"The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan," reports The Hill. "Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks."
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Republicans Threaten To Impeach Obama Over Executive Order On Guns
Jan. 15, 2013 - Prominent Republicans are saying that they would move to impeach Barack Obama if he uses executive orders to limit access to firearms. The White House will announce its plan of action on Wednesday, Jan. 16 at 11:45 ET. Obama will reveal "concrete proposals" to limit our Second Amendment rights, including a ban on "assault weapons" and ways to "strengthen" background checks for gun buyers.
The White House has 19 executive actions that it says are ready for Obama to implement. Such action by Obama would be unilateral. That is, it would be the Executive branch of federal government bypassing the Legislative branch (Congress) to unilaterally make law.
"The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan," reports The Hill. "Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks."
"The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan," reports The Hill. "Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks."
Biden: Obama Could Use Executive Order for Gun Control
 |
| Der Fuhrer Barack Obama |
Biden added, "We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
In other words, the Obama Regime will do as it damned pleases, legislative action be damned, representative government be damned, the Constitution be damned. The Imperial Presidency further advances itself.
Alex Jones Beclowns Himself On Piers Morgan Tonight: Full Interview
 |
| Alex Jones on Piers Morgan Tonight, Jan. 7, 2013 Nuttier than squirrel crap |
It was one of the best drubbings that Morgan has experienced since rock legend and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent kicked his arse back in May, 2011.
There was a table between Morgan and Nugent, but on Monday there was no barrier between Jones and Morgan. They sat inches away from each other, and for much of the encounter Morgan actually looked frightened, as though he feared that Jones would physically attack him at any moment.
Unfortunately, Jones came of (as usual) as a complete nutter. He's one of those guys who, no matter what he says, it tends to sound crazy. His verbal style is, well, crazy. But the fact is that Jones is a dishonest fear-mongering opportunistic egoist, with a delusional paranoid personality that is either real or very well feigned. VIDEO BELOW.
American Spirit Arms Leaves BofA, Moves To Local Bank
 |
| American Spirit Arms |
Joseph P. Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms, says that BofA put his company's deposits on hold and under "further review." He says a bank employee told him, "We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet." Needless to say, Sirochman was very upset. On December 29, he posted about the ordeal on Facebook
This update was posted by American Spirit Arms at 10:45 AM CST, January 7, 2013 as a comment to the original post on Facebook (below):
I first want to thank all of you that have called, emailed and posted your support. I also wanted to post an update and to clear up some questions... BANK OF AMERICA started holding American Spirit Arms deposits for REVIEW on 12-18-12. Since that time we had to fight tooth and nail to get them released... We have now gotten most of the deposits and have set up new accounts with a local bank. Again I want to thank everyone for the outpour of support on this matter and believe because of you we were able to get our deposits..
Sincerely and Many Thanks,
Joseph P Sirochman
American Spirit Arms
Note: Sirochman's post got a lot of comments, and they're still coming in. Many commenters are urging him to sue BofA. A typical comment: "Get a good attorney and sue them... I am quite sure you will win, I would go for a few years worth of receipts for the damage done to your reputation and your business..."
Following is Sirochman's original Facebook post on December 29, 2012.
New White House Petition Asks Sen. Diane Feinstein Be Tried For Treason
Feinstein, says the petition, "has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms." (See full text below.)
The petition is undoubtedly inspired by an anti-assault weapon bill that Feinstein will introduce at the start of the next Congress. Equally certain is that Feinstein is doing this to make political hay out of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14. And just how do we know an "assault weapon" ban would NOT have stopped Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza? Because it didn't, points out Reason.com.
 |
| Diane Feinstein hates the U.S. Constitution |
The anti-Feinstein petition was posted on Dec. 27. As of 4:50 p.m. EST today, it had garnered 4,741 signatures, needing another 20,259 to reach the required 25,000 for the White House staff will review it, "ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response." The petition is non-binding and will probably just be laughed off by anti-gun White House staffers, sympathetic to Feinstein, when they "review" it.
Peter Ferrara, contributor at Forbes, has a few words to say today about Feinstein's pending bill and the nonsensical hysteria about "assault weapons" in general.
Ferrara wrote that "assault weapon" is a term that "is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn." Ferrara adds, "A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes."
 |
| Cunning Stunt: Feinstein and some scary props. |
Of course, none of these inconvenient facts matter to the anti-gun folks because they want all guns to be banned. A.W.R. Hawkins, lately of Breitbart.com, would agree with me. The attack on so-called "assault weapons" is a clever emotional use of language that allows them, as Peter Ferrara wrote, to "fool the gullible and easily deluded."
Watch the video above, in which Feinstein discusses her treasonous, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights assault weapons legislation bill in a guest appearance on PBS Newshour, Dec. 17.
In a scholarly thesis titled "Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition," David B. Kopel examined the constitutionality and justification for banning such guns. His conclusion, in part (with my emphasis added):
"The demand for 'assault weapon' prohibition is often accompanied by a self-righteous insistence that only a criminal or a maniac would oppose prohibiting extremely dangerous firearms which have no legitimate use and are the criminal weapon of choice. But the closer one looks at the reasons given for 'assault weapon' bans the less one sees. The prohibition is no more rational than a prohibition on beer based on legislative 'findings' that beer grows on trees, that a single sip always causes instant physical addiction, and that beer is more dangerous than other alcohol because it is stored in aluminum containers. If the rational basis test means anything, it means that an 'assault weapon' prohibition is unlawful."The full text of the petition against Diane Feinstein:
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution
The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.
An outline of her bill may be found here:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public
Created: Dec 27, 2012
Issues: Firearms
Related:
- Adam Lanza Did use the Bushmaster AR-15 RedState.com
- Confusion abounds: Just what is an ‘assault weapon’? Philly.com
- What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To YouTube
- Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat Federal Observer
- Sen. Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Really Handgun Ban Breitbart.com
- Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition, David B. Kopel Guncite.com
- CT. COP on Sandy Hook Inconsistencies: "THINGS DON'T ADD UP" YouTube
- Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons YouTube
- Rapper Ice T on US gun control YouTube
Obama, Emanuel, Gregory Hypocrites About Armed School Guards
Dec. 26, 2012 - The hypocrisy of Liberals, Democrats and other subspecies of anti-gun creatures is mind-boggling.After the Dec. 14 shooting that killed 28 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called for placement of armed guards in all of the nation's schools.
As predicted, the anti-gun crowd immediately howled that guns are not a way to protect kids in schools, many arguing that it would only compound the problem. And yet...
The hypocrisy comes from politicians such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and His Royal Highness Barack Obama, and such as NBC's David Gregory. They say they are anti-gun, each has made statements against putting armed guards in schools, they all send their children to private schools where armed personnel protect the staff and students.
Emanuel and Obama, and thousands of other politicians, never appear in public without a cadre of well-armed guard flanking them for protection. And who can blame them? They want to be safe. They feel that armed guards protect themselves and their kids. So, why then, do they tell us that the same thing won't protect you and me?
"As it happens," notes Wizbangblog.com, "Gregory sends his kids to D.C.-based Sidwell Friends, the same expensive, high-end school the President sends his own children to. Every day that school features armed security details. In fact, the security department is quite large for such a small school as Daniel Halper points out."
Yet, hypocritical elitists such as Obama, Emanuel and Gregory insist that what works well for them is not appropriate for the average ordinary peasant. “It’s outrageous and unsettling that the NRA would choose to address gun violence not by taking assault weapons off our streets, but by adding more guns to our schools,” Emanuel said in a written statement. “That is not the right answer for our society, our schools and most importantly our children.”"While the Obama administration is calling the idea of armed protection at our schools crazy, they are not mentioning the fact that Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire more," points out Gather.com. (See the classified ad here.) "This of course is on top of the secret service officers that are at the school daily since Obama's daughter attend there. Joe Biden's grandchildren as well as children and grandchildren of other high profile political figures attend Sidwell Friends. One more note here. As Hillary and Bill Clinton were calling for gun control, their daughter was attending Sidwell Friends for the superb protection afforded by the added by the schools armed security."
Perhaps Emanuel's hypocrisy was best summed by Jim Johnson of WLS 890 AM in Chicago:
"Oh, outraged huh? Gee, if he's soooo outraged, then why doesn't he pull his kids out of the LAB School at the U of C campus. Guess the 2 U of C armed police officers that work the Lab School everyday just make for such a scary and unsafe environment. Oh wait, if he did that then he just might have to enroll his kids in the local CPS school by his house!?!?! Wait, that can't happen. CPS is just good enough for the peasants kids but not for his little angels. Double standard hypocrite." (h/t: Second City Cop)Johnson was referring to The University of Chicago Laboratory School, an exclusive and expensive private school. Before he ascended to the Throne, Obama sent his daughters to this bastion of education for the wealthy and privileged. Emanuel currently sends his own kids there. (This begs for a discussion of their hypocrisy about school choice and school vouchers, but we'll save that for another day.)
What the anti-gun idiots do not seem to understand is the painfully obvious fact that when there is a mad killer on the loose in a school, there will be a scramble to call 911. And why is 911 called? To get police to the scene, of course, so that they can - drum roll, please - introduce guns into the school, and thereby stop the lunatic. In other words - and this is what the anti-gun morons cannot seem to comprehend - the defensive guns will be in a school that's under attack sooner or later. Yet, with incredibly dysfunctional "logic," the anti-gun imbeciles opt have the defensive guns arrive later, after the murderous attacker has had more time to kill than he would have if an armed guard, armed teacher or other armed staff member been able to draw his or her own pistol and end the killing well before the police dispatcher even finished with the first 911 call.
"How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order?" asked LaPierre in his statement. "Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses - even sports stadiums - are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family - our children - we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!"
So there they are: Obama and fellow anti-gun clowns telling us that we need stricter gun laws. They tell us what we cannot do to protect our own children, while they themselves do exactly what they say would be wrong for us. It should be remembered that the State of Connecticut and the City of Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. And just how are those working out?
Watch Full Interview: Ted Nugent Schools Subversive Foreigner Piers Morgan on Guns and Freedom
 |
| Ted Nugent on Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN. "Suck my machine gun." |
Morgan, a disgraced British journalist now living in the U.S., has always been anti-gun, but like so many other Liberals he has ramped up his anti-Second Amendment mission a few notches. So much so, in fact, that many Americans are calling for Piers Morgan to be deportated, including a petition to the White House to get him kicked out of the country.
"Anybody who wants to disarm me can drop dead," Nugent told Morgan. "Anybody who wants to make me unarmed and helpless, people that want to literally create the proven places where more innocents are killed, called 'gun-free zones,' we're gonna beat you. We're gonna vote you out of office. Or, suck on my machine gun. You can take it whichever way you like."
Morgan's weak come back: "Much as I'd love to suck on your machine gun, the whole point of your defense is a lot of people do drop dead precisely because you are armed to the teeth, much as you would like everyone else to be."
"Not true at all," said Nugent. "Piers, break this down. See, you're so British..."
"No, you write this down," Morgan interrupted, "80 people a day die in America from gunshots."
 |
| Nugent to Morgan: Kiss my ass. |
Morgan, of course, had no good reply to Nugent citing facts from the FBI and the UN. He could not comprehend Nugents facts. Instead, he took the well-worn Liberal anti-intellectual path of letting his feeling overrule reality. No wonder Morgan's ratings are in the basement.
Morgan asked Nugent, in an accusatory question, if he wanted everyone in America to have a gun.
"What I want," said Nugent, "is the Second Amendment. We the people, free individuals, have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Find fault with that."
"Well, I can find lots of fault with that," replied British citizen Piers Morgan. "You end up with what happened with [Congresswoman] Gabby Gifford in Tuscson."
"That guy," Nugent said, referring to Jared Loughner, the man who shot Gifford, "went through the cracks of the mental health system."
I won't spoil your fun by giving away any more of the conversation. It is well worth watching the full interview. It was relevant in 2011. Now, at the end of 2012 and with the gun-control debate at a fever pitch, it is even more relevant. Sadly, the anti-gun crowd comes at the issue with cherry picked statistics and a lot of emotion, clouding their ability to reason and use logic. Like many of the ignorant Leftists who oppose the Second Amendment, Piers Morgan has cited his native Britain as a model for gun control as a way to reduce violence. That's amazing, because the facts and numbers show that strict gun control in the UK has had exactly the opposite effect. Like Nugent said, "Do you want a lot of crime? We have it, gun-free zones."
Related:
- Morgan sacked from Daily Mirror The Guardian (UK)
- Editor Sacked Over 'Hoax' Photos BBC News
- Piers Morgan Deportation Petition Reaches 49,000 Signatures Mediaite
- The great gun control fallacy, by Thomas Sowell The Guardian (UK)
- The American Revolution against British Gun Control Dave Kopel
- Great Britain: How’s that gun control working for ya? GunsSaveLife.com
- Gun crime 60% higher than official figures Telegraph (UK)
NRA's Wayne LaPierre: The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun Is a Good Guy With a Gun
Dec. 21, 2012 - FULL VIDEO of NRA Press Conference - Many predicted that the world would end today. They were wrong. Another prediction that proved false was that the National Rifle Association would soften its stand on gun rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Au contraire, for the NRA is standing strong today by issuing a powerful statement that they are standing strong on guns and the need for them. The NRA made a gutsy and hard-truths statement this morning at their news conference in Washington, D.C.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. He also said that "the monsters and the predators of the world" take advantage of the fact that schools and other places are "gun-free zones." As we've said here many times, gun-free zones are helpless-victim zones, deliberately made vulnerable to attack. (Read the full text of Wayne LaPierre's statement below.)
During the press conference, LaPierre said, "Why is the use of a gun when it's asked to be used to protect the president or used by the police, but bad when it's used to protect children." He challenged the media to "at least admit that it's possible" that armed guards might have been able to stop the Newtown shooting.
USA Today reports that a protester interrupted the event by holding up a red handmade sign that said "NRA Killing Our Kids, CodePink.org." (Watch the video, above.) The protester was escorted out by security he shouted, "NRA, stop killing our children." (The poor lunatic probably also thinks that the American Automobile Association is responsible for the approximately 30,000 traffic deaths every year.)
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. He also said that "the monsters and the predators of the world" take advantage of the fact that schools and other places are "gun-free zones." As we've said here many times, gun-free zones are helpless-victim zones, deliberately made vulnerable to attack. (Read the full text of Wayne LaPierre's statement below.)
USA Today reports that a protester interrupted the event by holding up a red handmade sign that said "NRA Killing Our Kids, CodePink.org." (Watch the video, above.) The protester was escorted out by security he shouted, "NRA, stop killing our children." (The poor lunatic probably also thinks that the American Automobile Association is responsible for the approximately 30,000 traffic deaths every year.)
Principals and Teachers Who Carry Guns at School (ABC Report)
Dec. 20, 2012 - A recent report by ABC News examines the issue of arming teachers and principals in public schools. This is a very hot debate in the U.S. after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, where Adam Lanza shot and killed 27 students and school staff. Some of the students interviewed in the ABC report support this idea, saying that they feel safer knowing their teachers are armed. Others don't, of course.
ABC noted that about 28,300 schools across the U.S. have armed security staff.
The obvious question to anti-gun people, then, is this:
If armed staff in a school is such a bad idea, then why have we not heard of any unfortunate incidents in those 28,300 schools? ABC cited the National Center for Education Statistics as the source for those numbers.
I can't help but wonder why some fear the idea of armed teachers more than they fear an armed lunatic attacking them while they are defenseless. Would those folks put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in their own front yard? Why do they think it's safer to be unprotected when a shooter enters their school, and then have to endure more killings while they wait for the police to show up -- with their guns?
The obvious question to anti-gun people, then, is this:
If armed staff in a school is such a bad idea, then why have we not heard of any unfortunate incidents in those 28,300 schools? ABC cited the National Center for Education Statistics as the source for those numbers.
I can't help but wonder why some fear the idea of armed teachers more than they fear an armed lunatic attacking them while they are defenseless. Would those folks put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in their own front yard? Why do they think it's safer to be unprotected when a shooter enters their school, and then have to endure more killings while they wait for the police to show up -- with their guns?
Video: Protesters Blame NRA for Sandy Hook Shooting
Dec. 18, 2012 - A few hundred anti-gun protesters milled about in front of the National Rifle Association's Federal Affairs Office in Washington DC yesterday. The group, CREDO Action, blames the NRA for the shooting rampage of mentally disturbed Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. These folks sound extraordinarily, well, stupid. But it's not their fault. They are, after all, stupid. Chanting "Shame on the NRA," many of these advocates of stricter gun laws would completely ban all U.S. citizens from owning any firearms. Language Advisory; Read more below the video...
Interviewer in the video is Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78 on Twitter)
A statement on CREDO Action's website says, "After the shooter Adam Lanza, no one is more to blame for the massacre of 20 first graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School than the National Rifle Association. In order to stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA."
This is mysterious to us at Chicago News Bench. None of the police reports related to the investigation of last week's shooting in Newtown, CT make any mention of the NRA. It would seem that blaming the NRA for the actions of the mentally unstable shooter, Adam Lanza, is the same as blaming the American Automobile Association (AAA) for traffic deaths. The CREDO Action website invites people to "talk to us," and they list their phone number as 800-555-7774.
The NRA has been virtually silent since last week's school shooting in Connecticut. However, Fox News reports that an NRA statement released late today "announced that it would hold a 'major' news conference on Friday. Issued by an aide to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, the statement also conveyed condolences for the murders and expressed the group's willingness to offer 'meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again'." (Whatever the hell that means.)
According to the Washington Free Beacon, CREDO is "a liberal activism group and 'America’s only progressive mobile phone company'." CREDO is was formed in part to counter the Tea Party Movement. "As previously reported by the Free Beacon, CREDO Action is an organizing front for CredoMobile, a San Francisco-based cellphone company that has donated more than $75 million to liberal causes since 1985."
"More than anyone else, the NRA is responsible for the more than 12,000 people murdered by guns every year in this country," said Josh Nelson, campaign manager for Credo Action. I wonder if Mr. Nelson is a member of AAA, and if the 30,000 traffic deaths every year bother him.
Finally, what would Nelson and his fellow CREDO cretins say to the news that Canada's homicide rates in rose seven percent Canada rise 7% in 2011, despite having had the lowest level of firearm deaths in nearly 50 years? The weapon of choice for killers in Canada is now knives or other blades. The CBC reported that Statistics Canada, a federal data agency, said that "An increase in stabbings accounted for virtually the entire increase in homicides in 2011." One wonders, then, if CREDO is prepared to protest the cutlery industry if it and other extremist groups ever succeed in getting the Second Amendment revoked.
Interviewer in the video is Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78 on Twitter)
A statement on CREDO Action's website says, "After the shooter Adam Lanza, no one is more to blame for the massacre of 20 first graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School than the National Rifle Association. In order to stop the senseless killing we must first stop the NRA."
 |
| CREDO Action at NRA office in Washington DC |
The NRA has been virtually silent since last week's school shooting in Connecticut. However, Fox News reports that an NRA statement released late today "announced that it would hold a 'major' news conference on Friday. Issued by an aide to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, the statement also conveyed condolences for the murders and expressed the group's willingness to offer 'meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again'." (Whatever the hell that means.)
According to the Washington Free Beacon, CREDO is "a liberal activism group and 'America’s only progressive mobile phone company'." CREDO is was formed in part to counter the Tea Party Movement. "As previously reported by the Free Beacon, CREDO Action is an organizing front for CredoMobile, a San Francisco-based cellphone company that has donated more than $75 million to liberal causes since 1985."
"More than anyone else, the NRA is responsible for the more than 12,000 people murdered by guns every year in this country," said Josh Nelson, campaign manager for Credo Action. I wonder if Mr. Nelson is a member of AAA, and if the 30,000 traffic deaths every year bother him.
Finally, what would Nelson and his fellow CREDO cretins say to the news that Canada's homicide rates in rose seven percent Canada rise 7% in 2011, despite having had the lowest level of firearm deaths in nearly 50 years? The weapon of choice for killers in Canada is now knives or other blades. The CBC reported that Statistics Canada, a federal data agency, said that "An increase in stabbings accounted for virtually the entire increase in homicides in 2011." One wonders, then, if CREDO is prepared to protest the cutlery industry if it and other extremist groups ever succeed in getting the Second Amendment revoked.
UPDATED: Chicago, Defend Yourself
Update, July 2, 2012: No arrest is known to have been made yet in any of the shootings during the weekend of June 24, 2012.
June 24, 2012 (Updated, Sunday, 3:30 pm) - So far, three people have died this weekend in Chicago's ongoing street violence. Despite having one of the strictest sets of anti-gun laws in the nation, gun violence in this city seems out of control.
June 24, 2012 (Updated, Sunday, 3:30 pm) - So far, three people have died this weekend in Chicago's ongoing street violence. Despite having one of the strictest sets of anti-gun laws in the nation, gun violence in this city seems out of control. From last Friday night through this morning, three people have died and 26 were wounded by bullets in Chicago:
The Chicago Tribune reported that Davis "was walking with at least one other person when a grey van pulled up and a passenger, a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie, exited with a gun." According to a police spokesman, the shooter fired at Davis, hitting him, then shot him several more times after he fell to the ground. "The shooter then got back into the van, which was driven by another man about the same age – between the ages of 20 and 25," said the Tribune.
The shooters are almost exclusively criminals engaged in illegal activity. It is always interesting that the local media never seems to note whether the guns involved in these shootings were registered and legally possessed. I will go out on a limb, however, and guess that more than 99% of those guns are not registered and are, therefore, not legally owned. In other words, these gun crimes are not being committed by law-abiding, upstanding citizens who follow the rules.
You know, the kind of people for whom the state legislators of Illinois work so hard to make legal gun ownership so damned difficult. The folks for whom Chicago's Mayor and City Council work so hard to deny full Second Amendment rights.
This is in spite of the fact that outside of Illinois, 49 states have legalized concealed carry in some form, allowing citizens to possess a firearm outside of their homes for protection. For some reason, the Democrats who oppose their own constituents' right to bear arms cannot accept the fact that concealed carry actually lowers violent crime and makes the citizenry safer.
The Chicago's mayor and city council do not want its citizenry to be safer. If they did, they would allow us to carry guns (concealed carry).
Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to, and the mayor has armed bodyguards, but those hypocrites are either too stupid or too uncaring to allow you and me the same right to protect ourselves.
One of their lame "solutions" to the problem of criminals shooting the hell out of Chicago is to buy back guns. But that's a waste of time and of taxpayers' money.
"The city government has a great fondness for gun turn-in events," wrote Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune on June 17. "It's done six of them in the past six years, collecting more than 23,000 weapons. This one will be held at 23 churches, and anyone handing over a firearm will get a $100 gift card. The guns will then be destroyed. The motive behind these efforts is not hard to understand in a place that had 433 murders last year and has seen a spike this year. Dozens of shootings take place in Chicago every week."
Sure, the motive is easy to grasp. However, the logic is another matter. Chapman noted that in 2010, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley said, "We have just too many guns in our society. When someone has access to a gun, they use it." Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wrote Chapman, says that a gun buy-back is a way "we can reduce the number of guns on our streets." Idiots, both Daley and Emanuel. Do they really think that the dangerous lunatics are turning in their guns?
Chapman's brilliant commentary was right on the money. "Contrary to Daley," he wrote, "most people who own guns never use them for anything but legal purposes (hunting, target shooting, self-defense). Contrary to Emanuel, the weapons this sort of venture yields are probably not the ones carried in the streets or the ones used in crimes. The reduction also represents a minuscule share of the firearms in the city, which may number over a million. Think about it: Who is most likely to turn in a firearm for a $100 reward? Someone with 1) a cheap gun and 2) no criminal propensity — say, Aunt Millie disposing of a rusty revolver her late husband left in the nightstand."
Consider this bold statement:
"Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided." Source: "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," written by John R. Lott., Jr. and David B. Mustard, published by the Law School at the University of Chicago.
In spite of the years-long propaganda by liberals, which falsely warned that concealed carry would result in a "wild west" scenario of frenzied gun slinging, the murder rate in the United States has gone down. In fact, it's the lowest it's been in a long time. Reuters recently reported that the FBI said on June 11 that "the number of murders dropped to the lowest in more than four decades."
Most likely, none of the shootings that happened last Friday night into Saturday morning would not have been prevented even if Illinoisans had the same full Second Amendment rights as our fellow Americans have. That's not what I am suggesting. However, there are countless numbers of robberies and assaults every week in Chicago that might have been prevented had the victims been able to pull a legally possessed pistol out of their pocket to ward off - and shoot if need be - their assailants.
The old saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true as always. It is also true of knives, baseball bats, hammers and a thousand other items that can be used to kill and injure. But not all people kill other people. Unless you're killing in self defense, you're a lunatic and/or a criminally minded person.
The gangsters and thrill seekers who commit violence without regard for human life are the products of a sick culture. That, however, is grist for a separate post. I will say now, though, that no gun buy-back stunts will change the fact that savages walk among us. The fact that they do only lends legitimacy to the arguments in favor of concealed carry.
Despite Chicago's restrictive gun laws - we can own one gun but only keep inside of our homes - the bad guys still have plenty of firepower. The laws have done nothing - nothing - to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals. It is so difficult for law abiding people in Chicago to get a license for a gun that some who feel the need to own a gun just don't. And, even if they did, they would not be legally able to carry it with them as they walk, say, through their dangerous neighborhood at night on their way to or from work.
The Daily Gossip noted on June 18 that "Chicago has become more dangerous than Afghanistan," and they cited a report from WBEZ that said that since 2001 "more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago," compared to 2,000 in Afghanistan. That Daily Gossip post had the headline "8 Killed And 37 Others Wounded In Chicago Shootings," about the violent weekend of Friday, June 15 -- a week before the violence that killed 14-year old Antonio Davis last Friday night.
There was a telling passage in the Daily Gossip post. "When Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police," reported DG, "was asked where was the police when the killings happened, he answered the Chicago police department was short-staffed. 'Chicago police officers can’t be everywhere', said Shields. 'Because they’re racing from one 911 call to the next, and with manpower as it is right now, it’s very difficult to deter crime'." The CPD has been short staffed for years, but DG noted that "Some people said the violence spree wouldn’t have left so many wounded and dead if the Chicago police department wouldn’t have paid so much attention to the wedding Obama attended. 100 police officers were assigned for safety purposes at Laura Jarrett’s wedding."
I am not blaming Obama or Jarrett for the violence. However, it highlights the fact that there is only so much that any police force - even one with no manpower shortage - can do. If you are being attacked, whether at home or on the street, you basically have three choices of action. You can (A) try to run away from your attacker, (B) call 911 for help or (C) try to defend yourself. Good luck with choice A, especially if you're elderly, out of shape, pregnant or disabled. Enjoy your wait if you choose B. If you go with C, you'd better be damned good with your fists because Mayor Emanuel and the idiots in the City Council (who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns) don't think you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
How many homicides caused by stabbing and assault would be prevented in Chicago if concealed carry was allowed? How many non-fatal incidents - so many of which we never hear about in the news - could be avoided? It is not possible to give a number, of course, but common sense says that plenty of would be attackers would think twice about preying on somebody that they fear might be packing heat. It might have helped the victims in these cases, in these cases, in these cases and many other cases.
Gun buy-back programs are a cynical, ineffective joke. Illinois does not have any concealed carry like the other 49 states do, and yet things are out of control here. The folks who should by rights be allowed to legally carry firearms for protection are left defenseless against uncivilized savages who have guns illegally. Does this really make sense to anybody other than the morons in Springfield? 49 states have seen the light on concealed carry, and look at the murder rates nationwide: Down, down, and down. But in Chicago it's up, up and up.
How can the liberals continue to hawk fearmongering about legal possession of firearms? Denying the good citizens of Illinois their full Second Amendment rights has done nothing to prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths in Chicago alone. In fact, because they are left defenseless, I would say that the restrictive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois have actually caused people to die unnecessarily. And that's criminal.
The dead victims:
Antonio Davis, 14, of the 800 block of South Eberhart Avenue, who was fatally shot at approximately 8:40 p.m. near the intersection of South Union Avenue and West 69th Street, officials said. Tyquan Tyler, 13, of the 6500 block of South Rhodes Avenue, "died after being shot in the chest in a drive-by shooting about 1:30 a.m. Sunday in the 6200 block of South Rhodes Avenue. About 30 minutes later, 29-year-old Hansen Jackson was shot several times in the chest in the 3700 block of West Chicago Avenue, and later died at Mount Sinai Hospital." (More at CBS2)
The Chicago Tribune reported that Davis "was walking with at least one other person when a grey van pulled up and a passenger, a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie, exited with a gun." According to a police spokesman, the shooter fired at Davis, hitting him, then shot him several more times after he fell to the ground. "The shooter then got back into the van, which was driven by another man about the same age – between the ages of 20 and 25," said the Tribune.
NOTE: Shortly after I posted this, I ran across a news story about a 14-year old boy in Arizona who saved his own life and the life of his siblings thanks to the fact that he had a gun. According to the Arizona Republic on June 22, "A man with a rifle had forced his way into the home. He aimed the gun at the boy, and the boy shot him, police said."The Trib's list of the other shootings during the same period reveals what similar lists from the many violent weekends in Chicago always reveal: The shootings are most often gang-related or seemingly random in nature.
The shooters are almost exclusively criminals engaged in illegal activity. It is always interesting that the local media never seems to note whether the guns involved in these shootings were registered and legally possessed. I will go out on a limb, however, and guess that more than 99% of those guns are not registered and are, therefore, not legally owned. In other words, these gun crimes are not being committed by law-abiding, upstanding citizens who follow the rules.
You know, the kind of people for whom the state legislators of Illinois work so hard to make legal gun ownership so damned difficult. The folks for whom Chicago's Mayor and City Council work so hard to deny full Second Amendment rights.
This is in spite of the fact that outside of Illinois, 49 states have legalized concealed carry in some form, allowing citizens to possess a firearm outside of their homes for protection. For some reason, the Democrats who oppose their own constituents' right to bear arms cannot accept the fact that concealed carry actually lowers violent crime and makes the citizenry safer.
The Chicago's mayor and city council do not want its citizenry to be safer. If they did, they would allow us to carry guns (concealed carry).
Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to, and the mayor has armed bodyguards, but those hypocrites are either too stupid or too uncaring to allow you and me the same right to protect ourselves.
One of their lame "solutions" to the problem of criminals shooting the hell out of Chicago is to buy back guns. But that's a waste of time and of taxpayers' money.
"The city government has a great fondness for gun turn-in events," wrote Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune on June 17. "It's done six of them in the past six years, collecting more than 23,000 weapons. This one will be held at 23 churches, and anyone handing over a firearm will get a $100 gift card. The guns will then be destroyed. The motive behind these efforts is not hard to understand in a place that had 433 murders last year and has seen a spike this year. Dozens of shootings take place in Chicago every week."
Sure, the motive is easy to grasp. However, the logic is another matter. Chapman noted that in 2010, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley said, "We have just too many guns in our society. When someone has access to a gun, they use it." Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wrote Chapman, says that a gun buy-back is a way "we can reduce the number of guns on our streets." Idiots, both Daley and Emanuel. Do they really think that the dangerous lunatics are turning in their guns?
Chapman's brilliant commentary was right on the money. "Contrary to Daley," he wrote, "most people who own guns never use them for anything but legal purposes (hunting, target shooting, self-defense). Contrary to Emanuel, the weapons this sort of venture yields are probably not the ones carried in the streets or the ones used in crimes. The reduction also represents a minuscule share of the firearms in the city, which may number over a million. Think about it: Who is most likely to turn in a firearm for a $100 reward? Someone with 1) a cheap gun and 2) no criminal propensity — say, Aunt Millie disposing of a rusty revolver her late husband left in the nightstand."
Consider this bold statement:
"Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided." Source: "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," written by John R. Lott., Jr. and David B. Mustard, published by the Law School at the University of Chicago.In spite of the years-long propaganda by liberals, which falsely warned that concealed carry would result in a "wild west" scenario of frenzied gun slinging, the murder rate in the United States has gone down. In fact, it's the lowest it's been in a long time. Reuters recently reported that the FBI said on June 11 that "the number of murders dropped to the lowest in more than four decades."
Most likely, none of the shootings that happened last Friday night into Saturday morning would not have been prevented even if Illinoisans had the same full Second Amendment rights as our fellow Americans have. That's not what I am suggesting. However, there are countless numbers of robberies and assaults every week in Chicago that might have been prevented had the victims been able to pull a legally possessed pistol out of their pocket to ward off - and shoot if need be - their assailants.
The old saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true as always. It is also true of knives, baseball bats, hammers and a thousand other items that can be used to kill and injure. But not all people kill other people. Unless you're killing in self defense, you're a lunatic and/or a criminally minded person.
The gangsters and thrill seekers who commit violence without regard for human life are the products of a sick culture. That, however, is grist for a separate post. I will say now, though, that no gun buy-back stunts will change the fact that savages walk among us. The fact that they do only lends legitimacy to the arguments in favor of concealed carry.
Despite Chicago's restrictive gun laws - we can own one gun but only keep inside of our homes - the bad guys still have plenty of firepower. The laws have done nothing - nothing - to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals. It is so difficult for law abiding people in Chicago to get a license for a gun that some who feel the need to own a gun just don't. And, even if they did, they would not be legally able to carry it with them as they walk, say, through their dangerous neighborhood at night on their way to or from work.
The Daily Gossip noted on June 18 that "Chicago has become more dangerous than Afghanistan," and they cited a report from WBEZ that said that since 2001 "more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago," compared to 2,000 in Afghanistan. That Daily Gossip post had the headline "8 Killed And 37 Others Wounded In Chicago Shootings," about the violent weekend of Friday, June 15 -- a week before the violence that killed 14-year old Antonio Davis last Friday night.
There was a telling passage in the Daily Gossip post. "When Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police," reported DG, "was asked where was the police when the killings happened, he answered the Chicago police department was short-staffed. 'Chicago police officers can’t be everywhere', said Shields. 'Because they’re racing from one 911 call to the next, and with manpower as it is right now, it’s very difficult to deter crime'." The CPD has been short staffed for years, but DG noted that "Some people said the violence spree wouldn’t have left so many wounded and dead if the Chicago police department wouldn’t have paid so much attention to the wedding Obama attended. 100 police officers were assigned for safety purposes at Laura Jarrett’s wedding."
I am not blaming Obama or Jarrett for the violence. However, it highlights the fact that there is only so much that any police force - even one with no manpower shortage - can do. If you are being attacked, whether at home or on the street, you basically have three choices of action. You can (A) try to run away from your attacker, (B) call 911 for help or (C) try to defend yourself. Good luck with choice A, especially if you're elderly, out of shape, pregnant or disabled. Enjoy your wait if you choose B. If you go with C, you'd better be damned good with your fists because Mayor Emanuel and the idiots in the City Council (who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns) don't think you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
How many homicides caused by stabbing and assault would be prevented in Chicago if concealed carry was allowed? How many non-fatal incidents - so many of which we never hear about in the news - could be avoided? It is not possible to give a number, of course, but common sense says that plenty of would be attackers would think twice about preying on somebody that they fear might be packing heat. It might have helped the victims in these cases, in these cases, in these cases and many other cases.Gun buy-back programs are a cynical, ineffective joke. Illinois does not have any concealed carry like the other 49 states do, and yet things are out of control here. The folks who should by rights be allowed to legally carry firearms for protection are left defenseless against uncivilized savages who have guns illegally. Does this really make sense to anybody other than the morons in Springfield? 49 states have seen the light on concealed carry, and look at the murder rates nationwide: Down, down, and down. But in Chicago it's up, up and up.
How can the liberals continue to hawk fearmongering about legal possession of firearms? Denying the good citizens of Illinois their full Second Amendment rights has done nothing to prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths in Chicago alone. In fact, because they are left defenseless, I would say that the restrictive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois have actually caused people to die unnecessarily. And that's criminal.
Teach Your Children Well. That Includes Guns.
My Dad enrolled my brother and me in an NRA shooting class back in the 1960s. I'm thankful for that, because it taught me to respect guns and not think of them as toys -- as most kids do, sadly. Learning how to handle a gun did not make me want to wield one, and I have never actually owned a firearm. Guns have been a fact of life for some 500 years. To not want to learn how to use one is foolish. It fits the definition of "ignorant."
Even if you never plan to drive a car, you should learn how to operate one -- just in case you ever need to. Cars kill, too, but you want your children to know how to drive.
Note: I would credit the creator of this poster, but it seems to be one of those many items these days that has been reposted so often that the origin is murky at best.
Texas Gun Dealer's Awesome Christmas Video
This video has a surprise ending. It's actually a clever ad for TIGER Valley, a firearms and operational skills training facility located in central Texas. It's a good promotion for the Second Amendment, too.
Lunch And Guns In Chicago's Loop
July 9, 2010 - Wondering what to do for lunch in downtown Chicago today? Here's a suggestion: Take your bag lunch over to the Thompson Center and join the Second Amendment Freedom Rally, where representatives from the ISRA, IllinoisCarry, the Second Amendment Sisters and others are holding the third annual Second Amendment Freedom Rally (SAFR). It started at 11:00 a.m. goes until 1:00 p.m. at the James R. Thompson Center (map). More info at Examiner.com...
Criminals For Gun Control, Part 1
Brilliant video spoof shows exactly why we need more guns in the hands of citizens.
Stupid Quotes About Guns By Chicago Aldermen
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):
Alert! Chicago City Council To Discuss Supreme Court Handgun Ruling
Action Alert! A source within the Chicago Police Department sent this email to me today: "Tomorrow's City Hall meeting at 1:00 p.m. [on Tues., June 29] will address today's Supreme Court decision concerning Chicago' gun ordinance. There will be buses from Area 3 [police] headquarters, 2352 W. Belmont, by 11:45 a.m. to City Hall. Please attend."
Chicago's City Hall is located at 121 N La Salle Street in the "Loop" (map). His Supreme Highness Richard Daley's office is on the fifth floor, by the way. He loves having voters stop in, so go up and say hi.
It should be a good show. While you're there, notice that even as Mayor Daley speaks about the evil of guns, the City Hall chambers will be protected by people who have - you guessed it - guns. Daley's own bodyguards, positioned nearby, will be carrying guns. Aldermen are (were) excempted from the handgun ban, and so there's a good chance that a few of them will be packing heat, too.
Where To Buy Guns and Ammo In Chicagoland
Ah, freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban as being unconstitutional. Mayor Daley, whose own bodyguards are heavily armed, must be soiling his pants this morning. Now that Chicagoans can legally possess a defensive weapon to protect themselves from the criminals who were never hobbled by the handgun ban, we thought we'd help you find a place near you at which you can load up on the latest self-preservation technology. In other words, guns and ammo. Click the map and start shopping.
View Larger Map
Mayor Daley Would Have Let Them Die (Updated)
The City of Chicago's handgun ban might have caused the deaths of an elderly couple early this morning. Had the couple obeyed the city's ban, they would have been defenseless against an armed intruder and quite possibly killed. UPDATE: WLS 890 AM reports that the 80-yr old man used a handgun. (8:00 p.m., 5/26)
"An 80-year-old man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his East Garfield Park home this morning, police said," reports Chicago Breaking News today. "The intruder, who police believe had a gun, broke into the family two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue about 5:20 a.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli."
UPDATE: WLS 890 AM reports that the 80-yr old man used a handgun. (8:00 p.m., 5/26)
It is curious that none of the reports about this defensive shooting tell us what type of gun the 80-year old man used to defend himself and his wife. Was it a rifle? Many types of rifles are actually legal in Chicago, which is curious considering the ban on handguns. Was it a handgun? If so, that would be embarassing to Mayor Daley and supporters of the handgun ban. Did City Hall order the Chicago Police Department to suppress this information for political purposes?
UPDATE: WLS 890 AM reports that the 80-yr old man used a handgun. (8:00 p.m., 5/26)
What if the elderly man had not had a gun with which to protect himself? Would a call to 911 have gotten the police to his home faster than the bullet could reach the intruder? Would he and his wife be dead today?
Chicago's Mayor Daley hates the Second Amendment so much that he maintains Chicago's unconstitutional ban on handguns despite overwhelming evidence that it does not prevent criminals from using them in their illicit endeavors. While Daley's own taxpayer-paid bodyguards carry handguns, we lowly serfs are not allowed to have our own equalizers.
"Chicago’s gun ban ordinance was enacted in 1982 to stem increasing use of firearms in crimes in the city," wrote Maureen Martin at HoumaToday. "From the beginning, the ordinance has been an utter failure in accomplishing that goal."
Martin continued with some stunning statistics. "The number of murders committed with guns has soared in Chicago since the ordinance was enacted, as has the share of all murders committed with guns. In 1983, the first year the Chicago ordinance was in effect, 290 murders (39.78 percent of the total) were committed with handguns. That rose to 513 murders (60.21 percent) committed with handguns in 1990. In 2003, 442 murders (73.54 percent) were committed with handguns, and in 2008, 402 handgun murders were committed (78.67 percent). In the 25 years since Chicago’s handgun ban was enacted, the number of murders committed with handguns dropped below 1983 levels in only four years (1984-87). All of these data are from the Chicago Police Department."
Related:
"An 80-year-old man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his East Garfield Park home this morning, police said," reports Chicago Breaking News today. "The intruder, who police believe had a gun, broke into the family two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue about 5:20 a.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli."
UPDATE: WLS 890 AM reports that the 80-yr old man used a handgun. (8:00 p.m., 5/26)
It is curious that none of the reports about this defensive shooting tell us what type of gun the 80-year old man used to defend himself and his wife. Was it a rifle? Many types of rifles are actually legal in Chicago, which is curious considering the ban on handguns. Was it a handgun? If so, that would be embarassing to Mayor Daley and supporters of the handgun ban. Did City Hall order the Chicago Police Department to suppress this information for political purposes?
UPDATE: WLS 890 AM reports that the 80-yr old man used a handgun. (8:00 p.m., 5/26)
What if the elderly man had not had a gun with which to protect himself? Would a call to 911 have gotten the police to his home faster than the bullet could reach the intruder? Would he and his wife be dead today?
Chicago's Mayor Daley hates the Second Amendment so much that he maintains Chicago's unconstitutional ban on handguns despite overwhelming evidence that it does not prevent criminals from using them in their illicit endeavors. While Daley's own taxpayer-paid bodyguards carry handguns, we lowly serfs are not allowed to have our own equalizers.
"Chicago’s gun ban ordinance was enacted in 1982 to stem increasing use of firearms in crimes in the city," wrote Maureen Martin at HoumaToday. "From the beginning, the ordinance has been an utter failure in accomplishing that goal."
Related:
- Chicago Mayor Snaps at Reporter Who Questions Handgun Ban FoxNews
- Mayor Daley Threatens to Shoot the Messenger—Namely, Me Mick Dumke, Chicago Reader
- Justices debate Chicago handgun ban CNN.com
- We Need More Guns, Not Fewer Chicago News Bench
- The More Guns the Better, and Here's Proof Chicago News Bench
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)