Homosexual Teacher Shames First-Graders at Illinois School

Homosexual Teacher Shames First-Graders at Illinois School
Nathan Etter (far right) and “husband”
Homosexual Teacher Shames First-Graders at Illinois School
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   04.19.18

Reason #__ (oh, heck, I’ve lost count) for grabbing your kids and fleeing public schools: “teachable moments” and out and proud homosexuals in legal but fake marriages.

Seeing a big front-page Chicago Tribune photo of 30-year-old homosexual hipster Nathan Etter, who teaches music at Prairie View Grade School in Elgin, with a wee little boy holding Etter in a bear-cub hug was not a good way to start Wednesday. I should clarify: the little tyke appears to be a boy. I guess it could be a girl or a human who rejects the binary.

The photo—obviously designed to pull on the heartstrings of readers before they read—accompanies the story of Etter, whose “husband’’ sent him a bouquet of flowers on Valentine’s Day, which, Etter evidently placed where his first-grade students could see it. When some 7- year-old kids asked if the flowers were from his wife, Etter said no, they were from his husband. According to the Trib, Etter “answered honestly,” to which some students responded equally honestly, saying “ewww” and “gross.”

Etter then jumped on this “teachable moment,” which I’m sure caught him totally off-guard (yeah, riiight), to give a Leftist lesson on “respect, tolerance,” and the existence of families led by “two moms” or “two dads.” He offered this chastisement/instruction to his young charges: “‘Oh no, friends, we’re not going to have that response, because that’s not showing respect.’”

Which is a greater offense: young children expressing disapproval of homosexual relationships or an adult homosexual teacher affirming his homosexual relationship to young children in a classroom and shaming young children for their disapproval of it?

In the service of inclusivity, respect, and tolerance, I wonder why Etter didn’t mention families led by 3, 4, or 5 persons of assorted sexes (i.e., polyamorous families). Does his silence reflect his judgment that some family structures are not moral and not worthy of respect? Does his silence reflect his belief that not all loving relationships should include sex? Does his silence reflect his belief that young children ought not be exposed to all types of relationships that exist? Or was his silence just an oversight that at some teachable moment in the future he’ll correct?

“Respect” means to hold in esteem. It should go without saying that no one has a moral or ethical obligation to respect homosexual acts, homosexual relationships, or same-sex faux marriage. In fact, Christians have a moral obligation to disapprove of all three. Homosexual activity and relationships dishonor those involved in them, marring the image of God imprinted on humans. Same-sex faux marriage is marriage de jure (in law) only. A union of two people of the same sex can never in reality be a marriage because marriage is something. It has a nature that we don’t create. We merely recognize a type of relationship that exists. The law can no more change an intrinsically non-marital union into a marriage than it could change a whole person into 3/5 of a person.

Does Etter demonstrate respect for those families who not only believe that homosexual acts and relationships are immoral but who also believe it is their duty to protect their children from exposure to ideas they believe are age-inappropriate?

The children who responded correctly—albeit politically incorrectly and indelicately (they were seven years old, after all) were not saying Etter is gross. They were expressing their proper feelings about Etter’s improper relationship.

It’s a grievous abuse of power for an arm of the government (i.e., public schools) or a government employee paid by taxpayers to teach other people’s children that they ought to hold in esteem homosexual relationships or same-sex faux-marriage. Government employees have no right to try to undermine children’s view that it is “gross” for two men to be in a homoerotic relationship. It is not only our ideas that must be properly ordered; it is our feelings, our sentiments as well. We should love that which is deserving of love. We should respect that which is deserving of respect. We should be repelled by actions that violate the design of our bodies and undermine human flourishing. People in homosexual relationships should be respected because they’re human. Their homosexuality per se is wholly undeserving of respect.

Fortunately, the parent of one of the students Etter lectured “contacted the district with ‘serious concerns’ about Etter’s comments.” The principal met with Etter, and then things turned ugly, culminating in a heated and crowded school board meeting on Monday evening. Apparently, Etter doesn’t respect or tolerate views that dissent from his. Apparently, he wants to be free to lecture students on his moral views of their moral views on homosexuality and marriage.

After his meeting with the principal, Etter whined to his union who then sent an email to all district staff and faculty claiming that “‘school leaders treated Etter in a discriminatory manner.’” On HuffPost, Etter’s fake hubby huffed, “‘This would have never happened if Nathan received flowers from his wife.’” No disagreement there. Marriage between a man and a woman is non-controversial. With the exception of a few radical Leftists like Masha Gessen who admit to wanting to destroy marriage, no one disapproves of marriage between one man and one woman. Commitments to equality demand that we treat like things alike. Homosexual unions are quite obviously different from heterosexual unions.

Etter’s view that he was discriminated against exposes why conservatives oppose including “sexual orientation” (code word for “homosexuality”) in anti-discrimination policies and laws. Conservatives understand that a condition constituted by subjective erotic and romantic feelings and volitional acts that many believe are immoral should not be included in anti-discrimination laws and policies. Conservatives correctly understand that people have a right to discriminate between right and wrong sexual behaviors.

Etter doesn’t really want “tolerance” for his homosexuality or his marriage. He wants approval, affirmation, celebration. Historically, people understood tolerance to mean putting up with something one finds objectionable. It did not mean approving, affirming, or celebrating all the beliefs, feelings, and volitional acts of others. In a truly diverse and tolerant world, people are free to find homosexual acts, relationships, and fake marriages offensive, immoral, degrading, and even “gross.” And this may surprise Leftists, but it’s perfectly possible to hold such views while loving those who believe differently and act in accordance with their different beliefs. In a diverse world, most of us do it every day.

Etter also took umbrage that he was instructed to “stick to the curriculum.” How dare an administration try to limit teachers to teaching curricula when what Leftist teachers really want is absolute autonomy to use “teachable moments” to advance their moral assumptions as if they were objective facts.

Etter confirmed that view outside the school board meeting when he said he “wants to continue to live his life authentically and use teachable moments as they arise.” Just wondering, should conservative teachers be permitted to live “authentically and use teachable moments as they arise” to share their views on homosexuality and marriage—views that they believe advance the cause of truth, justice, and human flourishing? Should polyamorous teachers be free to live their lives authentically and use teachable moments as they arise? If not, why not?

“Authenticity” has become a euphemistic term exploited to rationalize immoral behavior and to silence disapproval of such behavior. It’s a manipulative rhetorical tool to confer moral goodness on immoral behavior by implying without proving that acting on intensely felt desires is intrinsically good and necessary for emotional health. It’s like a get-out-of-moral-assessment free card. Of course, authenticity doesn’t apply to those with dissenting views of sexual morality.

“Teachable moments,” another rhetorical gift reserved only for Leftists, just means any moment Leftists can seize on to pontificate on their moral or political assumptions in the classroom. All they need do is connect a topic, a passage in a novel, or a passing comment from a student to one of their moral or political beliefs or place Valentine’s Day flowers from homosexual lovers in the classroom to invite comments, and voilà, a teachable moment.

Etter said “he does not fear losing his job but said he was disappointed that he did not receive an apology.” Apology for what? For telling him to stick to curricula? For not groveling at the altar of his sexuality ideology?

It’s curious that in all the surrounding brouhaha, no one has suggested that perhaps the children Etter shamed are owed an apology.

The other photo accompanying the Trib’s homosexuality-advocacy piece is a big photo of little tykes holding signs that say, “We support Mr. Etter” and the truly ignorant slogan “Love is love.” Is it really? Are all types of loving relationships identical? Will the parents of these little ones trot their children out with that slogan when a teacher in a poly union exploits her “teachable moment”? What about when the teacher who’s in love with his brother exploits his “teachable moment”? After all, who are we to judge. Remember, love is love.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Illinois Precinct Committeeman? Total waste of time and effort

The Death of Republicanism, Part 1: the Battlefield - The ...

I just saw a group in facebook, Illinois precinct committeemen. I got suckered into that in 2010. I served two terms. We were all told oh you can change Illinois, they need boots on the ground and precinct committeemen are the boots on the ground. What a horrible waste time and effort that was.  I walked my precinct  door to door every election. It did absolutely NO good, in fact every election got worse, more and more RINO’s got in  who voted for a tax hike and voted for pro gun grabbing legislation. Illinois is hopeless and beyond repair. An army of precinct committeemen will not change anything. The only thing constructive an Illinois precinct committeeman could ever do is put his boots on the ground and march out of Illinois.

What I have also heard is that committeeman is the training ground for the aspiring young republican politician.  This is exactly what we DON’T NEED!  We don’t need born and raised politicians, we need business people like President Donald Trump who know how to run things efficiently.  We don’t need Louis Lardass the professional politician.  We also need someone who will stand for the American people and not just tote the party line.

The Lefts new Pajama boy for 2018 David “Camera” Hogg

With the end of the Obama regime also came the end of Pajama boy, the metro-sexual, neutered male that became the spokesman for Obamacare.   How I missed the little wimp clad in his flannel pajama’s sipping his hot coco and contemplating which government teat he would suck on next.

However as Mark Twain has said, “rumors of my death have been highly exaggerated”.  So too with P.J. Boy.  Yes, the spokesperson for all liberal causes is back with a vegence and his name is David Hogg, also known as David “Camera” Hogg or simply David Hogg wash.

Only this time the usefull dupe mouth piece of the left is not pushing government healthcare, it’s full gun confiscation.   Camera Hogg represents a contingency of tide pod chewing, condom snorting, confused victims of the so called educational system of the left where the only apparent education now is political indoctrination.  But don’t worry, we’re from the government, we’re here to help you, just as soon as we take your guns.

David “Camera” Hogg, child gun prodigy


WRMN; at last a good alternative to morning wake up radio in Chicago

WRMN so far so good for me, no President Trump bashing so far!

I am so tired of waking up in the morning to all the radio station crap out there.  I am tired of the never Trump leaning anal retentive conservatives such as Dan Proft as well as his wacky liberal side kick Amy Jacobson on WIND.  Equally as repulsive is Big John Howell on the mega blower radio station WLS.  In between you have the usual Trump hating morning personalities and the morning garbage that comes out of their mouths such as the liberals at the two sports stations of WMVP and WSCR or the Public Radio outlets of Jazz WDCB which despite the good jazz music have a very leftist reporting of the news.  The classical station WFMT with their own dulcet tone of Trump bashing.

So it was a pleasant surprise when I tried waking up to WRMN radio 1410 out of Elgin Illinois.   Before 6am they have an Illinois rural farm format.  Its call RFD Illinois.  The news purveyor they use is townhall.com surprisingly enough a very conservative news outlet.  After 6am its mainly traffic, farm weather reports, which seems to be a more detailed view of the weather.  The news is very unbiased.  The morning DJ’s so far have seemed to keep any political opinions to themselves.  I think some of them come from Judson College, a very Christian university.  Most of the day is absorbed with the home shopping show which is not really my cup of tea but still, for just getting the weather, traffic, sports and local news as I get up in the morning seems to work for me so far.


Mueller witch hunt nothing more than a deep state vendetta against the nation

Robert Swan Mueller gives the traditional salute to his deep state Fuhrer’s

The nation is doing great.  Unemployment down especially among blacks.  Tax cuts are putting more money in peoples pockets.  Less government regulations and taxes bringing more companies back into the United states.  Coal mining is back and with it increased employment.  Pro life movement finally has a voice in government.  Our military is once again respected by its commander in chief.  Should Americans be proud, confident, and happy with the rebirth of America.

Yes, except if your a swamp rat politician.  If you are you are loosing control you have over your minions and you have to put an end to it.  What do you do if your part of the deep state regime?  You do whatever you can to destroy the reputation and credibility of a highly successful president and his outstanding first year track record.  You begin with a fictional Russian collusion claim and when all fingers point to the real guilty party being the Clinton’s you quietly pursue other routes.   The important thing you do if your Mueller and the deep state is do whatever you can to discredit this president but you still use the fictional guise of a Russian collusion probe.

So now you see your opening to further distract the president from doing his job so you find and/or pay off Stormy Daniels, professional porn star to attack the president.  A consensual relationship between two adults?   Who the hell cares what the man does in his personal life.  Isn’t that what you always claim regarding all the Bill Clinton affairs?  If this was so important Mr. Mueller then why is it Bill Clinton, professional pervert and rapist was never brought to justice?  Just a casual slap on the wrist with, “well what the man does in his personal life is his business”.  Really?  Then what about murdering women like Ted Kennedy did in Chappaquiddick?  Well ok not murder but certainly manslaughter.   All this covered up with layers of fake news media.  It’s all good for the swamp but bad for the plumber trying to drain it.

The Fake news drones of CNN MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and all the rest of the fake alphabet soup are foaming at the mouth for any scrap of speculation against president Trump.  The sole purpose of  this is to destroy the man and his presidency despite all the benefit he is doing for the country against all odds and in so doing endangering his own welfare.  The purpose of this whole debacle is clear. Discredit President Trump as much as you can on anything, even if he ever spit on the sidewalk,  and in so doing hope to separate the bond this President has with his base.

I also find it very strange that the offices of Cohen were in Trump tower and raided the same day as the reported fire.  I wonder if anyone saw Mr. Mueller in the neighborhood with a pack of matches.  They must of been assault matches.

That, Mr. Deep state Mueller will not work.  Every time you fire up the witch hunt you just make the bond between us stronger.  Why are you so hell bent on destroying this nation Mr. Mueller by doing the same thing to it as Stormy Daniels has been doing in her career for years.

Be aware people, if they succeed in destroying this President thru the never ending witch hunt then they have successfully destroyed this nation.  Once they do that then America will cease to exist as we know it.  Now more than ever SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP!

Now is the time, FIRE THAT SOB MUELLER!

Trump Calls FBI Raid on His Lawyer Michael Cohen a ‘Disgraceful Situation’

The FBI raided President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room on Monday, seizing documents related to several issues, including payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Cohen is reportedly under federal investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations, according to the Washington Post. 

Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, released a statement that said the raids were “in part, a referral by the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

“The decision by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York to conduct their investigation using search warrants is completely inappropriate and unnecessary,” Ryan said. He added:

Trump called the situation a “disgrace,” and called the special investigation a “total witch hunt” and an “attack on our country.”

When asked if he would fire Mueller, Trump held the door open.

“We’ll see what happens..Many people have said you should fire him,” he said. He also noted that firing former FBI Director James Comey turned out to be “the right thing.”

A spokesman for the special counsel referred Fox News to U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 28, Section 600.4 in regards to Mueller’s referral. The code said:

“If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the court of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.”

Cohen had recently said he had paid the porn actress, whose name is Stephanie Cliffords, $130,000 in 2016, as the presidential campaign was underway.

Cliffords has claimed she had a one-time sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. She said Cohen paid her the money in the days before the election, as part of a nondisclosure agreement. Trump has denied knowing about the payment.

Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, has questioned whether Cohen’s payment could be considered a campaign donation, which would exceed donation limits.

The FBI seized emails, tax documents, and business records, a person briefed on the search told the New York Times. The seized records reportedly include communications between Trump and Cohen.

Cohen had been living in a hotel room while repairs were being done to his apartment, according to Fox News.

Mark Robinson Is the Majority, Not the Drive-By Media

RUSH: Something happened on Tuesday night, and it escaped me. I cannot tell you, folks, you do not know how irritated with myself I get when something happens and I am late to hearing about it because all I do is try to stay informed. And then I am doubly ticked off to find out I had a small example of it on yesterday’s sound bite roster and didn’t even know it because of the vagaries of the way it all happens. And so now I’m faced with I want to share this with you, but the odds are you’ve already heard it or seen or what have you.

But what you haven’t heard is my commentary about it. Because this is so right on. This guy says in different words exactly what I have been saying. Every time I have lamented that the Drive-By Media tries to make everything they look at and report on to be the norm, the majority, they aren’t. They’re nowhere near the majority but their trick is to make it look like everybody agrees with whatever it is they think on whatever it is they’re reporting, such as the Indiana religious restoration law, restoration freedom law.

They tried to make it look like everybody thought Indiana was a bunch of twerps, that the governor was a hick and a hayseed and that nobody was in favor of this, when in truth it’s the media that’s the minority. I have constantly found and sought different ways to make the point that the majority — in guns, you know, how many times have we all pointed out that every gun control effort is only gonna do one thing: take guns out of the hands of people who do not use them to commit crimes.

All it’s gonna do is take guns out of the hands of people who are never gonna shoot up a school. It isn’t gonna stop any of this. Remember, I’ve told you this story. I was at an elite dinner party back in the days that I lived in Manhattan. And I’ll tell you who with. This guy was a cabinet official in the Nixon administration. I’ve never announced this guy’s name, and I’m not going to now, but that’s as close as I’ll get.

And he was the typical haughty — h-a-u-g-h-t-y — haughty, effete, elite Manhattanite leftist, even though he was in the Nixon cabinet. And they just have this air they’re smarter than everybody. They look down their nose at everybody. And at one of these dinner parties on Fifth Avenue right across the street is Central Park.

And you could make book on it, whenever one of these dinner parties took place, the subject of guns would come up, and this guy brought it up, and he made it sound like it was the most insane, stupid point in the world to not want to get rid of guns.

In other words, the most sane, sensible opinion anybody could have would be we’ve got to get rid of guns and we’ve got to do something about the Second Amendment. I tell this guy, “You know what? You know what, Mr. Nixon cabinet member? I might support you if you can guarantee me something, that after I and everybody else in this room give you their guns, that you’re next gonna cross the street, go into Central Park and you’re gonna find every criminal in there with a gun and you’re gonna get his, too.”

You’re never gonna try get guns out of the hands of criminals because that’s not what you’re after. You’re after control. You’re not after gun control. You’re after control of human beings. You don’t want people to be able to defend themselves. You will not go and try to take guns away from the people who do use them to commit crimes. Anyway, I’ve told you all this.

So on Tuesday night, in Greensboro, North Carolina, there was a city council meeting and a citizen showed up fit to be tied. His name is Mark Robinson. And I only saw this last night. It turns out I had 35 seconds of this on yesterday’s audio sound bite roster. I’m not gonna go into a deep, long discussion of why I missed it because that would mean I would have to indict the overpaid, overworked, overrated staff.

So I’m not gonna blame them. It was sound bite number 19 and I didn’t get that far. I don’t think I got beyond sound bite number 3, and I never had time to look at the whole roster ’cause it doesn’t come in anyway. My problem to work out. So I saw this last night, and I send it off to the audio production team. And they said, “Oh, it was in the sound bites.”

“It was?” Dammit. I can’t tell you how this embarrasses me, to be three days late to this. So I’m still gonna play it for you because it’s fascinating, it’s delicious, it’s right on the money, it is home run, grand-slam home run. And if you have heard it or seen it, the video has gone viral, Snerdley tells me. Let’s just start. This is Mark Robinson. He’s just a citizen. He’s a resident, Greensboro, North Carolina. He showed up because they’re talking about gun control and taking guns away and he’s having none of it.

ROBINSON: I’ve heard a whole lot of people here talking tonight about this group and that group, domestic violence, blacks. These minorities and that minority. What I want to know is, when are you all gonna start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that.

But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. You want to turn around and restrict my right, Constitutional right that’s spelled out in black and white, you want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you’re talking about in here tonight. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Serling could come up with a better script.

RUSH: We’re just getting warmed up here, folks. He’s got no notes. He’s at the podium. He’s African-American. He’s bald, he’s a big guy. I mean, he looks like he sounds. And this guy is loaded for bear, and these little council members, some of them are obviously gonna be leftist wimps, they’re just cowering there. They don’t know what to do with this. They probably think they’re being bullied. So here he tells people what’s gonna happen. If they make a move on the law-abiding, if they make a move on the majority, he tells them here what’s gonna happen.

ROBINSON: I’m gonna tell you what’s gonna happen. You can take the guns away from us all you want to. You all write a law, I’ll follow the law, I’ll bring my guns down here, I’ll turn ’em in. But here’s what’s gonna happen. The Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town, they’re not gonna turn their guns in. They’re gonna hold onto ’em. And what’s gonna happen when you have to send the police down there to go take them?

The police can barely enforce the law as it is! It’s what I see. We demonize the police, criminalize and vilify the police, and we make the criminals into victims. And we’re talking about restricting guns? How are you gonna do that? How are you gonna do that when the police department’s already hamstrung? You’re not gonna be able to go down here and take these guns from these criminals.

RUSH: Exactly my point about telling this clown in New York to cross Fifth Avenue to Central Park and go get the guns in there, if you’re gonna take mine. And they’re not even gonna try. They’re not gonna be try to take the guns away from the people who use them criminally because that’s not really their objective. Just like liberals don’t really care about people. They don’t have compassion.

Liberals really never get offended. You know, they’ve marketed that too. We have to stop saying, doing, speaking, talking, acting, anything that might offend them. They’re not offended. The left wing, that’s an act. They’re not offended by what anybody says. They are outraged that anybody who disagrees with them has the right to say it. They want to shut down what they don’t like. They’re not offended. They just use that.

Same thing here. Get the legal and law-abiding to give their guns away and think and try to tell people you’ve solved school shootings. It’s silly. This is Mark Robinson again, and this is Tuesday night, Greensboro, North Carolina, at a city council meeting.

ROBINSON: So the criminals are gonna hold on to their guns. They’re still gonna have ’em. They’re still gonna break in my house, and they’re still gonna shoot me with ’em. And guess who’s gonna be the one that suffers? It’s gonna be me. Well, I’m here to tell you tonight, it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say fight, I don’t mean shots fired; I don’t mean fists thrown.

I mean I’m going to come down here to this city council and raise hell just like these loonies from the left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city. And I am the majority. The majority of the people in this city are law-abiding, and they follow the law. And they want their constitutional right to be able to bear arms.

RUSH: Exactly. They’re not doing anything. They are the majority to boot. They are not using their guns criminally. These are the people that often show up and stop criminal actions taking place with guns. And yet gun control is designed to do what? Take guns away from the law-abiding and the majority. We have one more bite here from Mark Robinson again. This is cool. He now demystifies the AR-15.

ROBINSON: They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or sport rifle. There are no military grade weapons sold at the gun shows. An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Anybody would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semiautomatic .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths, and we need to drop all this division that we got going on here. ‘Cause the bottom line is, when that Second Amendment was written, whether the Framers liked it or not, they wrote it for everybody. And I am everybody. And the law-abiding citizens of this city are everybody. And we want our rights, and we want to keep our rights — and, by God, we’re gonna keep ’em, come hell or high water.

RUSH: I’m not talking about a gunfight and I’m not talking about a fistfight. He has to say that because that’s what leftists think you mean. “I’m gonna fight you.” They think you’re gonna bring your gun. So gotta make sure he didn’t mean physically fight, he wasn’t gonna bully them, he wasn’t gonna come down there and kick their leftist little asses all across the room on the matter of ideas. So that’s Mark Robinson, it was Tuesday night in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I wanted to share that with you.

Elgin Illinois on track for Sharia law

The Democrat winner of Kane county district 19 is……………………………………


(Vote for 1)

Votes % of Votes

Thomas P. Gibbons (Democratic) 273 17.03%
John Jack Shales (Democratic) 430 26.82%
Mohammad “Mo” Iqbal (Democratic) 786 49.03%

And while they slept residents of Deerfield Illinois had their rights taken away from them

Banning and Confiscating Guns in Deerfield, Illinois

Banning and Confiscating Guns in Deerfield, Illinois
Written By Laurie Higgins 

Deerfield, Illinois, an affluent suburb on Chicago’s North Shore, is making national headlines for passing an amendment to a 2013 village ordinance that regulates the storage of guns. The amendment mandates a ban on “certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” and grants to the “police chief or his or her designee” the authority to “confiscate” any of the banned weapons if they are not “removed, sold, or transferred.” In addition to gun confiscation, failure to comply will result in fines of $250-1,000 per day. Deerfield residents have until June 13 to get rid of the banned guns.

The trustees added an exemption for retired law enforcement officers, who evidently have a right to own the now-banned guns that ordinary citizens don’t. Mayor Harriet Rosenthal claims that “There is no place here for assault weapons,”—well, except in the homes of retired law enforcement personnel.

The banned weapons include “semiautomatic rifles,” “semiautomatic pistols,” and semiautomatic shotguns” with certain features.

Oddly, according to the Chicago Tribune, on Monday night when the vote was taken, “the trustees did not discuss their reasons for supporting the ordinance.”

One trustee who voted for the ordinance expressed her concern that opponents of the ordinance were afraid to speak out publicly:

Trustee Barbara Struthers said she knew of people who were opposed but chose not to come and speak because it would subject them to ridicule in the community.

One resident who wasn’t too intimidated to oppose the amendment was Andy Rogers who spoke at previous board meetings. Rogers challenged the need for such a ban, saying that he “wasn’t aware that Deerfield had an assault weapons problem” and that “assault weapons have essentially been outlawed since the National Firearms Act of 1934.” In response to a community member who claimed that a “well regulated militia meant that firearms could be banned,” Rogers explained that “the meaning of regulated is ‘to make regular’—meaning that everyone had the same training, same weapons, etc.”

Attorney Daniel J. Schultz elaborates on this understanding of the Second Amendment:

The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army…. [A]s to the term “well regulated,” it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of “regulation” power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended…. George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

[T]he right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s)…. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Village resident Larry Nordal predicted what will be next for Deerfield:

“The [2013] ordinance to store firearms was only passed for one reason…. That was to have an amendatory vehicle that could be used in the future for just this purpose so you could banish assorted firearms in the future. First it’s going to be assault rifles. (There will be) new bans in the future. It’s just a matter of time.”

And this is how “progressives” use incrementalism and the cowardice of conservatives to rip out threads from the fabric that holds our republic together: the Constitution.