108 Comments - Chitownhv - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:05 am: In all honesty, Guys like these scare me more than the guys on the corner in my Pilsen neighborhood. - Colossus - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:08 am: By all means, Mr. Moyers, please educate us on these conspiracies that have been happening. If I am short of information regarding an issue of public safety, I’d like to correct that deficit. - sal-says - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:09 am: Your headline a couple if items down seems appropriate: “Off the rails”. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:10 am: It may be time to get a FOID card. Just sayin… - Notacop - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:11 am: You get extremists on both sides. I feel like the extremists get in the way of rational discussion. I think this group may be taking things a bit far, considering they call them selves the “Patriot Militia” and make veiled threats such as “if I have to stand alone, I don’t think I’ll be the only one. We’re not going to put up with any more gun laws”. His comment about conspiracies makes me cringe. I think it removes the validity of his message. Ted Nugent wrote an open letter to Joe Biden about his opinions on gun control. It was well written, lacked vulgarities and presented several well thought out ideas. Many of his ideas I agreed with, a few I disagreed with, but overall his message is null and void in my eyes due to his over the top extremism. The more extreme the position, the easier it is to disregard the opinion as being biased to the point of blindness. Unfortunately it tends to be these extremists that are most vocal and end up being the voice of anyone who is “pro-gun”. - just sayin' - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:11 am: Oh. My. God. Before the internet came along I had no idea how many screwballs were out there. We need to really beef up the background check requirements in all states including this one. - Dan Johnson - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:13 am: This ridiculous idea that citizens need to carry weapons to protect themselves against the government is a joke. This is an embarrassment to a modern world. And when we indulge it, we allow this absurd adolescent fantasyland view of the world to result in ever-more guns available to criminals and thugs that kill innocent people. Someone who wants to go hunting is one thing. Someone who wants guns because they think they are defending their community against the threat of a government takeover needs to be told to grow up. - amalia - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:14 am: Mr. Moyer, thanks to your grandfather for his service for the United States of America. You might consider what his oath for service and the pledge of allegiance really mean and conduct yourself accordingly. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:14 am: How often do these guys drill? Looks like maybe not a lot. - Anonish - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:17 am: So when is Mr. Moyer going to enlist in the armed forces? - Wensicia - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:18 am: “…said that I will defend freedom.” This is what worries me. Some of the nutjobs are saying they’ll take up arms against our government if necessary. Very scary. - Veil of Ignorance - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:18 am: I’ll be curious to see if the idea of a sliding scale for the level of regulation (using New York as an example) based on population density of a county will work politically and will ultimately survive a 2nd Amendment challenge. It seems reasonable that gov’t has stronger interest in tighter control of firearm ownership in high density areas, but I think such an arrangement might put such militia types on a political island separate from hunters and gun collectors. - MrJM - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:22 am: And if I have to stand alone, I don’t think I’ll be the only one. Exactly the level of intellectual rigor we’ve come to expect from gun idolators. – MrJM - walkinfool - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:23 am: Are the redcoats invading Decatur? - Jimmy - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:25 am: This guy’s working his way on to the NRA’s proposed list of mentally unstable folks who can be denied the right to own a gun. Do you think he’ll see the irony? - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:27 am: Moyer is on Facebook, where he reports that he is a Colonel in the Midwest Patriot Militia, a Major in the Illinois Sons of Liberty and a Sergeant with Securitas. Busy guy. He also “likes simple things in life like walking trails, volleyball, cuddling…” Among these militia groups there is a not-so-very-subtle, and often quite open, contention that they are the final arbiters of the “true” American Republic. They consider themselves beyond the law, beyond the scope of duly elected state legislatures and Congress, beyond the courts, and certainly beyond the current president. They need massive amounts of guns to make war on elected governments that they’ve determined in their minds, and their minds only, are illegitimate. Personally, I think the great majority are blowhards with delusions of grandeur who like to play “revolutionary” out in the woods. But Timothy McVeigh was just a goof at one time, too. They certainly don’t come off as “reasonable” about anything, or defenders of representative democracy. http://www.facebook.com/nathanmyr - kimocat - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:27 am: “I’m not a nutball.” Yes, you are. And if you attack our duly elected government officials with your guns if they do something you do not like, then you are also a traitor and a criminal, not a patriot. It is people like you who should not have guns. - Leave a Light on George - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:27 am: “It may be time to get a FOID card. Just sayin…” Plan on a long wait. ISP is very inefficient at processing these. - Kerfuffle - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:28 am: It has been my experience that those people who have to say they are not a nutball, are in fact nutballs. - TwoFeetThick - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:29 am: If anyone thinks they are going to use a rifle, any rifle, to take on the US military, they are beyond delusional. A drone would turn you into charcoal before you got your 100-round clip loaded. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:33 am: @Veil I can’t imagine that any sliding-scale regulation would hold up in court. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:39 am: I question anybody that is part of a “militia.” And what does “we’re not going to put up with it” mean? He says he’s not a “nutball.” I would argue with that statement. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:39 am: – And if I have to stand alone, I don’t think I’ll be the only one. Exactly the level of intellectual rigor we’ve come to expect from gun idolators. – MrJM proves once again that the pen is mightier than the sword. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:42 am: This is exactly the type of person I don’t want carrying. - Frenchie Mendoza - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:55 am: Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t need — or want — NRA nutjobs defending my freedom. In fact, I’m surprised I don’t hear this more often — the idea that some hometown, Tom Sawyer militia isn’t something anyone needs. It’s code for: “I’m crazy.” At its core, the — or any — “defense of freedom” argument is fascist. - M O'Malley - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:59 am: And this is why the Second Amendment starts off with a “well regulated militia”, which today is the National Guard, not the Decatur “make believe” Militia. Also interesting, I had my biannual M9 pistol qualification, and we were specifically told if any fellow member seemed “a little off” we were to notify the commander right away to make sure their weapon access was limited. Think this guy would be reported immediately. - Sunshine - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:59 am: The way the gun legislation was written is enough to get everyone riled. Some just oppose it more ‘eloquently’, like Nathan Moyer. Whether I agree with him or not, the fact that he and his friends bothered to show speaks more for them than those who sit back and wait. I will hand that to them…in this free country. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:59 am: ===This is an embarrassment to a modern world. And when we indulge it, we allow this absurd adolescent fantasyland view of the world to result in ever-more guns available to criminals and thugs that kill innocent people.=== Well said Dan. I agree 100%. These people need to grow up. - vise77 - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:01 am: (Sarcasm alert): So when exactly does the revolution begin? I mean, I remember when President Clinton was the tyrannical anti-christ to these types of people, which means President Obama must be twice as bad. What’s the holdup? Satan himself taking the oath? Or perhaps the revived waxen corpse of Lenin himself? These nuts give gun owners a bad name. - Bemused - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:02 am: Go to www.illinoistimes.com and check out This Week/Chris Britt. I think his cartoon puts a pretty fine point on things. For some the body count will never go high enough to expose a need for change in how we view the right to possess weapons. The NRA may not represent the majority of the nation but at this point in time it holds enough votes to scare both partys. Things change in time, maybe down the road with a different high court. - mongo - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:02 am: I saw black helicopters circling Willis Tower, sure evidence of a conspiracy. And driving through Decatur a month ago I saw two flying saucers. Guys like this are seriously a problem and should not be allowed to have a BB gun, much less a handgun or rifle. - Fed up - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:03 am: I support reasonable gun laws. But what I find interesting is this man was much more reserved than say Wisconsin union members who invaded the state capital and caused damage and defaced the building yet were treated very sympatheticly here. - Frenchie Mendoza - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:04 am: BTW — can’t these militia nuts take up some hobby store hobby? How about they channel their anger and misplaced paranoia and fly remote control airplanes? Race model cars? Build HO-scale railroad layouts? Paint Dungeons and Dragons miniatures? - Army Training, Sir! - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:07 am: Thanks for posting his Facebook page, Wordslinger. He also describes himself as divorced and looking for the “right woman”. OH and he also describes himself as “muscular”. If “FREEDOM” is the new name for his local Dunkin Donuts franchise I have no doubt he will defend it. - Sprinffieldish - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:17 am: Witness the ‘law abiding citizen’ we’re so ready to fully arm. Witness how he uses the Constitution for his right to arm himself so that he can utterly disregard it at his whim. In short, witness the madness that the NRA and ISRA is laughingly taking to the bank. - Chicago Bars - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:18 am: Walked in behind these guys at the Capitol yesterday. Thought they were performance artists for a second, or lost while looking for Second City Springfield. - Skeeter - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:22 am: Reading the guy’s Facebook page, you think it is a parody. He’s just a muscular guy who collects knives and is looking for a beautiful woman. He’s also divorced. Gee, I wonder why? - walkinfool - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:29 am: All criticism aside, he showed up, said his mind, and peacefully participated in our political process. - TooManyJens - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:32 am: It helps that the Wisconsin union protestors weren’t implicitly threatening to kill people if they didn’t get their way. - Judgment Day - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:37 am: “These nuts give gun owners a bad name.” True. However, these are the types that come out in response to poorly drafted legislation which would limit (in their view, and many others) their constitutional rights. Fortunately, Todd V. and others like him are much more level headed, and will provide a pretty good idea of exactly what is possible to be enacted into law. But that’s assuming the anti-gun types are smart enough to understand the concept of the “Art of the Possible”. We’ll see. - Coach - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:38 am: This gem of a column may help illuminate the thought process of such “militia” members: “If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.” Yes, they appear to truly believe they have a constitutional obligation to take up arms against the federal government - and that they stand a chance of surviving that fight. http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/ - USMCJanitor - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:39 am: Both sides have their idiots. The left never likes when you point out the ones on their side, we dont like idiots like this. Do I agree that the 2A is meant as a check against the government? yes I do. Do I think this guy is leading a revolution? only in his own mind. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:43 am: I really don’t understand the attacks against this guy on this blog. Is he the most eloquent speaker on the subject… no… but I also don’t think he traveled to Springfield with the intention of being a leading spokesperson for his cause. And everyone is ready to proclaim him a nutcase and someone that should not own a gun after nothing more than a 30 second clip where he didn’t say anything very outrageous. - Langhorne - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:51 am: “We’re not going to put up with any more gun laws from this country or from this state.” Or else what, exactly? So guns and magazines he already owns are further regulated, I suppose he doesnt comply. Or is he suggesting he would interfere with the administration of those laws? Or something more sinister? Thanks to this guy for self identifying as someone to watch. That’s without checking his social media. - Sunshine - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:55 am: Thank goodness there’s more than one song on the jukebox. At least this fellow and his friends bothered to show up. No need to attack him personally for his opinion and his right to speak out. He would likely be the one person to jump in a river to save you if you were drowning. Cut him some slack. I think we’re better than that on this blog. Sure, you can disagree, but with some lever of tolerance and civility. - Endangered Moderate Species - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:57 am: Give the guy a break. He was simply exercising his right of free speech. He went to Springfield to be heard by the lawmakers. How is his strategy different from the strategy any of us would use in support of an issue we are passionate about? There are a number of protesters in Springfield, whom I wouldn’t want to spend quality time with. - Langhorne - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 11:57 am: Nutballs afraid of “the government” forget the government is made up of his neighbors, not movie villains. He needs a med marijuana card so he can chill out, and stick to shooting up beer cans. - zatoichi - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:00 pm: To most people the ‘Red Dawn’ movies and Harry Turtledove books are fiction. - wishbone - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:01 pm: “You get extremists on both sides.” Amen. On one extreme side you have a handful of militia types, and on the other folks like the mayor of Chicago who wants to ban the sale of virtually every modern handgun. Someone in the middle needs to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. Revising patient privacy laws so mental health professionals could notify law enforcement officials about these dangerous people would be a good place to start. I truly believe both sides could agree to this kind of proposal. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:04 pm: ===How is his strategy different from the strategy any of us would use in support of an issue we are passionate about?=== Implying armed resistance if your demands aren’t met makes it quite different. I didn’t hear the retired teachers doing that last week, for example. - USMCJanitor - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:07 pm: Rich Miller Its happen before, and since the revolution, not just during. Some are willing to give their life for beliefs. Others just call those people crazy and go along to get along until something they hold dear is taken. - Waxy Gordon - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:14 pm: Ah yes, the old “extremists on both sides” canard. Thing is left wing extremists aren’t killing anyone. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, folks: http://open.salon.com/blog/greg_correll/2011/01/10/right_left_violence_timeline - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:16 pm: I don’t think he really implied armed resistance. I think people like to assume that because it fits a caricature image. Is it any different than someone saying we aren’t going to stand for any more mass killings, or we aren’t going to stand for sub-par public education? No. Saying he/we aren’t going to stand for something is more of an expression… all I got from this was a guy that peacefully showed up at a public meeting and voiced his opinion (whether one agrees or not with that opinion). - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:17 pm: === Some are willing to give their life for beliefs.=== Yeah. And in this case, people like Tim McVeigh. If you want to be a traitor, fine. But go find another blog. This theory of self defense against the government was popularized by the Black Panthers. So, you’re in great company. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:17 pm: @Fed up: Yes, because this has everything to do with Wisconsin union teachers. Nice red herring though. Sheesh. - USMCJanitor - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:21 pm: Rich, Ahhh. right. Anything not in agreement with your political beliefs must lead to being a traitor. I am for all rights. Freedom to associate, freedom of speech, of religion. The right to bear arms. Infringement of any of these against any of the people should lead to resistance. First in the political realm then in the streets. Yes the blank panthers took up armed resistance. Some with valid points i agreed with, some I disagreed with. But in either case they legally took up arms… It has happened else where. Sorry you wish to be a sheep. - Langhorne - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:29 pm: No more gun laws…um…except for concealed carry, right? - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:32 pm: JO, these militia guys don’t hide their lights under a bushel. They’re certainly all over the Internet. They claim to be the final word on the “true” Constitution, putting them beyond the reach of the law, elected governments and courts. They talk quite openly about preparing to make war against the elected government if they deem it illegitimate. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:35 pm: ===Anything not in agreement with your political beliefs must lead to being a traitor. === Bite me. When you threaten armed resistance to the government, you’re talking treason, idiot. And that would be your last post here. Bye. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:35 pm: @Just Observing: I would love to see what your definition of outrageous is. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:36 pm: === This theory of self defense against the government was popularized by the Black Panthers. === That is partly but not entirely true. The Black Panthers certainly embraced the idea, but the theory predates the Panthers by hundreds of years. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:37 pm: ===but the theory predates the Panthers by hundreds of years. === Lemme see an historical cite, please. I have yet to see one. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:38 pm: === JO, these militia guys don’t hide their lights under a bushel. They’re certainly all over the Internet. They claim to be the final word on the “true” Constitution, putting them beyond the reach of the law, elected governments and courts. They talk quite openly about preparing to make war against the elected government if they deem it illegitimate. === That may be true… I just don’t see it with this guy in this very short clip. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:41 pm: === @Just Observing: I would love to see what your definition of outrageous is. === Forget my definition, let’s use the dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outrageous?s=t Again, I just don’t see anything so “outrageous” with what he said, nor anything to declare this guy a nut. And before anyone attempts to label me — I am a non-gun owning, Democratic-leaning, Chicago resident. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:46 pm: @Just Observing: And I quote: “There have been various things, conspiracies that have been happening in this country.” Conspiracies? Again, I would question your take on outrageous. “Nut” is a more than appropriate label. - Division Commander - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:47 pm: It sounds like the majority of people here are anti gun. Conspiracy? Well, how long did the legislature debate the issue? Oh, there was no debate. How long did it take them to draft the issue? It looks like it came up quickly, without publicizing it, and call for the vote over the holidays when most people aren’t paying close attention. Ask yourself if a similar legislation banning blogs, because it gets too many people excited and can cause a riot, was drafted and put up for a vote next week, would that be acceptable? No debate, no thought put to it, just do it because your legislature thinks it is best for you. Maybe violent video games and movies should also be banned because as everyone knows media does influence people to act in ways that are not appropriate. There are several more examples. Rushing to judgment without exploring and debating options tends to end up being a bad decision. Just look at Illinois’ economic state, with Democrats controlling everything. No balance means bad decisions. Balance is what our country was based on, the balance of powers. - Crime Fighter - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:52 pm: It’s a shame that passionate frustrated people in our country aren’t educated enough to understand that if they want a revolution and reformed representative government, they could fight for resdistricting, against gerrymandering, and against the two-party cabal. I hope someday we can get past the view that gunfighting is a form of civic engagement and freedom of expression. - Who's who? - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:55 pm: There is a lot of hate on the blog for a guy practicing his First Anendment right and practicing direct democracy. A conspiracy is an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated by two or more persons; plot. Sounds to me like he accurately described his platform and its relationship to some of the language that has been introduced, in regards to the Second Amendment…especially during lame duck session. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:55 pm: === @Just Observing: And I quote: “There have been various things, conspiracies that have been happening in this country. ”Conspiracies? Again, I would question your take on outrageous. “Nut” is a more than appropriate label. === While I don’t share the guy’s conspiracy theories — I don’t find conspiracy theories “outrageous” even if they are wacky. If you want to now change the argument from whether or not his comments were “outrageous” to him being a “nut”, we can. Of course, I would want to know a little more about his conspiracy theories before labeling him a nut. - downstate commissioner - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:55 pm: At the risk of being banned Rich, calling someone a traitor because he says he will defend his constitutional rights makes you an opponent of the first amendment. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I will bury guns before I turn them all over to the government, and a LOT of people I know have said the same thing. Actually, I personally believe that a gun ban by the Federal government WILL start an armed revolution. As for the people who keeps saying that an M-16 won’t be able to stop a drone, remember it takes a person behind the controls to aim that drone, and it will be fellow Americans (who they may even agree with) that they will be targeting not some foreign language speaking person wearing funny clothing. In fact, considering the mind-set of many soldiers, my feeling is that mutiny and desertions would be common; and if mutiny is strong enough, a military coup would be possible. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 12:59 pm: ===calling someone a traitor because he says he will defend his constitutional rights makes you an opponent of the first amendment. === LOL Taking up arms against the government would be an act of treason. - Notacop - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:00 pm: Crime Fighter - VERY well said. Kudos. - Colossus - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:01 pm: Downstate - Everyone who fantasizes about Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo believes the military will be on their side. You can rationalize it all you want, but you’re still fighting literal battles instead of legislative battles. The point of representative democracy is to allow everyone to come togetehr and elect people to make decisions for society as a whole. When those decisions are not what you like, you don’t get to shoot up Feds. What is the fundamental difference between this standpoint, which I see repeatedly from pro-gun folks, and the beliefs of Timothy McVeigh? From my standpoint, I don’t see one, though I’m very open to being enlightened. - Jeeper - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:19 pm: @Frenchie Mendoza “At its core, the — or any — “defense of freedom” argument is fascist.” Did you really mean “Any…”? Wouldn’t that make Washington, Jefferson, etc all “fascists?” If that is the case, just what is your problem with fascists? No, the founders named above were in no way fascists. I am pretty sure you and I understand “fascism” differently. I would LOVE to see your defense of the statement above. While I understand that “fascism” (small ‘f’) is a slightly different and more general concept, I am posting a link to the definition as provided by its originator: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp Yes, I understand that “fascism” (small ‘f’) is a slightly different and more general concept but I suspect Mussolini’s essay will provide a useful foundation for further discussion. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:20 pm: === Lemme see an historical cite, please. I have yet to see one. === I’m not saying the intent of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear, nor am I saying the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to provide for the citizenry to overthrow the government anytime they disagree with a law, but certainly many legal and historical scholars opine, that at least among some, the right to bear arms is a defense against tyrannical government. Sure, some people in modern history have embellished and glorified that intent, but the idea has been around for centuries. You can google plenty of scholarly work that dissects that issue to death, here is one: http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php - Endangered Moderate Species - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:21 pm: Rich, Let me clarify my earlier post. I don’t agree with this guy’s comment about armed resistance. His strategy of going to Springfield and attempting to be heard is not uncommon among protesting groups. That is what I meant to articulate. Most of us have had an “oh no” moment, when someone whom is super passionate is publicly given a microphone or a newspaper quote. They often do more harm than good. It is kind of like of being able to pick your friends but not your relatives. - Cheswick - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:29 pm: I like to cuddle. - Langhorne - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:32 pm: For all the (extra-)constitutional expertise of some militia, remember, large chunks of the constitution can be suspended with four simple words–”you are under arrest”. It can ruin your day. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:35 pm: The Two DCs, what parts of representative democracy do you not understand? Division Commander, there are Democrats in office (and Republicans) because they were voted in. You may not like, I may not like it, but taking up arms against the duly elected government is by definition treason. Downstate, the colonists had no vote, no representation in Parliament. –calling someone a traitor because he says he will defend his constitutional rights makes you an opponent of the first amendment.– You can defend your interpretation of the Constitution in the public square, at the voting booth, in the legislatures and in the courts. But when it doesn’t go your way through the Constitutionally mandated channels, and you try to inflict your interpretation through force of arms, that’s treason. Seriously, dude, talking about military coups? What are you talking about? My folks came up under a totalitarian government. My old man did hard time. This talk in recent years of the United States going “communist” or “fascist” and “losing or freedoms” turns my stomach. There are 300 million private firearms in the United States. And gun owners are under assault? That’s paranoid lunacy. - Ahoy! - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:51 pm: “There have been various things, conspiracies that have been happening in this country.” Did he ever elaborate on this? Such as, what are these conspiracies Mr. “I’m not a nut ball.” If I’m the NRA that is the kind of person I don’t want out their talking because they make the cause look goofy. Of course, that’s probably most of their members. Also, if there are any goofballs on here that think they needs lots of unnecessary weaponry to “protect themselves” from the government please read this: The government has more weapons, better trained peopled and 4 branches of armed services, there is not a weapon out there (besides a nuclear bomb) that can “protect you” from the government. - Charlatan Heston - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:54 pm: Mr. Moyer aside…What did Rich say earlier…the authors drafted a bill that was overreaching? Amen. I would love to know who penned it. - Portage Park Paul - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:54 pm: Rich: I did not hear any implied threats of armed resistance in that clip, did you? Really? I heard a different point of view. I heard someone who might continue his fight by calling his legislators, and continuing to show up at hearings as a witness, either alone or with other like minded individuals. Regarding av FOID card, it appears that maybe not every regular posting hear would even qualify to get one, if you catch my drift just saying’.. Dan Johnson, Wensicia, et al: I also don’t believe the time will come when we will need to protect ourselves against tyranny, but if it does I will take comfort and feel safe knowing that you will be here posting to this blog about it. That is, until your internet gets turned off. Vise77: Wasn’t your team calling Ronald Wilson Reagan the anti.-Christ because of the number of letters in his name? I believe it was. - Crime Fighter - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 2:21 pm: =” Notacop - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 1:00 pm: Crime Fighter - VERY well said. Kudos. “= Thanks for the shout out! - TheGoodLieutenant - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 2:28 pm: As I said yesterday, the United States of America is a Representative Constitutional Republic, whereas those who are elected (by a democratic process) are sworn to uphold and obey the constitution. Some would prefer that we would become a country with a more limited constitution and more government power. I however prefer it the way it was designed. There is a way to amend the constitution via article V, but the attempts by certain legislators in the state to do a workaround was bound to fail, and was bound to stir the pot. - Jim - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 2:31 pm: always enjoy Rich’s response to dissenters. “that would be your last post. goodbye.” - Wensicia - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 2:31 pm: ==That is, until your internet gets turned off.== I’m not the one getting kicked off the blog. - vise77 - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 3:24 pm: “Vise77: Wasn’t your team calling Ronald Wilson Reagan the anti.-Christ because of the number of letters in his name? I believe it was.” My team? Wasn’t aware I had a ‘team,’ but thanks for making my life easier by assigning one. - RMD - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 3:28 pm: Let’s just call this a union protest then everyone will not have to be so harsh. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 3:33 pm: Speaking of Ronald Wilson Reagan, governor of California, in response to the Black Panthers open carry of firearms, 1968: –Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” – http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/2/ - amalia - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 3:36 pm: hey, Todd V. is for the 1934 gun control legislation, does that make him anti gun? enough with this “you’re anti gun” nonsense. universal background checks means letting guns be sold, just checking to make sure that the buyer does not have criminal or mental issues. banning certain kinds of weapons does not mean all weapons are banned. how about if we start calling some “pro criminal” because they really don’t want to do anything about stopping the flow of guns that gets to criminals? - TheGoodLieutenant - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 3:59 pm: wordslinger, Reagan was certainly a mixed bag on 2A, as he also penned this: http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/ronald-reagan-gun-owners-champion Reagan’s stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 4:12 pm: Not to throw (more) gas on the fire, but if Mr. Moyer is a “Sergeant with Securitas”, I believe the latter is a private security company. Draw your own conclusions from here. - TheGoodLieutenant - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 4:15 pm: Not to throw (more) gas on the fire, but if Mr. Moyer is a “Sergeant with Securitas”, I believe the latter is a private security company. Draw your own conclusions from here. What, he and Senator Trotter are but brothers in arms? - Josh in Champaign - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 4:25 pm: One last point. Food for thought. 170 million people slaughtered by their governments in the 20th Century. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLOR1tFsD0 - Chitownhv - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 4:40 pm: Wish there was a “like” button for comments. I’d hit “like” for wordslinger @ 1:35 pm: - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 4:54 pm: The intent of the second amendment becomes pretty clear if one reviews the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, et. al. They saw it as the means to prevent the system of government they helped create from becoming the tyranny they overthrew, and assure “the people” protection from that system of government. The gentleman in this clip articulated that same concept as voiced by the founding fathers. Given many of today’s posts above, one would have to surmise Jefferson, Washington, and Paine were all traitors. Is that really what you think? How are their writings materially different from anything this gentleman had to say? - Bill F - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 5:06 pm: I’ve made this comment before, and it’s only partly in jest. Whenever these self-styled militia folk spew their fantasy about armed resistance against their government, they always seem to forget the part about the predator drone program. So…you know…have fun storming the castle. Also, someone said the FOID would take forever. Mine came in a reasonably timely fashion. YMMV. - Rod - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 5:18 pm: Anonymous you are correct that Mr. Moyer’s comments are consistent with what the leaders of the American revolution said during the revolution. But lets also recall that the early US government crushed the whiskey rebellion beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with “the deepest regret”, that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. The federalized militia force of 12,950 men was a large army by American standards of the time. Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks. The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Even after ratification of the Constitution, there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States. Federalists believed the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people, so radical protest actions, which were permissible during the American Revolution, were no longer legitimate. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed the Revolution had established the people as a “collective sovereign”, and the people had the collective right to change or challenge the government through extraconstitutional means. The rebels were proven wrong in their belief so armed opposition to the US government’s laws was put down by the very leaders Anonymous references. I am sure the Decatur Midwest Patriot Militia would not agree with my historical reference but it is what happened so very long ago. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 5:55 pm: I liked the earlier version of Red Dawn more than the current one-maybe something about Jennifer Gray, but on the other hand anything with Charlie and Emilio can’t be too bad. It does bother me some that people, on here and elsewhere, see themselves in the roles rather than enjoying the fiction. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 5:58 pm: and I’m trying to place the “if I have to stand alone I don’t think I’ll be the only one.” Belushi from “Animal House”, right after describing Pearl Harbor? - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 6:04 pm: Rod, you are somewhat correct about the Whiskey Rebellion. The “somewhat” is due to what the 2nd amendment was intended to provide, which was, and is, the protection of the people from tyrannical government. The Whiskey Rebels’ cause was a little too narrow and fell a little short of that tyrannical threshold. No one is saying that every disagreement, no matter how serious, about federal power is to be settled by anything but the legislative means laid out by the Constitution. Rather, the founding fathers wisely intended the people to retain the ability to maintain the Constitution and the representation of the will of the people it provides. Without that ability, tyranny was feared to assuredly reappear, as evidenced by the founding fathers writings. One doesn’t have to look very far back in history to see how well founded their fears were and are. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 6:06 pm: Schnorf, the invasion of the continental United States by North Korean soldiers in the current film does strain credibility a wee bit. Three meals of grass a day, itchy woolen uniforms…. My movie biz nephew told me over the holidays that the first script for the new release replaced the original movie’s Soviets with Chinese, but the producers went apey because it would kill the China market for the flick. Capitalism is certainly alive in some sectors…. - Who's who? - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 6:10 pm: Rod- If I recall my American History correctly, the whiskey tax was an initiative of Hamilton, who was the US Treasurer, and it was an attempt to pay off assumption (the US Treasury buying all the war debt from states and creating a single monetary system). The rebellion was in part, because these producers didn’t feel they should be held accountable for other state debt. Neither did Jefferson, who was no fan of Hamilton or the Federalist Party, and when the Glorious Revolution of 1800 occurred, that tax was repealed. - Just Observing - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 6:51 pm: === I’ve made this comment before, and it’s only partly in jest. Whenever these self-styled militia folk spew their fantasy about armed resistance against their government, they always seem to forget the part about the predator drone program. So…you know…have fun storming the castle. === But when are revolutions so clear cut — the whole of the government vs. the people? Never. Revolutionaries would blend in with people. It would be hard to tell who is who. Not all government actors would go along with crushing the revolutionaries. I’m really just speaking from a historical context, not some fantasy to be part of a revolution. Again, I do not own a gun, nor do I associate with any of these “militia” types. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 7:52 pm: With all those nasty drones, Afghanistan should be simple. Wait….what? - JoeVerdeal - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:13 pm: Wow!!! Reading all of these posts gives a good indication of the can of worms that would be opened up if there was an actual, serious attempt to pass an aggressive gun control bill in this state. Amazing. Probably would be best to leave well enough alone. - JoeVerdeal - Monday, Jan 7, 13 @ 10:16 pm: I wonder how common it is for topics on this blog to feature discussions about potential revolution in Illinois….?????? Interesting. - Randy.62 - Monday, Jan 14, 13 @ 11:31 pm: ^^ - this guy seems to know what he’s talking about, i researched everything he said. Props to you for showing what true intelligence looks like amidst the flood of ignorance. @ fact caller. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.