Skip to comments.Chicago Union Head: Let Us Carry Guns, Get Paid Like Cops
Posted on 02/23/2013 7:03:48 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Union members in Chicago are now intent on carrying guns aboard their buses if members of the civilian public are allowed to do so. And naturally, they want more taxpayer money for their trouble.
The NRA has insisted on concealed-carry laws that would allow the general public to carry guns on public transit; now Amalgamated Transit Union Division 308 President Robert Kelly says such a policy is outrageous and cannot be allowed. Chicago Transit Authority President Forrest Claypool agrees, It would be disastrous to allow passengers to carry concealed weapons on our trains and buses.
But sensing an opportunity to push for higher pay, Kelly added that if civilians were allowed to carry weapons, CTA employees should get training and have the same right for protection. We will also need to be paid accordingly since we will have dual jobs as transit workers and police officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Note that it is the union leadership raising the issue. They won't be the first ones shot; it will be their drivers.
But what are a few lives sacrificed in pursuit of an agenda? Once a few drivers get capped because the 'bangers think they're armed, Rahm will have yet another crises he can take advantage of...
You and I are going to disagree here. I don't believe the Obama voters / Obama union thugs should be armed, period.
They've already proven their danger to America by voting for the idiot in the White House. Don't need them armed.
If they ARE armed however, the minute one of 'em reaches for their waistline in my presence, they're toast. Self Defense IMO. Don't trust 'em with a vote, don't trust 'em at all with a gun, period.
Union Leadership = Mob Bosses
The higher the membership wage, the larger the mob’s take.
You sure do have a propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions.....
How about getting the same pay as a NONUNION E-2 in Afghanistan?
Wrong. Clearly you do not understand the difference between expressing an opinion vs. an outright statement that someone's Constitutional Rights should be taken away:
"You and I are going to disagree here. I don't believe the Obama voters / Obama union thugs should be armed, period."
Nowhere in the above did I state Obama Supporters should have their Constitutional rights taken away. Try again, genius.
If you don't have the moral courage to support the constitution for all Americans, its pretty likely that you'll one day lose those very same right.
Hilight the words where I stated their rights should be taken away. In fact, what I stated was:
" They've already proven their danger to America by voting for the idiot in the White House. Don't need them armed.
If they ARE armed however, the minute one of 'em reaches for their waistline in my presence, they're toast. Self Defense IMO. Don't trust 'em with a vote, don't trust 'em at all with a gun, period."
I suppose if you wanted to (and you in fact, did) take my comments out of context you could try to make any incorrect, unsubstantiated argument you want.
Facts are what they are though, and nowhere did I suggest anyone have their rights "taken away."
Nice try ........... not.
Use your head!
If the bad guy knows the driver has a holstered weapon and the bad guy wants to cause trouble, who’s he going to shoot first?
If an armed drive is ever going to make a difference, it will be because the bad guy is unaware he’s armed.
Whatever you say. Its right there for all to see.
I support the constitution in its original form for all Americans
It's not about arming the drivers at all really, it's about getting more MONEY for the Obama Supporting union thugs.
The reality is this: "gun free zones" exist across America. Those "gun free zones" are nothing more than KILLING FIELDS for any certifiable nutcase to go out and kill otherwise unarmed, innocent people.
I suppose if the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) wanted to declare all busses "gun free zones" they may as well just put a big sticker on the side of every bus that says "Welcome aboard our gun-free busses. All passengers unarmed, driver carries no cash. Have at it!"
Wonder how many non-gang bangers would be riding the busses then. Probably not many smart people anyway. Either that or there'd be a whole lotta lawbreaking otherwise honest citizens who want to protect themselves in the hell-hole called Chicago. (I know, I go to Chicago every day to work. It's getting bad. Really bad, and I work in the financial district.)
I stand by my words un-distorted by you and in-context.
I resent your pathetic attempt to twist my words. But then, that's not the first time you've tried that with me. I shall engage you no further. I see what you are.
If they are reclassified as "police" and pay dues to the police union, they will be welcomed with open arms. If they even work out an arrangement to split the dues between their current union and the police union they will still be welcome.
Are you going to be held legally liable like the cops for failing to protect someone?
OH, wait.......never mind!
I’m not arguing about individual right to carry!!!!
I’m saying the driver’s are making a mistake by advertising that they intend to be armed.
The advantage of concealed carry is that NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!
If the bad guy KNOWS you are carrying, it is easy for him to get the drop on you.
For instance....a bus driver with his back turned to 60 people, busy driving a bus...just might be easily be beat to the draw, since the driver won’t know which guy is the thug.
How about 40 years in the Defense and Security business?
When you go through the security guides, to see what is classified, you quickly learn that the most classified information, relates to the security steps you have taken.
HOW you maintain your security, is the most important element to conceal.
The other critical evidence for this is the substantial drop in crime, in communities that have switched from prohibiting concealed carry, to allowing concealed carry.