Jump to content

Let's look on the bright side at guns


GarandCollector

Recommended Posts

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-19-2017/Let's-look-on-the-bright-side-at-guns/

 

Let's look on the bright side at guns

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017 5:43 PM

 

Open carry really open and colorful!

 

Like many Chicagoans, when I wake up on Monday mornings, I dread getting "the count" on the morning news: the number of people shot and killed in Chicago over the weekend. It's not just the people who are killed that have their lives shattered. People shot in the abdomen or head or back can wind up needing constant care for the rest of their lives. People shot in the limbs may not ever get back to normal either. It's really crushing for a young person to wind up in a nursing home.

 

As of this writing, the year-to-date gun toll is 448 shot and killed and 2,161 wounded. (I love that the site I used for this info is called "Hey, Jackass").

 

After I get the count, I check Father Michael Pfleger's Facebook page to see how he's taking it. He never gives up hope although on some Mondays his mood is worse than others. (I think I've said this before, but can't the Church just canonize him now and skip all the voodoo when he's dead?)

 

I'm painfully aware of the Second Amendment and how concerned the Founding Fathers were about government tyranny. But really, they were thinking about muskets and bayonets; the pistols that were used then were too large to conceal. I'm also aware that this is a big country and there are many people in rural areas who need guns,

 

Forgive me for not remembering where I saw this program (I forget things, but so far I'm not delusional). Anyway, a lot more people are carrying guns than we think, even to weddings and funerals. The program described young men, particularly sports figures, getting dressed for a nice night out. Typically a guy puts on his pants, shirt and shoes, knots his tie, if he's wearing one, puts on his jacket, puts his wallet in one back pocket, and a gun in the other!

 

So what can the average person do to avoid people who are carrying guns? We may live in a bubble in Oak Park where our politics is concerned, but guys with guns are coming here and it's not for the schools.

 

My proposal about guns doesn't involve better schools, better housing or job training. Why not? Because I've lived long enough to know the political will is not there and the programs always wither away. Those in power have shown time and again that they just won't make the commitment to really take those steps. I've reached the conclusion that we, as a city and nation, truly don't care about the kids who are killing and being killed.

 

So here's an interim plan until we wake up and embrace a war on racism and put the money behind it:

 

1. Let's declare a state of emergency and call in the National Guard for a 3-day suspension of civil rights. They can do a street, alley and door-to-door gun check and confiscate all illegal arms. If a small country allied with the U.S. asked for help because of this kind of death toll, I think we'd do it.

 

2. Close local gun shops for being health hazards. By the time the whole thing gets to court, I expect we'll notice a drastic reduction in shootings and deaths.

 

3. Most importantly for the majority of us non-carrying mopes, let's get rid of concealed carry and enforce open carry. If someone is carrying a gun, I want to know about it, dammit. I want to see who has a gun when I'm at the movies, walking around town and the Loop, and riding the el. So no concealing.

 

As a matter of fact, let's require guns be a bright color; no more black or slate. I'm thinking shocking pink, orange or lime green. And in a holster so the rest of us can head the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoL, if you gave them muskets and bayonets they would still be murdering people left and right too. Stop blaming the inanimate objects for people acting badly and the society that enables them.

We are all alleged free people here. We don't need to sacrifice our freedoms that we have proven not to abuse just because others are abusing theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article might as well be titled "Eviscerate the Bill of Rights because I don't like guns." The maroons who draft and publish this drivel cannot grasp the constitutional implications. Think the government would only abuse its power with gun owners? Hahaha the author is in for a rude awakening. Suspend the Constitution, habeas corpus, everything that protects us from our own government for 3 days, just to screw with gun owners? I hope he or she realizes that the ENTIRE Bill of Rights would be suspended, including Due Process, Takings, 4A, exercising 1A rights such as the right to film police while they're performing official duties, the right to assemble to complain about guns, everything. The government would get to tell them when they can go to bed. These people do not get the implications of their own proposals. "Get these guns out of here by any means necessary, even if it means I'll need a new front door after the National Guard breaks down my old one."

 

And all of that assumes soldiers would be willing to partake in such actions. The active duty and reservists that I know would tell their superiors to shove it if given the order to go after Americans, in America. Enlisted, NCOs, and commissioned officers from Lieutenants all the way up to Generals. I don't believe the high ranking officers (Colonels and Generals, Captains and Admirals) would follow any order like that.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspend the Constitution? Even temporarily?

 

If the snowflake that wrote this thought about that concept for more than a nanosecond he might realize what things the current POTUS would be able to accomplish during that time.

 

Those that dream of an all powerful central government forget that government control is a fluid thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say:

 

I encourage you to look at people carrying guns in 2 groups. 1) People who legally carry guns through Illinois Concealed Carry licenses (CCL) and 2) People who illegally carry guns. You constantly walk among both groups.

 

Group1: On Aug 31, 2017, there were 260,479 people in Illinois with CCL's (thanks kwc.) I only know of one CCL carrier who was guilty of shooting anybody (wasn't convicted...killed himself) If you can find any more, please enlighten me. These 260,479 people carry to defend themselves and their families from violent crime. There are also cases where they protected other people being attacked. There are statistics showing CCL holders are even more law abiding than police. There's really no reason for you to fear this group. In fact, you should feel safer.

 

Group2: Most of these people are serious criminals. The people you track on Monday mornings are all in this group. They need to be arrested, prosecuted, and put in jail. Shouldn't be hard. Any felon caught with a gun normally should go to jail. Unfortunately, for some reason ($?), Chicago is last among major cities for number of prosecutions. NRA has called for arrests/prosecutions for many years (example in link below.) Like most people in Group 1, you should only fear people in Group 2.

 

It's wrong to ask for Group1 CCL holders to be disarmed especially as they also walk among Group2 predators. It's wrong to ask for gun restrictions which only impact Group1 CCL holders in the face of attacks by Group2 predators who don't obey any law. Your fears regarding Group2 are justified. Have you ever considered arming yourself and joining Group1?

 

https://www.nratv.com/series/wayne-lapierre/episode/wayne-lapierre-season-1-episode-1-how-to-stop-violent-crime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its obvious the anti-gunners and their allies in the media are working cooperatively and gearing up for a push of anti-gun legislation to include shutting down dealers and prohibiting firearms in "places of worship"

 

This is why it is so important for us to attend the town halls that the representatives and senators have when they're not in session.

 

We don't have the luxury of sitting down to lunch with a "reporter" and talking about what op-ed pieces we'd like to see published in the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times - the anti-gun activists do. That's why we have to attend the town halls and make our voices heard there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its obvious the anti-gunners and their allies in the media are working cooperatively and gearing up for a push of anti-gun legislation to include shutting down dealers and prohibiting firearms in "places of worship"

 

This is why it is so important for us to attend the town halls that the representatives and senators have when they're not in session.

 

We don't have the luxury of sitting down to lunch with a "reporter" and talking about what op-ed pieces we'd like to see published in the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times - the anti-gun activists do. That's why we have to attend the town halls and make our voices heard there.

Agreed. Despite their abuse, we've at least kept them more honest. They definitely don't want us there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I'm sorry ^ the author is Mary Kay O'Grady.

 

 

Its funny that she reveals 3 interesting things about the liberal mind set.

 

First is that she admits that the myriad programs aimed at the "underprivileged" haven't done any good and aren't doing any good.

 

Second, she reveals the typical liberal disdain for the Constution of the United States with her blithe comment about using the National Guard to violate civil rights for 3 days.

 

The third thing she reveals is their belief in the benefits of using the tactic to violate people's Second Amendment rights and then tying things up in the courts for years - or decades. This is what Chicago did for decades and did again after Heller until McDonald, and this is what Illinois did until Moore v Madigan, and what Chicago is doing over and over and over again in Ezell. The tactic is "Violate First" and reap the benefits of it for as long as possible.

 

Representative Scott Drury has advocated this approach - Just pass the gun control laws that you want to pass and roll the dice with the federal courts - maybe you win maybe you lose but you get to reap the benefits of gun control in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

Representative Scott Drury has advocated this approach - Just pass the gun control laws that you want to pass and roll the dice with the federal courts - maybe you win maybe you lose but you get to reap the benefits of gun control in the meantime.

And he's running for AG.

 

And it doesn't cost them a dime. In fact the opposite is likely true. More lining of his pocket instead. It DOES however cost almost all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising she is chairman of an advisory board. Anything to force her beliefs onto others. Supported by Obummer. She believes the world would be better if everyone wore name tags. Didn't the Nazi's make jews wear a tag to identify as jewish?

 

Ohhh daaaayummm! That is a very good point! And didn't they disarm them, after making them wear identifying tags, to make their transport and slaughter much more difficult to resist?

 

Who is the neo-fascist now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...