Reed Bible calls concealed Carry Resolution in Will County Illinois racial

Mr. Bible strongly against Concealed Carry says there are Racial overtones, and no impact on the residents of Will County Illinois with this resolution. He said it sets a bad precedent for future Boards, forgetting a similar Resolution passed 27 to 1 in November 2008. He says this Resolution is pandering to weapon manufacturing companies, […]

Mr. Bible strongly against Concealed Carry says there are Racial overtones, and no impact on the residents of Will County Illinois with this resolution. He said it sets a bad precedent for future Boards, forgetting a similar Resolution passed 27 to 1 in November 2008. He says this Resolution is pandering to weapon manufacturing companies, and people with an anti-government sentiment. He goes on to ignore Article 7 section 1 of the Illinois Constitution which says “The State Militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by Law . His argument has no merit, but you should take the time to listen.

Author: Editor

See all posts by Editor (430)

3 comments until now

  • He’s as full of crap as Police Superintendent McCarthy. It’s the Cook County gun laws that has “racial overtones”. Notice that most of the young dead people of Chicago are those of color.

    By Sharon Russell March 17, 2013 @ 1:23 am
  • Mr.Bible needs to find a new county to live in.Better yet Mr.Bible needs to find a new country to live in.maybe Russia or china.Or better yet move to Chicago for awhile and kiss Emanuals -ss.Then when your finished there. On your way out of the country take Emanul,Quin,Bloomberg,Obama,,Biden,Rice,Holder,Finstein,Clinton’s,And any other person that has communist thoughts with you.I have faith in the patriots of this country.We will prevail .We have a country to fight for.And we still believe “In God We Trust”.

    By Johnny March 17, 2013 @ 1:32 am
  • Why Did Reed Bible Get It So Wrong? Reed Bible stated the Second Amendment protects only Militias, not an individuals rights to own firearms in common usage, citing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cruikshank. To anyone who has read the Second Amendment, or read any of the debates concerning the Second Amendment, it is clear that the Second Amendment was intended to protect individual’s personal rights to own firearms. So why did the U.S. Supreme court rule in 1876 that the Second Amendment was only to protect a States collective right to own firearms for use in a State’s militia and later the State’s National Guard? To be sure, the reasoning was entirely flawed as show by the 2008 Heller decision upsetting this 132 years of precedent. To understand why the U.S. Supreme Court earlier had reached this obviously flawed result, one has to go back to the history books and to the year 1873.
    In the reconstruction era after the Civil War, the South was in turmoil with the former slaves being given the right to vote. With that right, Republican were getting elected, replacing the former slavery backing incumbents throughout the South. In Colfax Parish, Louisiana, 150 African Americans gathered together to decide on a collective course of action to defend themselves against the terrorism by the white citizens and the terrorism from the precursors of what later was named the Klu Klux Klan. The point of contention was the contested election where the Republicans claimed they won the election, and the local government claimed the incumbents won. Violence broke out, and instances of violence against the African Americans were common.
    In response to the violence against their community, the African Americans decided to meet to agree on a collect action for their self defense. To insure their rights to assemble, the African Americans armed themselves with a few shotguns, old muskets, and a dozen Enfield rifles. Whites, angry at the electoral successes of the African Americans, armed themselves with more and better rifles and a cannon, and assembled in opposition to the African Americans. The whites fired on the blacks from hundreds of yards away. The African Americans, with their shorter ranged weapons, were forced to retreat into a stable where they were quickly surrounded. The whites set the stable on fire. The African Americans , out gunned, and in a no win scenario, agreed to surrender to the whites. The African Americans laid down their firearms, and exited the burning stable with their hands in the air carrying a while flag of surrender
    The whites accepted their surrender, and after making sure all were accounted for and disarmed, systematically executed the group of African Americans on the spot. Most survivors of the initial massacre were hunted down and brutally killed. Lawlessness and violence reigned for several days. The Federal troops eventually arrived and restored order, finding over 100 African Americans dead. Federal authorities were able to identify the leaders of the massacre and they were eventually arrested and prosecuted in the Federal Courts.
    Like modern day Federal prosecutions for violation of civil rights, the 1873 Federal government prosecuted the white leaders of the massacre under the notion that it was a crime deprive a persons of his civil rights. At the time, it was widely accepted that one of the civil rights that were so protected was the right to possess firearms. Those prosecutions ended up in front of the all white U.S. Supreme Court dominated by pre-Civil War nominations. In the political context of reconstruction politics that were dividing the U.S., the Democrat-appointee majority of Supreme Court desired the U.S. to move forward and put the Civil War behind it. To do so, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cruikshank decision made up the convoluted reasoning that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual’s right to own firearms ignoring the well accepted notion that all the Bill of Rights protected individuals rights, including the Second Amendment right to own firearms.
    The aftermath of that wrongly reasoned decision resulted in over a 100 years of terrorism directed at the African Americans, and over a half century of unconstitutional gun control unfettered by the protections of the Second Amendment. On June 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller put right the obvious error of the Cruikshank case, and restored the obvious intent of our founding fathers concerning the individual rights protected under the Second Amendment.

    By Edward Ronkowski March 17, 2013 @ 2:16 am

Leave a Reply

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *