Chicago defies forgotten 2nd Amendment

Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality with handgun bans after another has faced reality.

[Chicago NRA LIfe Member]

King Daley II is a tyrant.

He is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. Government run amok and totalitarian power is why we free citizens need arms, to keep the bastards in check.

Chicago will lose its battle against the ISRA and NRA, and the taxpayers will lose millions of dollars. Daley will still be king, surrounded by his taxpayer-funded bodyguards. The only thing that will change is the citizens will be allowed to legally defend themselves against tyranny and villainy.

[Insider]

Daley is not going to give in. In this nanny city, he knows best what is good for all of us. The Great Oracle will play God and do what is best for the children. It's always about the children.

This man is without shame. If he had any self-respect, he would resign and stop embarrasing himself.

After all of the criminal activity that he is responsible for with Hired Truck, illegal hiring, Sorich, Sanchez, Morales, Reyes, Dorrer, Joyce, Degnan, Bridgeport Village, any many more criminal acts, one would think he would just go to Michigan to ride his bike.

When is this nightmare going to end?

[LOU]

A well written column and a voice of reason for sure.
The Supreme Court has spoken and it is time for Daley to face reality and not spend millions of taxpayer dollars.

[albanypark]

The city of Chicago is inching up to be the murder capital of the US. Daley loves to spend the tax payers money when it comes to lawsuits he won't win. Like Burge.

[Citizen]

I have to say, I don't understand Mayor Daley's reasoning. Chicago has the highest homicide rate in the country. The criminals have guns no matter the laws. The laws only put good citizens who carry at risk for being arrested for possession.

[TimB]

Insider wrote:

When is this nightmare going to end?

When the people of Chicago vote/run the bastards out!!!!

Well written article. Illinois needs to join the rest of the country in allowing it's citizens to use the most effective tools to defend themselves.

[Chicago guy]

Well reasoned article. When will people wake up to the fact that "gun control" is NOT the same as "crime control?"

[Sue]

Chicago NRA LIfe Member wrote:

King Daley II is a tyrant.
He is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. Government run amok and totalitarian power is why we free citizens need arms, to keep the bastards in check.
Chicago will lose its battle against the ISRA and NRA, and the taxpayers will lose millions of dollars. Daley will still be king, surrounded by his taxpayer-funded bodyguards. The only thing that will change is the citizens will be allowed to legally defend themselves against tyranny and villainy.

Exactly!

[Judge Roy Bean]

The kingdom of Little richie, Land of Crook County. This moron just talks like he has worms in his brain. His jibbish is no-sense and the corrption is amock. He drives around with body guards, well he can put all of them on the street and take the bus like the mayor in NY. Daley needs to bust his corrupt machine, but the dumb voters keep putting this jerk back in. I'd love to see Da Mayor taken out of city hall in cuffs. Just keep voting him in and the corruption will suck you dry...had enough?....Law West of the Peco's

[Drew Anson]

Mr. Chapman is right on, especially about "incorporation", which is the word used for coverage of all states (and Washington City, of course) by the Bill of Rights. Think about it, the 1st Amendment only speaks about "congress shall make no law abridging ...", and yet everyone is used to it applying to state legislatures as well ("hate" speech, is waived of course, as big brother has decreed./sarcasm/).

In a real constitutional republic, the civil rights commission, under the Dept. of Justice, would have already taken Daley away in chains and brought him to Leavenworth, Kansas to rot until his dying day.

[Samuel Fishbine]

Mayor Daley is an egotistical fool. The city of Chicago is going to pay through the nose because of this. This city has the highest murder rate in the nation and also the most restrictive gun laws.
Do you think there might be a connection?

[Michael]

Mayor Daley is quite often wrong about a great many things and he's probably wrong to spend taxpayer money fighting a losing court battle, but he's not wrong about handgun laws.

It's perfectly reasonable for a local law to say, "You can't kill each other. You don't need a handgun."

What is so outrageous about a ban on handguns?

The posters here (as well as Steve Chapman) obviously believe otherwise, but I say you're wrong.

Good citizens don't "carry" and the Supreme Court decision in the DC case was a poor reading of the 2nd amendment -- which is intended to protect militia, not individual vigilantes.

It's disingenuous to call the ban worthless because the murder rate is high. Do you NRA members out there really believe the local murder rate will go down once the ban is lifted and handguns become cheaper and easier to come by?

Shoot each other if you must. I don't want or need a gun. But I may need some Kevlar.

[spec4]

Very good article. As has been stated many times in these forums; until Daley is behind bars where he belongs, the nannystate tax eating Democrat machine will keep him in power. If the Crook county voters ever wake up, IL would be a decent state to live in, bot the corrupt cesspool its become.

[Bruno McGee]

Daley is like Little Bill Daggett, the Napolean-complex afflicted, gun-ban obsessed sheriff that Gene Hackman portrayed in the movie "Unforgiven". Like Daggett, Daley is a smug, self righteous twit that thinks guns are acceptable in HIS presence, but not in the hands of the riff raff. I think we need a law that stipulates that, when arrogant, air-headed politicians insist upon frivolously wasting fortunes of taxpayer dollars defending lawsuits that are avoidable and that they know they will lose, the politician(s) should be held liable with their own personal finances. The fact that they are not is what makes them inveterate thieves.

[law abiding citizen]

Michael you may not want a gun but apparently you don't care that criminals will still carry guns regardless of the law. Allowing trained citizens to carry puts citizens on a level playing field with the criminals.

[Bruno McGee]

Michael wrote:

Mayor Daley is quite often wrong about a great many things and he's probably wrong to spend taxpayer money fighting a losing court battle, but he's not wrong about handgun laws.
It's perfectly reasonable for a local law to say, "You can't kill each other. You don't need a handgun."
What is so outrageous about a ban on handguns?
The posters here (as well as Steve Chapman) obviously believe otherwise, but I say you're wrong.
Good citizens don't "carry" and the Supreme Court decision in the DC case was a poor reading of the 2nd amendment -- which is intended to protect militia, not individual vigilantes.
It's disingenuous to call the ban worthless because the murder rate is high. Do you NRA members out there really believe the local murder rate will go down once the ban is lifted and handguns become cheaper and easier to come by?
Shoot each other if you must. I don't want or need a gun. But I may need some Kevlar.

Nothing is wrong with a ban as long as you believe that maximum life preservation is a paramount function of government, which you apparently do. My question is, why start with guns? Automobiles kill 4 to 5 times the number that guns do. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban them first?

[Michael]

Bruno McGee wrote:

<quoted text>Nothing is wrong with a ban as long as you believe that maximum life preservation is a paramount function of government, which you apparently do. My question is, why start with guns? Automobiles kill 4 to 5 times the number that guns do. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban them first?

I need my car to get to work and back. What do you need a gun for? Are you going to shoot me?

[amused]

Michael wrote:

Mayor Daley is quite often wrong about a great many things and he's probably wrong to spend taxpayer money fighting a losing court battle, but he's not wrong about handgun laws.
It's perfectly reasonable for a local law to say, "You can't kill each other. You don't need a handgun."
What is so outrageous about a ban on handguns?
The posters here (as well as Steve Chapman) obviously believe otherwise, but I say you're wrong.
Good citizens don't "carry" and the Supreme Court decision in the DC case was a poor reading of the 2nd amendment -- which is intended to protect militia, not individual vigilantes.
It's disingenuous to call the ban worthless because the murder rate is high. Do you NRA members out there really believe the local murder rate will go down once the ban is lifted and handguns become cheaper and easier to come by?
Shoot each other if you must. I don't want or need a gun. But I may need some Kevlar.

You may want to read the USSC decision so as to not repeat 70 year old falsehoods.

"Shall not be infringed" is evidently too complicated for many modern citizens.

[law abiding citizen]

Since daley wants to ban handguns he should start with his bodyguards. All the Illinois ploiticians should have to give up theirs first before the citizens do

[Michael]

I'm not a fool and I'm not a nazi.

And, actually, I don't live in Oak Lawn either (I don't know why it says that; I've been meaning to do something about it). I live in Chicago.

In any case, I'm not sure what Drew is on about. I was talking about handguns -- deadly devices often used for killing other people.

If you want to spend time downloading porn or handing out brochures, be my guest.