Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

That’s all nice and said, but the fact remains that we do have a constitution, which the State of Illinois
accepted and our elected officials swear to protect it. Until they change the constitution then we must all
abide to what it says, for it is law. I don’t want to sound mean to you, but if you are so ready for the
government to take your rights away as an American citizen, then try to move to China, or some communist
country, I am sure you could get a full spectrum of communism to enjoy their. As far as changing the
constitution to ban automatic weapons, or any other weapon would only hurt the law bidding citizen, my proof
lies with the fact that the government couldn’t stop liquor, drugs, violent crimes in America. Stop taking
the rights of law bidding citizens away, and go after the real criminals.

On 1/15/08, v wrote:
> On 1/15/08, -- wrote:
>> On 1/15/08, v wrote:
>>> What country do they hail from
> that they need interpreters to to
> interpret the English writen
>>> constitution of the United States
> of America???
>>> It wasen't writen in latin, if it
> were, we could probly put all this
> interpretation behind us.
>>> Now i know why i failed english so
> many times, i didn't have an
> interpreter. Damn!!!!!!
>>
>> No its not you -- it is difficult
> in any language to write a document
> that will withstand all time.
>> When the Constitution was written
> it was written by representatives of
> the various states. They
>> realized that there was strength in
> union of the states but they also
> feared a centralized government.
>> The Constitution was written to
> achieve the strength of a union and
> the freedom of the individual states
>> to govern themselves and their own
> citizens.
>>
>> The second Amendment was included
> to prevent the federal government
> from prohibiting the states from
>> maintaining armed and well
> regulated militias. In a kingdom,
> like England at that time, there was
> only
>> the right of the King to maintain
> an army. The "framers" of the
> Constitution did not want the federal
>> government to become a king with
> the exclusive right to maintain an
> armed militia. In effect, the 2nd
>> Amendment gave gun control to the
> individual states. Each state would
> have the right to determine how
>> it would allow its citizens to bear
> arms and the federal government was
> prohibited from interfering with
>> the state's right to do so. (Some
> states actually required gun
> ownership and others simply allowed
> or
>> encouraged it) The theory
> apparently was that each state would
> be like a separate finger on a hand,
>> capable of independent existence
> and movement but if some outside
> force threatened the union of states
>> they would all come together like a
> strong fist. The "framers" did not
> see a strong federal standing
>> army as a good idea.
>>
>> Now, 250 years later there are
> automatic weapons capable of firing
> hundreds of rounds of ammunition in
>> seconds. There are firearms that
> the "framers" could not possibly have
> contemplated. However, in the
>> ongoing wisdom of the document they
> created, rather than the federal
> government stepping in and banning
>> all firearms nation wide, the 2nd
> Amendment still allows individual
> states to determine what
>> restrictions they want to place on
> their own citizens. Surface to air
> missiles fully automatic weapons
>> and other implements of mass
> destruction beyond the scope of a
> state militia (only the federal
>> government may declare war a state
> militia can not) are banned by the
> federal government but each state
>> is still free to allow weapons
> within the guidelines of maintaining
> a well regulated militia.
>>
>> So here is where we are: The 2nd
> Amendment allows states the right to
> permit their citizens to possess
>> firearms but does not require that
> states to do so. The 2nd Amendment
> confers a right on states but
>> that right is not conferred on
> individual citizens. Under the 2nd
> Amendment it is up to the states how
>> they want to control firearms and
> the federal government can't
> interfere.
>>
>> Here is the basic difference on how
> the Constitution is applied: The
> right of free speech is an
>> individual right guaranteed to all
> citizens by the first Amendment; In
> contrast, the 2nd Amendment is
>> a "state" right conferred on a
> state government but not on
> individual citizens.
>>
>>
> I don't care how they read it, as
> long as they understand what their
> reedin.
> Could be their reading it in Indeia.
> Cuz it ain't Indiana!
>
> Until the Supreme Court reads the 2nd
> Amendment the way you want them to,
> states have authority over gun
>> control within their borders. FOID
> is a lawful exercise of the power
> conferred on states by the
>> Constitution.