Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blagojevich Stumps For Assault Weapons Ban
CBS2CHICAGO ^ | 03-19-2006 | AP

Posted on 03/19/2006 1:10:39 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist

(AP) MAYWOOD, Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich is talking to friendly church audiences today about one of his campaign positions - a statewide ban on assault weapons.

Tuesday is Election Day.

Blagojevich is being challenged in the Democratic primary by Edwin Eisendrath, but the governor said the visits are not campaign stops.

Blagojevich spoke to reporters after delivering his standard campaign speech at Proviso Baptist Church in Maywood.

In the speech, the governor discussed being the son of working parents and said he wants to improve education and health care in Illinois.

He also urged worshippers to call their lawmakers to voice support for an assault weapons ban.

Blagojevich said he's just focusing on doing his job, and part of that is stumping for a ban.

He's set to speak to two Chicago churches this afternoon.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: assaultweapon; awb; bang; banglist; bradywatch; rkba
Typical Rat - as if an assault-weapons ban would have prevented those two girls from being shot.
1 posted on 03/19/2006 1:10:41 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

How would banning something these idiots obtain illegally in the first place accomplish anything? Ugh.


2 posted on 03/19/2006 1:12:48 PM PST by oolatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
He's set to speak to two Chicago churches this afternoon

Since WHEN is it legal to campaign in churches?

3 posted on 03/19/2006 1:13:38 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
In their efforts to secure freedom for future generations the founders of the United States strengthened its Constitution with two key Articles or Amendments as part of what is today popularly called the Bill of Rights. They were the First and Second Amendments as recorded below.

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

By inclusion of these amendments the drafters of the Constitution were recognizing the inevitable day when a federal government would attempt to establish itself as a despotic tyranny over the people it was intended to serve. They only questioned,

When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?

With the establishment of our rights to a free flow of information, peaceful assembly and private ownership of weapons of war the framers of the Constitution also gave consideration to the political structure of the United States and its geographic bounty to outline a broad strategy for the defense of freedom against the inevitability of an overarching and despotic federal government. That strategy is outlined in the following.

It may be safely received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretences so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have the better means of its information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

The great extent of the country is a further security. We have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power. And it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils. If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would have it in their power to make head with fresh forces. The advantage in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.

That it was the framers’ of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution intent that an armed citizenry serve as the last line in defense of freedom and democracy is further illustrated in the following.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Before moving on to the real subject of this paper let me first clarify the definition of militia at the time our republic was established for the benefit of those with poppycock ideas it consisted of some form of regulated body other than the common citizenry. The following encapsulates Thomas Jefferson’s definition of the militia. “Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia….The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

4 posted on 03/19/2006 1:16:56 PM PST by Cornpone (Remember 11 Sept 2001 -- This generation's Peal Harbor, its Alamo, its battleship Maine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
He's set to speak to two Chicago churches this afternoon

Since WHEN is it legal to campaign in churches?

It's a abridgement of the freedom of speech to prevent it.

5 posted on 03/19/2006 1:17:36 PM PST by IncPen (Torture should be safe, legal, and rare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
It's a abridgement of the freedom of speech to prevent it.

It is still illegal to do. The only reason he gets away with it is because he's a rat.

6 posted on 03/19/2006 1:21:00 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What about a ban on all those "deadly and evil SUV's"? They probably have killed more people than any "assault weapons". Same for swimming pools and 5 gal plastic buckets.

And by the way, just what IS an "assault weapon"? Does he mean select fire or full auto? Or does it just have to look nasty? You can get shot all day long with a bolt action or single shot hunting rifle. You'd be surprised how quickly you can load and fire a decent single shot rifle.

But, we've heard all of this before anyway haven't we?


7 posted on 03/19/2006 1:25:14 PM PST by garyhope (In vino veritas. Ars longa, vita brevis, too brevis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What a brave Democrat. Unless they're as solidly in the other camp as Bill and Hillary, they're usually afraid to go anywhere near a church less belief rub off on them.

Of course, when it's explained as a place where groups of voters gather and form a captive audience, the Dems get more interested.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F


8 posted on 03/19/2006 1:25:41 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
It's a abridgement of the freedom of speech to prevent it.

Tax laws restrict churches and tax-exempt charities from supporting political candidates. By allowing a candidate to speak, it is seen as support, which is illegal

9 posted on 03/19/2006 1:25:50 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So, what constitutes "arms?"

Well, that's pretty simple.

"The people" certainly have the right to arm themselves with whatever arms that the gubmint uses against the people.

Since Waco, that even includes armed tanks!

10 posted on 03/19/2006 1:29:34 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

I can't wait until Nov. I can't stand him much longer.


11 posted on 03/19/2006 1:34:39 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

The RATS don't know what a Assualt weapon is.


12 posted on 03/19/2006 1:34:47 PM PST by JOE43270 (JOE43270, God Bless America and All Who Have and Will Defend Her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

So he was the son of working parents. What in heck is that supposed to mean. I guess he was not the son of non-working parents. Seems like that is who the Democrats support the non-working welfare parents. Oh I forget they say they are for the working man and the middle class when they really mean the non working welfare class.


13 posted on 03/19/2006 1:36:28 PM PST by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
14 posted on 03/19/2006 1:38:00 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What a d*ckh*le this Blagojevich has turned out to be. Unbelievable how the good folks of Illinois keep electing crap such as this...SSZ


15 posted on 03/19/2006 1:38:04 PM PST by szweig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

What a d*ckh*le this Blagojevich has turned out to be. Unbelievable how the good folks of Illinois keep electing crap such as this...SSZ


16 posted on 03/19/2006 1:38:17 PM PST by szweig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

it seems, looking at the evidence, that Donks are allowed to campaign in churches.


17 posted on 03/19/2006 2:07:39 PM PST by King Prout (DOWN with the class-enemies at Google! LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE'S CUBE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Tax laws restrict churches and tax-exempt charities from supporting political candidates.

That's what I'm saying. Since when does the First Amendment take a back seat to the IRS.

It's BS, and free people shouldn't accept it.

18 posted on 03/19/2006 2:21:05 PM PST by IncPen (Torture should be safe, legal, and rare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
Can anyone tell me when the last time someone was illegally killed, or wounded by a legally owned "ugly gun", or as the no-nothings call it, an Assault Weapon.
I'll bet we can count on two hands the number of times it's happened in the history of the US.
That's right you limp-wristed lefty trolls, come up with examples of a legally owned weapon that you are speaking of, and tell all of us ignorant gun owners when the last time one of us used said weapon in the course of an illegal act.
Bet your lunch money you can't do it.
Now if you really want to stop the illegal use of these weapons, try arresting the people who don't own them legally, and putting them in prison, or executing them when they kill somebody with one. Stop trying to turn your political enemies into criminals.
Oh jeez, I'm sorry, we're dealing with liberals here. They would rather let the scum sucking little gang banging a$$hole go, because "he had no advantages growing up", but we're gonna go out and round up all those "ugly guns" 'cause it's their fault.
Seems to me I would have to have a lobotomy to reach the mental level of a liberal. It gives me a headache just to try and think like them.
19 posted on 03/19/2006 2:32:44 PM PST by rikkir (My goal this year: Push a Moonbat over the edge by increasing our majorities!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Didn't we go through all this sh*t once before?


20 posted on 03/19/2006 2:36:01 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Vote for Jim Oberweis for republican nominee on Tuesday, hes anti-gun control, and tough on immigration. Two issues which are extremely important in Illinois.

Off topic- The local elementary school I went to has recently turned into a English as a second language school. A school with 400 immigrants many illegal in the middle of Midwest suburbia, this problem isn't just southern border problem.
21 posted on 03/19/2006 2:36:36 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
No, campaigning in churches is Constitutional. If there are laws or regulations that restrict the practice, they are unconstitutional.

This wasn't "partisan" campaigning anyway. "Blag the Impaler" is not running for office ~ he just wants the people of Illinois to further disarm themselves so his friends in the Mob and assorted street gangs can expend their operations outside of Chicago.

22 posted on 03/19/2006 2:37:37 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

I'm surprised that church didn't erupt in flames.


23 posted on 03/19/2006 2:39:53 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Probably Unitarian Universalists -- "church lite"


24 posted on 03/19/2006 5:27:49 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

while i oppose the assualt weapons ban, it would likely not be declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS


25 posted on 03/19/2006 5:31:12 PM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Blagojevich must be taking advice from the libs in MD state government. They are constantly trying to push "assault weapons" ban bills through committee for a floor vote. Acording to a lot of elected MD libs, "assault weapons" are any firearm that can be fired in semi-automatic mode, including handguns. But hey, it's okay. The libs are just worried about my "safety". ;)


26 posted on 03/19/2006 5:47:50 PM PST by CountryBumpkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: szweig
Unbelievable how the good folks of Illinois keep electing crap such as this...

Whhen you consider what a disaster the Illinois Republican Party is, it makes a little more sense. Various crooks, losers and wife-pimps named Ryan, for one thing....

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

27 posted on 03/19/2006 8:07:36 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Even if it would have, it is STILL a violation of the RKBA spoken of in the 2nd amendment.


28 posted on 03/19/2006 9:51:00 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
It's BS, and free people shouldn't accept it

Never said I agree with it, now did I?

29 posted on 03/20/2006 5:02:29 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Typical Rat - as if an assault-weapons ban would have prevented those two girls from being shot.

He knows this. He was Sara Brady's floor leader when he was Chicago's Kongressjerk. The man is 100% committed to producing an American totalitarian state where only the police and military are armed. He also knows that this leads to things like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, but he sees these as good, because he pictures himself in charge with the disarmed peasants doing the bidding of his armed storm troopers. Yet the morons in Chicago vote for him. I guess to the majority of voters in IL, freedom is not very important.

30 posted on 03/20/2006 5:13:10 AM PST by from occupied ga (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen; Puppage; King Prout; muawiyah
It is perfectly legal for a church, or any other organization, to speak out for, or against, any candidate or party (with some exceptions). The first amendment preserves that right.

However, that organiztion may lose its tax exempt status if it participates in prohibited polictical activities. In other words, the donors to that organization would not be able to deduct those donations from their taxable income.

31 posted on 03/21/2006 3:04:51 PM PST by rmh47 (Go Kats! - Got Seven? [NRA Life Member])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson