(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
You would be hard pressed to find a more anti-gun politician than Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Which makes the headline from a Second Amendment Foundation press release an interesting example of "Do as I say, not as I do" elitism:
DALEY’S BODYGUARD CATCHES KILLER; ‘WE SHOULD ALL BE SO LUCKY,’ SAYS SAF
SAF Chairman Alan Gottlieb nails it:
“Mayor Daley is protected by an armed guard,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “but what about the citizens of his city, who have no such luxury? The mayor is a world class hypocrite, who has bodyguards with guns to protect him from escaped killers like Charles Smith. Yet he is continuing to stubbornly fight against average citizens who are willing to protect themselves, but unable to because of Daley’s deranged double standard about firearms and personal protection.”
Chicago, of course, has outlawed handguns for citizens who did not have them registered since 1982, and re-registered them every year thereafter. And if you fail to do so? You lose your guns.
That is, unless you're a connected politician, like Alderman Richard Mell, who supported that law, but who neglected to re-register his guns:
At first, he tried blaming it on a staffer failing to do it for him. The other thing is, gun owners are personally responsible for doing this.
Then he tried getting the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section to allow him "to re-register his guns belatedly." Not having any provision of law that would allow them to do that, they declined. So what's an anti-gun elite gun-owning Chicago politician to do?
"Mell has quietly introduced an ordinance that would reopen gun registration in Chicago and create a 1-month amnesty for himself and other gun owners in the same predicament," The Sun Times report continued.
Make no mistake--it's a good thing that the mayor's bodyguard stopped a dangerous criminal (albeit, one who escaped due to government failing in its responsibilities in the first place). But as Gottlieb notes:
“While Daley can lounge in the protective shadow of armed bodyguards even when he is out of state, average citizens in Chicago and all over Illinois must contend with the mayor’s elitist attitude about gun ownership. Most people can’t afford armed bodyguards.
“So long as Daley fights to keep his fellow citizens unarmed he does not deserve the protection of men with guns...Take away his bodyguards and just tell him to dial 9-1-1 like the rest of us."
Sounds fair to me.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: You bet it's personal!
- Austin:
You can change the course of history
- Boston: Back door gun control
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: The safest park in Ohio, at least for one day
- DC: Sotomayor: latinas, guns, and werewolves
- Denver: Tipping further
- Los Angeles: On Sotomayor: The Judiciary Committee needs to get it, too.
- Minneapolis: A modest proposal about alcohol and guns
- Seattle: Sotomayor will not answer how she would vote on incorporation of 2A
- St. Louis: The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
I think Daley should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Perhaps Gottlieb should pay more attention to his tax returns.
The point being missed by Gottlieb and Codrea is that high-profile public figures face far greater risks than the average citizen. As a high-profile public figure, you become target one for every kook, nutcase, terrorist, and criminal. Most of the afore-mentioned are particularly dangerous because of people, like Gottlieb and Codrea, who make firearms readily accessible to them.
Another fact omitted by Gottlieb and Codrea is that Daley's security detail is comprised of active duty police officers.
My question is why can't Codrea accurately report the facts?
Captain Kid said
"The point being missed by Gottlieb and Codrea is that high-profile public figures face far greater risks than the average citizen. As a high-profile public figure, you become target one for every kook, nutcase, terrorist, and criminal. Most of the afore-mentioned are particularly dangerous because of people, like Gottlieb and Codrea, who make firearms readily accessible to them.
Another fact omitted by Gottlieb and Codrea is that Daley's security detail is comprised of active duty police officers."
The problem here is that YOU have missed the point. Yes Daley probably has MORE active threats against him or more potential threats than the average citizen. BUT in Daley's world the average citizen cannot own a handgun...
Basically he is surrounded by body guards with guns (yes they are police..) while explaining to everyone else that they can't have a gun to protect themselves (Except for other politicians- see chicagao aldermen).
Get a clue.
Kiddie Bear,
Except that elected public officials have no more legal entitlement to this protection than any other citizen in America. In case you forget, the premise of the Constitution was that no man had more entilted rights than any other. So why does Daley see fit to take away the rights of others that he himself enjoys?
My question is, why are you such a damned idiot?
Steve K: You are certainly free to argue public figures such as mayors, governors and presidents have no "legal entitlement" to bodygurads. But it's an argument you'd lose.
You'd lose it on the basis of historical precedence. One can go back to George Washington and find he had body guards. You lose it on a legal basis as well; the US Secret is mandated by law to protect the President and other high profile persons.
The logic behind this isn't difficult to figure out--even for Steve K. As I mentioned, public figures are high value targets to nuts, terrorists and criminals.
Captain Kidd says, "...As a high-profile public figure, you become target one for every kook, nutcase, terrorist, and criminal."
FYI, in 2008 Chicago recorded 508 murders a 15% increase from 443 in 2007 in a city with the most draconian gun ban in North America.
It sounds to me like disarmed and defenseless Chicagoans are the targets of kooks, nutcases, terrorists, and criminals! When trained lawfully armed Chicagoans begin defending themselves as intended by the Constitution, criminals will think twice about their next intended victim.
Seems when I was a kid there was a Daley as Mayor of Chicago (1950's). Guess that office is handed down through "divine right." Guess that explains the bodyguards too. Do they have those neat uniforms with the furry hats???
CA resident...where we elect "screen actors" to play governor.
While it is indeed true that public officials may face more risk, their life is no more important than any other citizen. Their bodyguards should face the EXACT same restrictions as any private citizen. Which, if the Constitution were obeyed, is not many at all.
THAT is the problem. A human being as a part of the CONDITION of being human, has an unalienable right to self defense. Mayor Daley and other hoplophobes of his odious ilk attempt to deprive others of that right. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they and their defenders do not like being labelled hypocrites, they should stop being hypocritical.
And another corollary here. Perhaps if a lot of these politicians were not so intent on being oppressive tin-pot dictators, they'd have a lot less to fear from the public. The possibility of a tyrant wannabe or two getting whacked doesn't worry me much, there seems to be an ample supply.
Capt,
are you saying that an individual such as Daily has more right to personal protection than someone such as myself? That their life is more valuable?
"FYI, in 2008 Chicago recorded 508 murders a 15% increase from 443 in 2007 in a city with the most draconian gun ban in North America."
FYI, Chicago's gun law was enacted in 1982. In 1974, the city recorded 970 murders. From 1992 to 2007, the number of murders declined every year from 943 to 442. The lesson here is that cherry-picking statistics doesn't work.
"Perhaps if a lot of these politicians were not so intent on being oppressive tin-pot dictators, they'd have a lot less to fear from the public. "
We have elections in this country. Pretending you have soime right to kill politicians you dislike is unAmerican.
"are you saying that an individual such as Daily has more right to personal protection than someone such as myself?"
This appears to be a familiar, if uninformed, theme. Once again, public figures are subject to risks the general public are not. That's why we also permit our law enforcement to carry firearms.
Kiddo needs to read the "Only Ones" file.
Kiddles,
"You are certainly free to argue public figures such as mayors, governors and presidents have no "legal entitlement" to bodygurads. But it's an argument you'd lose."
Silly Kiddie, you completely missed the point. You thought my point was that I didn't think that public figures should be allowed bodyguards, and argued as such.
The point was that I should be allowed the same measure of protection by firearms that these "special" citizens are. Their RIGHT for self-defense is the same as mine. I am using their justification to also justify mine. REMEMBER, we are a nation of LAWS and RIGHTS, not NEEDS and DESERVES.
"This appears to be a familiar, if uninformed, theme. Once again, public figures are subject to risks the general public are not. That's why we also permit our law enforcement to carry firearms"
Public figures, such as Bruce Willis? Michael Jackson?
Captain, do you where a seatbelt when driving your car, or carry an insurance policy? All we are asking for is the RIGHT to defend ourselves. To shoulder our OWN burden against those that might harm us or our families. The police are not going to come until after the fact something horrible has happened. My family can't wait that long for help to arrive.
Politians campaigned and asked to be a public figure, put themselves in what is potentially harms way. So if they are more important than you or I, would you sacrifice your life, or even one of your childrens to save thiers?
It appears to me the place to begin rectifing much of the political mire corruption and the gun issues would be at the polls. The people of Chicago are going to have to help themselves
and by the time the next election comes around it should be apparant to the majority. I hope they take heed.
Captain Kidd says, "FYI, Chicago's gun law was enacted in 1982. In 1974, the city recorded 970 murders. From 1992 to 2007, the number of murders declined every year from 943 to 442. The lesson here is that cherry-picking statistics doesn't work."
You are 100% correct cherry picking statistics doesn't work even though there were only 198 homicides in Chicago for 1916 long before the gun ban went into effect. The fact is there is an entire plethora of factors and variables which affect the murder and homicide rates.
Orlando Florida has a population of 2 million people and recorded 123 murders in 2008. In the same period Chicago, with a population of 2.8 million recorded a murder rate of 508! That's a whopping 413% higher murder rate than Orlando with only 40% increase in population. That's a huge disparity in the murder rates and Orlando doesn't have a gun ban in place in fact just the opposite. Perhaps Chicago criminals have a much higher proclivity for wanton violence than most.
Curt: If I wear a seatbelt or not, affects only me. If I'm in an accident and I failed to wear a seatbelt, I'm the only one going to the morgue or the hospital. Similarly, it takes no special training to use a seatbelt; use one once and you're pretty much an expert. The effectiveness of a seatbelt also isn't influenced by my emotional temperment or whether or not I have a substance abuse problem or whether or not I'm mentally ill. IOW, the seatbelt analogy doesn't work.
I'm not opposed to people defending themselves. But, frankly, average people simply aren't subject to the risks that would necessitate carrying a gun. Add in the fact most people have little or no training. Add in the fact many want firearms that are unsuited for defensive purposes.
"The point being missed by Gottlieb and Codrea is that high-profile public figures face far greater risks than the average citizen. As a high-profile public figure, you become target one for every kook, nutcase, terrorist, and criminal. "
Where's your proof? You have none. There is no evidence that they are at any greater risk then anyone else. If that was the case instead of the ethically challenged residents of chicago wouldn't be killing each other in gang warfare fueled by drugs and aided by the thug mayor demanding citizens be slaves and rely on the police. It must be so nice to support the murder of black "children" by defending his security detail.
Yet another example of kiddie libeling David:"Most of the afore-mentioned are particularly dangerous because of people, like Gottlieb and Codrea, who make firearms readily accessible to them."
If you have proof for ANY of your statements provide it troll. You just clamied David gives guns to criminals so lets see it liar
"FYI, Chicago's gun law was enacted in 1982. In 1974, the city recorded 970 murders. From 1992 to 2007, the number of murders declined every year from 943 to 442. The lesson here is that cherry-picking statistics doesn't work."
Would you care to look at the survival rates and advances in medicine? Nah, just cherry pick.
"Once again, public figures are subject to risks the general public are not. That's why we also permit our law enforcement to carry firearms."
News flash, they're still members of the public, servants. How nice that we "allow" people to exercise their rights.
The problem is kiddie would be just as corrupt and evil as Daley put into office by the undead and acorn.
"I'm not opposed to people defending themselves. But, frankly, average people simply aren't subject to the risks that would necessitate carrying a gun. Add in the fact most people have little or no training. Add in the fact many want firearms that are unsuited for defensive purposes."
Average people don't walk the streets? When was the last time a politician was attacked, raped, or robbed? We'll wait for your googleing. Now, when was the last time an average citizen was? Ah, you continue to lie about the average persons training, not surprising. OH, now you;re an expert on what IS and ISN'T a proper defensive weapon. Is a pistol of ANY kind better then keys between the knuckles, mace, a stun gun, "giving them what they want," or a whistle? All of those items have been suggested as alternatives by police.
I congratulate you on one thing, you have the ability to make Palin and Obama look intelligent.
Joshua: I'm unsure if you understand what cherry-picking means. Certainly, we can go back to 1916 and see relatively low murder numbers, but how do we explain 1974's number?
That's why we look at longer term trends. Those saying Chicago's murder numbers are caused by its gun laws are strangely silent when its pointed out the murder numbers dropped for 15 years to a point nearly half of that pre-gun law.
OTOH, Orlando's murder numbers are rising. BTW, Orlando's population is not 2M--it's not even 200K.
Tom: From your hysterical rants, i did pluck one nugget of amusement:
"Would you care to look at the survival rates and advances in medicine? Nah, just cherry pick."
Are you suggesting, then, that in cities with few gun laws(such as Orlando, New Orleans, Memphis, etc.) where murder rates are rising, the problem is much worse?
Kidd KoolAid claims even President Washington had body guards. I haven't looked that up to see if it's true, but Washington didn't promote disarming the citizenry either, did he? Your argument is a non sequitur. The point is, an elected official demands that his "subjects" go about disarmed, and pray to his majesty for the privilege of keeping a gun at home, while he's protected by men with guns.
The police have no compelled legal duty to protect any individual citizen. So, poorly trained or not, the potential victim is the first - and usually only - line of defense against a lawbreaker with a gun.
You can't see your own hypocrisy because of your diaphanous agenda. Lemee see - "Gottlieb and Codrea, make firearms readily accessible (to terrorists and nutcakes)"?
Go back and post at the Anti Self-Defense League website, or wherever it is you trolled over from. Oh, and be sure to post your home and car with a "Gun Free Zone" sticker. At least you can control your own hypocr
3) 13 out of 14 times when a CIVILIAN uses a gun to defend himself, no shot is fired. WHEN a civilian fires his gun, he tends to hit his target far more frequently than the police - sorry, I don't recall the exact numbers on that at the moment, but they are dramaticly higher.
When you bother to look at FACTS, Cap'n, you find out that if you are REALLY interested in public safety, you should be thinking seriously about taking firearms away from POLICE, and leaving the heavy lifting to the people with the demonstrably better record. Civilians quite simply TRY harder to be responsible, because they do not have the legal protections given the police. Which legal protections, I point out, encourage all too many otherwise fine officers to get a bit sloppy - and a fortunately small but disproportionately dangerous number of bad apples to be outright abusive.
All right, Cap'n Kidd, I am not going to let this one pass. Let me fill you in on some realities about civilian concealed carry you are apparently unaware of. And I strongly encourage you to check all these facts for yourself - they are READILY available out on the web if nothing else, or in several authoritative studies.
1) CCW permit holders are almost without exception some of the most law abiding citizens. Study after study has attempted to prove otherwise, and the resulting crime rates are almost unmeasurable. I could contrast that with the almost daily stories of police abuse and corruption, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
2) Civilians involved in fatal shootings are "proven" to have mistakenly shot someone erroneously 2% of the time. Police, on the other hand, are proven by departmental investigations to have erroneously shot someone 11% of the time - and many criminologists acknowledge that figure is probably MUCH higher.
Captain Kidd says, "OTOH, Orlando's murder numbers are rising. BTW, Orlando's population is not 2M--it's not even 200K."
On the contrary, the metropolitan area population which includes downtown Orlando is approximately 2 million. I know, I live here. As for the 1974 murder peak of 970, I cannot find any statistics which definitively blames gun violence as the sole cause for such violence.
Furthermore, it took 13 years after the introduction of the gun ban in Chicago for the murder rate drop. Why didn't the murder rate decrease sooner? What happened in 1995 to cause the murders to decrease? Was there a shift in how the police addressed the gang violence? Whatever it is, a 13 year gap tells me that the gun ban was not effective by itself. Other crime prevention factors played a role to reduce the murder rate.
The gun ban may have reduced the number of surplus guns on the street, but no career criminal is going to turn over his gun in a gun-buy-back program.
Joshua: I know Orlando very well. the population of Orlando City (what you based yor murder numbers on) is about 200K.
If you wish to expand Orlando to the metropolitan region, you might get 2M. But your murder numbers will rise as well. And to be fair, we'd have to expand Chicago beyond city limits to its metro area, which would push the population up to around 9 or 10M.
As for a 13 year gap, there wasn't one. The murder numbers did drop, albeit with some spikes. But your argument cuts both ways: if gun laws cause more murders, as you claim--why are cities with few or no gun laws experiencing rising murder rates?
theHunter: Sadly, none of your 'facts' are factual.
1 isn't true; most states with ccw don't track offenses by ccw holders. In fact, in many of those states--they can't, since lists of ccw holders are sealed.
2 isn't true; comparing apples to oranges. We require law enforcement to often actively enter hostile and dangerous situations. The same isn't true for civilians. In fact, there's very little conclusive evidence DGUs occur with any significant frequency.
3 is just made up.
Kidd, you weasel--how come you ducked out of the last thread without anwswering the question about the quotes from the report being real or not?
Why do you keep running from this?
Captain Kidd says, "As for a 13 year gap, there wasn't one. The murder numbers did drop, albeit with some spikes. But your argument cuts both ways: if gun laws cause more murders, as you claim--why are cities with few or no gun laws experiencing rising murder rates?"
This is not my argument. I have never claimed gun laws create crime. Although criminals might agree. As for your second question, many factors are responsible for crime spikes not the least of which are violent gang activites. Look at London's skyrocketing knife attacks. No guns, no problem. Knives work just as well for a deranged criminal, it's just more personal.
As for me I live in a small town of 2thousand people outside Orlando. This past December our police department was closed as a cost cutting measure since crime is so low here and the county took over policing. Police response times increased from 5 to 20 minutes. Think the folks here are using their 2nd Amend rights for protection? You better believe it.
I seem to recall that Captain Kidd was a pirate, and as such would prefer that potential victims be disarmed so that he may go about his "craft" in relative safety.
NO ONE ever wants you disarmed for your own safety, but in order to do things to you that you would resist if you had the means at your disposal. It is a X-ray right into the heart and soul of a person.
Kent McManigal- Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner says, "...NO ONE ever wants you disarmed for your own safety, but in order to do things to you that you would resist if you had the means at your disposal. It is a X-ray right into the heart and soul of a person."
That is 100% correct Kent! Well said. Thanks for your input.
I would really like to know why it is that if I am too unqualified to carry a firearm, why did I pass the test for concealed carry? Why did the liscensed instructor which so happened to be an active LEO pass any of us? Why did we need to show we were competent? Why do we need to have a permit to carry concealed? The fact of the matter is the majority of people that carry,(concealed or openly) would gladly use their ability to help complete strangers and the police. It was stated before, along with comfimation from the instructor I had, that the average citizen is more adapt to offer protection with a firearm. I will also add that the majority of people that are willing to put their life on the line do so because they ARE training on a regular basis because they like to shoot and are not at all afraid to come to someones aid. Whether you like it or not, we are safe individuals. We are respected by LEO's that have common sense. We are not cowards, gung ho nor helpless victims.
Maybe the douche bag Mayor should Carry his own weapon and protect himself and not rely on his bodyguards? Make equal for the elected Politicians as for the tax paying Americans! So if they elect not to protect themselves, or they can not own a firearm...it should be survival of the fittest! SORRY Mayor we will read your obituary in the news because you were equal to the tax paying Americans of your city.
But more importantly, I refuse to become a slave to the trash that were elected to office. Maybe you would like to be told how many kids you can have. What time you need to be off the street. Where you should work and how many hours. As for the matter of this editorial, Daley is a scumbag, a common hypocrite. They say or do one thing, then act another. But, the people of Chicago made thier beds, lay in them. They bowed to the Unions that kept the Obama's, Bloomberg's, Clinton's and Kennedy's in office. They helped support this type of legislation. They're getting their just desserts of despotism.
this may be the way to shut Kidd up, keep pointing to the fact that he runs away when his fraudulence can be demonstrated, right Kidd? Answer the question from the earlier article, were the quotes made up? And why did the report only very briefly mention Eddie Eagle on 2 pages when you were telling everybody that's what it centered on? Liar.
Every time the punk sticks his face in here, just respond 'answer the question" and when he doesn't, he'll know more people know he's just a fraud troll.
You are correct, Cap'n Kidd, MOST states do not track such statistics, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY. However, at least two DID, at the insistence of hoplophobic in-duh-viduals. Texas and Florida both DID. I invite you to review those studies for yourself rather than continuing to expose your ignorance.
You can parrot the discredited claims that DGUs do not occur often as long as you want, but even the lowest CREDIBLE estimates out there are still in the hundreds of thousands per year.
And, no, I didn't make up anything about accuracy. I just do not remember the exact numbers, and I don't care enough about your opinion to bother to go find them.
Here's the bottom line. I do not care what you think. The Second Amendment guarantees my pre-existing right. The courts are in the process of relucatantly admitting that. You and your ilk can go cry in the corner for all I care.
Not that I expect much hope that Cap'n Kiddie will bother to look, but I thought there might concievably be visitors to this thread who'd find the following recommendation useful.
Check out "Guy's Gun Facts" at
www.gunfacts.info/guysmith.html
One of the best single collections of well researched firearms info out there. Good enough I once entered a copy as evidence at a hearing of the New Hampshire State Legislature, and was thanked for providing it by several representatives several times over the next year or two. As a couple of y'all may know, this ain't hardly my first rodeo.
www.thepriceofliberty.org/hunter.html
the Hunter: I'm pleased you admit your statements were false.
BTW, politicians (of any party) will thank you for whatever you bring them. If you presented them with a petrified moose turd, they'd also pronounce i the most wonderful thing they'd ever received.
Just thought you'd like to know, seeing how this isn't your first rodeo.
You, sir, are a complete troll. Good day, I won't be responding to your idiocy any more.
The hypocrisy of Daley is astounding!
I would like to make one correction Daley does not have 1 body guard the Bastard has a revolving contingent of body guards and from what I understand has at least 12 guards at any given time.
In a side note the NRA has not came out against Sotomayor by telling senators that a vote for Sotomayor will be held against them in the NRA rating system.
I heard Bob Chapman say last night during a radio interview that he read a comment by Sotomayor that she would like to see white men castrated.
I would have to see that documented before I'd give it any credence - or repeat it. There is plenty to oppose in the judge's public record, all anyone does by spreading unfounded rumor is lend aid and comfort to the enemy.
I'm with you, I really don't feel NRA is (yet) doing as much as they could. And the probably won't. But they're making their own calculation, and their goals are rather different than mine, anyway. As I recall GOA *has* said they'd count any pro-Sotomayor vote at all as an anti-gun vote in their ratings. Which is yet another example of why I prefer GOA's ratings. (shrug)
Get the part about Mel correct, he wanted to pass a law tha just allowed him to register his firearms again, the entire city council and, a lot of noise making from the great unwashed masses, forced him to allow anyone that had a lapsed registration, in the same time period to be allowed to register them again.....
And yet the people of Chicago/NY/LA/SF/et.al, all keep voting these yahoos back into office time and time again???? Brings to mind a phrase from the silver screen.....Stupid is as stupid does.....When ya vote for a political hoar don't act shocked when ya get screwed.....
Look up Mayor Richard Daley personal body guards names and you find police or expolice that are being over paid to do nothing. One is special is a named Tony or Anthony ( first name ). and you see this guy has is involved in a murder overup. Now resently he retired from teh police force ( hence people complaining about this very problem ).
"Furthermore, it took 13 years after the introduction of the gun ban in Chicago for the murder rate drop. Why didn't the murder rate decrease sooner? What happened in 1995 to cause the murders to decrease? Was there a shift in how the police addressed the gang violence?"
By allowing police to cover up murders like this "One is special is a named Tony or Anthony " aloser hs dont. Why else would daily hire such a piece of *********.......it necver stops puzzling me me this Chicago poilce joke...........
you mean this site lets some childish post stand and deletes others!!!!!!!!!!! Oh come on people if your going to want to know the truth dont delete what the facts are and let junk like what on now stand
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!