The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added
Congressional candidate Mark Pera has this to say about an incumbent “Democratic” Congressman who, it turns out, is apparently anti-Bill of Rights:
On Aug. 5, before he left Washington D.C. for vacation, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski gave President Bush and former-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez permission to run the domestic wiretapping program without judicial oversight.
A Congressman who is aware of the troubles befalling our nation should know by now that this Administration won’t just let the wiretapping program gather dust. We can be sure that sometime during the next six months, President Bush will exercise the power given to him by Congress.
It is shocking to see such blind trust from “Democrats” like Lipinski who willy-nilly throw away Congress’ own power in deference to a President who has routinely demonstrated to the American people and to Congress that he cannot be trusted.
In my experience as Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, I requested wiretaps and I respected the protocol involved in the process, of going to a judge and having a third party sign off on the request. It never impeded my ability to do my job.
It is particularly troubling that Lipinski again capitulated to Bush’s and other Republicans’ blatant use of concerns about terrorism in presenting the proposal. By bucking the Democratic Party and voting with the Republicans, Lipinski has again withered in the face of fear mongering.
This whole issue brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin once said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
What makes Lipinski’s vote that much more egregious is it granted expanded powers to the former Attorney General, someone who has lost credibility with even the staunchest Republicans. The Gonzalez resignation is another reminder that we, the critics of this Administration’s rampant disregard for our Constitutional system, must remain vigilant against a “unitary executive.”
“Must remain vigilant” indeed.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm
dwlawson
Vigilant and armed to the teeth.
August 29, 2007 at 10:41 pm
robnesvacil
Armed to the teeth for when Alberto Gonzales comes pounding on your door because you support being armed to the teeth for no better reason than just in case Alberto Gonzales comes pounding on your door?!?
August 30, 2007 at 8:24 am
c-rockforfreedom
Well Rob,
you pervert the 2nd, and the 1st on this blog, by calling for gun bans, supporting politicans who gun ban,
and editing your fellow Illinoisans posts on here.
So why does the 4th even matter to you?
August 30, 2007 at 8:44 am
robnesvacil
C-Rock, the very fact you are posting here puts the lie to your whining about the 1st Amendment. Besides, I’ve offered several times to help you start your own blog if you want. It’s easy. You just go to a site like wordpress.com or blogspot.com and sign up.
As for any “perversion” (what most people call “responsible oversight”), you just said in another thread that you were in favor of common sense laws — make up your mind.
August 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm
c-rockforfreedom
you moderate my posts. That is against the 1st for sure dude.
I like reading your posts Rob. Especally since your the only anti-gun grabber in the area that posts such. The main news sites do it, but your local.
So why not combat your lies on the 2nd?
Why not show your failed ideas wont work?
August 30, 2007 at 6:49 pm
robnesvacil
Dang you’re whiney this week C-Rock.
I’ve deleted well over 200 spam posts just this week. Does that mean I’m “anti-1A” because I delete robospam about #$%^ and (%*@ and +!*%& from this blog?
As for your own moderated status, you’ve proven yourself to be incapable of thinking before you type — and you’ve posted enough slurs to earn yourself the moderation. If I wanted you banned you would’ve been cut off a while ago.
Being responsible for administering a blog doesn’t make one against the first amendment. That’s laughable (and pitiful that you can’t even recognize that).
You want to slur people’s good names? You are quite free to do it all you like, elsewhere.
August 31, 2007 at 12:02 am
dwlawson
I’ve edited one of the admittedly few responses on my blog because the person attacked Rosie personally.
I agonized about doing so for a bit. However, I finally came to the conclusion that I needed to do it.
1. I did not place the blog there to provide people with a forum to propagate hate.
2. I do not have to abide by the First Amendment as I’m a private individual, not a government agency.
Regarding your response to my “armed to the teeth” comment. Clever! I left myself open to that one.
Seriously though, I have several reasons to own firearms.
1. History…my initial re-introduction to firearms grew from my love of history which led me to purchase a kit to build a single shot Kentucky Bounty muzzle loaded pistol (banned in Chicago, btw…guess it could be used in a drive by)
2. Target shooting…in order to get more practice shooting (can’t shoot black powder on most indoor ranges and it gets cold in the winter here) I purchased a .22 Ruger Mark III target pistol (also banned in Chicago).
3. History again…someone got me hooked on Military Surplus rifles (milsurp) and I now own 2 WWII era rifles (not banned!!!). These are .308 calibre high powered sniper rifles capable, with training, of hitting a man-sized target at 600 yards no problem…yet not banned–unlike the single shot muzzle loader that can’t hit a school at 20 yards.
4. Target shooting…turns out it is too expensive to bang away with the .308’s enough to get good so I had to buy a Ruger 10-22 .22 cal target rifle (banned in Chicago).
5. History again…turns out CAS (Cowboy Action Shooting) looks like a hellava good time. Problem is you need 4 guns…1 shotgun (bought it—legal in Chicago) 1 rifle (legal as well, but not bought yet), and 2 single action revolves (oops, there’s that Chicago ban again…not bought yet as well.)
6. Self Defense…so I’m not real paranoid but decided to keep a shotgun (5 host max to be allowed in Chicago) at home for defense. I am out of town alot on business and it wasn’t fun to have my wife call because 3 men tried to break in and the police never showed despite calling 9-1-1.
So reading alot of history and deciding to learn about the weapons of the founding era led to my realization that things are way outta whack in IL.
Now every time they say they wanna ban something I get the itch to stock up. I’d buy a .50 BMG if I had 6 grand laying around.
August 31, 2007 at 3:13 am
robnesvacil
Al Capone got an itch to stock up on booze during the Prohibition…. hmmm….
As for C-Rock being moderated and a very select few of his most extreme posts being edited (those being the posts in which he used slurs) I could lose a few fingers on one hand and still use what’s left to count the number of such edited posts. After his third strike, he was placed under moderation. Compared to the number of posts he has written here (second only to my own comments), it’s clear that no one’s impeding C-Rock’s right to gab incessantly.
Like your “We Are the Militia” blog, DW, this site is not designed to be a place for hate nor the furtherance of any slurs associated with hate. (Indeed, though you and C-Rock may disagree with many of my positions, a portion of this site’s usefulness is in shining a light on hatred and calling it out for what it is.)
That said, C-Rock is also known for linking to a YouTube vid or two in his posts — a habit which often gets his comments snagged by the automatic spam filter. Those comments then get approved manually when they’re noticed.
August 31, 2007 at 10:49 am
dwlawson
“Al Capone got an itch to stock up on booze during the Prohibition…. hmmm….”
I beg to differ. Al Capone got an itch to capitalize on the illegal market for booze. He defended his illegal market with violence (St. Valentine’s Day massacre for instance, major impetus for NFA 1934). Until Prohibition he was a punk who had to content himself with shaking down businesses for protection money.
Prohibition is the epitome of nanny-state restriction of personal sovereignty in the name of “a good cause” that resulted in the creation of well-funded violent criminal organizations and black market product distribution networks that set the stage for our current “drug war” and probably accounts for the majority of violent crime in the US.
But hey, let’s not learn our lesson but compound the problem by banning guns. Now criminals can get rich trafficking guns and drugs.
In case you are tempted to point to “bans” such as on Nuclear materials, those are poor examples as there is little real demand and the supply is very strictly controlled. Items like booze, drugs, and guns have a huge demand and are next to impossible to strictly control.
September 1, 2007 at 12:36 am
c-rockforfreedom
Rob believes that government can control society in some “noble” way D.
Others like you and me think otherwise.
D,
You have some nice guns. I always wanted a Mark II. The 10-22 is a hoot too.
A 308 is needed in the city, I give you that. Even a bolt is good enough if you have race riots like secondcity cop is talking about. Something like that would keep the buy guys away if they have a riot.
I had someone ask mewas a good idea for the city. I told them a .223 bolt action, with a 1-4X power scope would be best. Even throw a red dot on that puppy. Or a 308 would be the same protection from your rooftops.
Rob is more lucky, he lives out here in the burbs. He can depend on his fellow gunowners out here to keep the peace.
But a .223 in a city enviroment would work on keeping the peace. Most shots would be within 100 rds if they riot. I would have a shotgun for backup. I would learn to shoot slugs, or low recoil ones.
But with all the bans, what do you do?
Dont get me wrong, the city has its guns. Chicago loves them. Look at NYE. ITs a war zone in some neighborhoods.
September 1, 2007 at 11:53 am
robnesvacil
Wrong, C-Rock. I believe what our Founding Fathers believed — we are a nation of laws. Period.
Those laws are intended to benefit the general welfare of society. Period.
Read our Constitution — it’s right there in ink on paper.
DW complains that Chicago and other cities and states that have gun bans are somehow anti-2A, yet he listed off the guns he keeps in his home (legally) because he is in fact still allowed to keep guns in his home.
That is precisely the point I’ve been trying to make all along — you can still keep firearms, but for the general welfare of society at large some weapons are banned. Again, pouring more gas on a fire (allowing more and more guns into society) will never put a fire out.
September 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm
dwlawson
Rob,
The problem is there isn’t really any logical sense behind which guns are allowed and which are not. All of the evidence indicates that there is no relationship between gun ownership and crime.
Guns like the .50 BMG are banned despite the fact that they are not crime guns. The 1994 Federal AWB and mag capacity ban had NO measurable effect on crime.
By preventing me and other law-abiding residents from owning defensive handguns, the City of Chicago is hampering my ability to protect myself, my loved ones, and members of my community.
Here is a letter to the editor I sent to the Sun-Times. I doubt they’ll print it but who knows:
In the Sun-Times article ?Daley rips gov for cutting gang-negotiation funds? dated August 30, 2007, you quote Mayor Daley as saying, “If they save one life, it’s worth it.” Referring to the cost and, I presume, controversies of the CeaseFire program.
I wonder how Mayor Daley would respond to the story, reported by the AP on August 30, 2005, “Wal-Mart shooting was first under concealed carry permit” which describes how the 72-year-old New Mexican Due Moore saved the life of Joyce Cordova when she was attacked by her ex-husband and stabbed repeatedly.
If they save one life (and they have saved many lives in the 48 other states that allow them), aren?t concealed carry permits to law-abiding civilians worth it?
Isn’t that the mantra of folks like the BC and your buddy Dan the Ban? If it saves one life?
September 1, 2007 at 2:48 pm
c-rockforfreedom
But I want new technology Rob. I do not want to use a bolt action for home defense, or just a 5 rd shotgun.
I want polymers, i want tac lights, red dots, and lasers. I want 30 rd mags, cause I hate to reload, and you never know when 5 rds aint enough.
I want 9mm carbines, so I have a lightweight rifle that is not going to penetrate a house like a old 308 is going too out a bolt action. a 9mm MP5 is not a large gun. Its a nice compact weapon. If a cop in Arl Hts can carry a MP5 in their trunk, which is standard these days, then dammit
I want one in my homestead. If a cop needs a gun of such to do his duties on my block, then its a good idea to have such at home.