Duckworth, surrounded by Illinois Fraternal Order of Police President Ted Street and Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said at a Lombard news conference that Roskam is "not looking out for the best interests of the 6th District."The FOP standing hand-in-hand with gungrabbers--certainly no new development to those of us who have watched these things over the years, and their Illinois political endorsements offer no surprises in that regard.
So with their commitment to a disarmed citizenry well established, it's telling to find this on the front page of their official state newsletter:
Yep, we all know they've proven time and again how they're "The Only Ones" qualified to keep and bear arms. And they'll support the subversives, stump for the edicts and enforce the disarmament of their employers to prove it.
And if they have all the guns and no one else does, what's to stop them?
[Thanks to HZ]
3 comments:
"How do I become state certified"
Well, if you are a Free American citizen. And if we were TRULY operating under the United States Constitution. Then there is no need for 'state certification'. In fact, 'state certification' would be considered an Infringement. To Wit:
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." - State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)
"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).
"The right of self-defense in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, and cannot be superceded by the law of society. In those instances, says Sir Michael Foster, the law, with great propriety, and in strict justice, considers the individual to be under the protection of the law of nature." - James Kent, 1763–1847, [Commentaries on American Law - Vol. II, Lect. XXIV, Of the Absolute Rights of Persons, (1826-30)]. Chief Judge N.Y. Supreme Court, First Professor of Law at Columbia College.
"The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature."- Nunn v. The State of Georgia, AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846
And, last but not least:
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." - [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. - Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)
The Right is TOTALLY seperate from the 'militia'. It is a pre-existent Right of Nature. And our Constitution is FOUNDED on "the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God".
Yet these "I want every advantage and that's not enough" cowards are insulted when one points out how cowardly their behavior is.
They won't defend the constitution they swore to uphold, they won't defend the law, and the courts have ruled they have no duty to defend the citizen, just why the Hell would they need a gun? Not that need has a damn thing to do with it.
But why the hysteria to have power over all those around them? Can't be a good reason they don't feel able to shoulder the same risks as those they abuse.
wasn't it a cop who was the only person to commit murder with a legally owned machinegun? I believe it was here in southern Ohio.
Oh well that just proves that they're more qualified and law abiding then us serfs.
Post a Comment