Oleg Volk photo (click to enlarge)
Related Articles
-
'Gun free' Chicago is bleeding out
-
First impressions on McDonald v. Chicago
-
'No guns for negroes,' Chicago-style
-
Does 'gun free' Chicago need the National Guard?
-
Weis: CPD Can't Stop Homicides
-
Disgraced former Illinois governor thinks Mayor Daley not enough of a thug for 'gun control'
-
Handgun Ban Support Collapsing
The overwhelmingly anti-gun Chicago political machine has historically enjoyed the support of a similarly anti-gun electorate--the gun culture in the city has, for decades, largely been supplanted by the thug culture. Now, though, there are signs of a "sea change" in Chicagoans' attitudes about armed self-defense. This new attitude became particularly apparent after the murder last week of Chicago Police officer Thomas Wortham IV, as reported by CBS Chicago.
The last straw was the death of Chicago Police officer Thomas Wortham IV last week.
That has some African-American families in Chicago considering doing something they never would have done before: carry a pistol.
In Chicago, of course, one cannot legally even buy a pistol to be kept in one's home, much less carry it for self-defense in public. Officer Wortham's murder, I should note, occurred just hours before Chicago Mayor Richard Daley proposed demonstrating the effectiveness ("It's been very effective") of Chicago's handgun ban by putting a bayonet-tipped rifle up a skeptical reporter's butt.
Particularly interesting (and particularly gratifying) is the fact that much of the new impetus for legalized defensive handgun carry in Chicago is coming from the black community--so much for the idea that gun rights advocacy is a "white" issue.
Many Chicagoans have been upset for some time about violence here, but Wortham's murder has touched a raw nerve in the black community.
Now some want to do more than simply call 911 or march for peace in the streets. They want their own gun.
As is the case elsewhere in the U.S., the history of "gun control" in Chicago is rooted in racism. To quote Raymond Benwood:
With passage of the '68 Act another door opened under the color of law, this time in the state of Illinois. Since white liberal racism energized the '68 Act, seeing it as a tool to further their socialist agenda, Mayor Daley Sr. of Chicago used his influence to bring about a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in Illinois as a response to race riot concerns in Chicago. The FOID card was believed to be a powerful tool, to keep guns out of the hands of certain groups in the state deemed dangerous to Daley.
In the intervening decades, though, advocates of forcible citizen disarmament have largely succeeded in framing their agenda as being for the benefit of blacks and Hispanics, and opposition to that agenda as "racist." Now, perhaps they'll have to explain to black Chicagoans why they must choose between defenselessness and becoming "criminals."
Former legislator and current gun rights lobbyist (with ISRA) Coy Pugh was quoted in the CBS Chicago article:
"In the community that I grew up in, they say it's better for the police to catch me with it than the robber to catch me without it," said Pugh.
While I agree with that as far as it goes, the fact remains that being caught carrying a loaded handgun in Illinois is a felony, with prison time, and a lifetime ban on ever legally so much as touching a firearm. To force people to choose between the danger of facing a murderous thug unarmed, or facing prison, is sheer evil.
With the Supreme Court expected to strike down Chicago's handgun ban next month in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Daley has already announced his intention of replacing the outright ban with the next "best" thing--a de facto, near ban. It's time for the people of Chicago to say "No."
Be sure to watch the video of the CBS Chicago story.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Amen, brother. These "officials" who attempt, and quite often succeed, to disarm the individual citizen are public enemies.
18 USC Sec. 2381
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Is it not treasonous to remove an individuals right to self protection? Common criminals like Daley are aiding and abetting fellow criminals who don't give a second thought to disarmament laws. Time for these thugs to answer for their crimes.
I wonder why we never see any statistics on robberies prevented or solved by the victim carrying a gun.
As a liberal, my views have changed dramatically over the years. As a result of The Patriot Act (and reinforced by Obama keeping that act), I now fear losing my constitutional rights more than I fear getting shot. Further, statistics show that--like most else in the world--better education and opportunities will lower crime more than anything else. In short, I now support less restrictive control of firearms. Proper registration and licensing, and arguably waiting periods, are as effective as it gets.
to gunless:
Because the mainstream media never reports them.
But, you can find them here:
thearmedcitizen dot com
Kurt, have Illinois politicians ever considered putting the gun issue to a state wide vote on whether they (the citizens) want more relaxed gun laws, and a state wide CCW permit? I know the Chicago politically machine wouldn't want it, but I would think that downstate politicians (r), could use it as let's let the people of Illinois decide. Just a thought.
IF Chicagoans and the citizens of Illinois ever remember that they actually have Natural Rights (as innumerated, say in The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution), they'll actually vote their way into a solution.
However, while the Liberal (read communo-fascist) political machine of Chicago (and the nation, for that matter) keep a certain percentage of individuals convinced that their rights are granted by the government, the people are screwed...
URU, I guess you're talking about voting them out, but that takes time (not all politicians are due up for reelection at the same time), where as a statewide referendum would let all poiticians know how the whole state feels about their rights, and how a certain part of their reps are denying them those rights! There is enough time to get it on the November election, it's five months away.
While I agree that having a gun would provide some relief of mind, the biggest problem with guns is not criminals, it's the stupidity of gun owners.
Most of these kinds of laws get made based on the fact that if lots of people have guns, then lots of them also end up killing someone accidentally or they don't store their gun securely and it gets stolen by a criminal who then goes on to use it to kill someone.
I've read a number of arguments that boil down to "people can/should be trained", but that's easily put to the lie when you consider that the greatest number of fatalities among young male adults are driving accidents. If you can't teach 100% of humans to drive responsibly, what makes you think you can teach them to own a deadly weapon responsibly?
Trying to justify that guns should be legal, because some people have them illegally, makes no sense whatsoever. Its 2010 people. Guns have no place in a civilized society. And the obvious danger in having everyone walking around armed, clearly outweighs the benefit of having a gun on the offchance you may get robbed. Take care of the root of the problem: crime and illegal firearm trade. I, like most others, should not have to walk around in a society where my fellow citizens carry weapons. Thats just plain sick.
Glad I don't live here.
Netmonger; Your right why dont you start by putting a sign in your front yard that says "This is a gun free home!". Then we can take all the guns away from all the cops. Then since its illegal to have guns, obviously no criminals would have them! And who needs to worry about criminals since most of the crimes they commit are illegal anyway! Utopia here we come!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!