Chicago, anti-gun, democrat...now wants constituents to get gun carry permits...

[2aguy]

Even the dumbest politicians can get smacked by reality every once in a great while......

After Shooting, Chicago Democrat Advocates Residents Get Guns and Carry Permits - The Truth About Guns

LaShawn Ford has served as an Illinois State Representative since 2007. Like his fellow Chicago Democrat General Assembly members, he has been a fairly consistent vote against gun rights since, well, forever.

But he recently appeared on radio station WLS-AM encouraging residents to arm themselves and get their carry licenses.


What caused Rep. Ford’s sudden, very public change when it comes to guns? Could it be the “come to Jesus” moment this past weekend outside his home that left one man dead? Or was it the fact that his car was riddled with gunfire during the incident?

Regardless of the reason Ford has changed his way of thinking, we welcome it. His constituents deserve the proven personal defense benefits of firearms ownership and concealed carry.

WLS-AM has the story of what happened outside Ford’s home:

After another violent weekend that saw eight people killed and at least 32 others wounded, one lawmaker is taking action by encouraging his constituents to arm themselves.

Bullets from a shooting that left a 22-year-old dead in the Austin Neighborhood on the West Side Sunday also found State Rep. La Shawn Ford’s (D-Chicago) car. …

“I think about it all the time,” Ford said of the shootings that plague his community. “That’s why I’m working with a concealed carry instructor and we’re going to go through the neighborhood and we’re going to encourage people to get their concealed carry license because it makes no sense for people not to have the protections that they need.”

You’re absolutely right, Rep. Ford. We’ve been saying the same thing since the beginning of time.

 

[Taz]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

 

[Rustic]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

Lol
The second amendment means every US citizen has an absolute right to their own firearm ownership, less they fuck it up for themselves... End of story

 

[satrebil]

"because it makes no sense for people not to have the protections that they need.”

WE'VE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL ALONG YOU STUPID FUCK.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

No that's not what it says at all

 

[satrebil]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

DC vs Heller

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois,116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


Now sit the fuck down.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Or was it the fact that his car was riddled with gunfire during the incident?

Ahhh a lefty mugged by reality

 

[miketx]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

The one in the United States.

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

That isn't what it says.....you keep making things up...try reading Heller....they went through the history and law concerning guns in before the colonies, during the colonies and after the colonies when we became the U.S....

 

[Taz]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

Lol
The second amendment means every US citizen has an absolute right to their own firearm ownership, less they fuck it up for themselves... End of story

No mention of if they fuck it up, though. And minors should be allowed to pack as well.

 

[Rustic]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

Lol
The second amendment means every US citizen has an absolute right to their own firearm ownership, less they fuck it up for themselves... End of story

No mention of if they fuck it up, though. And minors should be allowed to pack as well.

Lol
An introduction to firearms… The earlier the better.

 

[Taz]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

The one in the United States.

You mean the KKK?

 

[Taz]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

DC vs Heller

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois,116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


Now sit the fuck down.

That's not the Constitution. Better luck next time.

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

The one in the United States.

You mean the KKK?

No...the kkk was founded by the democrats...

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

DC vs Heller

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois,116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


Now sit the fuck down.

That's not the Constitution. Better luck next time.

All of a sudden the left wing asshat doesn't like the Supreme Court ruling...

 

[miketx]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

The one in the United States.

You mean the KKK?

Yeah liar, all 36 of them.

 

[satrebil]

The Constitution says that having guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia. So what militia do you belong to?

DC vs Heller

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois,116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


Now sit the fuck down.

That's not the Constitution. Better luck next time.

Are you illiterate or just plain fucking retarded?