Mayor Daley

[femurphy77]

I thought the law was no guns period in the city of Chicago. That's why no one ever gets shot in that city.

After reading this statement I had an epiphany; It's the school systems fault!!!!! Think about it, the kids aren't learning anything in school (where's that Paco purple?) because the ___________(fill in the blank as to whose fault you think it is) aren't doing their job to help the little dearies learn to read. As a result they aren't able to read the signs saying "No criminal activities allowed" and that's how they are getting into trouble! See how easy it is to find a scapegoat??!!!

 

[Pitmaster]

Ironically last year 3 violent criminals escaped from a Michigan City prison. One was caught by Daley's armed security guard on Daley's MI property nearby. Chicago is a black hole that sucks the lifeblood out of Illinois.

 

[spartan933]

I was listening to Roe Conn yesterday on WLS 890AM. I don't always agree with Roe, but I like his show and he entertains me. He said he supports the right to own handguns but not the right to Concealed Carry.

He said, "Anywhere south of I-80, go ahead. But, here, it would be a shooting gallery. Have you seen this place."

Not an exact quote, but most of the wording is correct. I wasn't recording. I think he was referring to some Chicago people, maybe a majority, being idiots. Something to think about. I am not sure I agree with him, but I have absolutely seen some moronic behavior in the City.

Here's a video of ABC Chicago interviewing Otis McDonald from McDonald v. Chicago.

Morgan Park man takes City of Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban - 2/25/10 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com

McDonald mentioned race might have had something to do with his selection, and I think it did, and I think it's good that he is the face of this. I believe that a lot of people against the 2A, or at the very least, on the fence about it, believe that all gun owners are a bunch of white, crazy, hillbillies craving for the times of the Old West. I think this shows that an old black guy from a rough area, in a big city, needs the same right to protect himself and his property that the rest of us have. I think it shows that the right to protecting your LIFE is color blind.

Daley is such a tool. He just sounds so stupid.

 

[bigiron]

let me first reference you other post in conjunction with spartan933 last post. yeah, roe can be a tool but sometimes hits it dead center and i think he's right on this one. in my earlier post i said that the north siders don't want guns and the south siders don't care because they get them anyway. let me clarify, the north siders don't want guns because then all the southsiders will have guns. you will have erery ******* in chicago carrying a handgun and the first person to cut off the bus or hold up the line at the car wash its gonna but guns out. i unfortuantely work in some of those neighborhoods on the south side and frankly they shouldn't even have butter knifes. there is so much aggression and fear that everyoine having a gun would be crazy. i would never want to stop someone from being able to use their rights as a citizen but i hope they put a big fence around the city when the SCOTUS ruling is passed. then they better recognize the indiana permit because i don't go there now without my "best buddy" and i sure as hell will not go there without my "best buddies buddy" from now on.

 

[DWFan]

A comment about the founding fathers not being able to envision the weapons of the future....
I seriously doubt that a man of science like Ben Franklin would be totally ignorant of the weapons of war created 200 years earlier by Leonardo DaVinci; nor that he'd doubt such types of weapons would eventually be perfected by firearms developers.
Franklin himself probably could have done it if that had been his interest.

 

[Tallenn]

I was listening to Roe Conn yesterday on WLS 890AM. I don't always agree with Roe, but I like his show and he entertains me. He said he supports the right to own handguns but not the right to Concealed Carry.

He said, "Anywhere south of I-80, go ahead. But, here, it would be a shooting gallery. Have you seen this place."

Not an exact quote, but most of the wording is correct. I wasn't recording. I think he was referring to some Chicago people, maybe a majority, being idiots. Something to think about. I am not sure I agree with him, but I have absolutely seen some moronic behavior in the City.

Here's a video of ABC Chicago interviewing Otis McDonald from McDonald v. Chicago.

Morgan Park man takes City of Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban - 2/25/10 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com

McDonald mentioned race might have had something to do with his selection, and I think it did, and I think it's good that he is the face of this. I believe that a lot of people against the 2A, or at the very least, on the fence about it, believe that all gun owners are a bunch of white, crazy, hillbillies craving for the times of the Old West. I think this shows that an old black guy from a rough area, in a big city, needs the same right to protect himself and his property that the rest of us have. I think it shows that the right to protecting your LIFE is color blind.

Daley is such a tool. He just sounds so stupid.

Well, I absolutely disagree with him, and it matters not what kind of people Chicagoans are. Every single time carry is mentioned anywhere, and in any fashion, the anti's bring up the "the streets will flow with blood" argument. Every single time, it doesn't happen. It's a ridiculous argument that has way over-stayed its welcome. I mean really, how many times must it be proven wrong?

As to the founding fathers not being able to predict the kinds of guns that would be invented, two things: First, I'm sure they probably didn't know exactly where gun technology would go, but give them some credit. They weren't stupid. They knew that guns had improved significantly already, and would certainly expect them to keep getting better: longer range, more accurate, and more lethal, at the very least. Second, they obviously intended for the public to have the very best military weapons available. Perhaps Mayor Daley missed the first clause of the 2nd amendment, which gives us the reason that the right to keep and bear arms was to be protected: So that they (we) could assist in the security of a free state! You can't do that with outdated weapons. They knew that the militia (again, that's us) would need the very best small arms available to be effective in defending the Republic.

The government knows this. In their argument in US vs Miller, the government proposed that the reason the SB shotgun in question wasn't covered under the 2nd amendment was that it was not used in the U.S. military (which was a blatant lie): it therefore could not be classified as a militia weapon (never mind that many other weapons covered under the NFA of 1934 were exactly the weapons used by the military).

Sorry, I probably got a little OT there. I get a little riled up sometimes when I talk about gun control.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, I absolutely disagree with him, and it matters not what kind of people Chicagoans are. Every single time carry is mentioned anywhere, and in any fashion, the anti's bring up the "the streets will flow with blood" argument. Every single time, it doesn't happen. It's a ridiculous argument that has way over-stayed its welcome. I mean really, how many times must it be proven wrong?

As to the founding fathers not being able to predict the kinds of guns that would be invented, two things: First, I'm sure they probably didn't know exactly where gun technology would go, but give them some credit. They weren't stupid. They knew that guns had improved significantly already, and would certainly expect them to keep getting better: longer range, more accurate, and more lethal, at the very least. Second, they obviously intended for the public to have the very best military weapons available. Perhaps Mayor Daley missed the first clause of the 2nd amendment, which gives us the reason that the right to keep and bear arms was to be protected: So that they (we) could assist in the security of a free state! You can't do that with outdated weapons. They knew that the militia (again, that's us) would need the very best small arms available to be effective in defending the Republic.

The government knows this. In their argument in US vs Miller, the government proposed that the reason the SB shotgun in question wasn't covered under the 2nd amendment was that it was not used in the U.S. military (which was a blatant lie): it therefore could not be classified as a militia weapon (never mind that many other weapons covered under the NFA of 1934 were exactly the weapons used by the military).

Sorry, I probably got a little OT there. I get a little riled up sometimes when I talk about gun control.

You know... with 'cago (contraction intentional: translate from Spanish ), it would not surprise me one bit if the "streets run red with blood" prediction was finally proven true... nor would it bother me, nor do I think that's a reason not to stop restricting concealed (or open) carry. The problem would be self-limiting, as the criminals would eliminate themselves and/or be eliminated by those who obey the law, thus making 'cago a safer place. Inside of a year, it would be a safe place to walk at night. If the people actually made full use of their rights and freedoms, inside of five years, people wouldn't need to lock their doors all the time... and inside of ten years, CPD might actually be a completely honest police force.

OK, maybe I'm dreaming on that last one, but the first one is probably pretty accurate.

Blessings,
Bill