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

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 30, 2012

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nmen-Kill-1-Wound-5-in-Rushs-Chicago-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/...-in-gresham-shooting-20120329,0,4943899.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."

oldbanger · Mar 30, 2012

(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

Ruby · Mar 30, 2012

oldbanger said:
(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?!?:banghead:

Ruby · Mar 30, 2012

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.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 31, 2012

Ruby said:
I would think a bill like this would usurp states rights to regulate things within their borders.

Like HR 822?

Ruby · Mar 31, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
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!

j4l · Mar 31, 2012

You gotta wonder if one of Obama's hypothetical kids would have looked anything like one of these shooters...

sidestreet · Mar 31, 2012

+1,000...,

j4l said:
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.

hermannr · Mar 31, 2012

Ruby said:
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.

cloudcroft · Mar 31, 2012

Should we have (another) moment of public silence for this "senseless tragedy?"

Firedawg314 · Apr 1, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nmen-Kill-1-Wound-5-in-Rushs-Chicago-District

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-in-gresham-shooting-20120329,0,4943899.story

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.

OC for ME · Apr 2, 2012

hermannr said:
<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.

jbone · Apr 2, 2012

j4l said:
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 I’d be hard pressed to find this story airing on along side a hoodies for Trayon story in MSNBC.

ManInBlack · Apr 2, 2012

Ruby said:
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?!?:banghead:

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).

PrayingForWar · Apr 2, 2012

oldbanger said:
(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.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 5, 2012

hermannr said:
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.

ManInBlack · Apr 5, 2012

hermannr said:
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

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

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

oldbanger

Regular Member

Ruby

Regular Member

Ruby

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Ruby

Regular Member

j4l

Regular Member

sidestreet

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran

Firedawg314

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

jbone

Regular Member

ManInBlack

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

ManInBlack

Regular Member