Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Gun Control, who's for it?
Bookmark and Share
Patch 
Posted: 06-May-2010, 12:37 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





www.buckeyefirearms.org

Chicago bans guns then watches its helpless citizens on 10,000 cameras
printable page
Submitted by drieck on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 07:00.

* Guns in the News
* Gun Grabbers

by Gerard Valentino

Chicago is known as a world-class city, offering everything from a great nightlife to the arts, ethnic cuisine, championship sports teams, top universities, and excellent public transportation.

But Chicago's real claim to fame is its world-class crime. Year after year, violent thugs slaughter Chicago's citizens, making it one of the most violent places in the United States.

The city's answer to this bloodbath is a system of more than 10,000 cameras to invade its citizens' privacy and watch the effects of its draconian gun laws that render citizens helpless.

Cameras only serve to give citizens a false sense of security because many people assume criminals won't commit crimes while under surveillance. Just watching the local news blows that theory out of the water. Nearly every newscast shows video of the latest crime committed in full view of security cameras.

To be fair, there is some evidence that cameras can sometimes shift crime from one location to another, but there is no evidence that they change behavior or reduce crime overall.

And all the cameras in the world can't overcome Mayor Richard Daley's decision to invoke the failed tactics of gun control. Wherever people are disarmed, criminals can choose their victims at will, cameras or no cameras.

One tool alone shifts the balance of power in a violent encounter from the criminal to the honest citizen – a firearm.

It's bad enough that the State of Illinois doesn't allow legal concealed carry for law abiding citizens, but in Chicago keeping a gun for home defense is also illegal. City residents can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of the right to bear arms and overturn the longtime ban on firearms ownership.

For the moment, the first, last, and only line of defense for homeowners is the strength of the locks on their doors and windows. Once a criminal gets into the home, the situation has only one possible outcome as long as homeowners lack the means to fight back.

To think criminals in Chicago don't know they have a free pass when committing crimes within the city limits defies logic. And thinking criminals will obey gun laws borders on insanity.

Still, the biggest tangible issue created by the cameras is that citizens believe a city saturated with electronic surveillance is safer than cities that don't employ the same tactics. That simply isn't true, and the Daley administration's assertion that more cameras equal less crime is irresponsible, given that people might be more willing to take risks in areas under surveillance.

Privacy advocates are quick to point out that widespread use of cameras does irreparable harm to the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Others will argue that it is up to the city inhabitants to decide if they will tolerate the cameras since there is no expectation of privacy while out in public.

Not surprisingly, most pro-gun advocates see the intrusion for what it is: an unacceptable trade that removes privacy and provides little if any security.

For Chicago to trample on its citizens Second Amendment rights and create a citywide victim zone is stupid. To erect cameras that do little but observe the mayhem is just cruel.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors
PMEmail Poster               
Top
englishmix 
Posted: 06-May-2010, 06:16 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 985
Joined: 30-Jan-2009
ZodiacBirch

Realm: My place







I am still decisively in favor of controlling my own gun - that is, if I owned one or was firing one. I am in favor of it because the Constitution is, and I am thankful to be able to live in a country where I do not need to own a gun - and that most likely because my neighbors do.
PMEmail Poster                
Top
CelticSpecter 
Posted: 06-May-2010, 08:43 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Clan Member
***

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 74
Joined: 28-Aug-2009
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Isle of Islay

male





From my cold, dead hands.





PMEmail Poster               
Top
flora 
Posted: 07-May-2010, 08:07 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 896
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Tangerine, Florida

female






I have noticed many business owner defended themselves from crime. It doesn't get as much news recognition as crimes or accidents with guns though.

I would like to know everyone's thoughts.

Flora

Images: ATM Robbery Turns Into Wild Shootout
Posted: 6:21 am EDT May 7, 2010
Updated: 8:30 am EDT May 7, 2010

WINTER GARDEN, Fla. -- A robbery attempt turned into a shootout that involved a Central Florida corrections officer early Friday morning.

Police are still searching for one of the three men who tried to rob an off-duty corrections officer at an ATM at the Wachovia Bank on Dillard Street in Winter Garden.

Winter Garden police arrested 18-year-old Tommy Ward and 20-year-old Patrick White, but the third suspect remains on the loose.

Winter Garden police continued to process the crime scene well into Friday morning. They were looking for evidence and trying to determine exactly how many shots were fired.

The corrections officer told Eyewitness News reporter Daralene Jones that he pulled up to the walk-up ATM in his white minivan around 3:00am Friday morning.

Just after he inserted his bank card into the machine, he noticed a silver Acura pull up in the middle of Dillard Street, just off West Colonial Drive.

"[It was] just sitting, not moving at all. So I thought, okay, this is kind of suspicious," said the off-duty corrections officer.

The victim agreed to share his story only with Eyewitness News but he requested that we not reveal his identity for safety reasons.

"So, in the process of watching them I'm still waiting on the receipt, which is taking forever to print out, and these guys rolled up on me and told me to give it up," said the victim.

While the victim was waiting for his ATM receipt, he said the Acura sped into the parking lot. That is when one of the suspects jumped out of the back of the car wearing a ski mask and pointed a gun at him.

The victim refused to give the crooks what they wanted, and moments later he says the crook opened fire on him.

That is when the victim sought cover behind his mini-van, pulled out his own gun and returned several shots at the suspects.

"I [retreated] behind my van and they start firing, so I returned fire," said the victim.

Tommy Ward was hit three times, and in his rush to get away from the victim he dropped his gun. That is when he hopped into a getaway vehicle and the three suspects took off. The corrections officer said he had no idea that he hit anyone until a Winter Garden police officer showed him blood on the ground and the gun that was dropped.

Fortunately, a Winter Garden police patrol unit was nearby and heard the gunshots. The patrol unit saw the suspects' car speed away and followed them until the suspects' crashed their car. That is when two of the suspects were arrested.

Ward was transported to a local hospital to be treated for gunshot wounds. Investigators tell WFTV that Ward is not cooperating with police.

The off-duty corrections officer has a concealed weapons permit. Although shaken up a bit, he was not injured.


--------------------
"Nature always wears the colors of the spirit." -
Ralph Waldo Emerson


Forget not that the earth delights to feel your bare feet and the winds long to play with your hair.
K. Gibran


In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks.
John Muir


"Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves."
John Muir
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 07-May-2010, 11:40 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





Breaking news on Fox.

Two people have been shot in an Old Navy store (?) in Chicago. Mayor Daley had seen fit to ban guns in that city.

How then could this possibly have happened? Also where was the police protection? Did a camera record the crime? Probably. It certainly did not provide protection for any innocent people who were harmed though.

Slàinte,    

Patch    
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Jillian 
Posted: 07-May-2010, 05:58 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Brittany
Posts: 703
Joined: 29-Jun-2008
ZodiacOak

Realm: Pennsylvania

female





I'm glad police aren't badgering the victim (in Flora's article). I believe as long as crminals (who by the way will always find a way to get guns) think they have the luxury of robbing unarmed victims--they will continue to do so. But if enough people start firing back...you can be sure criminals are going to be thinking twice...or die trying.

I would much rather take my chances with having a gun than not having one...The percentages aren't with women who get accosted anyway. At least it gives one a fightin' chance. I think I'm talking myself into a handgun! I've been mulling it over for awhile and after a recent mid-morning home invasion just 3-4 houses down from me...I'm thinking more heavily on gun ownership.

Jillian


--------------------

"Disappointments are inevitable. Discouragement is a choice."
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 07-May-2010, 06:24 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





QUOTE
I would much rather take my chances with having a gun than not having one...The percentages aren't with women who get accosted anyway. At least it gives one a fightin' chance. I think I'm talking myself into a handgun! I've been mulling it over for awhile and after a recent mid-morning home invasion just 3-4 houses down from me...I'm thinking more heavily on gun ownership.



Go for it Darlin'! A 9MM is easy to handle on your end, and devastating on the receiving end. You may never need it, but it will be there when you need it. AND, if you didn't grow up in a gun owning home, by all means get some training! I wouldn't turn a homeowner loose with a hammer, I'm not proposing you take up arms without the knowledge to use it either.


beer_mug.gif




--------------------
Hoka Hey!
The more Liberals I meet, the more I like my dogs!
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
wdorholt 
Posted: 08-May-2010, 01:55 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 380
Joined: 21-Sep-2008
ZodiacIvy

Realm: Perham, Minnesota

male





While I have no objection to folks owning handguns if they choose, I do object to reinforcing the notion that they will be safer from harm if they own one. There have been several studies on this by scientists, such as this one, who are interested in health and injuries, not about owning guns or not owning guns, that show you are not safer.

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Charles C. Branas, PhD, Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD

Charles C. Branas and Douglas J. Wiebe are with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Therese S. Richmond is with the Division of Biobehavioral and Health Sciences, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, and University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Dennis P. Culhane is with the Cartographic Modeling Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice, Philadelphia. Thomas R. Ten Have is with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.


Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Jillian:

Please heed Dogshirt's excellent advice should you chose to purchase a handgun! You have to work at being safe, you can't buy it!



--------------------
Is beannaithe iad a shantaíonn an ceartas
(Blessed are those who desire justice)
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 08-May-2010, 04:02 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





The study is worthless if they do not differentiate between legal and illegal use of firearms. If a criminal is shot in the commission of a violent crime, they do not count as that is why honest people buy "protection firearms." Also, we have a local medical specialist here who was totally opposed to firearm ownership because of the carnage it caused. He did admit it was in the criminal segment of the population though. One evening after dining with his wife he became the victim of a violent crime which nearly ended his career. He is now legally licensed to carry a firearm and does so.

There are two states that have unrestricted second amendment rights, IE: no licensing period. Also no training. If you can legally buy a firearm you can carry it in any manner you wish. Those states are Alaska and New Hampshire. They have the lowest crime rates, both violent and non violent, in the nation according to FBI crime statistics. Other states have requirements that are but a bit more restrictive.

In my second amendment efforts, the group I work with has noted the FBI statistics and they prove conclusively that as a state eases personal firearms restrictions, crime moves to areas where private firearm ownership is legally restrained. In working for second amendment rights I may have helped raise the violent crime rate in your state. It was not our intent but should you wish to gain more permissive firearms laws, we will work to help you gain them after the November elections. Once a bill is placed in the legislative hopper, the sponsors are contacted by several groups including ours with offers of help in obtaining the bill's passage.

I doubt you have to tell anyone obtaining a fire arm for protection of the responsibility involved. Of course a criminal who obtains a firearm will not hold that same level of responsibility. The honest citizen has considered that before deciding to make the purchase. They have arrived at the point where they believe they have more right to life than a violent criminal intent on harming or killing. Some arrived at that decision because of a violent incident which they survived, some as they come to realize that they can no longer provide for their safety without a weapon, due to age, limited physical abilities or other infirmity.

If you have the good fortune to live in an area with NO crime, stay there! Do not travel!

It has been said that "a woman who supports gun control can be compared to a chicken that supports Col. Sanders." I would go so far as to include "anyone" who supports gun control.

I expect that as times get worse, and they will, the last states opposing less restrictive second amendment laws will be forced to change their views on the matter.

Slàinte,    

Patch    



PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 08-May-2010, 08:12 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





Gun control laws fail to keep Time Square terror-bomber from purchasing a gun, yet oblivious Bloomberg demands more
printable page
Submitted by cbaus on Fri, 05/07/2010 - 07:00.

* National Politics
* Guns in the News
* Gun Grabbers

By Chad D. Baus

Judging by the events of the past week, it's a good thing for billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he uses tax payer funds to pay others to carry guns for his protection. If he carried a gun himself, he'd constantly be shooting himself in the foot.

Take for example Bloomberg's reaction when news that a car bomb had been activated, but failed to detonate in the middle of Times Square. The part-time Republican, who heads the gun control front group run Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), quickly ran to the CBS Evening News and speculated before a national audience that the bomb could have been placed by "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something."

The following day, the world learned that the terror-bomb suspect was a Pakistani-born naturalized American named Faisal Shahzad. (That sound you just heard was Bloomberg firing a round into his own foot.)

Rather than apologize for having profiled a whole group of patriotic Americans, Bloomberg instead quickly announced that he "will not tolerate any bias" or backlash against Muslim Americans following the attempted attack, noting that "a few bad apples" exist among all cultural ethnicities. (That sound you just heard was Bloomberg firing a second round into his own foot.) I guarantee he'd never have uttered that "few bad apples" line had the suspect turned out to be a 40 year-old white TEA party member from Topeka.

The third self-inflicted wound came after authorities disclosed that a firearm was recovered from Shahzad's car – left parked at Kennedy International Airport when he was apprehended trying to flee the country.

Less than 24 hours later, Bloomberg testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, urging them to pass legislation to make it more difficult for suspected terrorists to buy guns.

The problem? Faisal Shahzad purchased his Kel-Tec rifle in Connecticut after passing both a criminal background check and a 14-day waiting period - gun control measures that gun control groups like Bloomberg's MAIG claim will stop criminals from obtaining guns.

From the Associated Press:

Shelton police said Shahzad legally bought a Kel-Tec rifle from a dealer after passing a criminal background check and a 14-day waiting period.

Meanwhile, through MAIG, Bloomberg claims that the solution to the problem of criminals obtaining guns is to make everyone that wishes to purchase a gun at a gun show - even from a private seller - go through the exact same background check that Shahzad went through. (Bang, bang and bang again!)

Ask yourself - what presented more danger to the citizens of New York - the rifle in the trunk of his car, or the bomb? Clearly, the terrorist knew the answer. I'm willing to bet Bloomberg does as well, and yet he didn't run off to testify in front of the Senate committee about the need to prevent home-grown terrorists from purchasing large quantities of gasoline, fireworks, fertilizer, propane tanks or alarm clocks...or the car he put them all in, for that matter. You'll see no press releases from the mayor decrying the "used car loophole," nor will you see anyone attempting to sue Nissan for pushing their product to anyone for their greedy profit without regard to the damage their product will cause society when a terrorist decides to load it with explosives.

No, for Bloomberg, this still isn't about stopping terrorists. It's all about curbing the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

So the next time you hear the sound of gunfire, it's likely just Mayor Bloomberg putting another round into foot as he talks about the nonexistent "gun show loophole" or his newly-imagined "terrorist loophole.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

www.buckeyefirearms.org

Slàinte,    

Patch    
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Jillian 
Posted: 08-May-2010, 09:12 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Brittany
Posts: 703
Joined: 29-Jun-2008
ZodiacOak

Realm: Pennsylvania

female





QUOTE
Go for it Darlin'! A 9MM is easy to handle on your end, and devastating on the receiving end. You may never need it, but it will be there when you need it. AND, if you didn't grow up in a gun owning home, by all means get some training! I wouldn't turn a homeowner loose with a hammer, I'm not proposing you take up arms without the knowledge to use it either.--Dogshirt


Thanks Dogshirt...I've fired a 9mm a few times but would definitely do training and plan to keep up with regular target shooting. Not something I would do half-assed for sure!

beer_mug.gif --right back atch!
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 13-May-2010, 04:58 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" -- G. Santayana


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform youthat the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?



WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.


"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

Slàinte,    

Patch     
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 21-Jun-2010, 12:45 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





bump
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 21-Jun-2010, 12:47 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





bump
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 21-Jun-2010, 02:23 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





Buckeyefirearms.com

Facing defeat in U.S. courts, Chicago Mayor Daley suggests "appeal" to World Court
printable page
Submitted by cbaus on Wed, 06/02/2010 - 07:00.

by Gerard Valentino

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is clearly getting desperate to save the city's longtime ban on private ownership of firearms. With the prospect looming of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling his city's ban unconstitutional, and after the state Supreme Court tossed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry, he is now calling for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

They mayor's actions are dripping in hypocrisy since for years, Daley has demanded freedom from the Illinois state government and now he is willing to sacrifice United States sovereignty at the altar of gun control.

Daley's actions are those of a man becoming unhinged at no longer being in complete control.

After all, he has had complete control over the city since his election as mayor. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to force him to give up his pet gun ban and instead of accepting another loss over gun control, Daley is throwing another one of his infamous tantrums.

But who can blame him since he has ruled Chicago for so long without allowing dissent.

Mayor Daley is a deft and accomplished politician and only uses a tool if it helps him achieve his goals. He can't get a total ban on private ownership of guns through the legislature, or at the ballot box and now the U.S. court system has failed him. So, he is moving on to the next possibility to uphold his anti-gun lunacy.

You can bet his attempt to take American gun companies to the World Court is driven by the fact that he knows the court will rule in his favor.

If Mayor Daley really wants to make a stand in favor of gun control he should put his gun control plan to work by refusing to accept armed bodyguards and travel around Chicago unarmed in the same manner he demands of the citizenry. That won't happen because like most anti-gun politicians, Daley is an elitist hypocrite who wants to live one way, while the people live another.

Mayor Daley also has a vested interest in blaming gun companies, gun advocates and gun laws for the unprecedented violence occurring in Chicago. As long as he can convince voters that the guns flooding Chicago are put there by the evil gun industry that is skirting the law, it takes the heat off of his inability to stop the killing. Shifting the blame is only part of the problem, however. Daley also has to make sure that Illinois never passes a legal concealed carry law.

He knows that eventually Illinois will join the 48 other states that allow legal concealed carry which will take away even more of his control. If Chicago is flooded with legally carried guns without an increase in violence, it will also further expose Daley’s lies. When that happens, he will finally have to answer for the fact that he hasn’t been able to stop the violence in Chicago.

Long before legal concealed carry becomes law in Illinois, the Chicago ban will finally be overturned. We can only guess what stunt Mayor Daley will pull to keep Chicagoans from being able to properly exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Everyone knows he won't simply give up, as he should, and let the ban die.

They say the true character of a man is exposed after suffering a meaningful loss - just the type of loss Daley is likely to suffer when the U.S. Supreme Court finally rules against the Chicago gun ban and when he fails to bring gun companies to the World Court.

Once all of his attempts at stopping the inevitable have failed, Mayor Daley has a choice. He can accept his loss gracefully and finally open his mind, or he can dig his heels in like an obstinate donkey.

For most people who have followed the Chicago gun ban saga, it won't be much of a challenge to guess which stance he will take.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt