July 2, 2010 - The Democrat-dominated Chicago City Clowncil - excuse me, Council - today passed an ordinance that shows their utter and unanimous contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the Second Amendment. The Chicago Sun-Times reports today:Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.... Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.In other words, the aldermen know that they have to live with the Second Amendment, but they'll be damned if they'll make it easy for citizens to actually excercise their right to own and bear arms. Which leads us to the main thrust of this post: Stupid things that aldermen said at today's council meeting (all quotes taken from the Sun-Times unless otherwise indicated):
Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis.”Uhm, Ald. Smith, are you serious? I've met you, I've spoken to you, and you didn't seem as stupid as that quote makes you sound. Can you show us where in the Constitution the word "musket" or "muskets" appears? Furthermore, can you show us any evidence that the authors of the Constitution meant "muskets only?" For that matter, show us where that is in the Federalist Papers, or in any other writings by any of the Founders. Do you really believe, for example, that the Founders meant long guns and not pistols, swords, knives, bludgeons, or any other kind of weapon?
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did a couple days ago,” said Ald. Sharon Denise Dixon (24th).As for Supreme Court judges living in the 24th Ward of Chicago and her presumption about their conclusion, well, the "judges" (justices) do live in Washington, D.C., a rough town in its own right. The same justices who ruled that D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional in 2008.
After that ruling (Heller),"violent crime fell" in D.C., says the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "even faster in the District of Columbia than in the U.S. as a whole. In 2009 alone, the District's murder total dropped 25 percent, to the lowest level since 1967."Of course, geniuses like Mayor Daley and Ald. Dixon are immune to hard facts. They'd rather go with the typical liberal emotional argument, facts be damned. The D.C. ban first went into effect in 1976, and according to the Washington Post it was essentially ineffective - gun violence "continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times." Chicago's experience was virtually identical over the same period.
Alderman Dixon needs to get out and talk to her constituents more. Is she completely unaware of the high rate of gun violence in her ward? Does she think that the majority of those shooting are by law-abiding folks, or perhaps by criminally-minded people who possess the guns illegally and won't give a damn about this new ordinance?
“I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices that voted to strike our handgun laws have spent any time in the communities that many of us represent,” Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) said. “There’s no way if they knew the violence our young people face every day that they could decide this was a reasonable course of action.”.Alderman Preckwinkle, see my remarks regarding Ald. Dixon's equally stupid remark, and know this: The violence that the American Revolutionaries faced everyday was worse than what your constituents see in the 4th Ward. Read the Federalist Papers. Stop believing the false myth that gun control reduces crime - it doesn't.
The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could protect itself. Yes, they had a tyrannical government in mind, but I seriously doubt that John Adams would object to a little old lady blowing away one of your drug-crazed, murder-bent 4th Ward residents as he breaks through her apartment door. The Supreme Court upheld the letter of the Second Amendment, Ald. Preckwinkle. Go tell the elderly, the small females, and the shop owners in your ward that you believe they have no right to protect themselves against an amoral segment of society, created and perpetuated in large part by the decayed moral "values" of liberals such as yourself. Go on, tell them.
But Ald. Ed Burke (14th) retorted, “We can disagree with the Supreme Court all we want, but … this is the law and we’re going to have to follow it.”Burke's comment sounds reasonable at first, until you realize that he is saying that he disagrees with the Court's upholding of the U.S. Constitution. Why does Alderman Burke seem to resent having the Constitution applied equally to all Americans? He did redeem himself somewhat, however, when he said that he had to "confess that back in 1982, when I was chair of the police committee that perhaps I and so many others that voted in favor of this [handgun ban] ordinance exhibited too much ardor for the ban and we perhaps we should have been more sensitive to weighing the rights of legitimate citizens to have weapons." Well, that's nice, but notice Burke's elitist attitude in the "weighing of the rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Still, Burke seemed determine to make an ass of himself. He also uttered this stupidity:
“All the gang-bangers out there who have been convicted of gun offenses who think that they can flaunt this law, they’re going to be locked up,” Burke said. “Each day that you don’t register, it’s a separate offense. If you don’t register for 365 days, that’s 365 offenses.”Alderman Burke doesn't seem to understand that it's been primarily the bad guys who have committed gun offense. Does he not see the profound irony and simultaneous idiocy of his speaking about gang-bangers who have "been convicted of gun offenses," and are no longer imprisoned, and will - in his apparent opinion - have the opportunity to register for legal gun ownership? Does Ald. Burke favor allowing those who have been convicted for gun violence to be able to legally register - and own - a gun? His statement indicates so.
Finally, Mayor Daley himself made another of his typically stupid statements. CNN quotes him as saying this:
"Either we enact new and reasonable handgun laws in Chicago to protect our residents -- as the council has done -- or we do nothing and risk greater gun violence in our streets and in our homes," Mayor Daley said.Mayor Daley is a deaf, dumb and blind imbecile insofar as gun ownership is concerned. Nevertheless, somebody should urge him to read the the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post pieces that are referenced above. Then he should watch this short video by Penn and Teller (contains strong language):
July 2, 2010 - The Democrat-dominated Chicago City Clowncil - excuse me, Council - today passed an ordinance that shows their utter and unanimous contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the Second Amendment. The Chicago Sun-Times reports today:
Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.... Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.
In other words, the aldermen know that they have to live with the Second Amendment, but they'll be damned if they'll make it easy for citizens to actually excercise their right to own and bear arms. Which leads us to the main thrust of this post: Stupid things that aldermen said at today's council meeting (all quotes taken from the Sun-Times unless otherwise indicated):
Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis.”
Uhm, Ald. Smith, are you serious? I've met you, I've spoken to you, and you didn't seem as stupid as that quote makes you sound. Can you show us where in the Constitution the word "musket" or "muskets" appears? Furthermore, can you show us any evidence that the authors of the Constitution meant "muskets only?" For that matter, show us where that is in the Federalist Papers, or in any other writings by any of the Founders. Do you really believe, for example, that the Founders meant long guns and not pistols, swords, knives, bludgeons, or any other kind of weapon?
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did a couple days ago,” said Ald. Sharon Denise Dixon (24th).
As for Supreme Court judges living in the 24th Ward of Chicago and her presumption about their conclusion, well, the "judges" (justices) do live in Washington, D.C., a rough town in its own right. The same justices who ruled that D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional in 2008.
After that ruling (Heller), "violent crime fell" in D.C., says the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "even faster in the District of Columbia than in the U.S. as a whole. In 2009 alone, the District's murder total dropped 25 percent, to the lowest level since 1967."
Of course, geniuses like Mayor Daley and Ald. Dixon are immune to hard facts. They'd rather go with the typical liberal emotional argument, facts be damned. The D.C. ban first went into effect in 1976, and according to the Washington Post it was essentially ineffective - gun violence "continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times." Chicago's experience was virtually identical over the same period.
Alderman Dixon needs to get out and talk to her constituents more. Is she completely unaware of the high rate of gun violence in her ward? Does she think that the majority of those shooting are by law-abiding folks, or perhaps by criminally-minded people who possess the guns illegally and won't give a damn about this new ordinance?
“I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices that voted to strike our handgun laws have spent any time in the communities that many of us represent,” Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) said. “There’s no way if they knew the violence our young people face every day that they could decide this was a reasonable course of action.”.
Alderman Preckwinkle, see my remarks regarding Ald. Dixon's equally stupid remark, and know this: The violence that the American Revolutionaries faced everyday was worse than what your constituents see in the 4th Ward. Read the Federalist Papers. Stop believing the false myth that gun control reduces crime - it doesn't.
The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could protect itself. Yes, they had a tyrannical government in mind, but I seriously doubt that John Adams would object to a little old lady blowing away one of your drug-crazed, murder-bent 4th Ward residents as he breaks through her apartment door. The Supreme Court upheld the letter of the Second Amendment, Ald. Preckwinkle. Go tell the elderly, the small females, and the shop owners in your ward that you believe they have no right to protect themselves against an amoral segment of society, created and perpetuated in large part by the decayed moral "values" of liberals such as yourself. Go on, tell them.
But Ald. Ed Burke (14th) retorted, “We can disagree with the Supreme Court all we want, but … this is the law and we’re going to have to follow it.”
Burke's comment sounds reasonable at first, until you realize that he is saying that he disagrees with the Court's upholding of the U.S. Constitution. Why does Alderman Burke seem to resent having the Constitution applied equally to all Americans? He did redeem himself somewhat, however, when he said that he had to "confess that back in 1982, when I was chair of the police committee that perhaps I and so many others that voted in favor of this [handgun ban] ordinance exhibited too much ardor for the ban and we perhaps we should have been more sensitive to weighing the rights of legitimate citizens to have weapons." Well, that's nice, but notice Burke's elitist attitude in the "weighing of the rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Still, Burke seemed determine to make an ass of himself. He also uttered this stupidity:
“All the gang-bangers out there who have been convicted of gun offenses who think that they can flaunt this law, they’re going to be locked up,” Burke said. “Each day that you don’t register, it’s a separate offense. If you don’t register for 365 days, that’s 365 offenses.”
Alderman Burke doesn't seem to understand that it's been primarily the bad guys who have committed gun offense. Does he not see the profound irony and simultaneous idiocy of his speaking about gang-bangers who have "been convicted of gun offenses," and are no longer imprisoned, and will - in his apparent opinion - have the opportunity to register for legal gun ownership? Does Ald. Burke favor allowing those who have been convicted for gun violence to be able to legally register - and own - a gun? His statement indicates so.
Finally, Mayor Daley himself made another of his typically stupid statements. CNN quotes him as saying this:
"Either we enact new and reasonable handgun laws in Chicago to protect our residents -- as the council has done -- or we do nothing and risk greater gun violence in our streets and in our homes," Mayor Daley said.
Mayor Daley is a deaf, dumb and blind imbecile insofar as gun ownership is concerned. Nevertheless, somebody should urge him to read the the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post pieces that are referenced above. Then he should watch this short video by Penn and Teller (contains strong language):
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting! Keep it classy.