my helmet when I ride my Ninja motorcycle even though I am legally not required to do so. I love to fish, but am not a hunter. I rarely drink, have never been arrested, and dislike confrontation or violence. My cable news viewing includes both Fox and CNN. In my spare time I have written a book and am currently coding an educational video game of my own design. All things considered, I try to be as broad-minded as possible and well-balanced in my activities. Having said that, I detest my individual efforts in support of the 2A being credited to a generic "gun lobby" with the implication that I am narrow-minded and think of nothing other than the single issue of gun rights. Even so, I fail to see how anyone can be condemned merely because they support the very foundation upon which this country was built.

[Tvandermyde]

Jeff --

 

I hate to dissappoint you, but as the NRA lobbyist for Illinois, we have had no direction or involvement with the county resolutions that have been proposed or the county referendums on right to carry.

 

You may try and attribute this to the NRA "gun lobby" but this has been a grassroots effort but Illinois citizens independant of the NRA.

 

Todd Vandermyde

[GarandFan]

Jeff --

 

I hate to dissappoint you, but as the NRA lobbyist for Illinois, we have had no direction or involvement with the county resolutions that have been proposed or the county referendums on right to carry.

 

You may try and attribute this to the NRA "gun lobby" but this has been a grassroots effort but Illinois citizens independant of the NRA.

 

Todd Vandermyde

 

Thanks for sending that. I totally forgot to bring that up in my messages to Jeff.

 

I suspect that these people just really don't like to consider that the "gun lobby" is anything but a few rich fat-cats looking out for interests of arms and ammo manufacturers. No wonder gun control advocates are so damned bewildered ...

[Federal Farmer]

...

they're demanding each of Illinois' 102 counties pass a resolution supporting the Second Amendment by taking a stand against any form of gun control. So far, they've managed to harass 90 counties into signing on.

...

Once they coerce the majority of counties into capitulating, they'll use that to apply similar scare tactics to the bigger fish in Springfield. That's how bullies work.

 

One wonders how many more of the 102 Counties this guy feels need to be 'harassed' into passing this resolution before they achieve their sinister 'majority'?

[Lou]

"And we can argue this all day, but the 2nd amendment also says something about "A well regulated militia." It does not automatically grant the right for anyone to own a gun." Guess he never read Heller.

 

I call Constitutional Revisionists like Jeff "comma challenged" They read up until the comma and then stop. They do that to the First Amendment too

[GarandFan]

Todd and everyone else ... how can "we" make the passage of these resolutions resonate in Springfield?

 

Surely ... that 91 county governments have passed resolutions effectively saying "NO MORE GUN CONTROL" ... would carry a significant amount of momentum.

[Tvandermyde]

The counties where these have passed the legislators are supportive of us. the only holdouts are in areas that we have opposition. Lake, Dupage, Cook to name a few. So where they pass, we have the support of legislators. Where they don't, we dont have all their support. it becomes something of a referendum. A poll of the people back home and validates most of our votes.

 

But remember that most of the population does not live in those counties. The real power lays in electing or unelecting the right legislators. The county resolutions become a feel good exercise. it may help us if someone wants to move up the political ladder later, but the real "resolutions" will start August 4th when we start passing petitions for the 2010 elections.

[2nd amendment forever]

I have one question for Mr. Ward, which I am going to email him with:

 

1. Chicago has a law banning hand guns. Would you please cite one instance where a criminal has obeyed this law?

 

 

I just received Jeff's response to me today, and here it is:

 

Re: Your article re 2nd Amendment

Monday, June 22, 2009 6:44 AM

From: "Jeff Ward" <jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net>

To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Michelle and Paul,

 

Gun control has worked very well in Canada and European countries. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be effective here.

 

And remember, I'm only talking about handguns.

 

Jeff

 

Notice how he DID NOT answer me........

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

you know all of this "regulated militia" crap(which means army or natl guard to the average liberal) vs individual right is getting pretty old.....not to mention its a pretty poor & ignorant argument to begin with, to them the 2a should read "a well organized military being necessary for the safety and preservation of the state, the right of the military and police to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

sounds kind of dumb doesnt it? that the founders would take time out of their constitutional convention to re-state the obvious fact that a good military has guns"

[anonymous too]

For the most part, I view firearms as a highly useful tool ... a tool very rarely to be needed, but when needed, needed urgently. Given your short-sighted comment, you should know that I have taken professional training and am very proficient in handing handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I also fully understand my lawful authority to use deadly force under the law.

 

And that's what responsible gun ownership is.

[SirMatthew]

I have one question for Mr. Ward, which I am going to email him with:

 

1. Chicago has a law banning hand guns. Would you please cite one instance where a criminal has obeyed this law?

 

 

I just received Jeff's response to me today, and here it is:

 

Re: Your article re 2nd Amendment

Monday, June 22, 2009 6:44 AM

From: "Jeff Ward" <jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net>

To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Michelle and Paul,

 

Gun control has worked very well in Canada and European countries. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be effective here.

 

And remember, I'm only talking about handguns.

 

Jeff

 

Notice how he DID NOT answer me........

 

He can't answer you because doing so would require him to face the truth.

 

Gun control HAS NOT worked well in Canada and Europe according to the following articles:

 

http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feat...931&V=False

 

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/The-Failu...Gun-Control.htm

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/canada/ar...s_gun_registry/

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026

 

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0400gunsec.htm

 

 

 

 

 

wanted to remain law-abiding. Criminals didn't turn them in.

[drdoom]

My e-mail to him regarding his stupid article:

 

Dear Jeff,

 

The logic behind needing a license to drive a car but not needing one (or any training) for a gun does not hold water. Disagree as you may, the Supreme Court ruled last year, and in prior cases, that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to the national guard, or the army. Think about it, why does the Government need a right to arm itself? Government has power, in no such legal instance have I seen any Government declare rights to itself. The Bill of Rights was introduced and passed for the people, not the Government Jeff. Myself being an astute researcher of our nations laws and customs, there are a few things you are completely ignorant about (please, I'm talking in the politest of terms herein). Years after the Revolutionary War, Congress passed an act, also called the militia act, which strictly described what exactly constitues a militia. It divided it into two types: regulated and unregulated. It is from the Militia Act of 1792 that established Federal Standards for the common defense of this nation (it proclaimed it as the regulated militia is our army, navy, marines etc. those are the first part of our common defense, but not by any means, the last.) The second part of the militia is the unregulated militia, or groups of citizens that can organize for the defense of their community. Now, the unregulated militia clause clearly outlines that citizens can organize, and have a militia group, but it cannot be regulated (meaning they cannot work for the government, or any other unit of governing body). They must swear the same oath of allegiance to the constitution that our troops of the regulated militia swear, in order to comply within the legal confines. Now since 1792, I'll admit, things have changed, but unless by Act of Congress, this act still stands and the citizenry can still be at leave to organize a militia for defense of their community (in actuality this act could be seen by many as a declaration, as the Constitution ratified years before this act protected the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms and the pre-existing right for the citizenry to organize a militia.) So when you say that the well regulated clause of the second amendment implies it is for the armed forces of the U.S, your lying, unknowingly or intentionally. Let me also say that your comparing of cars to gun argument is poor. Owning a gun is a right, not only is it a right, it is a pre-existent right. The right to keep and bear arms existed before you or I were even born. It existed even before the Constitution. If you want to know how far back, Henry II King of England and France was one of the first English kings to acknowledge (in his Assize of Arms of 1181, a proclamation) the need for an armed citizenry. Henry the V mobilized a militia of citizens, private citizens and noblemen alike, before he went out to Agincourt. I do agree that gun owners should train with their respective weapons frequently and often. Gun-safety is one of the most, if not, the most important thing for gun-owners to practice. Jeff, if we can teach kids to put a condom on at school and have safe-sex, I see no reason why parents and other responsible adults cannot do the same likewise in respect to firearms and gunsafety. I don't believe it is the Governments place to force us to teach ourselves to be responsible with firearms, nor do I think it should be policy. Being safe and responsible starts with the individual, with yourself (and even any sex-ed teacher would agree with that point) It's ok to disagree with owning a gun, but please, the next time you write, keep your bias out and stick to the facts, don't lie to the people, because they and I know bull**** when we see it.

 

Respectivly,

 

Andrew

[HighHeeledGoddess]

Re: Your article re 2nd Amendment

Monday, June 22, 2009 6:44 AM

From: "Jeff Ward" <jeffwardsun@sbcglobal.net>

To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Michelle and Paul,

 

Gun control has worked very well in Canada and European countries. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be effective here.

 

And remember, I'm only talking about handguns.

 

Jeff

 

Oh yeah, gun control is working just wonderfully in Europe and Canada! There are no murders or home invasions, people just hold hands and have big drum circles all the time. They certainly don't have an overwhelming problem with teen girls being gang raped either. Knifings are certainly not through the roof to the point they're talking about banning those as well, either. No traffics are kidnapping their women to force into slavery, either.

[Ol'Coach]

If the writer is stating that disarming law-abiding citizens is the goal, then I reckon it's correct; indeed, it's worked very well!

 

What else has it accomplished?

[drdoom]

Everyone should read the Assize of Arms (a Proclamation from Henry II dated 1181) it's mind boggling what the English have devolved to. The act states that no arms can be sold OUTSIDE England and that none may be carried OUTSIDE England! Wow!

[Xwing]

Keep the emails coming. This author needs to know what a complete idiot he is. I just sent him another one.

[Thirdpower]

Let's look at this individuals mentality shall we?

 

bullies, downstate ninnies, they're demanding, against any form of gun control, harass, bullies , thinly disguised NRA thugs, anyone else would summarily dismiss them, truly accomplished bullies (again), implicit intimidation, victim's unspoken fears, implied threat, coerce the majority of counties into capitulating, scare tactics, bullies, bullies (he really likes that word), no one needs to own a handgun, don't give the me that bull about defending yourself, Most of you can barely handle a car, much less a firearm, Reasonable gun control, Illinois Pro 2A/NRA bullies (gets old, doesn't iit?), special-interest-beholden politicians reducing elections to some absurd least-common denominator

 

And for his final insult *drum roll please*

 

bullies

 

Shock.

 

There must be a whole lot of these 'downstate NRA ninnies' driving around the state 'bullying' not only board members but also county sheriffs and state representatives to 'oppose any form of gun control' since 90 counties have passed it and all the Chicago style 'gun control' measures he supports have failed in the state legislature.

 

This letter epitomizes the close-minded bigotry and stereotyping that seems to have become the mainstay of gun control activists. It can only be slack-jawed yokels from the sticks being prodded by the NRA that would ever even think of picking up a gun. No 'civilized progressive' would ever sully themselves so. It is incomprehensible that an educated, successful individual could support firearms or take time out to actually support that cause.

 

What's even more telling is that all the while he's denouncing 2A activists as being puppets of the NRA, he's regurgitating every gun control talking point in the book.

 

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009...-discourse.html

[BadWaterBill]

For starters he can thank the 2A for protecting his 1A right to act as the real bully along with his other bullies in Chicago land.

 

To bad he is not a student of history. If he were he would remember a certain Japanese Admiral say " We could never invade America because there would be a gun hidden behind every blade of grass" or something to that effect. I do not have the book in front of me at the moment.

 

That thought about an armed militia is what has kept people from invading America. The mere fact that you and some of your neighbors might have guns is what has kept us free. How many of our returning heros will be denied the right to carry here in Illinois after showing their proficiency with far deadlier weapons over seas. Shame on Daley and all who hide behind his skirts.

[spec4]

Tried to reapond but it looks like the link is down.

[mikew]

Tried to reapond but it looks like the link is down.

It's newspaper website where the stories expire after a few weeks.