Chicago Priest Calls for Murder of Gun Shop Owner:

"Certainly Fr. Pfleger has offered Absolution to a murderer or two during his tenure as a priest," commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "That's why it's shocking to hear him actually advocate the murder of a gun shop owner who has never committed a crime in his life. He then compounds the problem by calling for the murder of legislators who disagree with his personal political views -- something I suspect is a felony in this state. Pfleger's comments were disgusting and dangerous. And, I seem to remember that the Fifth Commandment frowns on murdering one's neighbor."

A priest.  This is so disgusting and repugnant, I am almost speechless.  And his call for murder is for people who have committed no crimes at all.  He just disagrees with them.

Lots of others are blogging this.  This is something that needs widespread dissemination.  I guess we could call him "unhinged," but the big "gun" (no pun intended, well maybe a little) who uses that word all the time probably has it copyrighted or something.

Count on the big bloggers to ignore this one, since it doesn't have anything to do with Islamism.

UPDATE:  David Codrea points out quite comprehensively something I didn't even think of.  Pfleger is obviously guilty of systematically violating his 501(c)(3) privileges.

From the land of coming-of-age TV sitcoms comes this:  Bill Requiring Background Check For Private Gun Sales To Be Introduced Tuesday:

"The person that bought the guns that killed our sons, he bought the gun in a tavern, the same tavern that he killed our sons at," said Beverly Anderson, the mother of one of the shooting victims.

When their son's killer brought [sic] that gun, the tavern didn't do a background check. It didn't have to. Private gun sales in Wisconsin do not have to go through the background check process.

For three years, these woman [sic] have worked with state Sen. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) to close, what they call, a loophole in the law.

1.  As far as I know, "taverns" aren't in the business of selling guns.  I don't see how the tavern owner could be responsible for something that happens in a shadowy corner of his place where it looks like two people are just having something to drink.  The next step, of course, will be to prosecute the property owner on which such a thing took place without his knowledge or consent.

2.  Criminals--gang members, conspiring murderers--will of course not be affected by this law (the criminal loophole).  If they are planning on committing murder with the gun, why would they worry about how they buy it?  I realize this is a fact that is pointed out time and time again with little effect to the gun grabbers, but that doesn't make it any less of a cold, hard, ugly truth.

3.  One of the major backers for this new exercise in tyranny is Mick Beatovic, "a lifelong member of the NRA" and owner of Badger Ammo.  When this law is passed, as it undoubtedly will be in such a freedom-loving place as Milwaukee, those gun owners who do wish to follow the law will then be required to execute the transaction through the medium of a government-sanctioned "licensed dealer" such as Mick.  Mick will then, of course, charge a fee for this encroachment on their liberty.  No conflict of interest there, is there, Mick?

P.S.  What "authorized journalist" wrote this?  It's full of spelling errors, misused words and extraneous commas.  My high school English teacher would have ridiculed me in front the entire class if I had turned in an assignment that looked like this.

Via The War on Guns.

If we could only harness the energy of Rudy flip-flopping!

UPDATE:  Looks like maybe GOA is full of it this time.

From Gun Owners of America:

In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:

* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and

* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.

So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."

This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."

As if we need any more reasons.

Sometimes I think John Titor wasn't wrong, he was just off by a few years.

Here:  Domestic Terrorist T-Shirt.

Via War On Guns.

Now online at Free Constitution.

Wayne LaPierre, May 1, 1999:

First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period...with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

Wayne LaPierre, May 18, 2007:

You don't decide the Second Amendment doesn't exist, you don't deprive Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, and you better not think you can get away with it if you try.

In a way, I feel sorry for ol' Wayne.  He must have a mighty sore crotch from riding the fence like that.

Some insights by J. Shaftoe.  Via JPFO.

Think about it this way. If you worked at the post office, and someone said “We don't need mail anymore. We've got email now. It's faster, cheaper, and easier.” How would you feel? How would you respond to someone who told you that they can do your job better than you can, and that they don't need you anymore?

Now imagine that instead of delivering mail, you deliver security. Or, at least, you think you do. And now someone is telling you that they don't need your elaborate machinery of justice, because they have the right and the ability to deal justly with their attackers themselves. Your entire career, which you pursued at great expense, has been declared second-rate compared to three pounds of forged steel and springs.

Makes you a little afraid, doesn't it?

Read the whole thing, of course.  I've held this belief for many years.  There are people like Shaftoe describes, then there are those who do it for power, not just to protect their miserable livelihoods.

And what about those who are of good conscience but are simply misguided?  They don't exist.  Never have.  If they were truly of good conscience they would see the truth and cease to willfully spread lies to get their way.

L. Neil Smith explains why I am a "single issue  voter."

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

It isn't long, read it all.

Via Kent McManigal.

See Joe think.  He's trying very hard.  Now see Joe demonstrate his complete, unmitigated stupidity.

Via Alphecca.

Via The Real Gun Guys.

From the NYT--A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Helps Sway Judiciary:

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

Emphasis mine.

And then they proceed to quote other liberals who read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, just like Levinson said they do.

Via John Lott.

UPDATE:  David Hardy comments on the same article:

Of course, NY Times does give Brady Center's spin, which is FAR off the real situation, big play: "The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”

Exceptions? We're talking about 90% of scholarship in the last quarter century. We're talking about all the big names in con law -- Sanford Levinson, William van Alstyne, Akhil Amar, Larry Tribe.

UPDATE 2:  And still further comments here.

Just a note that if you haven't been reading the essays by Mike Vanderboegh at The War On Guns, you should be.

And seriously, if you read this blog regularly and you don't read The War On Guns, then...well, in my opinion, your time is better spent there than here.