Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Americans Support SCOTUS Verdict On Chicago Handgun Ban, Poll Finds

July 15, 2010 by  

Americans support SCOTUS verdict on Chicago handgun ban, poll findsAs Chicago authorities try to mitigate the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the city’s longstanding gun ban, a new poll has found that the American people tend to support the highest court’s decision in McDonald v Chicago.

A Rasmussen telephone survey conducted earlier this month found that 67 percent of respondents believe cities do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns. Only 24 percent hold the opposite view.

The poll also discovered that support for stricter gun control laws has declined to its lowest level in several years. Currently, only 35 percent of American adults say stricter gun control is necessary, while more than half (51 percent) disagree.

Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Alan Gottlieb, said that “we are witnessing a new revolution in which America is rejecting the demagoguery of gun banners like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.”

“Court rulings and the Constitution are on our side,” he added.

Gottlieb also affirmed that his organization will continue to fight for firearm freedoms until these liberties are fully secured.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19888255-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Americans Support SCOTUS Verdict On Chicago Handgun Ban, Poll Finds”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • DaveH

    If you agree, contact your Senators and stop Kagan:

    • Cribster

      Thanks for the links Dave.

    • airangel

      Also, here’s a link to help stop Harry Reid. He had done so much spending…no matter who goes against Reid and Pelosi…they have to go…Americans for Prosperity are fighting back… and get involved to get him booted!

      • Joe

        Please compare the spending practices of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney against the spending practices of Barack Obama and Harry Reid….Please get the facts before you making statements….Check the records yourself, .Vetted facts of History don’t lie….Radio, And TV Talk Show Hosts DO…Boy Do They


        • larry m.

          joe, check the facts??? nbc,cbs and abc??? the fox news channel has been predicting this ever since, obama was selected. in a year and a half obama has 4x, joe, 4x, the debt!!!!!!!!!! check the facts???

          • Marilyn

            A short comment: More US bucks have been spent on illegals than the cost of the Iraq war. Check it out. If Mexican illegals only were returned home, State budgets would be much healthier dollar wise.

        • Oags

          I don’t think that many people here would debate that Bush, Cheney Spent too much money.
          But if I’m not mistaken Obama as now spent more money that every other president in this country’s History Combined. I don’t know about you all but IMHO we haven’t had a good president in this country
          since Ronald Regan. My frustrations go back to Bill Clinton. We need someone to run this country that understands that government is the problem not the solution. Someone that is a fiscal conservative. Someone that isn’t going to give handouts to everyone. Someone that’s going to uphold the law under the constitution. Enough said.

        • Oags

          Let me ask you something?
          If Fox News is a bunch of liars then give me an example of where they lie?
          Please, I would like to hear it.
          If you follow Fox news on a regular basis you would know that all of the People on Fox
          Find all the audio and video and use their own words against them.
          I can watch Fox and then go on YOUTUBE and find the same video that I just saw them showing.
          I’m sorry, that’s pretty hard to dispute.
          For that matter look up some of the presidential advisers (AKA Czars) on Wikipedia. Do all these sources lie too? Tell me how many of the Czars Claim that they are self proclaimed communists?
          Look up Van Jones or John Holdren
          Van Jones according to Wikipedia says: “he declared himself a communist”.
          Mark Loyd Barack Obama’s new ‘chief diversity officer’ or ‘czar’ at the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC).
          From Wikipedia, it says: “he sees the role of the FCC as one of spearheading massive social and political change in America, modeled after Hugo Chavez in Venezuela”.
          Bill Ayers another quote from Wikipedia “I am a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist … [Laughs] Maybe I’m the last communist who is willing to admit it.

          Shall I continue?

          Didn’t Obama say during the campaign that you will know me by the people that I surround myself with?
          So you tell me? Who is lying here?

          • Jennie Walsh

            Glenn Beck destroyed Debra Medina’s campaign against Rick Perry! I will NEVER trust Glenn Beck! He is a very cunning and sly wolf in sheeps’ clothing. He gives out about 98% truth in order to gain the public’s trust. The 2% lies, spin, propaganda DOES MAJOR DAMAGE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE GROWN TO TRUST HIM! DO NOT TRUST GLENN BECK, SEAN HANNITY OR BILL O’REILLY! YOU WILL REGRET IT IF YOU DO! TAKE EVERYTHING THEY SAY WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!

  • DaveH
  • DaveH

    And then there’s the RINO John McCain:

  • Sutekh

    I find it amazing that we elect the self-proclaimed representatives of criminal classes to office, and then act surprised that they try to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Mr. Obama’s pal Bill Ayres is only one in such a long list of people who fit into the description “criminal class.”


    • Roy

      So true, and i don’t know of even one of obamas friends or aquaintances who is not a criminal. He said (after) he was elected, You’ll know who I am by those I place around me. He enjoyed saying that after ridiculing people for judging him by his friends during the campaign.

      • http://msn Phil

        “They shall be known by the company they keep”

    • larry m.

      setukh, and it gets worse!!! almost every person obama has appointed, has a criminal past, socialist, communist, marxist, and then just plain nutty, people!!! i guess, obama gets resumes from the federal prison, and terriost organizations!!

      • Jerry D

        Well, the folks that voted for him got change alright. However, his evil agenda, coupled with the Republicans’ do nothing agenda has pretty well pushed this country to the brink. If we don’t get this thing turned around soon, you can kiss the Great Republic goodbye.

  • David Z. Eunice

    You want to know why politicians want tighter gun controls look at the courthouse: The reason is clear… to protect those lying attorneys who turn politician and are afraid of the people objects to the laws they make; and the way they enforce the laws they want to enforce and fail to enforce the laws however they see fit.

    I remember when you could go into any courthouse in America and not have to go through a pat down search to do it. Why do the Judges deserve any stricter special privileges or extra protection. Why do they need it. Oh, I known… they claim there are bombers out there attracting public buildings and they want to keep the public safe… then lets put the security at Wal-Marts:) We don’t have to worry about the well paid attorneys and judges shopping there…so of course we are saver at Wal-Mart. Where is the hazard… you guest it… where the lawyers are. Get their arrogant fannies out of politics and maybe, just maybe we’d get good old “uneducated” or “different” people like Harry Truman, or Davey Crockett back in congress.

    Another reason is the other Corruption in government: Please visit this site and see what I mean. The Attorney General of Florida claims it is illegal for him to do anything. Down with Bill McColumn who is standing in the way of Justice, and his side kick Charlie who is not Christ or savior for Florida… he should be known as Charlie H. instead of Crist. Now let’s get the H out of here.

    • Christin

      I think there are extra precautions with Judges at court houses because criminals have come back and to get revenge for being sentenced to prison for THEIR OWN crime… instead of recognizing they broke the law and taking responsibility.
      … if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime… (unless you’re a politician, well then right now apparently you are above the law, but that’s got to end.)

      • Ruby

        I believe security was tightened up more after 9/11.

    • eddie47d

      David Eunice. You article was alittle strange and it’s almost like you’d want a judge to be shot at. I’m not sure if you should own a weapon. Angry people like you might be a poster child for gun control. Unhappy husbands and wives have gone into courthouses to seek revenge on someone to blame. What about gang members or someone who looses a lawsuit?

      • 45caliber

        I don’t want judges or anyone else shot at. I just don’t like it when they insist they deserve better protection than I do.

      • vicki

        In the wild wild west EVERYONE in the courtroom likely or did have a gun. That is security. Shooting up a courtroom is a new concept enabled by it being a “gun free” zone.

  • Gabriel

    Why not ban drunk drivers. After all they are responsible for a much larger number of deaths every year.

    • CJ

      Careful what you wish for. The approach these jacka*** take, they’ll ban CARS. They think you can’t hold people accountable. BTW, I doubt there’s ever been a criminal who intended do armed robery, then changed their mind when they saw a “no guns allowed” sign.

      • 45caliber

        Personally I’d like to see all the anti-gun people like eddie be forced to place a sign in their front yards: “NO GUNS ALLOWED HERE”. Then I’d like to make a study about two years later to see if these people had more or less crime than the rest of us did.

        • vicki
        • http://?? Joe H.

          Don’t suggest that!! I’d be too tempted to add one that said “Mr. crook no guns here feel free to rob and plunder.” at edduh’s!!!

    • Dean

      Drunk driving- there’s another case of government trying to play the nannay and regulate where none is necessary, soley to “protect” us. The current limit in my state, Michigan .08%- that amount is attainable on just 1 (ONE) beer. And there are already laws that regard reckless driving. Penalties should be based on performance. If you’re swerving, or if you kill someone there are already penalties. The people killing people while drunk aren’t runninga t .08%. they are smashed drunk, not having had one beer. ITs an excuse to get us ready for the police state and harassment. Leave it to individual responsibility!

      • 45caliber

        Back before the Alaskan Pipeline, it was illegal to drive drunk in Alaska. First offence, $1000 fine and lose license for a year. Second offence, $10,000 fine and lose license for your life. DWI without a license – ten years in jail.

        No one drove drunk. Drunks might stagger out of a bar but then they’d go back and call a taxi.

        The unions complained when the pipers went up to install the Alaskan Pipeline and the Feds leaned on Alaska. It wasn’t fair, they said, for Alaska to have that kind of law when none of the other states did. So Alaska changed their laws.

        Now they have as many drunks as anyone else does out driving.

        • Jerry D

          That’s the typical result when the Federal Government meddles with state law. Remember, with those in federal office, it’s all about the power, not about taking care of the people.

      • vicki

        Much like the idiot law banning the use of cell phones while driving. There is already a law that forbids driving while distracted. Just a waste of taxpayer money to make a law to cover a problem that is already covered by a law.

        • http://msn Phil

          Is talking on your phone while driving worth a manslaughter charge, and having to live with the memory of having killed a loved one?
          eXCELLENT SIGN ON REAR OF A CAR WITH NO BACK END: “Custom by a blonde ditz using a cell phone” seen in Phoenix AZ. Wake-up, grow up and realize you have a responsibility to the lives of others

    • eddie47d

      A few states are pushing for that.

    • James

      Gabriel, every State has laws that ban drunk driving. The reason such laws aren’t effective is because breaking them is usually just a misdemeanor. If driving drunk was made a capital offense, it would end the practice.

  • Jim C

    So glad on this finding. This will set back the Socialist Clock.

  • Doug Reiber

    Nothing ticks off a liberal more than losing the ability to control others which gun control does. It controls law abiding individuals that is. A liberal also believes that if he can control others through gun restrictions this makes him or her powerful and gives them a rush. Kind of like the tingly leg that moron on CNN got when Barry was elected. You have to pity such individuals and wonder if more advanced birth control for their parents, which liberals all support, could have alleviated their pain and suffering. Alas we will never know.

    • Bob B

      You mean moron, Chris Matthews at MSNBC, not CNN.

      • Doug Reiber

        My bad you are right MSNBC

    • Dan

      This quote says it best:

      When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

      By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

      • Christin

        That is good. I like that a lot. Thanks for sharing.
        A gun says don’t mess with me… I’m serious.

        Gun laws are to keep the patriotic freedom loving American citizens in bondage, but the criminals will find guns underground and see us as an easy target unable to defend ourselves… just like the government wants it.

        • Jerry D

          True, Christin. It’s an old, worn-out adage, but still true that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Well, except for law enforcement and Obama’s brown shirts.

    • eddie47d

      Doug, Societies and individuals have a right to defend themselves. We are also a society that is awash in guns and have plenty of gun rights. Unless we live in a lonely mountain cabin or an isolated farm house then we are not nations unto ourselves. As long as other people live in your community there will be laws governing the use of guns,weapons,bombs,stun guns or whatever. You say others want to control your right to carry a gun and maybe that’s true. There are also people with guns who want to control you. Folks with guns abuse the power they have all the time(A small number). Those with guns who threaten,bully,or intimidate with that weapon to gain something is wrong. Most gun owners understand that,but there a few who don’t. Such as pulling out a weapon in a road rage incident,or on a census worker or judge or even a neighbor who threatens you for retrieving a ball from his yard. A weapon is for self defense not for empowering yourself over others.Thus we have gun laws in cities and states to govern bad behavior.

      • vicki

        So why do the “gun laws” forbid me the right to posses a gun to defend myself against the people you talk about. I see that they pay no attention to the law.

        Now if you had meant to say that laws punishing the mis-use of guns then I would agree and those laws have been around for hundreds of years but the “gun control laws” like Chicago do not punish mis-use. They forbid ownership and or possession thus violating both pieces of the 2nd (keep AND bear)

    • 45caliber

      There are three rules of Takeover of the US by the American Communist Party (now the Democrat Party).

      1) Destroy the ruggedness of the American people by concentrating their attention on spectator sports and sex.

      2) Take control of the news media and use it to prevent people from knowing what is going on in their legislative halls and to tear down the image of any natural leader the people would like to follow.

      3) Disarm the population via gun control.

      Seems like they have the first two and are working hard on the third, doesn’t it?

      • CW

        I agree with you on the three rules of take over in the U.S. I believe you probably forgot one though – the 4th step would be the rescinding of the military draft – which as everyone knows has been accomplished already. If they would re-instate the draft you would really see the citizens watching government with a microscope. When there is a chance their loved ones may have to go to war and risk life and limb, they would be the government watchdogs! Thus the abolition of the draft – government is free to do anything they please without people really knowing about it, or for that matter caring about it.

      • Jerry D

        Absolutely right.



  • James H Macklin

    Big city politicians like “gun control” because it cements their over the people.
    The first city to adopt the modern gun control laws was New York City, a law written by a Tim Sullivan. This law required a license to own or carry a handgun in the city. It was advertised as “crime control.” However Tim Sullivan was a leader of the Five Points gang. He was elected intimidation and voter fraud. He wrote the law so that a politician had the final say on whether or not a license was issued.
    Of course members of the Five Points gang had no trouble getting a license and rival gang members could not get a license.
    Chicago follows the same pattern, aldermen on the Chicago City Council are exempt from the city gun law and state law against carrying concealed weapons.
    Al Capone is smiling.
    Crime in Chicago is rampant because the gangsters have the guns and the victims don’t.

    • Christin

      Puke to the exemptions (politicians)… American LAWS should apply to ALL.
      No One should be above the law.

      • 45caliber

        All anti-gun people I know are armed or have guards (which I still consider being armed). Senator Feinstein carries. She was asked if she was going to give up her gun when she got them banned. She said, “I can’t do that! There are people out there who hate me! I have the right to protect myself!”

        But the rest of us don’t.

        • Jerry D

          She’s a typical liberal demagogue: the rules apply only to the general population, not to the elite.

      • larry m.

        do you think, if obama or any elected official was ever, ever convicted, of any crime, they would spend even one minute in jail??? really?? richard nixon, comitted a dangerous crime against america and its people!!! should been locked up, for at least 10years. never happen!!! obama has craped all over the constitution, freedom of speach, gun rights, governs against the people, (treason)?? extortion, on and on!!! and he will go out and right a (good) book, and retire with all the benifits the u.s.a. can possibly give!!!

  • http://yahoo scooter orsburn

    As long as George Soros can buy People like Diane Feinstein , Mike Bloomburg , Chuck Schumer , Etc Etc we are going to have problems in this country with these Subversives trying to dis-arm America,….PERIOD !

  • Bruce Dunavin

    The only way to stop this stupidity in Congress is to vote out all the incumbents come November. Put some honest and ethical conservative minded folks in office and then hold them accountable. It is also absolutely necessary to impose term limits on office holders. Our task is to vote not based on how much money a candidate has but their message. And that message should be from a conservative platform. Powerful special interest groups are out there who will spend a lot of money to keep getting their candidates elected. We need to be smart enough to get around that. This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. They are both complicit in the destruction of this country. Both sides have sold their votes to special interests at the expense of America. Vote ‘em out; let’s start over and take our country back!

    • 45caliber

      About fifteen years ago New Jersey passed a law banning all semi-automatic weapons. They estimated that there were about 300,000 in the state.

      Just over 500 were turned in.

      The next election had the biggest turnover of legislative members in the history of the US. The first thing they did was repeal the law.

      I have great hopes that Congress will surpass that record this fall.

  • Gordon Wayne

    Very well spoken by all blogs. Especially David Eunice. We must retire all the punks we have been feeding for their life time.It is time to throw out all the lawyers, give them two terms, one in office and one in jail. Gentlemen and ladies, lets start at the top and work down! Gordon

    • 45caliber

      I like your idea of two terms for them. And most there would fit it.

      • Jerry D

        Two terms for senator, four to five for representatives -no more.

    • 45caliber

      Incidently, research the 13th Amendment.

      There was one that appeared to be passed about 1814 that banned all lawyers from holding legislative or executive offices because “their profession made them part of the judicial branch”. Further, it banned anyone from receiving “honors” while in office.

      It sort of disappeared during the Cival War and became something else.

      I’d like to see it resurrected.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        too bad it isn’t still there. Obummer would have had to have been a runner up for the Nobel!!! A million down the tubes!!! I would still be laughing!!!

      • Jerry D

        Absolutely! But, good luck getting a bunch of lawyers to vote the foxes out of the henhouse.

  • John

    We the people are suing the great state of Arizona for enforcing the law. Do we voters not have some say in this? Can an administration led by Obama spend our tax money to break the law of the land? Should not a price be paid for this reckless spending while at the same time breaking the state’s laws? This is just one example of this dictator’s efforts to punish voters as he is doing to Louisiana by a moratorium which will devastate our economy as well as increasing the debt of the U.S. government and getting closer to bankruptcy.

    Call your representatives who are supposed to represent us and complain.

    • Jerry D

      Have frequently done so. Seems to fall on deaf ears when the senator or representative is a Democrat or progressive Republican.

  • Norman

    Vote out the incumbents. Vote for non-lawyers who will uphold the constitution.Lawyers and banks are killing our freedoms.Let’s all try to get by without banks.

    • independant thinker

      Blindly voting out all incumbents is just as stupid as blindly voting democrat because you always have or blindly voting republican because you always have.

      Rather examine each candidate and vote for the one who best represents your position. Many incumbents do need to go but a few (very few) deserve another term for representing their districts wishes.

      • vicki

        They deserve another term ONLY if they HONOR their oath to support and defend the Constitution. There is only ONE who even comes close to doing that. Ron Paul. Vote the rest including that RINO in Mass right on out.

    • 45caliber

      When our country was founded, it was forbidden to have a national bank. All banks were privately owned and required to keep enough gold or similar in the bank to cover all notes, etc.

      The bank owners discovered that they could sell their gold for a lot of money in Europe. When the customers found out, they entered the banks and demanded their money back – in gold. A lot of banks folded.

      FDR “saved” them by making it illegal for citizens to own gold. He also turned the bank system over to the Federal Reserve – and turned ownership of it over to four families, including his own.

      All families have sold out to the Rothchilds in the Netherlands.

      So all our currency is owned and managed by the Rothchilds in another country. That’s why Ron Paul wants to audit the FR. He believes – probably correctly – that the FR is printing more money than authorized and keeping it for trading themselves. But the FR is very much against it. Check how your Congressman feels about it.

      • Jerry D

        45caliber, don’t confuse folks with the facts.

  • Edward Koziol

    As Scooter says as long as George Soros can buy a politician we’re in trouble.Why would the American people want to protect themselves maybe it’s because the police can’t do it.It’s not that the police are inept it’s because there isn’t enough of them.You take those adds for home alarms by the time help arrives it’s to late like our borders we let the invaders in and then the top monkey Holder and the baboon Napalitano say we can’t enforce our laws.So my suggestion is a firearm in every household will reduce crime.

    • s c

      When it’s not possible to tell the difference between Holder and Napolitano and two criminals, it’s time to step back, take a hard look and stock up on whatever it takes to defend yourself. When
      like-minded Nazis are in positions of authority, it’s just a matter of time until the system breaks down and only Old West or 18th century-style justice can resolve the problem. Remember, the American people didn’t create this problem. Our “leaders” did.

    • 45caliber

      As said in humor: “When you need help within seconds, the police are only minutes away.”

      Police are NOT meant for protection and there are judical rulings to that affect. They are to find and arrest criminals AFTER a crime has been committed.

      As I like to say, I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy to carry.


    Most Americans support the Second Amendment, even if they do not own firearms. They know instinctively that law enforcement people cannot always respond to 911 calls.

    Americans with any significant knowledge of world history know that despotism has been the rule, not the exception. They know that the only sure way to limit the power of government in its many forms is with an armed populace. If there were no guns, government officials and politicians would become fearless despots and dictators for whom nothing is unthinkable.

    During World War II, the Nazis did not try to conquer Switzerland because almost all Swiss men have been required to learn to use guns and have been on call for military service at any time. Reminders of this are found in “The Sound of Music”. Baron Von Trapp, an earlier war hero, had no intention of serving the Nazis. His private life was interrupted often when Nazi messengers delivered messages from the government. There are the scenes when the Trapp family sings in the Salzburg Festival. Their car is packed and ready to hit the road. However, when they find out that all of the roads are blocked, Maria Von Trapp, who spent part of her youth in the mountains, led her new family through the mountains to freedom in Switzerland. The Trapp family immigrated to the USA and became American citizens.

    Diane Davis

    • eddie47d

      I love the Sound of Music and not to demean your post but Vonn Trapp family did not climb over the mountain on foot. Years ago the family in Vermont was interviewed and they said they went straight to the train station and rode the train into Switzerland. The film producers thought the escape through the beautiful mountains would be a better ending. It’s still a classic movie.

      • 45caliber

        And the end was the same.

      • vicki

        Shows the Von Trapp family were smart enough to move BEFORE it was too late.

        • Jerry D

          Too bad the average American doesn’t practice the same intelligence.

      • vicki

        Also an excellent point about “drama” The reason Hollywood’s wild wild west is so violent is the true wild west was just too quiet and boring.

    • 45caliber

      Some years ago, one tribe in Rodesia got control of the government and filled the army with tribal members. The army then would visit the various villages of the other tribes in the country and shoot all of them.

      Finally the victims were able to get some guns and shoot back.

      I saw a letter from someone who insisted that civilian ownership of all guns should be forbidden. “There would never have been a war in Rodesia if the civilians hadn’t gotten guns.”

      He was right. They would all have been unarmed victims instead. But since it was the government shooting them, it was okay.

  • Nighttrain

    The second amendment was adopted for two primary reasons:
    1. Self defense and protection
    2. Defense against a totalitarian government.
    Diane Davis was right in her citation of the Sound of Music and the Von Trapp family experience. The Nazi’s stayed out of Switzerland, not just because Switzerland was a neutral country, but because their citizens were well armed and trained.

    • independant thinker

      I have heard a story (don’t know if it is true) that a German General was talking to a Swiss General just before WW II and asked “you have a millian man army what would you do if I invaded with a 3 million man army”. The Swiss general answered “we would each fire three times then go home”. The point being the Swiss were so well trained that each would kill three of the Germans and the fight would be over.

      • 45caliber

        All males in Switzerland are required to report to the military when they are 18. After training they go home WITH THEIR WEAPON. They are required to go practice shooting at regular intervals until they are 56. At that time they are out of the military – but may keep their weapon if they wish for the rest of their lives. Many women today do the same. They have many shooting ranges and all ammo is free. They also have the most people of anywhere engaged in shooting matches every weekend somewhere.

        And they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

  • jay

    This administration and it’s leader are just the tip of the iceberg. Mr. “Prez” is a smooth talking Trojan Horse in an expensive suit. Hidden inside are those who truly believe that if we’d just “live the way THEY want us to” that the ills of the world will be cured. Oh – and THEY get to remain in power for as long as THEY like and will pass along the power to THEIR croney’group in perpetual fashion – of course. High Taxes, Feed the “poor”, Save the Whales, BAN THE GUNS (the root of all evil), Keep your head down and shut your mouth ’cause WE know what’s best. Get out and VOTE – people! If you’re tired of being sheared – STOP being a sheep!

    • 45caliber

      You are right. And all revolt comes from the middle class. So if the taxes are high, you don’t have a middle class.

      They actually have the idea that everything would be lovely if they are in power and control everything. But generally all such groups quickly succumb to the power and begin to retain it by whatever means is necessary (shooting everyone who disagrees with them). That is basically what happened in both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

  • Steve


    In times such as these, we need only to look at world history. The ancient civilizations of Persia and Greece come to mind. One might consider the history of the British or Roman Empires; Napoleonic France or Spain; also the dynasties of the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, along with the Egyptian Pharos, or the Mayans and Aztecs. All of these republics, empires and dynasties have fallen upon the dust heap of history. Do these once great societies have any meaning in our present day? Oh yes! Big time!

    The study of these civilizations was the basis and foundation for our Constitutional Republic. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and all our founding fathers studied how these civilizations emerged, evolved and eventually failed. Our founders answered these rises and collapses of past civilizations with the Great American Experiment; The Constitution of the United States of America; our map for continuing success.

    Our grand document is based on the creation, evolvement and failure of every civilization in history. It was conceived through the wisdom of all the grand thinkers in world history. (Thinkers and philosophers who knew that their history would be important to some future civilization and they were intelligent enough to write it down or carve it in stone) Our Constitution is a document written to preserve individual liberty and to organize a union of separate states, into a Federal Union; The United States of America.

    Why do we now fail our Constitution? Why don’t we teach more of it in public and private schools? Why do politicians and judges say it’s outdated? The reality is that we are at the crossroads between the success or failure of our Constitutional Republic. This Great Document needs to be honored and cherished dearly.

    Our Congress; the Senate and House of Representatives, is now failing us by passing legislation that they do not read before they vote on it’s passage. Our President is failing our country by signing this unread legislation into law. We might call this a failure of their Oath of Office. Or we might call it a failure of our national identity. Either way, we can not continue to exist as a nation under these failures in government.

    Ancient Rome is a prime example. Senators of the Roman Republic sat in their Coliseum seats, along with the Roman Emperors. They watched as slaves fought gladiators and cheered for blood. They watched as Christians were eaten by lions while the minions screamed for more blood. Those Senators allowed the decline of the Roman Republic by their lack of concern, accession and decadence. Eventually, their appeasements to the Caesars contributed to the decline of the Republic and the Empire. All was lost as hoards of barbarians over-ran a militarily-over-extended, over-taxed, Roman Empire.

    That barbarism was unmatched until the 20th century, when Marxist/Socialist/Communism overtook Russia and Eastern Europe, culminating in the deaths of 50 million human beings. All of them murdered and starved by a mentally ill, psychotic-paranoid, Joseph Stalin; along with his secret police.

    Adolph Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. Joseph Stalin murdered 50 million of his own Soviet people. The German people were compliant with Hitler and the Soviets with Stalin. They followed those leaders to their graves. The Roman Senators were compliant with the Caesars. Rome fell, as all great civilizations did in time. None of those civilizations had a living Constitution: a map for success throughout the ages. Our nation has one and it’s high time our Congress and our President start abiding by it.

    The failure to follow our Founding Fathers’ map has lead America down the wrong road; to the crossroads we find ourselves looking upon. A “fundamental change in America”, we do not need. What we do need, is to return to a “foundation based on our Constitution”. We should command the respect due to us and their Oath of Office, from all our elected officials in city, county, state and federal government. Only that respect to their Constitutional Oaths and to the People, will save this country from the dust heap of history. We, as a free Nation, still have the right to demand that of our elected representatives. This is the duty and the responsibility of every citizen in a Constitutional Republic. Demand it! Vote for it! Pass it on to everyone!!

    If you are an American Patriot, then please, remember this on November 2, 2010. VOTE !

    God’s Speed America!

    • Christin

      Not only does our Congress NOT read the bills they vote on THEY DON”T WRITE ALL OF THEM either… some are written by outside groups…
      NOW that’s got to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why are THEY and WE allowing that???????????????? Congress is the only governing body that is suppose to make laws.

      • 45caliber

        NONE of the bills Oblama has proposed, such as the Oblamacare program, are written by him. I’m not even sure if they are read by him prior to voting either.

      • vicki

        Remeber each one of us go there once a day and send an email on just 1 campaign. When we all do it and get at least 2 friends to do it (boy that is hard here in Calif :) and we can make a difference.

        Look how close we came to an audit of the fed

        IF we all had sent in a letter each day the vote might have gone the other way. And still can. The need to audit has not gone away.

    • diondonne

      Steve, I Agree with your disertation except for the “Living Constitution” part. Ours is a Constitution written in stone. The failed governments of history had living changing rules of men which was to their demise. Ours are rule of law not men.
      The liberals coined the living constitution statement so they could twist and turn it to their own desires.

      • 45caliber

        The Ten Commandments were written in stone … and look at how the lawyers twist them. In fact, that is why Jesus came; the Jewish lawyers had twisted the Ten Commandments so much that no one had a chance to obey enough to get to heaven.

        • http://naver samurai

          Yes. It was called living and dying to the law!

  • Stacy

    the second amendment is our guarranty of liberty and independence. it is what keeps our gubmint in check.

    call your non-representing representatives and tell them to vote for the bill that requires them “to make no law” that excludes them. every law must apply to them as well as the people. remind them they are SERVANTS of the people.

    start electing statesmen and not politicians. push for term limits. and dont forget NULLIFICATION!

  • 13mogul

    This “victory” was a 5-4 vote, hardly an overwhelming act of Constitutional faith; and along comes Kagan…….be afraid.

    • 45caliber

      Luckily she is replacing someone just as bad as she is. What I’m afraid of is that one of the conservative SC members dies or leaves so Oblama can appoint a liberal to take his place.

  • JC

    Keep in mind folks that while this is a victory for Liberty there is one more very important point to cover. The reason we hold gun rights absolute is the protection of property. ALL Property.
    If our “Property Rights” were enshrined we would set back the Socialist by a millenia.
    And when the Socialist try and help you define property as being a vague concept, remind them that the very first piece of property any of us ever owned was the vehicle we were given by our creator…
    our own bodies.
    Anything we have worked and paid for and anything we ourselves have created…is all property.
    And you have the right to defend it from “anybody”.

    • 45caliber

      You sell your life (in hours) to an employer to be able to acquire the money you need for whatever you buy. So if someone steals from you, he is taking part of your life.

      Is his life worth more than your life does? I don’t think so.

      • vicki

        That would be rent not sell :)

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Do you get those hours back later?? does the employer only use them for a “little while”? You SELL them

          • Vicki

            When you rent an apartment or a car or a tool you obtain use of that for a period of time. It is still called “rent” even though you never get those hours back.

      • JC

        I see it as selling a service, skill or talent for compensation in what should be an equitable trade.

  • 173rd Airborne Infantry

    November will test whether or not our voting system has been compromised. “it’s who counts the votes.”-Josef Stalin

    I think it was Admiral Yamamoto who put it very well, when planning to invade the American mainland, we will find, “A gun behind every blade of grass.”

    The only part of the “economy” that’s been stimulated is gold, guns, ammo and emergency food supplies.

    • 45caliber

      Change of subject: I was 173rd too in Nam. Company B, 503rd, 2nd Platoon. How about you?

  • MEG

    Well said Steve … all I can say is ditto!

  • mavis

    I saw and heard the man who brought the suit and he said
    that he had been burglarized several times and he had no way to protect himself and the law enforcement had not done much about it. The victim had no gun but the burglars did, they did not obey the law as usual. any one with just a little grey matter would see the wrong
    of this. Law abiding people with guns are a deterent to

  • 45caliber

    As 173rd said, it is who counts the votes.

    Did anyone consider how easily it is to change a computer’s programming?

    There was a mistake made on some computer voting machines here in the last election. The vote manager said he was shocked and dismayed at how the programmer could so quickly and easily change the vote to what it should be – considering that it could be as easy to change it to whatever the programmer wanted it to be.

    • vicki

      Many of us who program or know anything at all about it have protested for YEARS the move to all electronic voting and the ease of which such a system can “loose” or “change” votes. That is why most of us want paper ballots so there is a real paper trail.

      • Claire

        Paper can also be shredded or destroyed without anyone knowing it. I don’t think there is safety/security in any type of voting scenario.

  • Patricia

    I think I understand why Daly wants a ban on guns in the heartland of political corruption. After all- aren’t the crooks the only people who should be allowed to bear arms???? I haven’t heard too many good things recently about Chicago— Blago, home to Obamas, Rahm, Tony. Rev Wright, Axelrod, Jarrett—- the list goes on. Guess they have to protect themselves from the common people who by the way are LAW_ABIDING. Preserve our rights to bear arms and protect ourselves from this band of merry thieves and crooks.

    • 45caliber

      They aren’t worried about criminals with guns; they are worried about private citizens with guns that might object to what they would like to do with the government.

      • Claire

        45caliber–You are correct in what you posted. They are probably afraid the decent citizens will “take out” a few criminals.

  • Gray Ryder

    I fail to understand the anti-gun concern as to the right to own and bear arms as so stipulated in the Constitution, which is defined in Law as the “PLAIN MEANING RULE”. Webster defines ” Own “, as ” to have or hold as property; belonging to one’s self”. Also, as to “Bear”, in part, ” to carry, “to be equipped with, to move while supporting to have possession or control thereof”. Therefore, as it is written, then it shall be.

    The political play on words to benefit their certain wants is not in keeping with their “OATH and/or AFFIRMTION to the office to which their were elected. Thereby, in my humbled opinion, is bordering on “MALFEASANCE of OFFICE.

    I invite any anti gun individual, Chicago’s Mayor Daley or any other individual supporting anti gun ownership and/or conceal carry, to take an unannounced evening strole, without the 24/7 tax payer police escort, on any street in Chicago, East St. Louis and Cairo Illinois.

    Also, if Illinois is not in need of conceal carry for its citizens. Why has Mayor Daley made special arrangements for all of the elected city officals to be privileged to carry conceal weapons ????????????
    Why are the lives of the elected individuals, of Chicago and Cook County, more important than the citizens of Illinois ?

  • http://gmail i41

    You forgot another liberal gun ownership hater from Chicago, Hillary Clinton. All of these smucks are socialist marxist democrats. How the heck any person with even a 1/4 of a brain, could vote for a democrat. Democrats are totally brain dead and everyone is for total government controlling everything in life. If you disagree give me one example of a non socialist bent democrat, we are all waiting for any example!

    • Marilyn

      There are no examples. When Socialists were running for the Presidency, they were awe struck when they found out that the Democrats had the same platform/agenda that they had, so, they stopped running to keep the votes coming in for the Democratic President. Now, the thing is the “Congress.” When the Republican and Democrat Congress is equal, that keeps things running rather smoothly. But the Democrat Congress that we have now out-number the Republican Congress so we have~~~Socialism. I’m glad to see some of the Democratic Congressmen waking up to Obama’s agenda which appears to be a little more than Socialism. But, let’s not be fooled. All the seated Congressmen want to be re-elected so they will put on a good show to make us think they know what they are doing – for the all mighty vote in the Novembers. They know we voters can un-seat them and replace them.

  • mike gunter


  • Marilyn

    Mayor Daley has been a pain in the zook for many years. He continually ignors people’s choice and ram rods his wants. Chicago has an enormous crime rate. Why? Damn right, the guns are in the wrong hands. Thugs wll always have guns, law or no law. Decent people attacked by thugs need to defend themselves! Daley sure as the devil isn’t going to stop sipping his soup and go after the criminals. Once the dirty deed is done, families totally destroyed, you cannot bring them back to life. But if they had firearms in their homes, they at least have a chance to protect their lives. It may mean taking a criminals life but as I have learned, defense is the best. I keep forgetting that Chicago built this beautiful jail for the criminals. Have you ever seen it? It is like a Hilton Hotel. Which side of the law is Daley on? As for Ms. Clinton, she can go milk her cows.

  • Patriot1776

    Let me start by saying that I agree that Owning a fire arm is a fumdamental human right. However all of you who think this Supreme Court ruling will not come back to bite us in the ass are fooling yourselves.ever heard of the incorporation doctrine?
    When the Bill of Rights was first ratified it ONLY applied to the Federal Government.Why? because the States wanted to make sure they stayed free and indepenent States with the soverign right to decide matters for themselves. Then came the fourteenth amendment in 1868 which didnt change this understanding. Not until 62 years later did the Supreme Court dream up the idea that the Bill of Rights could be used against the States. Also known as the incorporation doctrine.This is an entirely FALSE doctrine and it dissolves our States rights almost completely. Take The first amendment for example.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

    Does it say “congress shall make no law”? Or does it say “Neither Congress nor the States shall make no law”
    This along with many other ammendments were incorporated to apply to the States over the 20th century. So why is this a bad thing you might ask? Because this doctrine has transferred your States power to protect your rights and given the final say so to nine Federal judges in black robes. Since several Amendments of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated what has happened? Decisions about limits on police power, searches, confessions, free speech and prayer in school, topless dancing, Ten Commandments displays, abortion, vagrancy laws, and the death penalty all were taken out of the hands of state lawmakers and judges and turned over to the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. How has that worked out so far?
    Now that the Supreme court has incorporated the 2nd amendment Guess what will happen? they will use it’s language against us, and our fundamental right to protect ourselves. Some future court will say “the 2nd amendment clearly states; ‘a well regulated militia being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’, means simply the militia, or national guard, are the only ones with the right to keep and bear arms” then they may say “however there is a fundemental right to protect your self so… you can have a gun but no larger than a .22 caliber. This is sufficient for self defense”
    Can’t you see that happening? And when your State stands up and says “Wait a minute. our citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. We will not tolerate this ruling” The Supreme court will be able to say “Sorry we incorporated that one remember? And you liked it then, and you have no say so now, so sit down and shut up” Mark my words this will be the catalyst by which your guns will be confiscated.

  • http://none Dave

    The police are only able to investigate a crime after it has happened. They do not even want to get involved in crime protection because it is dangerous and it may not be absolutly determinable who is the criminal and who is the victim. This caution has been made a permanent part of police training. It is obvious that the police cannot, and will, not attempt to protect citizens via crime prevention. What other choice do people have than to arm themselves to protect their families as best as they can. Ask that question of a policeman and he will become wordless, but many will suggest you get a gun and learn how to use it properly. Because the police cannot protect you The police have lost the battle of Chicago. Who is it that told them not to do their jobs? Who would do such a thing other than a union seeking additional payments for union officials and the union members seeking more money and benefits while doing less and less on the job. The entire city of Chicago should be ashamed of what they gave away to organized crime and gang violence. I doubt that there is anyone in Chicago government who has the courage to face voters and tell them the truth. They should buy guns and learn how to use them to protect themselve in the event of a potentially violent sitation. so, I now have guns in my house and have a permit to carry firearms al because of a government who beliebves its citizenry should not have means of protection

  • http://internetexplorer Dusty

    I firmly believe in the 3 G’s! GOD, GUN’S and GUT’S. The 3 G’s are what’s kept America free and hopefully, will continue to do so. We need to get rid of our current government and replace them all with honest, God fearing men and women who are not afraid to do the job right and do what’s necessary.

  • http://internetexplorer Dusty

    I am also a firm believer in gun ownership. I not only have a permit to carry, I also own a number of different handgun’s. All of which I know how to use.


    People like Daley and Bloomberg have a common denominator, tyranny of the masses and control of the majority by intimidation, Daley likes to show off his superiority by denying the laws available to the ordinary citizen and so he and his cronies make up new law to circumvent and deny the majority their choices. Bloomberg is doing much the same with food products and the ever growing controversey of the unpalatable mosque being to close to ground Zero. His refusal to identify the source of the monies for this mosque and his denial of the identity of the America hating imam who is pushing for the mosque mean only one thing, Bloomberg and his cronies are on the take.

    Politicians all, have a common weakness and they will if allowed fall prey and misuse their office and instead of a public servant we have a public nusaince in the office and then a blind bullie.

  • FulghumInk

    “Court rulings and the Constitution are on our side.” -Alan Gottlieb

    It is my view that this statement should be revised to more accurately declare, “The Constitution is on our side.” The day may come when our own citizens may have to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution says and the intents and purposes of our Founders as well. With incoming justices like Kagan the pagan-and others-it may well be that one day our citizens are faced with justices who are activists as they seek to advance the political and social goals of their own debased reasoning rather than simply protecting and defending the law of the land as is intended by our Founding Fathers. (Note: The caps are from deep love and respect for our Founders)

    As America seems to be rediscovering the freedoms promulgated by our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and much more, it is incumbent upon our citizens to be as or even more well informed as those who would presume to “rule” us in order to keep “government by the people” live and well.

    In short, it is the Constitution that is antithetical to those justices who would vote against what it says. It is the Constitution that rules, NOT those who are against it, including but not limited to local, state, or federal authoritarian illegitimates like Daley and Bloomberg-one a DemonRat, the other a RepubliRat.

  • James A Graham

    An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

    Anatomy of a Failing Presidency

    Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

    But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

    But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?

    No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us. He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

    But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task–all contributory of course. It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

    In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

    Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

    Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

    Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

    “When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

    “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus

    “A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” – Unknown

  • http://Marilyn Myklaz

    Marilyn you are correct in saying that State budgets would be healthier if Mexican illegals were returned home.

    However when it was thought that there was 12,000000 illegals here the US Government claimed that it would be too costly and impossible to locate, round up and send them back home. Now there is much more.
    It is simple and cost free to get those illegals back to Mexico.

    Set a date, lets say September 1st, 2010 is the last day that these illegals will get their free Food stamps, free housing paid for, free medical, free chidrens’ education with school meals paid for and
    the end to dipping into our Social Security and unemployment checks.

    With all these FREEBEES stopping they will send themselves back home.
    There will a rush at the border. No hunting no shipping costs Billions of dollars can be directed back to Americans, our States and our government.

  • http://guncontrol Eileen Barayasarra

    When I was 66, a 24 year old Mexican gang member who looked like Mike Tyson ran in my back door. He was high on meth and running from police. Fortunately, I had a pistol handy. He left in the ambulance and I did not. It took 3 policemen 15 minutes to subdue him in my garage. His own daddy told me at the courthouse that his son would have killed me if I had not been armed. I am so glad I live in Idaho, not Chicago! I am still here and still armed at the age of 71. I pity the fool who tries to tell me to give up my guns!

  • thomas keim

    why does the political people in texas cary guns and go through gun control .people have the right to defend them selves and people cary them in church too bad people are everywhere look at the shooter in the work place just happened if the rest of the people there had guns the shooter wouldnt have killed and shot that many people he would have been shot as soon as he droped one person

  • Mike Cassidy

    You people are WACK jobs, anyone read at least two versions of the news,
    I understand that the NRA is so disapointed in Obama because he HASN’T made a move on gun ownership. Of course you are the ones who are listening to the crap from Bob Livingston.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.