City Of Chicago Ordered To Pay NRA's ...

City Of Chicago Ordered To Pay NRA's Legal Fees - Again

There are 37 comments on the The Daily Caller story from Jul 7, 2014, titled City Of Chicago Ordered To Pay NRA's Legal Fees - Again. In it, The Daily Caller reports that:

The United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois has ordered the City of Chicago to reimburse $940,000 in legal expenses incurred by the NRA.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Caller.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#24 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
It is most certainly not ADHERING to what the documents actually say and mean.
And what does it "actually mean"?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#25 Jul 12, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
And what does it "actually mean"?
Here's a little reality-based history for you:
The founders' intent was to place limits on the powers of the federal government because they were concerned that a national standing army posed a threat to the separate states. The 2nd Amendment was written for that purpose and applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes - and it didn't limit states or local governments from regulating firearms.

The founders' intent is not what the NRA is adhering to. That is not what they are advocating. They are pushing another agenda entirely.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#26 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
The 2nd Amendment was written for that purpose and applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes.
That's your interpretation. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As does the majority of Americans.

“The beard faded.....”

Since: May 14

to 62 Shades of Gray

#27 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
LMAO!
Take a second, read the thread and comprehend what's being said here before you chime in your ill-informed two cents.
But thanks for unwittingly proving my point. I appreciate your support - even if it was accidental.
LMAO!
I will always support the fact that "You are one sick fcuk!"

You're welcome.
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#28 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA is aggressively supporting it's warped and misinformed INTERPRETATION of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is most certainly not ADHERING to what the documents actually say and mean.
The court obviously agrees with the INTERPRETATION of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Pay the $$$ Chicago, maybe Bloomberg or Soros will pay the bill...
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#29 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a little reality-based history for you:
The founders' intent was to place limits on the powers of the federal government because they were concerned that a national standing army posed a threat to the separate states. The 2nd Amendment was written for that purpose and applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes - and it didn't limit states or local governments from regulating firearms.
The founders' intent is not what the NRA is adhering to. That is not what they are advocating. They are pushing another agenda entirely.
Wrong again, The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

“The beard faded.....”

Since: May 14

to 62 Shades of Gray

#32 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a little reality-based history for you:
The founders' intent was to place limits on the powers of the federal government because they were concerned that a national standing army posed a threat to the separate states. The 2nd Amendment was written for that purpose and applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes - and it didn't limit states or local governments from regulating firearms.
The founders' intent is not what the NRA is adhering to. That is not what they are advocating. They are pushing another agenda entirely.
Founders intent.....

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" George Washington

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

Perhaps you should consider doing a little research on the founders intent, Dan.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#33 Jul 12, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your interpretation. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As does the majority of Americans.
That's the founders' intent. And that was the settled opinion of federal judges for over 200 years. One activist SCOTUS doesn't change those facts. They will be reversed and we will return to the historical understanding. We've had activist courts before and their radical opinions have been overturned. It is only a matter of time.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#34 Jul 12, 2014
Independent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will always support the fact that "You are one sick fcuk!"
You're welcome.
Haters gonna hate.

Thanks for being predictable. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#35 Jul 12, 2014
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
The court obviously agrees with the INTERPRETATION of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Pay the $$$ Chicago, maybe Bloomberg or Soros will pay the bill...
5 activist judges agree with that interpretation.

Like I said - they will be reversed. It's just a matter of time.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#36 Jul 12, 2014
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.
Again - what I stated is historical fact. 5 radical activist justices don't change historical fact.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#37 Jul 12, 2014
Independent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Founders intent.....
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" George Washington
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
Perhaps you should consider doing a little research on the founders intent, Dan.
LOL!

So predictable.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#38 Jul 12, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
5 activist judges agree with that interpretation.
Like I said - they will be reversed. It's just a matter of time.
Ha-ha-ha!!!

You're just nothing but another useless, liberal, America hater. Hey commie, if you hate my constitution so much, move somewhere else.

2nd amendment is here to stay. If you don't like it, too f-ing bad.

We win, you lose.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#39 Jul 12, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha-ha-ha!!!
You're just nothing but another useless, liberal, America hater. Hey commie, if you hate my constitution so much, move somewhere else.
2nd amendment is here to stay. If you don't like it, too f-ing bad.
We win, you lose.
LMAO!

Almost every gunner I've debated has ultimately resorted to childish name calling and personal attacks. You come with a veneer of civility and decency, but that ultimately evaporates as soon as you get frustrated by the facts of reality.

Get back to me when you grow up and can act like an adult.

LOL!

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#41 Jul 13, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
you get frustrated by the facts of reality.
Who won the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment? Oh that's right, America did. THOSE are "facts of reality". It's a shame you're too delusional to crawl out of fantasyland for a few minutes and join the rest of ya in reality.

But I guess if I were an America hater, I'd be in denial too over losing yet another SCOTUS decision.
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#42 Jul 13, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
5 activist judges agree with that interpretation.
Like I said - they will be reversed. It's just a matter of time.
Iíll bet 300 million guns in private hands say youíre wrong. BTW that number keeps growing everyday.
boo ya

Virginia Beach, VA

#43 Jul 13, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the founders' intent. And that was the settled opinion of federal judges for over 200 years. One activist SCOTUS doesn't change those facts. They will be reversed and we will return to the historical understanding. We've had activist courts before and their radical opinions have been overturned. It is only a matter of time.
Speaking of frustration over the "facts of reality" .........

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters' (May '13) Wed Truth and Facts 639
News COD Offers Classes Promoting Firearm Safety thi... May 25 Dr David 1
News No wedding for Bristol Palin May 24 Tazo 9
Stop white on white crime May 20 Truth and Facts 30
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) May 17 Robbie Siegmyer 115
News The Free Beacon Thinks Purchasing Ammunition Sh... May 17 JEFF1234 1
More from around the web