SCOTUS v Daley's killing fields
Two weekends ago, 60 people were shot and 10 killed in Chicago's Southside. Then, Mayor Daley bloviated that more gun laws must be enacted. This week, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his gun laws as unconstitutional, he repeated the lunacy.
Madness. There can be no other earthly explanation. Of those shot and murdered throughout that horrific weekend, not one was armed, all were defenseless. Of the shooters, it must logically be presumed that, given the city's Draconian anti-gun laws, not one of the criminals carried a legal firearm.
Mayor Richard Daley's response? "Since the Supreme Court ruled against the city, we will look for ways to change gun restrictions so they aren't unconstitutional." Translation: We will find any sleazy way we can to keep the innocent, law-abiding citizens of Chicago defenseless against the murderous violence of illegally armed thugs. And you better believe that the killers love Daley's folly -- they feel completely safe and untouchable -- predators and prey.
The Supreme Court's ruling on McDonald v City of Chicago struck down Chicago's ban on handguns as a violation of the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Once the Court had decided in the District of Columbia v Heller case two years ago that the federal government could not absolutely ban guns in the District of Columbia, McDonald's outcome was virtually guaranteed. In fact, the only shock was that the SCOTUS ruling was not unanimous.
But apparently Hizzoner refuses to allow something so trivial as our pesky Constitution to interfere in the iron-fisted rule of his fiefdom.
Hizzoner in Fantasy Land
The City of Chicago is number one, but not for sports achievement. No, Chicago is the murder capital of the United States, thanks to the likes of Daley and his political machine, State-run Media, and a wrong-headed cohort of anti-gun nuts -- all Democrat Party-controlled.
But the plain fact is that Chicago's violent crime and murder epidemics are simply not caused by law-abiding citizens or perpetrated with legal firearms. And as the latest FBI and Bureau of Crime Statistics data tells us, 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the nation's population -- Chicago, New York, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. -- yet each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
Of course, Hizzoner doesn't worry about the fate of unarmed citizens -- he has a bevy of armed guards who protect him. In effect, the safe, secure mayor has implicitly required that all law-abiding Chicagoans wear large signs which boldly proclaim, "Rape Me, I'm Defenseless" or "Shoot Me, I'm Unarmed." This implied requirement does not, however, impose any burden whatsoever on Chicago's burgeoning criminal population.
Chicagoans are on their own
As we all know, those four cities have some of the best, if not the best, law enforcement agencies in the nation. And yet they cannot be everywhere at once.
So what are you left with? You law-abiding but unarmed people living in Chicago must, as a last-gasp resort, depend upon your law enforcement to protect you from violent assault or murder. Good luck, and here's why:
In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the ruling that police departments have no responsibility to protect anyone, even if the victim had a restraining order against the offender.
Chicago law enforcement cannot and will not stop crimes from happening or protect someone prior to the actual commission of a crime. This is an indisputable fact that has been upheld countless times in courts at every level. It is the individual's responsibility to defend person and property -- NOBODY is going to do it for you.
How are you supposed to do that in Chicago?
Ask Hizzoner
Every citizen of Chicago should familiarize themselves with verifiable data that expose Daley's disingenuous political scheming. Every hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of Chicago should demand answers from Hizzoner to the following:
If guns are the preferred tools of criminals, why do you want law-abiding citizens to be unarmed and defenseless? Don't our lives, families, and property count for anything?
Why do you insist your bodyguards be armed, but not me or my family? Aren't we important enough to you?
If guns are "too dangerous" to be allowed in Chicago, what gives you the right to be one of the privileged few protected by them?
If we completely ban guns, do you think there will be no more armed criminals in Chicago?
Which do you think is better: More gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in Chicago -- except from criminals which will never happen -- or being able to stop an intruder intent on doing harm to your family?
With more than 28,000 restrictive gun laws or outright bans already on the books nationwide, why are gun crimes most prolific in jurisdictions like Chicago, with the nation's most restrictive anti-gun laws?
You either get it or you don't. You understand and support the Constitution or you don't. You cherish your constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms or you don't. It's quite clear that Daley places his political agenda above the constitutional rule of law -- and the citizens of Chicago.
Hype and Chains for 125 more days.