Mike Quigley, Representative of the Illinois 5th, wets his pants in pixels over at the HuffPo
Our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights to ensure that We the People could determine how best to protect our communities. The people of Chicago have made it very clear that they favor sensible restrictions on gun ownership. It is up to the Supreme Court to abide by over 200 years of judicial precedent and allow the McDonald decision, and the laws of the City of Chicago, to stand.
That is the closing paragraph. I quoted that one in particular because the rest of the piece is so scatterbriained as to be difficult to read. Quigley repeatedly pulls out one Joyce-funded statistic after another, but cannot make them comprehensible. Having re-read it three times, I truly believe he wrote this piece during a panic attack, upon having heard of SCOTUS giving cert to McDonald.
Conversely, for a well-written and easy to comprehend piece on McDonald, do try Brian Doherty’s piece at Reason.
Well, Mikey, what would a non-sensible restriction on gun ownership be, then?
If you say you are for sensible restrictions yet have never said any particular restriction is beyond the line, you reveal your true motive, and it isn’t “sensible restrictions on firearms ownership”.
Just like the anti-gun folks say we focus too much on the “shall not be infringed” portion of the 2nd, he’s focusing entirely on the “well-regulated” part while being blind to the “shall not be infringed” section. In places like Chicago, NYC, and D.C. how can you argue gun rights have not been infringed upon? Were such restrictions put upon 1st,4th, and 5th ammendment rights, there would be a screeching hurricane of protest from the liberals.