No Serious Gun Debate Until Gang-bangers And Political Corruption Eliminated
26 comments
By Michael Ciric, January 10, 2013 at 9:36 am
No Serious Gun Debate Until Gang-bangers And Political Corruption Eliminated
Anti-Gun liberals like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens yet offer no hope in furthering the gun debate because of his administration’s inability to control gang bangers and their illegal access to them.
It makes no sense to strip citizens of their right to protect themselves until you can level the playing field.
Don’t get me wrong either because I believe that having sensible gun laws isn’t a bad thing. But aren’t there already plenty on the books? How about looking at properly enforcing those laws and mandates?
But that is not what anti-gun liberals want. Their motives are far more sinister and nefarious than that. They would have you believe that gang-bangers are somehow cut from the same cloth of sensibility as law-abiding citizens are. However, we already know that that is the furthest from the truth.
Reality tells us that gang-bangers don’t give a damn about society’s laws and as such will always have access to firearms.
Rahm Emanuel, meanwhile, refuses to properly staff the Chicago Police Department so that they can meet their stated mission of “To Serve and Protect.” How many nightmare stories have we heard about the lack of a police presence in those neighborhoods most affected by gang violence? Compounding the problem is the code of silence among residents who fear that the only result cooperation brings is a “snitch winding up in a ditch.” Besides, residents have little faith in the police department because many feel they are as bad as the gang-bangers themselves.
It’s a vicious circle.
That, in and of itself, is a deterrent to the gun control debate here. No sane person would give up one iota of their constitutional right to bear arms until society has a level playing field against those that have z-e-r-o regard for the rule of law. As such, big city mayors, like Rahm Emanuel, need to get off their collective asses and eradicate its streets of the war zones in their own backyards before demanding citizens give up their last hope of protecting themselves.
Of course that would also require brain dead governors to properly fund empty prisons and forgo those asinine early release programs for all those non-rehabilitated criminals rather than opening up the floodgates of hell unto society. And while we are on the discussion of funding, how about the state properly funding the many mental health facilities that have fallen victim to budget cuts?
You know, those of us living in the State of Illinois should be more than aware of these deficiencies. Yet the people don’t seem to care as its elected officials have used taxpayer monies for anything but what their clear intent was. Instead they have allowed one politician after another to fill their (or their cronies) pockets with unethical sweet insider deals. If as that weren’t bad enough, the people have also stood largely silent as politicians have been allowed to underfund a swollen pension fund system built upon decades and decades of overt patronage and the gaming of it by interlopers aided by windows of opportunity opened by a willing Illinois Legislature.
So excuse me if I am a little more than skeptical of the intentions of our “well-meaning Illinois Democrats.” Their agendas rarely have the peoples best interests at heart and anyone saying that isn’t so is clearly a beneficiary of that system. Yet these are the same people who see nothing wrong with forcing the state to take indecent liberties when it comes slashing funding required to protect its people and keep dangerous or mentally ill people off the streets.
I don’t know about you but before I would let people like these dictate the debate on guns I would demand that they deal with the estimated 68,000 gang-bangers wreaking havoc on the good people of Chicago.
And let’s be very clear here Mister Emanuel - there is a direct correlation to the number of gang-bangers and the ineptitude of city and state politicians keeping people in perpetual poverty. So really - is it any wonder then that there are so many gangs and gang members running amok in your city? Hardly! Again, if you want a serious debate or impose stricter regulations on gun ownership then it has to begin with the eradication of the gang-bangers.
Better yet, let’s eradicate the corrupt politicians too!
...let’s be very clear here Mister Emanuel - there is a direct correlation to the number of gang-bangers and the ineptitude of city and state politicians keeping people in perpetual poverty.
It's actually simpler than that: there are two Chicagos. Official Chicago consists of the "safe" parts of the city, which are much like the "safe" parts of any other large city; unofficial Chicago continues to provide utilities such as water and electricity and sewage to the "unsafe" parts of the city, but there's no law there, nor law enforcement. The "unsafe" parts of the city are made up of gang enclaves that are by default ruled by gangs whose primary enterprises are:
1.) Pursuing profits from narcotics and other criminal activites
2.) Allying and warring with competing gangs
3.) Ruling their enclaves
Each gang is a mini-kingdom with its own dictator or oligarchy, its own rules, its own economy, its own culture, et cetera. The whole situation looks anarchic; in reality, each gang has reinvented government—always predatory and usually brutal—in the absence of legitimate city government.
The official city government has abdicated in large areas of the city. It goes through the motions of governance, and even sends in law enforcement officers to investigate crimes and write reports and make arrests when it's easy, but the only actual law is whatever the gangs make up and enforce. Everybody pretends otherwise, but that's the way it actually is.
The question isn't "What's going on?" but "Why do the non-criminals in the "unsafe" areas prefer rule by predatory gangs to official city, state, and national law?"
If I knew the answer, friends, I'd tell you. Feudalism is alive and well in many of our nation's largest cities. Here's what's even stranger: the Chicago way is well on its way toward becoming the new American way.
We have gangs to ensure the trafficking of illegal drugs. The illegal drug industry provides high paying incomes to youths who would be unable to find employment paying anything near what they are making. Politicians like this system because it takes the pressure off them to encourage policy that stimulates the legitimate economy.
What about the guns? Guns are the tools of the trade like a carpenter has his hammer and saw. The trafficker can have the best tools of the trade. Because of the money they bring in from drug sales, the high dollar cost to purchase an illegal, top technology gun is chump change to them. Guns insure they have the best stake on buyers, much like a gold prospector lays claim to a fruitful deposit of gold.
The illegal drug industry is a cancer on the social culture that contains it. The political organization become corrupt, and promote policy that ensures that drug trafficking prospers. This is what I see as the primary reason that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens while the drug gangs are being ignored. They want to promote the drug gangs. It is easy to take guns away from the law abiding because the honest citizen wants to follow the law. The politician is perceived as doing something good to solve a problem while the real problem is hidden and protected. The truth of the matter is the politicians like these drugs too and they will make sure the illegal drug industry delivers the product to them and their friends. Politicians also like the illegal drug industry because they receive kick backs from it. When they stigmatize the gun of the law abiding citizen, that takes the focus off the real culprit. Gang bangers (an appropriate name, by the way) are the real culprit. They will terrorize the society around them with crime which keeps the police busy and employed. The police unions love lots of police employed.
The drug customers are no law abiding citizen either. The need to finance their habits causes thefts and assaults and the need for citizens to have the protection of guns. When citizens cannot get that Second Amendment protection because of oppressive gun regulations, there is no fear from the lawless to attack them. The lawless will not take the risk if there is the chance of being shot by a well armed citizen. So, the politician, wishing to protect their drug friends, takes the law abiding citizen out of the equation. The politician grabs Joe Citizen’s guns and violates his Second Amendment rights. The politician does this because what is the Second Amendment when you already break the law as an abettor to the drug industry?
When politicians take away guns from law abiding citizens wishing to protect themselves from violent drug motivated lawlessness, it is because the politicians want to insure the success of the lawless drug activity. They want the citizen to be robbed so that drug users have access to the necessary money to support their habit. The beast of the illegal drug industry needs its monetary sustenance. And the politician needs his under-the-table money.