Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Hoodie-Wearing Gunmen Kill 1, Wound 5 in Bobby Rush Chicago District. Breitbart.com

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Hoodie-Wearing Gunmen Kill 1, Wound 5 in Bobby Rush Chicago District. Breitbart.com

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...icago-District
    Meanwhile, back home in Rush's district, two men wearing hooded sweatshirts, or "hoodies," were the shooters in an incident that left one dead and five injured.

    In fact, during a span of six-hours Thursday night, 13 people were shot, leaving two dead in Chicago. It would seem it takes more courage to simply walk down the street in Rush's district than it does to wear a hooded sweatshirt in the House of Representatives by way of a stunt in a bizarre tribute to a young man shot and killed in Florida during a shooting incident still under investigation.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,4943899.story
    From his rearview mirror, McNeal saw two young men in hooded sweatshirts rush out of a convenience store and jump into a gray SUV and speed off.

    He turned back to the store and ran inside. "There were young men scattered everywhere," he said. "Some of them were screaming. . .You could see the wounds."
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 03-30-2012 at 06:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    (U.S. Representative) Bobby Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969 where police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun and pistol ammunition, training manuals on explosives and booby traps, a small amount of marijuana and an assortment of communist literature...Imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge after carrying a gun into a police station...Rush introduced the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6, 2009. This bill, if signed into law would require all owners of hand guns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license[sic]. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. The bill would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    (U.S. Representative) Bobby Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969 where police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun and pistol ammunition, training manuals on explosives and booby traps, a small amount of marijuana and an assortment of communist literature...Imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge after carrying a gun into a police station...Rush introduced the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6, 2009. This bill, if signed into law would require all owners of hand guns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license[sic]. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. The bill would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush
    Like this bill would keep the criminals from getting guns illegally on the street! Duh! The feds already know what guns I own; every time I buy one, legally, I have to fill out a form which the FFL is required to keep for the feds to look at if they choose. I don't know for sure, but they may even get a copy of the form. So tell me again, what purpose is this bill going to serve?!?
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    On the same note, wouldn't requiring a federal license infringe on state's rights? Right now, as we all know, states have their own requirements for purchasing guns. I would think a bill like this would usurp states rights to regulate things within their borders.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I would think a bill like this would usurp states rights to regulate things within their borders.
    Like HR 822?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Like HR 822?
    Yes, if that is the "national carry" bill; I am against it. The federal government already regulates enough. IMHO, that is dangerous territory. That bill, if it became law, would give the feds a "foot in the door" to come up with other bills or laws to regulate us even more. As much as I would like to see national carry, I still think that carry should be left up to the states. Don't like the laws re carry in your state? Move to one you do like or work to get the laws changed. All you have to do is look at the national health care bill to see what a mess they have made of that. Still want them to regulate your carry? We need government, especially federal government, to be less involved in our lives, not more!
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    You gotta wonder if one of Obama's hypothetical kids would have looked anything like one of these shooters...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    634

    +1,000...,

    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    You gotta wonder if one of Obama's hypothetical kids would have looked anything like one of these shooters...
    wearing a hoodie doesn't make you a hood, it helps to make you look like a hood, like the guys that use them to hide their faces when committing crimes.

    sidestreet (Hood Profiler)

    Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

    we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    Yes, if that is the "national carry" bill; I am against it. The federal government already regulates enough. IMHO, that is dangerous territory. That bill, if it became law, would give the feds a "foot in the door" to come up with other bills or laws to regulate us even more. As much as I would like to see national carry, I still think that carry should be left up to the states. Don't like the laws re carry in your state? Move to one you do like or work to get the laws changed. All you have to do is look at the national health care bill to see what a mess they have made of that. Still want them to regulate your carry? We need government, especially federal government, to be less involved in our lives, not more!
    I don't know what (your) the problem is with HR 822. It only directs the states to recognize the legitamate acts of other states. It imposes no law on any state, you still have to (know and) abide by the laws of the state you are in.

    There is really no reason for this to even need to happen, but there is a need becasue of states like NY, NJ and MD. Yes we are citizens of a particular state, but we are also citizens of the United States and have a right to travel as we wish without NY throwing us in jail because we have a handgun in our car...we alos have a right to defend ourselves, this does not cange because we left the state of our residence.

    BTW: That was one of the principle original functions of the national government...make sure the various states got along. It would be much easier if the Supreme Court of the US would just state the 2A meant what it says...then it would be fine, there would be no nanny permits, anywhere...but that is not our reality so we need to have the states get along. They don't have any problems with other states automobile drivers licenses, and driving a very deadly (more deadly than any firearm) vehicle is not a "right" it is a privilage.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Should we have (another) moment of public silence for this "senseless tragedy?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    All I can say... when a state like Illions keep citizens from practicing their 2nd Admendment right, thugs are always going to have the advantage. I can say from experiance, voters are "killing" us. Those who are afraid of guns and thugs, are the ones who vote for "stricker gun laws". Thinking criminals are going to stop using them... its going to get ugly before it gets better.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    <snip>It only directs the states to recognize the legitamate acts of other states. It imposes no law on any state, you still have to (know and) abide by the laws of the state you are in. <snip>
    You did not see the contradiction in this seemingly logical statement.

    If a state.....never mind.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    You gotta wonder if one of Obama's hypothetical kids would have looked anything like one of these shooters...
    They would be spitting images of BHO. I also bet Id be hard pressed to find this story airing on along side a hoodies for Trayon story in MSNBC.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    The feds already know what guns I own; every time I buy one, legally, I have to fill out a form which the FFL is required to keep for the feds to look at if they choose. I don't know for sure, but they may even get a copy of the form. So tell me again, what purpose is this bill going to serve?!?
    You can also buy guns completely legally from private sellers; no paperwork and the feds don't get to know squat (not that they are entitled to know about our personal property in the first place).
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    (U.S. Representative) Bobby Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969 where police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun and pistol ammunition, training manuals on explosives and booby traps, a small amount of marijuana and an assortment of communist literature...Imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge after carrying a gun into a police station...Rush introduced the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6, 2009. This bill, if signed into law would require all owners of hand guns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license[sic]. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. The bill would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush

    As far as I'm concerned Bobby Rush, (and most democrap politicians) are enemies of the republic. Bobby Rush had been so dedicated to his hatred he prepared for war before being thwarted. Any law this sick idiot promoted would naturally be designed to bring down the empire.

    Are there any former "right wing" militants that were once imprisoned sitting in any government office anywhere?

    So if you are a militant, just declare you're a marxist when the agents kick in your door. Then you'll be on the path too success.

    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I don't know what (your) the problem is with HR 822. It only directs the states to recognize the legitamate acts of other states. It imposes no law on any state, you still have to (know and) abide by the laws of the state you are in.

    There is really no reason for this to even need to happen, but there is a need becasue of states like NY, NJ and MD. Yes we are citizens of a particular state, but we are also citizens of the United States and have a right to travel as we wish without NY throwing us in jail because we have a handgun in our car...we alos have a right to defend ourselves, this does not cange because we left the state of our residence.

    BTW: That was one of the principle original functions of the national government...make sure the various states got along. It would be much easier if the Supreme Court of the US would just state the 2A meant what it says...then it would be fine, there would be no nanny permits, anywhere...but that is not our reality so we need to have the states get along. They don't have any problems with other states automobile drivers licenses, and driving a very deadly (more deadly than any firearm) vehicle is not a "right" it is a privilage.
    How about the part it demands you carry picture ID with your permit? Ruby is right the foot gets in the door with one small minor ( I like to sterile carry, and don't find this requirement minor) requirement added and then 20 years down the road what else have they edged in? The proper means for national carry is a court that rules permitting a right is unconstitutional, yet I don't see SCOTUS who works more with the feds instead of being a check on feds doing that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    That was one of the principle original functions of the national government...make sure the various states got along. It would be much easier if the Supreme Court of the US would just state the 2A meant what it says...then it would be fine, there would be no nanny permits, anywhere...but that is not our reality so we need to have the states get along. They don't have any problems with other states automobile drivers licenses, and driving a very deadly (more deadly than any firearm) vehicle is not a "right" it is a privilage.
    I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

    When you say something like, "one of the principle original functions of the natural government was to make sure the various states got along," it suspiciously sounds like statists invoking the Commerce Clause to justify any and all federal action. The Founders actually intended the states to be much more independent than they are today. In fact, "United States" was once spelled "united States" on official documents. The Constitution only applies to the federal government, not the states (even though some provisions have been wrongly incorporated to the states by SCOTUS, we should not adopt the tactics of our enemies and twist the document's original meaning). The Founders would be aghast to see a national bill dealing with criminal law, which is the sole province of the states under the Constitution.

    Also, I am not sure where some people get the idea that driving is a privilege, as opposed to falling under the general human right of liberty, which necessarily includes the right to travel.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    -9th Amendment
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •