California is becoming like Greece. Broke, and socially divided between a wealthy, oligarchical class and downtrodden, ignorant peasantry that survives through a black market economy. California, in effect, is slowly reverting to what it was under the Spanish.

Illinois is in a neck-to-neck race with California to the bottom of the latrine pit of economic history. I would like to think that, for now, Illinois is in the lead. Unfortunately, we don’t have the romance of Spanish-American history to fall back upon. Our’s is more a history of roving bands of French explorers and bloody, all-too-bloody Indian wars. Come to think of it, that’s the history of Detroit, too. Hmmm…I think I see our future more clearly now.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/democrats-take-break-from-attacking-first-amendment-set-sights-on-second-amendment/

This, incidentally, is from the same administration for which it was recently exposed that Party Leaders regularly cut cozy private deals with those very same gang members. As the saying goes, birds of a feather.

 http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Those of us that live here have long known that the Chicago gangs and drug trade will never be broken, because the Chicago and Illinois powers that be depend upon them for their political power and the drug trade transfers wealth and political power from the suburbs to the inner cities The drive-by shootings and little kids gunned down by random shootings are simply collateral damage, worthy of self-righteous speeches by the Ruling Class and not much else. I suspect that these attempts at gun control are really means of clearing out the local opposition to gang power and that, if passed, they will be enforced very selectively.

This is Obama’s America, soon coming to a neighborhood near you. 

Indigo Red and bizcor: I think the prevailing feeling at American schools is “Constitution? What Constitution? That’s so yesterday.”

When the British marched out of Boston April 1775 to Lexington and Concord, they weren’t going to put down a rebellion as there was, as yet, no rebellion to put down. The orders were to confiscate or destroy the King’s arsenal and the King’s arms that had been stored in those towns since the French and Indian War. The Crown left the arms and powder behind in case Colonists needed to defend themselves from wild savages while awaiting arrival of the British Regulars, but the weapons did not belong to the Colonials; at all times, the weapons were the property of King George III and the British Crown, but the Colonists asserted the King hadprovided the arms for self defense and had a right to use the weapons in any time of need no matter the source of the need.

 
It was because of the Crown’s confiscatory action that the peoples right to keep and bear arms was written into the 2nd Amendment. There is no other conceivable reason any fledgling government would guarantee such a right if they had not had experience with unarmed, naked defense. The Left argues even if the people do have the right to bear arms, the people do not have the right to the same arms as the well regulated militia. That, too, is nonsense as the weapons contained in the King’s armories at Lexington and Concord were, in fact, the weapons of the well regulated militia with which the people armed themselves so effectively. The Framers were well aware of this just as they were aware the people did not have specialized weapons; they had one general use musket for hunting birds and animals, for self defense and war. To restrict that one weapon to use in war would have left those on the frontier and in other outlying areas vulnerable to deadly dangers that could be mitigated by force of arms and the Founders were clear when their reasoning included the need for armed protection from an over reaching government.

I want my right to be armed if I so choose which I do not, as yet, choose to be. The Second Amendment says I and the The People have the right to be armed and says so very clearly.