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.
How would banning something these idiots obtain illegally in the first place accomplish anything? Ugh.
Since WHEN is it legal to campaign in churches?
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.”
Since WHEN is it legal to campaign in churches?
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.
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?
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
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
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!
I can't wait until Nov. I can't stand him much longer.
The RATS don't know what a Assualt weapon is.
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.
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
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
it seems, looking at the evidence, that Donks are allowed to campaign in churches.
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.
Didn't we go through all this sh*t once before?
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.