Skip to comments.Keep up pressure for sane gun laws
Posted on 07/15/2014 5:58:07 AM PDT by rellimpank
We could throw up our hands after a brazen gunman killed a photographer and then kept shooting at other people on a Saturday afternoon on a busy street in a neighborhood where shootings arent common.
The shooting added to a ceaseless toll of horror that seems to flow like a river of blood. Three others died and 29 were hurt by gunfire over the weekend. The Independence Day weekend before: 16 dead, more than 60 wounded. Tragedy compounding tragedy. Families burying their loved ones, children gunned down, all after a concerted effort by Chicago police to reduce the bloodshed.
The cops can do their best to keep a lid on whats looking like a long and violent summer, but the problems run deeper and throughout much of the city, if the Saturday shooting is any indication. Even normally tranquil Montrose Beach turned into a large brawl Sunday night that injured two police officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
How many more gun laws, Chicago?
How about GANG laws?
Sane? Like banning all handguns within the city limits, because then everyone will be perfectly safe? Completely sane.
In Bizarro World.
“a ceaseless toll of horror that seems to flow like a river of blood”
A toll that seems to flow like a river? A regular Shakespeare wrote this piece.
Every “gun law” ever passed is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment specifically forbids the passage of gun statutes.
The definition of “sane” (or “common sense”) gun laws: placing unarmed law=abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals.
We have sane gun laws! It’s called the second amendment. EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves.
It’s called taking personal responsibility but that’s a foreign concept to liberals
Handguns are not banned in the City of Chicago.
Really no reason to comment here. N/A comments at the source. But...How many gun laws are on the books now? Roll’em all back and start over and I would be willing to debate them one at a time.
“Shall not be infringed” apparently doesn’t mean what I think it means....
Our liberal elite betters always know what is best for us.
Too many Amish. Get rid of ‘em and problem solved.
The beauty of this happening in occupied territory is that maybe they’ll take down some of the nazis themselves in the process.
We need to drop off these gun control advocates in the middle of Auburn Gresham unarmed. Let’s see if they hold true to their foolish convictions when urbanites start attacking them.
One, how many "assault weapons" are used to kill people? Depending on your definition of "assault weapon" it is a shockingly low number. The percentage of people killed by rifles - all rifles not just "assault weapons" - is something like about 3% of people killed with firearms. So going after "assault weapons" is going after something like a fraction of a percent of the problem. Why would anyone waste their time going after that and ignoring the other 99.xxx% of the problem?
Ban "high capacity" ammunition magazines? Right. Even though FBI statistics show most shooting incidents involve only a handful of shots. Another completely useless proposal from the "do something" crowd. Well, it does something - moves us closer to an un-Constitutional ban on all weapons. When these measures are in-effective as everyone with better than a room-temperature IQ knows they will be they'll have to do something else, something more. Ban some more, chip away some more at our freedoms.
The Legislature also should expand rules Chicago recently enacted regulating gun shops to cover the entire state. That could help solve the problem of the handful of gun establishments that are the source of a huge number of illegal guns recovered on the street.
The emphasis above is mine. Do you think the author actually read and/or considered what he wrote? Or is he merely regurgitating the party line, supporting the agenda? Consider what he said: the "...illegal guns..." so as I understand that, the firearms used to commit these crimes are, gasp (!) already illegal, or probably more precisely illegally possessed by the perpetrator(s) of the crimes. Hmmm, he is saying these criminals are already breaking numerous laws regarding possession of firearms; committing robberies, assaults, and murders... in other words not too likely (at all) to obey yet another law.
But that's what these liberal "leaders" and "lawmakers" propose. In fact that seems to be the only solution in the liberals' playbook: more laws, more restrictions. These criminals are violent and breaking the law? Liberal solution: further disarm the law-abiding victims. Idiocy, sheer idiocy. In fact, such an utterly stupid proposal no-one capable of tying their own shoes would make it, unless they have an ulterior motive. There has to be another reason these "liberals" and "progressives" want the law-abiding people disarmed. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety.
$hitcago’s problem isn’t it doesn’t have enough gun laws. It’s problem is it has too many gangs, too many crooked politicians, and too many Gibsmedats. Half of the city is a human sewer and the other half enables it.
From the article:
“Even normally tranquil Montrose Beach turned into a large brawl Sunday night that injured two police officers.”
As far as I know (and it’s difficult to determine, since the Chicago papers do their best to ignore mayhem involving particular demographics) no gun violence was involved in the Montrose Beach incident. Ditto recent (largely unreported) incidents of wilding and flash-mob looting in upscale near-North Side neighborhoods.
Those incidents are clear evidence that the problem in the city is the breakdown of the social contract, NOT the presence or absence of guns or gun laws. A significant fraction of the population of the city is sick in a sociological sense, and the papers (along with Rahm and the city power brokers) refuse to acknowledge that situation as the real problem.
Everybody knows GUNS have been and still are ILLEGAL in Chicago,and Criminals have long been forbidden to use or possess guns, It isn’t Possible that ANY of this happened. So Why do Newspapers continue to print these LIES??