My son Matthew has arrived at his duty station, which if I read between the lines well enough he is unhappy with. He also brings my attention to a Chicago Sun-Times story. His email:
Well I have arrived in sunny Babylon. I sure wish I could have seen this place when Alexander came through, but it is nothing but sand storms and filthy rain now. I am working in the Protocol section and it has been pretty calm. Just call me C3PO.
I hope everything is going well. I saw your piece on Lindstedt. I can't wait for his reply. What an absolute waste of pig flesh that puke is. But then if I had a wife that looked like that I would hate the world too.
I would like to direct your attention to the following link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2082064,us-handgun-chicago-ban-030310.article
Read the Mayor's comments. What he is threatening the Supreme Court with as well as other government officials is the very real fear that if citizens are armed, then they (the politicians) will be at risk. I believe this gets to the crux of the matter. We will see how that turns out.
Anyway, take care. Please let me know if you will be available this weekend for a call.
Matt
The reporter says this ole boy is being "sarcastic"? How can you be sure?
Daley rips Supreme Court on handgun ban stance
March 3, 2010
BY FRAN SPIELMAN
City Hall Reporter
During oral arguments this week, U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled their intention to overturn Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban.
Still, Mayor Daley isn’t giving an inch. In fact, he’s ridiculing the high court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms while sitting in a protective bubble.
“Why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone’s home, why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I’m not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun,” Daley said, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
“Why can’t I go see my congressman who doesn’t believe in gun laws? Why can’t I carry my gun into congressmen’s offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, ‘Don’t be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.’ Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money ... to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city” there’s no protection?
In a 2008 decision that Daley called “frightening,” the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.’s handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense.
At issue now is whether the Second Amendment applies to states as well as the federal government.
Even after overturning the D.C. ban, the Supreme Court specifically said governments can continue to ban people from carrying weapons around schools, public buildings and other situations that might endanger the public.
On Wednesday, Daley once again refused to discuss a fallback position. He was too busy arguing the merits — even in the face of almost certain defeat.
“There’s a reality, but also there should be passion and common sense. We assassinated President John F. Kennedy. We assassinated Martin Luther King. And we assassinated Robert F. Kennedy — and we’re proud of that. That’s the answer to problems with a gun. That is not,” Daley said, again ladling on the sarcasm.
“When a child gets shot or killed, that is a failure of society. Adults should stand up and say, guns don’t solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations.”
The D.C. Council subsequently replaced its overturned law with new regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years.
That just might be a roadmap Chicago is forced to follow.
15 comments:
"What he is threatening the Supreme Court with as well as other government officials is the very real fear that if citizens are armed, then they (the politicians) will be at risk."
Isn't that the whole damn point?
I tell you politicians can be some of the sorest losers to walk the Earth.
Oh, and the reason everyone isn't ALREADY carrying a gun is because YOU won't let them! It's got nothing to do with whether or not they SOLVE anything, you haven't given them a chance!
And by the way, what do you mean "we" kill JFK and King? Are you confessing something to us?
"...guns don’t solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations.” Richard "Little Dick" Daley.
Of course, Little Dick's bodyguards carry guns, even in the public buildings of his own (city) corporation.
Give all our best to your boy. And as for that impotent asswipe Daley, like every other asswipe Chicago politico scumbag, he talks a good game when he's surrounded by armed thugs.
And as so many have said, if gun laws worked, then Chicago and DC would be the safest places in the country to walk the streets.
With crap-for-brains like him coming up out of the ground of Chicago like mushrooms growing out of cowshat, I guess we can't be surprised to see ayholes like the one in the White House, coming from the same meadows.
Mayor Daley is right on with his fear of armed citizens. All he has to do is behave well and make the city run. Become the cleanest least corrupt and incorruptable Mayor in the USA and he'll have nothing to fear from the citizenry.
Forget it Jake, it's Chi-Town.
May I suggest well-concealed body armor and body guards wearing armor as well?
Bad people are still going to have and get guns. Law-abiding people will now be on semi-even terms with the predators.
Money might be saved overall by having people DIY self-protection.
Plenty of opportunity for folks who run handgun safety & basics of operation classes.
Cheers.
Well,sounds as if the Tyrant mayor is admitting that He and other politico scum are on the wrong side of the law.
And are worried the Citizens that they oppress might try to reclaim their freedom.III.
What Daley forgets if we the people are represented properly you would find us defending them not the othet way around. Daley for what it's worth is a high level retard and I mean no disresepct for the handicaped.
Mayor Daley writes, "Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money?" You noticed! Congratulations. Now riddle me this Mayor, why is it that the people taking all the money to increase their own power and protection have a conniption fit when those of us from whom they take all that money-and people even poorer than me-stand up and demand the same access to protection? A level playing field is anathema to these people. they want the playing field CLEARED. (Never forget that, folks)
Predictably, Daley laments children being shot. (Do it for the Children!) Hey, I've got a great idea, why not pass a new law that makes it REALLY tough on you if you shoot a child? Because as we all know, more laws means more safety.
You want "failure of society"? How about an an unbroken lineage of Chicago Mayors named Daley who preside over one of the most corrupt cities anywhere on the earth?
What's the matter Mayor, you afraid that you might have to use manners now with your armed serfs?
Uninfringed Second Amendment rights? Now there's some @&^%!!N change you can believe in!
Eric
III
" Anonymous said...
That whole Daley/Chicago Leftist political regime should be thrown in a filthy jail cell in Joliet."
March 4, 2010 6:00 PM
Yep - sharing cells with members of a block gang whose leader is a horny 300 pound guy called Doctor Meat and whose protection enforcer is known as Ice Pick Slim.
We assassinated President John F. Kennedy. We assassinated Martin Luther King. And we assassinated Robert F. Kennedy — and we’re proud of that.
If by WE you mean government, yes you are right.
Who says we can only use guns to dispose of politicians?
And "coincidentally" we hear a rumor that the Chief Justice of the USSC may retire (untrue for now). Little Dick wouldn't be floating a threat would he?
Apparently that chief justice rumor was started by a professor at Georgetown Law, who was teaching a class on informant reliability (or lack of same!). At the beginning of his class, he stated that Roberts was going to retire by the next AM. Approximately a half hour later, as he was reaching the end of the class, he told them that he had just made that up, and pointed out that just because he was what they considered a reliable source didn't mean that everything he said was a fact - they would need to fact check statements, even when made by "reliable" sources.
Apparently, in the intervening half hour, members of the class tweeted and im'd numerous contacts who in turn did the same and voila! a rumor is born. The professor's lesson was vigorously reinforced - whether he intended that or not!
What are the odds that, when TSHTF, cops will put their lives on the line for very long to protect politicians who have consistently worked against them and the people they are sworn to protect? I understand that most cops have a love/hate relationship with politics, and will probably remain loyal as long as they can have unchecked power, but how much blood will they have to lose before they wise up? I'd say not much, because the type of personality that is drawn to the BDSM fantasy world of being a cop is generally not hero material, and the good ones will probably get smart and find work in private security when it starts getting bad.
As I've noted here before, one need only look at Katrina to see what will happen with cops. Some will join the looters, most will (as would most of us) go home to protect their own.
If you claim otherwise, you're probably not being honest with yourself.
In a real "breakdown" situation however, some will sieze the opportunity to "go rogue" - they may go execute some miscreants that they know need a killin', or they may try to set themselves up as some sort of warlord. I fully expect many soldiers from 'da hood to do the same - militarize the gang members and take over some defensible buildings, etc.
One thing I haven't seen anyone really consider is the impact of a roving company or even small battalion-sized bunch of well-trained sociopaths taking anything (and anyONE - got daughters?) they want and killing all who interfere.
Our alphabet agencies have been concerned for some time about the growing number of undercover gang-members joining our military then returning to the gang to teach what they have learned. When there are no "only ones" to battle them, they're going to become OUR problem...
Any time one of these cowardly hypocrites talks about the evils of guns, I ask how soon they'll be willing to get by with no weapons and no bodyguards.
The answer - obviously - is "never."
Ergo, they're hypocrites.
They don't need guns because they have their own small army with guns. Even without the guns, they'd still have their human mountains.
We have neither, if they have their way, and hence will be helpless against *ANYONE* bigger or more numerous than we are.
Post a Comment