…it should be concerning to ALL Illinoisans that proponents of these laws are after the shield (constitutional rights) and the spear (guns) against tyranny. We must not give up the legislative fight and must resort to the third co-equal branch when two branches have failed in their constitutional duties. Expect this all to end up in the courts if ever enacted into law in Illinois.
Illinois State Representative
May 21, 2019
It’s not about your guns; it’s about your rights
[Sometimes it’s easy to get discouraged by the number of politicians who demand we give up our rights. It’s sometimes easy to believe we have few, if any, political allies in government.
It’s a relief to find that even in a repressive state like Illinois there are politicians who are fighting for our rights.—Joe]
And that’s the power of the media. their are a lot of pro-rights politicians. otherwise they would have out right banned firearms long ago. we just don’t get to hear from them.
Its not media, its a propaganda wing of the communist party.
OK, just keep in mind that we’re talking about legislation in response to crimes.
Say someone robs a bank and gets away with it because no one in the justice system is interested in prosecuting bank robbers. So some legislators get angry and pass an additional law against bank robbery. If the previous laws weren’t enough, if they’re not being enforced, what real good is another layer of laws?
Has justice been served by installing a new layer of laws, or is the legislature officially admitting that the previous laws did noting because they aren’t enforced? If the previous laws aren’t enforced then who or what is going to enforce the new laws?
What I’m hearing from such politicians is;
“Yo, Dog; we have your back! See? We’re “supporting the second amendment” by determining that it is insufficient. Yeah so; vote for us!”
The proof that they’ve declared the second amendment insufficient lies in their proposals for new laws. That proof is incontrovertible.
And why even broach the subject of the Illinois constitution, Article 1, Section 22, for whatever it means, if anything, has also been declared insufficient?
Dare I ask the tired old question; “With friends like this, who needs enemies?”
Studying the history of Christianity, we find the same, deadly disease at work. Faith in Jesus, it is said, is all you need for salvation from a sinful world. “But no!” say the Catholics, “you need Mary as an Intercessor, and all the saints, and above all you need to obey the pope, who stands in the place of (as vicar of) Christ!” Thus they’ve taken the monotheistic system, and the sacrifice of Christ, and replaced it with the old pantheon of “gods” of the Roman pagan system, slapping a ragged label of Christianity over it. So it is that the pretension of Christianity is used to combat the real thing, with the goal of ultimately exterminating it. So it is that the Protestants all at one time referred to the papacy as the anti-Christ.
The same tricks are at play in our own government. They’ll pretend to fight for liberty, but it’s only because they need some way to keep our support, or at least to keep us from tarring and feathering them, while true liberty slips farther and farther out of reach and out of mind. Like the pope, they expect us to look to them for “salvation”‘ and we almost always conform to that expectation. Liberty is eventually forgotten altogether because it’s been mischaracterized and misrepresented for so long.
To set the record straight then; the entirety of the incursions against the second amendment constitute a law enforcement issue, not a legislative one.
I submit therefore that any proposed legislation is a ruse in opposition to any real solutions.
Repeal the anti-constitutional laws? Yes, that’s fine as a legislative process, but repeals are still more of a distraction to any actual moves toward justice.
Chesney is working to stop the passage of unconstitutional laws. Not pass some new law.