Come on Reverend Father, why don't you both strap 'em on, and start working on getting folks to abide by all of the litigation that has been established to outlaw acts of violence.

You see, that legislation is in effect, gun control legislation too.

The funny thing is that these race-baiting con artists are still treated as respected leaders by the Chicago newsmedia.

What's stupid about it? Picketing and boycotting are both ways of publicizing one's opposition to something. These people oppose gun sales. So they're picketing and setting up boycotts. Sorry, but not understanding that is what's stupid.

And WTF does any of this have to do with race-baiting or the Constitution? Man are those dumb comments. Especially the Constitution comment - just because something is permitted, or even protected, by the Constitution doesn't mean it's right. Does my belief that the First Amendment protects the individual right to free non-violent expression mean I'm a Nazi, etc., etc.. Think - just a little bit - please.

The "Constitution comment" made by another commenter is far from "dumb."

Here's the deal. If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. Go through the process. The public has the ability to do that. Until it's amended, people will have the right to buy guns to defend themselves.

By the way, remember that even if the Constitution is someday amended to eliminate gun ownership, the criminals will STILL get their guns.

Yep, the crooks will still get their guns.

Meanwhile, Mayor Quimby will be passing laws to keep Apu from owning a gun. That will leave defense of the QuickeeMart up to Chief Wiggum. Do you really want that to happen?

And WTF does any of this have to do with race-baiting or the Constitution?

The reason that this involves the Constitution is because the SCOTUS ruled on an Amendment, in this case the Second Amendment.

You may not know this, but there is no legislation that forces people to buy guns. It is a personal choice.

Many people believe that those who direct their attention to protesting guns (inanimate objects, not living beings) should instead direct their attention to the people (animate objects, living beings) who use guns with which to commit crimes.

Murder and other violent crimes have already been outlawed, thus the use of a firearm in such events has already been outlawed too.

By definition, people who kill people are breaking the law, and there is no reason to believe that they are selective about what laws that they obey, such as any laws involving the possession of guns.

There is nothing that is prohibited by law that cannot be obtained for a price. If one wants to “outlaw” guns, then one must also figure out a way of banishing them from the planet. One of the things that the more restrictive gun laws have accomplished is to drive up the price of guns.

Let’s fantasize that one day there is success in outlawing the private ownership of all firearms in the US, Canada (and magically) even Mexico. What would be done to prevent firearms from being smuggled in from other places? Gunrunning would become extremely profitable if gun possession is made illegal on the continent. I am sure that the organized crime elements of every nation would love to see an attempt to create such an absolute gun ban, because they know that such a ban would be impossible to implement.

When thinking about repealing the Second Amendment in favor of outlawing the private ownership of guns, one should consider restricting civilian police from possessing firearms too. Thus, that would allow for just the military to possess firearms. In fact, perhaps it would be a good idea to let the military police us, and leave the civilian police to such matters as directing traffic. Some would consider that as constituting a police state, but it is a good way for a prohibition of the private ownership of firearms to begin to be enforced.

That’s right, declare martial law permanently. That will stick it to the NRA pretty good. Ted Nugent would never be able to sit down again.

Aside from all of that, Reverend Jesse and Father Mike have opened themselves up to ridicule because they know that they cannot do anything about the individuals responsible for committing almost all of the violent crime in Cook County, so they do such things as run around picketing gun manufacturers in Lake Barrington, IL. instead.

I personally am pro choice across the board, and believe that the Constitution is a package deal.

We need our guns so that, in the event of a tyrannical regime, we will be able to defend ourselves against their stealth bombers, flame throwers, cruise missiles, m-16s and tanks with our good ol' Smith & Wesson's--Rambo style!

I do not know about that, but I do know that some people whose apartments are in certain parts of Illinois, such as certain parts of Cook County, are concerned about having to defend themselves in the event that somebody breaks into their home.

Many times people do not think about the law abiding people who are forced, for whatever reason, to live in areas infested with violent crime. I have heard some of those law abiding people testify that they believe that self-defense is their only defense, because they believe that they cannot count on the police or government officials to resolve the problems affecting their community.

Let me break it down a little: the First Amendment protects the individual right to (unpopular) personal expression. Scalia's opinion says that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have certain types of ready-to-fire weapons in the home (in DC, which is federal enclave - it's not at all clear the 2nd Amendment can/will be incorporated against the States).

It's not unconstitutional for people to protest against speech they don't like. In fact, people protesting against things they don't like *are exercising their First Amendment rights*.

Similarly, people protesting against the sale and possession of handguns in their communities are not violating, or advocating the violation of, the Constitution. They are expressing a point of view as private citizens. Imagine that what I just wrote is in all caps so that it is clearer to you.

Also, all individual Constitutional rights are subject to one form or another of regulation for the public good, including whatever the Heller right ends up being.

The main reason this has nothing to do with the Constitution is because Jesse Jackson is not the State of Illinois, or the Governor, or a Federal agent, etc., etc., he is a private citizen.

If I have to break it down any simpler than this I'm gonna have to come down there and knock some heads together like coconuts (which is protected hyperbolic speech I might add! :-) )

Also, no one who hasn't actually read Heller is allowed to make smarmy comments, new rule, no takebacks.

More than anyone, the uppity black folk you speak of need handguns in their home. They get good jobs and take care of their family while remaining in their neighborhood Their reward? Other blacks resenting their success, claiming they are "acting white", and making them a target for various criminal acts.

If they can legally own a gun, welcome to a level playing field criminals! A few news stories titled "Home Invader Shot in Face by Resident" can be a strong deterrent. Because if you think for petty criminals going to jail is, you're wrong.

Besides, many do-gooder anti-gun people are simply white people afraid of black people arming themselves. These do-gooders don't want an autonomous black population, they want a black population dependent on them to declare how horrible they have it and how sorry they feel for them.

I'm pro-right to bear arms and think this is one of the most ridiculous things someone could say. Sadly I've seen this from the gun nut crowd before: "gun laws are racist!" Usually said by somebody who spends a good part of the rest of their time complaining about black people...lol.