Chicago Is The Murder Capital
by Big Dog on Oct 26, 2008 at 09:20 Political
Chicago is led by a bunch of corrupt politicians who believe that gun control is the answer to the problem of violence. In reality, politicians only want gun control for one reason. If they take away the guns people will no longer have the means to resist. Government becomes tyrannical and people become enslaved when they have no means to exercise their will upon the members of government. People need a means to resist, should government go bad.
In Chicago they have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and yet their murder rates are above New York and Los Angeles. In fact, Chicago is outpacing all the other US cities for the king of murder title. Of course not all murders are committed with guns. The bulk of them are and the rest might never have been committed had the victim been armed.
Barack Obama is anti-gun, of that there is no doubt. He is running as more moderate than he is (and more moderate than he was in the primary) trying to fool people into believing that he favors individual ownership of firearms but he absolutely does not. Bills that Obama helped pass in Illinois are responsible for the murders taking place in Chicago.
Interestingly, the cities with the highest murder rates have the most stringent gun control and have populations that are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats and whose legislatures are mostly Democrat. Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and on and on. Everywhere there are dense populations of liberals, run by liberals, you have murder and mayhem.
Criminals do not obey the law. A simple fact that seems to escape liberals and their gun control measures. In places with gun control there is more crime and more murder because criminals do not follow the law. In places where people are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights there are few murders and the murders are not committed by the law abiding gun owners.
Keep Chicago in mind when you go into the voting booth. Keep in mind that the police are a reactive force not a proactive. If they showed up before crimes took place we would not need guns but the fact is they show up after crimes have taken place.
We have a name for people who blindly follow anti-gun policies of people like Barack Obama:
Victim.
Tags: chicago, crime, gun control, murder capital, Obama
I threw this out on Twitter and emailed to my hubby (a lifetime NRA member)
I’ll tell you this Big Dog, West Virginia isn’t going to be voting for Obama. We not only cling to our guns here, we sleep with them. We aren’t about to let some liberal horse’s petoot mess with our right to bear arms.
It’s a logical leap to suggest that guns are the major factor in crime rates in differing types of populations. There is a general disagreement as to the correlation between gun control laws and crime.
The fact is the 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to have any gun any where any time yet any Democrat that supports gun control legislation gets accused of wanting to take away all guns. Doesn’t make sense…
So the part that says the RIGHT to KEEP and Bear arms shall not be infringed means they can put rules in place to INFRINGE that right?
It is easy to suggest that guns are a major part of crime in the criminal world because they are. Criminals use guns regardless of the law because they do not obey the law.
There is no disagreement among those who have studied the issue. Anywhere that people’s rights are not infringed, the crime rate with guns is LOWER. It has been shown time and again. The places with the most stringent gun laws have more crimes especially with guns. If gun control worked then these places should have NO crimes with guns. Gun laws don’t work for the same reasons drug laws don’t work, criminals do not obey the law.
Laws only keep honest people honest. Criminals don’t care especially given that they suffer little in the way of incarceration. The judicial system is a revolving door.
I don’t know where you got your “fact” but the founder, you know the guys who wrote the thing, did not see it that way.
According to SCOTUS the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not state that gun laws qualify as infringement. It is very clear about that. Let’s take a look at the text of the most recent ruling on guns, DC vs HELLER:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.”
That is where my “fact” comes from. Where does yours come from?
I actually get mine from the guys who wrote it. It is important to remember that Heller dealt with whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional. It only ruled that a the Second was an Individual right (which any sane person already knew) and that DC could not restrict a person from keeping a fully functional weapon in his home. The ruling had nothing to do with possession outside the home because Heller sued based on having to keep the weapon disassembled and therefore nonfunctional. The ruling discusses ANY weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose. This is certainly true in that people are not allowed to carry machine guns (without a permit) or bazookas. The weapons should be for the common defense and this is what the founders expected of us.
You should try reading what the people who wrote the Constitution have to say. They were pretty clear. The Second is not unlimited in that there are weapons that cannot be considered personal use weapons. However, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means just that.
Concealed weapons have held up in that people must have a permit to carry concealed. This is clear but, people should be able to openly carry without any problem. However, it has also been long thought that states should be MUST ISSUE in that they must issue a permit to conceal carry if a person has no record.
Gun laws which restrict people from owning or carrying infringe., Like I said, Heller dealt with a gun IN a residence. We will be seeing lawsuits dealing with the outside in the near future.
The only thing I can say is if guns are outlawed I will become a criminal. I refuse to turn them over.
More sanity to be injected into the conversation about guns:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The SCOTUS holds with the opinion of the majority of the sane people of the United States.
Certainly there are rules regarding carrying guns in schools or government buildings as well as other places. The places involved can prohibit who can carry them there just as you can decide to allow or not them to be carried in your house.
The mentally ill are not capable of making rational decisions with regard to guns (or some are not) though I wonder if it should disqulaify them from voting.
Felons gave up the right by being convicted of the felony.
And I agree that people who sell them commercially (not private sales between citizens) should be qualified. None of this infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It only says that some places guns are not allowed. Like in Texas, the bars have signs saying that guns are not allowed and anyone caught faces a $10,000 fine. The people have not lost the right to carry, they just need to decide if they will drink or be armed…
I recommend you read what the guys who wrote it had to say:
You can find their words here.
The NRA’s fact list definitely is in line with the opinion that anything other than the right of an individual to carry any type of gun anywhere any time is a “serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.”
I guess my only question is if you support the opinion that there are limits on the 2nd, that there are places it is okay to not allow guns, and that gun legislation does not automatically infringe on the rights of the 2nd, then why is it that Democrats who share this stance with you are considered anti-gun?
I don’t support the idea that there are limits, not as you define them. I suggest there are limits on certain types of arms and that entities can decide if we are allowed to take them in their buildings.
Personally, I think if police are allowed to take them there then I should be.
But to your question, liberals like Obama want to take guns away completely. They want to ban certain ammunition that hunters use they are not of the idea that we should keep a law abiding citizen from taking a gun into a bar, they are of the mind that law abiding citizens should not have the gun in the first place.
Banning certain types of ammo is a far cry from banning all guns. Where are the quotes about Obama wanting to take guns away completely?
The part where he wants to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
The part where he wants to close down 90% of gun shops in America.
All at the NRA site with cited references…
Well Said!!! It IS amazing how these common sense concepts DO seem to escape the libs. I could go on and on with how much I agree with the but “well said” pretty much sums it up.
gun states like florida have higher muder rates than less gun states like those in the northeast
This is absolute bunk and runs contrary to every study done on the issue. Don’t listen to what they tell you, read and learn. That is the only way to prevent ignorance of issues.