Ammunition
![[Children aiming sticks as guns, lined up against a brick building, Washington, D.C.?] (LOC) by The Library of Congress](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2178387761_e6e63fb095.jpg)
Daley frequently decries the toll of handgun violence and contends federal government does too little to address the issue for fear of the powerful gun lobby. He echoed that theme today.
"We've turned our backs on common sense gun laws in America and we continuously, unfortunately, continue shooting each other on a daily basis," Daley said. "This is one issue where Americans must come together in regards to common sense gun laws."
He added, "You would think there would be a wake-up call in America. But we're silent. We're not doing anything."
The Supreme Court nearly two years ago overturned a gun registration law in Washington D.C. that effectively banned handgun ownership there. Justices determined the 2nd Amendment did apply to handguns kept for self defense.
The D.C. law was much like what is known as Chicago’s “handgun ban,” which is a 1982 city ordinance that barred registration of additional handguns but allowed residents who already had those weapons to keep them.
The June 2008 ruling applied only to D.C., which is under federal jurisdiction. Chicago, like other cities with bans, falls under the jurisdiction of state government, and arguments Tuesday will focus on whether the handgun ban ruling should extend to other states and municipalities.
Many legal experts say Chicago is fighting an uphill battle. The nation’s top court has typically determined that the Bill of Rights applies to states and municipalities — not just the federal government. A decision is expected in June.
If Chicago’s law is overturned, that won’t be the end of the debate. In the D.C case, justices did not close the door on all gun regulation, and D.C. later enacted a law requiring gun owners to go through five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and undergo criminal background checks every six years.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Next election is 2011. He’ll be voted back in for the seventh time. If I were Mr. McDonald, I would have moved out the second the ban was passed. He has noone to blame but himself. Court can’t help him. King Kong’s got nothing on Daley. Now it’s too late to move, noone will buy his house. who wants to live in a crime infested area. Mr. McDonald should hire armed bodyguards as Daley does.
Reply
February 25th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
shut the Freak up dam bible thumping brainwashed loosers
Reply
February 25th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Everyone has their opinion on this site but there is already intentitons to disarm the public (citizens). The police have turned on the citizens and their oath sworn to god. What a world. Is one of you out there with law encorcement people in your associations or family that dont get it happen to be part of the problem.
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 1:34 am
A PIG THAT REFUSES TO EAT JEWS?
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 3:02 am
This fellow Chicagoan is on my level , The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed any longer… get someeeeee
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 6:54 am
Cool SITE if your on a quest for knowledge
http://freeviewdocumentaries.com
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Give em hell Grandpa!!!
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Don’t mean to get off subject.
My last YOUTUBE channel was shut down,censored,BANNED!
So now I have a new one,all of you are welcome to check it out,
and feel free to give any advice you want!
This channel is for YOU it’s YOURS!
Updated Daily,New Vids coming…
We’ve recently got over 100 clips uploaded,full movies
news clips,relevent posts.
Help us help others,stop by and give it a look,if
you like it,tell others.If you don’t,tell us.
THANK YOU Double A
Help get the info out there any way you can,thanx!
http://www.youtube.com/user/KilltheNWOnow
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The issue is not at all about law.it is about satan’s control of the system and man’s lack of understanding of reality and god’s will
Learn how to protect your family when Martial Law is declared. Check out the free Martial Law Survival e-course @ http://MartialLawSurvival.info
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
SATIRE: Damn I love gun laws. I can break into anyones house, rob, murder and rape. Why? Because I like it and the law abiding citizen (PAYDAY) is not allowed to have a gun, this is great. I can just do a home invasion with no fear or worries. I can come in kill the dog, hold your family hostage, rape the women in the house at my leisure and make off with the loot. Why worry about the police they will not show up until later when and if your able to finally call them…that’s if I don’t pop off in my drug induced drunken rage and kill the whole family. I will just use a kitchen knive so not to alert the neighbors, then later watch my handy work on the local news. LOL. I will not attempt any criminal activity on Mayor Daley….hell he has armed guards around him and my chances at being sucessful in my endevour and career would then be at great risk. I and my friends commit so many murder/robberies in the cities that 50% of the murders we do are never solved. I can do anything I want with odds like that!!!! THANK YOU MAYOR DALEY and A WARM MENTION OF MAYOR BLOOMBERG OF NYC. I will be visiting NYC soon…more easy pickins.
Reply
February 26th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
try moving you weak little racist…
Reply
February 27th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“But we need not give them (Congress) power to abolish our (state government’s) militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use… I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them.” – George Mason
“Suppose, then, that congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence.. It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections.. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt.. there would be an inherent right in the states to do it.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution.
“Congress has, moreover, power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia… The objects of this clause of the constitution.. were thought to be dangerous to the state governments… all room for doubt.. seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments to the constitution (Second Amendment) .. the power of arming the militia.. is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government.” – Tucker’s Blackstone.
Reply
February 27th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Hey Mayor Daley
I would much rather live in the old west than live in your hometown, you slimy old f*ck.
Reply
February 28th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Are they debating the wording of an amendment to secure a personal right to possess arms, unconnected to a militia, for “traditional purposes” such as “hunting?”
———————————————-
Amendment II
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749–52, 766–67
[17 Aug.]
The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”
Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.
Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, “upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.”
Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, “No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.”
Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
Mr. Stone inquired what the words “religiously scrupulous” had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
Mr. Benson moved to have the words “but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms,” struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative–22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, “a well regulated militia, trained to arms;” in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
Mr. Gerry’s motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: “A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority.” This being seconded.
Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
[20 Aug.]
Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, “No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms.
Reply
February 28th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Thomas Jefferson.
Letter To Dr. Joseph Priestley; Washington, June 19, 1802.
“I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand.”
Reply
February 28th, 2010 at 11:20 am
The Second Amendment supercedes all laws concerning gun control. It is defensive in nature and does not promote using guns in crime.
If someone uses guns to willfully harm or take advantage of someone, we have a Justice System and a Trial by Jury.
Don’t ban guns. It’s unConstitutional and unAmerican. Instead we need to focus on prosecuting crime.
Reply
Posted in Gun Holsters | No Comments »
