Stacked And Packed; Chicago Women Arming For Defense

Palin Shotgun

Chicago Illinois is a city where the gun laws are very strict and yet it is at or near the top in gun related crimes. The reality about laws is that criminals do not obey them. This is no different for gun laws. Make it illegal to own a gun and the only people who are harmed are those who actually have a Constitutionally protected right to own them. The guy who robs stores or is involved in street corner drug deals does not really care if he is breaking a gun law by possessing a gun.

Women in Chicago are not happy with the crime there and they have decided to do something about it. Women are purchasing handguns and are taking classes to learn how to use them. This has even more impact when one considers all the hoops, the cost and the nuisances that the government in Chicago requires those who want to legally own guns to accomplish before they may actually own one. These women are going through a lot to exercise a right that is not supposed to be infringed so that they can provide the protection that the police and their elected officials cannot.

When seconds count, the police are only moments away.

I believe that when a liberal city, and Chicago is very liberal, has citizens starting to buy guns for protection it sends a clear message that the liberals running the place have failed the population. Liberals generally oppose private gun ownership. The increase in women buying guns must necessarily include liberal women because of the heavily Democratic population.

This might seem like a contradiction but it is not. I believe that all citizens who are not criminals should be allowed to buy and carry firearms. I have no problems with an armed population (unless the only ones armed are the criminals) because an armed population is a civil population. In conservative areas where they allow people to carry they do so as a matter of protection and to exercise their rights. In liberal areas people are generally opposed to gun ownership. The liberals believe that people can all sit around, hold hands, and sing songs. They believe that government can and will protect them. If those liberals abandon that belief then they are waking to the fact that the liberal pap they have been fed is untrue and that the philosophy is a failed one.

Major cities run by liberals are the ones failing (economy aside) and they are the ones that are always raising taxes and increasing spending on social programs. Liberals like to point to red states and say that they consume more of the tax money in welfare while overlooking the reality that in many of those red states there are densely populated, major cities that are overwhelmingly liberal. That is where the money goes.

Women in Chicago are awakening to the reality that liberalism is a failed experiment. Perhaps they are even seeing that liberalism is evolving into Socialism and Communism. Perhaps they are realizing that they have been sold a bill of goods and are looking for a way out.

Then again, Obama is from Chicago. Perhaps these women see that while he opposes gun ownership he has thousands of armed people who protect him every minute of his life and they have decided that if a gun is good enough to protect Obama, it is good enough to protect them.

Whatever the reason, it is good to see them exercising their right. With any luck, Chicago’s Draconian gun laws will be struck down and they will not have to navigate so many obstacles to get and keep their weapons.

There is nothing hotter than a woman with a firearm…

CBS 2 Chicago

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

41 Responses to “Stacked And Packed; Chicago Women Arming For Defense”

  1. Adam says:

    See, this is why it’s practically impossible to have a rational conversation about guns with many conservatives. You write articles like this filled with mostly unprovable assertions like it’s liberalism to blame for failing city economies, liberals generally oppose private gun ownership, and liberals solution to crime is to sit around, hold hands, and sing songs. Right.

    The only problem is that reality doesn’t fit the mold you’re trying to stick liberals in.
    Take this Gallop Poll from 2008:

    A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

    It’s like saying that Democrats aren’t Christians when 78% of Americans call themselves Christian. Even if you placed every person who believes there is no individual right to bear arms in the liberal column and none in the conservative column you still can’t find a way to say things like, “Liberals generally oppose private gun ownership.”

    Liberals come down time and again on the sane side of the issue. Your side? Well, many conservatives like yourself think that any kind of law making it harder to get a gun is infringement when the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that it is not. When you start your argument on a faulty assumption it can only get worse as you build upon it.

    • Blake says:

      It is not conservatives who propose restrictive laws on gun ownership- if they were all common sense laws, there would be far less animosity, but many politicians use one law as a trojan horse, in order to gain a toehold for precedent- this is dishonest, no matter what side it comes from.
      Having a gun for protection is almost necessary in this day and age, because no matter how good the police are, they are a reactive force, virtually unable to do much UNTIL YOU ARE ALREADY ROBBED, RAPED, OR DEAD. This is unfortunate, but is indeed a fact of life.
      We have all seen or read of the TROs- (temporary restraining orders) issued by the courts to keep people apart, and we have seen how useless this piece of paper can be- most police will confidentially pull a woman to the side and tell them to get a gun and learn to use it- because they know that they will all too often get there too late to do much but spread crime tape, and do forensics.
      Protection is a very personal thing, and if you have a family, you have to consider it- even if you are personally opposed to it, because a person who won’t fight for his family really shouldn’t have one.

    • Big Dog says:

      Believing that the Amendment is an individual right (it is no matter what people “believe”) is not the same as saying you are in favor of individuals owning guns. Many liberals who might believe this is an individual right are the same ones who think there should be a ban on certain types of guns or on all guns. There is quite a difference. And to be clear, the liberals in Congress are, IN GENERAL, in favor of gun control. But like I said, just because a person believes that the Second is an individual right does not mean they would not like to see the right infringed. Liberals (OK, Democrats) are more likely to want stricter gun control. 60% of them want more gun control while far fewer Republicans want it that way. So, once again, saying it is an individual right is different than supporting that right:

      Nearly all the decline in support for stricter gun laws is from people who don’t identify themselves as Democrats. Six in 10 Democrats still support stricter gun laws, but support has dropped 13 points among Republicans and 17 points among independents. Half of all independents supported stricter gun laws in 2007; now only a third of them do. CNN

      The SCOUTUS has not ruled on this over and over because the Heller case was the first and only where they were asked to directly address that issue.

      The Miller case was about a shotgun and interstate commerce (and they got it wrong when they said that the weapon was not commonly used by the military). The Dred Scott case actually affirmed the individual right and that people were allowed to carry openly. One of the reasons the court ruled against Scott was that they did not want a black man owning and carrying a gun. The idea they have ruled over and over is exaggeration.

    • Blake says:

      Some of those statements are derived from observable data- it is liberals who instituted the disastrous policies. The policies do not work, indeed make things worse, ergo, it is liberals who are responsible.
      I know libs like to shirk responsibility- it is their favorite scapegoat- the “Everyone is to blame but me” scenario, but sooner or later, the admission has to be made that liberal social policies do not work.
      I repeat, THEY DO NOT WORK.

  2. Blake says:

    Making it harder to exercise your rights is not the best use of government, with respect to the Constitution.
    However, there will be people who, using end- around tactics, will attempt to subvert your right, for example, to owna gun, not by more stringent laws that might run afoul of the Constitution in court, but by taxing the ammo prohibitively, for example, making it too expensive to use.
    Then these libs can sanctimoniously say, that they didn’t inhibit the 2nd Amendment.
    Why do you think ammo is so hard to come by right now?
    Everyone is buying all they can.
    I guess that is stimulating the economy- an unintended consequence, I am sure.

  3. Adam says:

    No, in general as a party we do not oppose private gun ownership. Stop stretching the truth. You are falsely equating Democrats wanting “stricter gun laws” to Democrats saying they “oppose private gun ownership” and you know you’re in the wrong.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I equated no such thing. YOU made that comparison and are being dishonest. Liberals oppose gun ownership (Liberal is not a party, Democrat is) and this is a fact. In addition, 60% of Democrats want stricter gun control.

    The only connection I made in the post is that there had to be plenty of liberals among the women because of the heavily Democratic population. Not all Democrats are liberal but nearly all liberals are Democrats. The statement was accurate.

    Once again though, saying that something is a right does not mean you have no problem infringing upon that right.

    I imagine many Democrats would agree that we have freedom of religion but then turn around and argue against the display of religious items (regardless of religion) in public places and government buildings. Constitution does not prohibit it and there is no such thing in that document as separation of church and state but Democrats use that to deny a right they say exists.

    If I said that I believed that people had the right to assemble but then said that every person who attends any event where people are assembled had to pay $25,000 to do so you would say that it was unconstitutional and that I was infringing on the right of assembly. I just say that you can say it is an individual right to own a firearm but if you support laws that ban handguns or make the purchase or carrying of them cumbersome then you are not supporting what you say you believe.

    How many leftwing groups supported DC in the Heller case?

  5. Adam says:

    You’re going to see far left legislators passing laws or far left groups lobbying for stricter than normal gun regulations but we’ve seen these thrown out almost every time they are called to question. That is not mainstream for liberals in the US, much less the Democratic party. Raising the spectre of the gun grabbing liberal is a joke and you know it.

    Gun control is not the attack on gun ownership that conservatives like yourself want to pretend it is. The majority of Americans knows this. The SCOTUS knows this. Why don’t you?

    Comparing gun control to charging people to gather is faulty. But even the 1st amendment has limitations, just like the 2nd.

    • Big Dog says:

      And since Obama supports gun control (extreme measures) he is far left. Thanks for clearing that up.

      I do not interpret the Constitution in a way that suits me, I look at what the Founders said they intended when they wrote it. It is NOT a living document and the SCOTUS gets things wrong. Sometimes they are not impartial justices and they allow their political beliefs to sway their opinions regardless of what the Document says.

      It is a crime that people do not know what is written and it is a crime that justices are appointed based upon their political views so they can push an agenda for the person who appointed them.

      The right to gather has one limitation and that is it has to be peaceful. That is the only limitation placed upon those who gather. If people want to gather on public property to protest government they have the right. Gun rights are no different. As we are seeing, liberal women are buying guns because they cannot count on gubmint to protect them.

      We need guns as a last resort against the tyranny of government. Wasn’t it Jefferson who said that?

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “since Obama supports gun control (extreme measures) he is far left.”>>

        Got anything fresh, besides pure fantasy, to back that up?

        Didn’t think so.


        • Big Dog says:

          His own positions and words back it up. He supports gun control and he would like to ban some ammo and handguns. He is not aligned with the Constitution (as is the case in most of what he does).

  6. Adam says:

    And can we stop with the “no such thing as separation of church and state” nonsense? This problem with you keeps coming up lately where your opinion of the US Constitution is your primary argument for something you believe in. We see it with welfare, natural born citizenship, gun control, and now again with secular government.

    Luckily this country does not function solely by opening the sparse US Constitution and looking at the exact text and then stopping right there. It also doesn’t work by selectively stating the opinion of a Founding Father when it suits you. Our country works by interpretation of the document, on US codes, and on legal precedent. This balancing mechanism seems to escape you time and time again when you’re making some partisan argument.

    Funny how the words of the founders means so much to you when what you believe in isn’t stated specifically in the Constitution but yet care so little for those same men’s opinions when it suits you better.

    • Blake says:

      This country would work better if we DID take the Constitution more literally. The Constitution is supposed to put the brakes on runaway government, and say what government CANNOT do- but politicians have gone around the Constitution for years in order to accrue more power for their parties and themselves. They are wrong.
      You speak of a “balancing” mechanism- which, when it is used, would be the checks and balances part of the tripartite government setup- but Nobummer has, despite his mealy- mouthed speeches on the “limits” of executive power ( which is ANOTHER thing he promised to “fix”, and lied about) kind of likes his almost unlimited executive power, abetted by his czarlet minions, as they bypass the legislative process as much as they can.
      The words of the founders are something you should read- perhaps you might even agree with some of it, rather than Karl Marx, or Mao.

  7. victoria says:

    And can we stop with the “no such thing as separation of church and state” nonsense?

    Show me the exact text in the constitution that says “seperation of church and state.”

    • Adam says:

      You haven’t seen it? It’s right next to the part that says marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.

      • Big Dog says:

        Marriage is a religious institution and the government does not belong in it. The First Amendment allows religions to hold marriages as they see fit.

        In America, the law says that people can’t marry more than one person.

        As far as one man and one woman that is up to the religion. It is not a federal issue and should be reserved for the states. If a state’s population votes for gay marriage then the state would have it and if they don’t then it will not. It is a matter of the will of the people. The people of CA spoke and decided that they did not want gay marriage. The people who lost should respect that decision.

        Does that make it clear or are you still clinging to the idea that the federal government is your mommy and daddy?

        • Adam says:

          Says the guy who supported a marriage amendment to the Constitution.

          But then again, I need to cling to something right? Surely not my religion or my guns…

        • Adam says:

          And you’re just ignoring the fact that you and Victoria both are hung up on the idea the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution . At least Barbara (whom I hardly ever agree with) knows the debate is not whether such a thing exists but about how courts have and should interpret such a thing.

        • Blake says:

          Courts have wrongly interpreted this phrase since its inception- the phrase, while not in the Constitution, was supposed to offer clarity in the freedom of religion question- it was supposed to clarify that there was no incentive, indeed a prohibition on state- sponsored religion as related to citizenship and other privileges.
          In other words, you were free to practice your religion, no matter what it is. Period.
          The Supreme Court wrongly cut off prayer in public schools, because some wimps were “offended” by that- whatever happened to just being respectfully silent while others practiced their religion?
          Respect has gone out the window- every liberal feels “entitled” to register his indignation and be recognized as the social retard he or she is.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Marriage is a religious institution and the government does not belong in it.”>>

          Marriage is a legally binding state contract that has absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Some people like to pretend that it does, for traditional or emotional reasons, but this is of no legal importance or significance to anyone except for those who chose to use their imagination and play make believe.

          Notice, the gay marriage issue says nothing about what happens in churches. This is because it is of no relevance. No one cares. Unlike the old days, churches are powerless. The state rules. What people care about is what happens in the court house, not the church. Governments exist, and have power to enforce contracts. Gods, do not.

          “Perhaps you could tell us a model family in the Bible that I can take as a guide? One husband, just one wife, a few children, born by natural means, no murder, no incest, no polygamy.” –Steven Carr

          • Big Dog says:

            If religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage why was the concept started as a matter of religion and why does the large proition of marriages take place in religious institutions?

            If a gay wants to marry and a church says no, can the church get in trouble? States should be in charge of civil unions and religions in charge of marriage. The only reason we need marriage licenses is so the state can make money off us.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: If religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage why was the concept started as a matter of religion>>

              Lots of things started “as a matter of religion.” We grew out of it.

              Bigd: and why does the large proition of marriages take place in religious institutions?>>

              Tradition. No relevance. What matters is the state contract/license. That’s enforceable. Religious claims aren’t enforceable.

              Bigd: If a gay wants to marry and a church says no, can the church get in trouble?>>

              No. And the ACLU will defend the church. Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. I suppose that could change in the future. In a few short years we will see this bigotry against gays as the same as we see bigotry against other groups now.

              If a church advertised a service (marriage), and then when an African American couple showed up they said… “oh sorry, we don’t serve blacks,” we see that as wrong. Not sure if that would make them vulnerable to a lawsuit or not.

              These things change fast and the gay rights/marriage clock is ticking at about 1.5% per year in the acceptance direction.

              Obama’s mother, had she been in the wrong state, could have been arrested for having an interracial child. And now he’s president. Amazing.

              Bigd: The only reason we need marriage licenses is so the state can make money off us.>>

              Hardly. An Arkansas marriage license is about $35. And it’s quite fancy (or at least the one in our county is).


        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “you were free to practice your religion, no matter what it is.”>>

          Right. But what you are NOT free to do is use the power of the government to endorse your religion, or to use it to try and coerce others into participating in it. Sorry about that (not really).

          Three reasons to support separation of church and state:

          1. It prevents churches from encroaching on the state.

          2. It prevents the state from encroaching on the churches.

          3. It prevents both from encroaching on the people.

          • Big Dog says:

            Sorry Darrel, the Constitution only allows that government will not make a rule establishing a religion. There is nothing in there that would indicate a coach praying with his team is endorsing a religion. He is endorsing his own, on his own and as a member of the team.

            This is not a matter of coercion because people are supposed to be free to practice as they see fit, where they see fit. The only coercion is when children are not allowed to have a prayer when they want, they are forced not to. That is government establishing a rule that does not exist in the Constitution.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “the Constitution only allows that government will not make a rule establishing a religion.>>

              The Constitution allows whatever the supreme court says it allows, no exceptions, and the supreme court says, with great precedent and extensive ruling, you are wrong.

              Bigd: nothing in there that would indicate a coach praying with his team is endorsing a religion.>>

              That’s an employee of the state using his position of power over a captive audience and it’s prohibited by the constitution, so says the SCOTUS.

              Bigd: This is not a matter of coercion because people are supposed to be free to practice as they see fit,>>

              Not when they are acting as an agent of the state!

              As a bumpersticker we sell says:

              “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.”


              “It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit the practices respecting the establishing of religious services in public schools is tantamount to hostility of the Government to religion or toward prayer. The Supreme Court has consistently struck down such contention. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national declaration as embodied in the First Amendment guaranty of the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aim [**26] if each is left free from the other
              within its respective spheres.”

              –McCollum v. Board of Education, supra; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S.
              421, 433-4, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601.

  8. Barbara says:

    People have absolutely misinterpreted the “separation of church and state”. All this means is that the government cannot force us to participate in a state religion. We still have the right to our christian speech, to have Christmas manger scenes displayed just as the Jewish people, Muslims, and aethiest can have their objects displayed. A man in Maryland once wrote in the paper that he was offended by crosses on the highway where people had died. I wrote a reponse and told him that this was everyone’s right in America. He could put up what he wanted and I would put up a cross. I wouldn’t look at or complain about his and he just didn’t have to look at mine. We need to enjoy what freedom we have left in America because if you know the bible, in the end we will be a socialistic nation with no rights.

  9. victoria says:

    “At least Barbara (whom I hardly ever agree with) knows the debate is not whether such a thing exists but about how courts have and should interpret such a thing.”
    Is this what you are talking about Adam?
    While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the “Separation of Church and State” which is not in the Constitution. Their faulty reasoning is that Praying Establishes a State Religion, but in fact, this is really Citizens Freely Practicing their Religious faith in God. The Government would be establishing a State Religion if it forced all the children to pray to a God of one type of Religion or Denomination that they did not believe in. However, Prayer in School was alway voluntary and students were free not to be a part of school prayers. Ruling that students can not Pray in School violates the Constitution of the United States by interfering with the FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION. Thus the Supreme Court rulings on School Prayer and Bible Reading are illegal as they violate the Constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court forbids students from praying before a football game asking God to protect the players in the game, the Court is exercising the very tyranny of the minority that our Forefathers tried to stop. The Highest Court in the land has failed to Safe-Guard the Peoples Right to Worship without Government Interference. We have Justices on the Supreme Court that either do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or have a very dishonest social agenda that they wish to impose on America. In either case they are not qualified to be Justices of the Supreme Court and should be Impeached by the Congress of the United States.

    But we all know that isn’t going to happen nowdays and don’t you mean “how courts have and should legislate from the bench” since that is what you apparently want. Libs knew their liberal agendas weren’t going to fly in congress so they turned to ruling from the bench.

  10. victoria says:

    I go this email the other day and it describes it perfectly–including religion.

    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
    If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
    A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

    If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
    Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
    If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

    If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
    A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

    • Blake says:

      Very succinct, victoria- couldn’t have said it better, or in plainer language myself- too bad it is too complicated for a liberal to understand.

    • Adam says:

      Yes, that’s said well…if you like utter rubbish. But then again rubbish is all the GOP has right now so you conservatives on this site are in good company.

      • Blake says:

        truth is not rubbish, and you can turn your head and deny all you want, but these generalizations are pretty much right on here.
        You refuse to recognize your victimhood- held captive by banal and childish beliefs that you are entitled to some ethereal “something”, because, ” you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and darn it, someone likes you.”

        Stuart Smalley, SNL- filed under Liberal Pap.

      • Adam says:

        If there were any truth to the chain mail rubbish and it was not just a list of moronic partisan generalizations then it would matter.

        • Blake says:

          What chain mail rubbish? I haven’t seen whatever you are prattling about.
          Reference, please.
          If you are referring to victoria’s comment above, I hadn’t seen it before now, but I certainly can attest to the truth of it.

  11. Big Dog says:

    I don’t remember supporting the amendment to the Constitution for marriage though I can’t say for sure. I support one to protect the Flag.

    The only advantage of an amendment would be that it would prevent the federal government from imposing gay marriage on the states. My preference would be that the feds stay out and let the states decide since this is not a federal issue. But if the feds want to impose upon the states then I would support an amendment.

  12. Big Dog says:

    But those schools with devout Muslims will set aside prayer rooms for them…

    • Blake says:

      Yes indeed- can any liberal see the hypocrisy here?
      If you cannot, you are blind, deaf and dumb to the degree that you belong slithering on the bottoms of guano- filled caves.
      Muslims get a prayer room, while we, the CHRISTIAN majority in this country get prosecuted? Now, I know life is not fair, but if they can pray, so can we- equality under the law, right?
      Or is that some more liberal pap we cannot take seriously?

    • Darrel says:

      [Muslim prayer rooms in public schools]

      I hadn’t heard of this. Interesting. Their particular prayer habits do present an interesting problem. Quite workable I think.


      Public schools grapple with Muslim prayer.


      “As a constitutional law attorney, I don’t care whether kids do or don’t pray in schools. I don’t care to whom or how they pray,” North says. But he adds that he does have to make sure that religious requests are treated in a neutral way.

      The 133,000-student school district knows more than most about the hazards of making the wrong decision. In 1993, a federal court ordered the district to allow students to engage in religious activities during lunchtime.

      The First Amendment seeks to balance an individual’s right to practice one’s religion without undue government interference while at the same time barring the government from endorsing or favoring any particular faith. In addition, in 2000, Congress approved the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which requires religious accommodations in many instances.”

      With my job I go to a lot of schools. They have Christian clubs, the kids can pray whenever they want on their free time as long as it’s not teacher led, they have a “prayer around the flagpole” ritual they like to do in the morning. When some kids at a local high school wanted to start a freethinker club they were denied even though this same school has a Christian club. I have also heard a prayer over the announcement system, but that was about ten years ago.

      Oh well, the secularization of America is happening and it’s speeding up a bit. Us freethinkers like to give it a push.


  13. Big Dog says:

    Anyone who thinks kids do not pray in school have never watched them before a midterm exam…

    I don’t think a school system should deny a Freethinker club but the club should have the same restrictions as any religious club. Not teacher led, not during school time and only one student time.

    That would be fair.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “the club should have the same restrictions as any religious club.”>>

      I agree. And only the same restrictions as any other club. A good lesson in “freedom of assembly” for the young citizens.

      Except it seems these clubs are required to have an adult, a teacher, to be a “sponsor” (this is also the case at the University level). I suppose this makes sense, someone to supervise a bit and be responsible that poor, unsafe or illegal decisions aren’t made for a “school approved club.”

      These kids at the local high school did have a sponsor, but the group was denied by the principal, unquestionably on religious grounds. It’s a very religious town, not worth fighting it I guess, so they didn’t.


      • Big Dog says:

        Well I don’t think what the club is should have any bearing so long as it is not illegal. If kids want a religious club, a Freethinker club or political clubs then they should be allowed to have them. I have no heartburn with an adult sponsor to ensure they do not do something that would discredit the school or end up with legal issues but fair is fair and all sides should be allowed to participate in their groups.