Watching COPS. They catch a guy who multiple people saw shooting a handgun in an alley. Of course he has a rap sheet a mile long.
What did they arrest him for?
Negligent Discharge within city limits. A misdemeanor.
Why nothing more?
Because in all his previous arrests for various offenses, the DA let him plead down for the easy conviction.
So another lifelong petty criminal, obviously on his way towards more serious offenses, will be let loose out on the streets because the "Criminal Justice System" isn't really interested in reducing crime.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Chicago Fireworks.
One person shot fatally, three others wounded following fireworks display
1 shot to death, 1 injured in South Side drive-by
Man shot, wounded in downtown Chicago
3 males shot in Chicago's Chatham neighborhood
What a fine city.
Think the Olympic Committee is paying attention?
1 shot to death, 1 injured in South Side drive-by
Man shot, wounded in downtown Chicago
3 males shot in Chicago's Chatham neighborhood
What a fine city.
Think the Olympic Committee is paying attention?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Saying what they really feel..
Then changing it.
On Helmke's new Huffpo Blog, he touts about how the NRA admitted non-discriminatory registration and licensing would be harder to challenge, not that they've ever said anything different, and neglects to mention the severe *ss whooping he took during the same interview. Typical Brady-speak, right? The reality is that the linked piece is an edited version of the one they originally put up. Here's the original header:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/after-heller-a-moment-of_b_110759.html
Yep, the NRA is only "clearly thinking" when even a tiny fraction corresponds to the Brady party line. But that's not a very nice thing to say when you're looking for "common ground", is it?
And so far, with all their 'non-biased moderating', Huffpo has not allowed any comments through recognizing the change.
Update: After five tries, I must have caught them on a donut break. It got through.
On Helmke's new Huffpo Blog, he touts about how the NRA admitted non-discriminatory registration and licensing would be harder to challenge, not that they've ever said anything different, and neglects to mention the severe *ss whooping he took during the same interview. Typical Brady-speak, right? The reality is that the linked piece is an edited version of the one they originally put up. Here's the original header:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/after-heller-a-moment-of_b_110759.htmlYep, the NRA is only "clearly thinking" when even a tiny fraction corresponds to the Brady party line. But that's not a very nice thing to say when you're looking for "common ground", is it?
And so far, with all their 'non-biased moderating', Huffpo has not allowed any comments through recognizing the change.
Update: After five tries, I must have caught them on a donut break. It got through.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Quote of The Day
In response to this statement:
Gun rights are for the rich who have junk that the poor might steal. And it's funny, many in the NRA are poor, and thus have nothing to fear from home intrusion, so their argument for home security is nonsense. The poor do not steal from the poor.The Response:
-Marik Bromine
I wonder however, where you live. Your theory SOUNDS good, except that in reality criminals prey MOSTLY upon the poor and lower middle class. The wealthy have alarms and guards and lawyers. I can’t afford a security guard. I can afford a Ruger.
-dlyn454
Not enough to bitch about?
Complain about puppies on advertisements:
What's even more sad:
A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.That's right. Complaining about a picture of a puppy. Are they going to riot next?
What's even more sad:
A diversity advisor. And this nation used to control most of the world.
'We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.'
The Brady's were right..
If you have a gun, a criminal will just take it away and use it against you. If you're an "Only One" that is...
Guess Mueller was right, it is to dangerous for the authorities to have firearms.
An on-duty Chicago police officer died early Wednesday after a woman grabbed his gun and shot him near a Northwest Side police station. The woman was then shot and critically wounded by responding officers.
Guess Mueller was right, it is to dangerous for the authorities to have firearms.
Why did her grandson rob the store?
Maybe it's the way she raised him?
I would say I hope her grandmoron will learn from this experience and change his ways but w/ gran'ma encouraging him, it's probably to much to ask. To bad he didn't follow the example below.
And if Florida didn't have "Castle Doctrine", they would be able to sue the Marine because their idiot grandson and his (now expired) buddy decided to ignore the law. They took their chances (in a state w/ CCW and CD BTW) and paid for it.
Rosa Jones says a retired Marine shouldn't have shot her grandson while they attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop.
"He should not have taken the law in his hands," said Rosa Jones, Gadson's grandmother.
I would say I hope her grandmoron will learn from this experience and change his ways but w/ gran'ma encouraging him, it's probably to much to ask. To bad he didn't follow the example below.
If only more of them would do this..
after being shot during a robbery attempt:
But more often, this is the result in "Gun Free" Chicago:
and this:
Unable to move, Webb, a convicted bank robber who had stolen the Magnum from a security guard days earlier, put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, authorities say.
But more often, this is the result in "Gun Free" Chicago:
Five people, including a 3-year-old child, were shot in front of a home in west suburban Bellwood late Monday, but none of the injuries appeared to be life-threatening, police said.
and this:
Two men were found stabbed in separate incidents of violence at CTA stations late Tuesday night, Chicago police said.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The de-evolution of the Anti's language...
From "Gun Ban" to "Gun Control" to "Gun Regulation " to "Gun Responsibility" laws.
The PuSH'er are keeping the thesaurus people busy.
The PuSH'er are keeping the thesaurus people busy.
The No Gun Ban Organization again defending gun bans
Dear Thirdpower,
![Brady Gun Law Defense Fund [image]](http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/modules/images/defense-fund-black.gif)
The gun lobby wasted no time.
Just as we suspected, the National Rifle Association has filed its first lawsuit using the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Second Amendment to attack gun laws.
Within minutes of the decision, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced a challenge to gun laws in San Francisco and Chicago.
The Brady Center needs your help now. We cannot let the gun lobby get even one step ahead of our efforts to defend gun laws.
Have no doubt, there will be more attacks on gun laws. As Mr. LaPierre said, “this is the opening salvo.” The NRA is pushing more guns, in more places, in the hands of more people. We disagree. We should do all that we can to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
If you have not yet made a gift to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund — or if you can make an additional gift — I urge you to do so today.
We have our work cut out for us, but I know we can beat the gun lobby in court. All nine Justices agreed that most gun laws should be found constitutional — like laws banning guns in schools, laws that regulate the sales of guns, and bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
We have common sense on our side. And, with the Brady Center’s legal expertise and years of experience, we can and will help defend gun laws that protect you, your family and your community.
Thank you for your support today.
Sincerely,![Sarah's Signature [image]](http://www.bradynetwork.org/images/content/pagebuilder/12908.gif)
Sarah Brady, Chair
And note the Paulie doesn't mention just what those lawsuits are against. Gun Bans. Yet he opposes those suits. But they aren't a "gun ban organization" in no way, shape, or form.
Daley starting to cave..
Mayor Daley Considering Changes to City's Gun Laws
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he’ll rework but not scrap the city’s handgun ban in response to a recent US Supreme Court ruling.
DALEY: You have to delve into it. You have to read it and then find out how you can adapt the changes that we’re looking at locally in regards to this issue, in regards to guns in America. Local mayors have to deal with it, not the federal government.
Mayor Daley says that among other things, he wants firearms registration to stay a part of the city’s gun policy to protect police and emergency first responders.
Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington DC, but left open whether states or cities can ban handguns. Shortly after, the National Rifle Association filed suit against Chicago over its ban.
Even King Dick can see the writing on the wall. He knows he will lose and is now going to do everything he can to avoid incorporation.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he’ll rework but not scrap the city’s handgun ban in response to a recent US Supreme Court ruling.
DALEY: You have to delve into it. You have to read it and then find out how you can adapt the changes that we’re looking at locally in regards to this issue, in regards to guns in America. Local mayors have to deal with it, not the federal government.
Mayor Daley says that among other things, he wants firearms registration to stay a part of the city’s gun policy to protect police and emergency first responders.
Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington DC, but left open whether states or cities can ban handguns. Shortly after, the National Rifle Association filed suit against Chicago over its ban.
Even King Dick can see the writing on the wall. He knows he will lose and is now going to do everything he can to avoid incorporation.
Obamacons are getting what they wished for....
His position is full of change. All depending on who he's speaking to at the moment.
Now they're whining about it.
Poor babies.
Now they're whining about it.
Poor babies.
Hey Daley!!
Violence stuns South Shore
On the streets near where the three were shot, residents said they have also seen an increase in shootings in what they said is a drug war between two gangs fighting over territory in southeast South Shore.
2 children shot, wounded on Far South Side
Police did not have a motive in the shooting, but don't think the children were targets.
Might it be gangs?
And all of this occurring in a city where guns don't exist and the gangs dance away their confrontations.
On the streets near where the three were shot, residents said they have also seen an increase in shootings in what they said is a drug war between two gangs fighting over territory in southeast South Shore.
2 children shot, wounded on Far South Side
Police did not have a motive in the shooting, but don't think the children were targets.
Might it be gangs?
And all of this occurring in a city where guns don't exist and the gangs dance away their confrontations.
FBI Director opposes US Constitution
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The director of the FBI is not happy with the Supreme Court's recent handgun ruling.
Robert Mueller said he tends to believe that "weapons harm people, and more often than not they harm the people carrying them."
Only according to the magically morphing Kellerman reports or maybe he's talking about his agents. And, according to the director, recognizing the 2A as an individual right will allow terrorists to run amok:
He said college campuses and small communities could be "potential incubators of terrorism" even while major cities such as New York and Los Angeles remain primary targets for terrorists.
He'ld rather his grandkids go to "gun free" colleges so they can "feel safe".
Robert Mueller said he tends to believe that "weapons harm people, and more often than not they harm the people carrying them."
Only according to the magically morphing Kellerman reports or maybe he's talking about his agents. And, according to the director, recognizing the 2A as an individual right will allow terrorists to run amok:
He said college campuses and small communities could be "potential incubators of terrorism" even while major cities such as New York and Los Angeles remain primary targets for terrorists.
He'ld rather his grandkids go to "gun free" colleges so they can "feel safe".
Monday, June 30, 2008
Political PSH from Oak Park
This is from a correspondent who sent a letter to the Oak Park board:
Dear President Pope and Oak Park Village Board:
I live in Brookfield, and as your neighbor and frequent Oak Park visitor, am
concerned with a statement by President Pope (Tribune, 26 June 2008, "Suburbs
with gun bans split over impact of court ruling").
In that article, President Pope was quoted ""The ruling puts [Justice Antonin
& gt; Scalia] and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the
gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today."
I have followed this case, and have read the majority opinion and both dissents.
I am also thoroughly schooled on second amendment history, constitutional law,
and firearms laws in Illinois State and her municipalities.
The purpose of this letter is to point out that the Heller ruling unequivocally
does NOT square with "gang-bangers" or anyone else who criminally terrorizes
neighborhoods, urban or otherwise. I am certain that Scalia and the four other
"conservative' justices ... or all justices, for that matter, are not on the
side of criminal gang members. For you to say so is quite frankly misquidedly
judgemental and bigoted, if not altogether disingenuous.
& gt;
As you fully are aware, there is no right to conduct criminal activity - and
nothing in the constitution gives anyone such authority to conduct illegal
actions against others or their property. Quite literally, the second amendment
guarantees citizens (non-felons and non-mentally ill) the right to keep and bear
arms for any and all lawful purposes, including recreation, collecting, pursuit
of historical or mechanical interests, hunting, lawful self defense (persuant to
the Illinois Criminal Code), and the fulfillment of the constitution's militia
clauses. Under no reading whatsoever does the second amendment protect unlawful
activity, such as that often perpetrated by criminal gang members or other
miscreants. I suspect you fully understand that.
I trust that Oak Park will take this ruling in stride, as will the District of
Columbia, Chicago, Ev anston, and other municipalities with unconstitutional laws
on their books. You don't have to agree, necessarily, or even like it, but you
must comply with the law of the land should the time come that you are forced
to. The sky will not fall, you will not lose your jobs, and your community
will not loose its ability to enhance community safety and build strong
neighborhoods via lawful means. I know you are responsible citizens of Oak
Park, and of Illinois. I know you love your wonderful community ... Oak Park is
one of the "gems" of Chicagoland. We ALL love our communities and our children,
and strive to make them better. But also, we are all "grown up" enough to know
that wishful, idyllic thinking or policy (including the enactment of "gun free
zones" or "gun free towns") doesn't make us safe. This ruling doesn't mean guns
will be legal for gangs and criminals. It simply means that prohibiting good,
lawful people from owning and bearing firearms is off the table.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Dr. X
Polite and to the point. Here's the response from the only board member who deigned to reply:
Dear Dr. X,
Thanks for your perspective from 8 miles to the southwest.
As you must know, Oak Park and other communities with handgun bans are on the NRA's list of targeted communities. If we don't defend our right as a community to disallow handgun possession, then what's to stop the NRA from returning to the trough to press for permission to carry concealed weapons? Or to allow possession of assault weapons? Or composite weapons that evade metal detection? Their litigation represents the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
You can live as you like in your town. We'll live as we choose.
Greg Marsey
Trustee, Village of Oak Park
So damn the Supreme Court or the Constitution, we'll do what we want even if the only thing we know about guns is from 20 year old VPC press releases. I mean come on Greg. The whole "evading metal detectors" nonsense went out with balloon pants. Can you even tell me what an "assault weapon" is? Howabout why Illinois is one of only two states which doesn't have CCW?
Note he doesn't comment on the "gangbanger" comment. He must feel that it's OK to trumpt the rights of the individual for an alleged community benefit. Kelo v New London is his kind of case.
Greg's really gonna crap when the 2A is fully incorporated.
Dear President Pope and Oak Park Village Board:
I live in Brookfield, and as your neighbor and frequent Oak Park visitor, am
concerned with a statement by President Pope (Tribune, 26 June 2008, "Suburbs
with gun bans split over impact of court ruling").
In that article, President Pope was quoted ""The ruling puts [Justice Antonin
& gt; Scalia] and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the
gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today."
I have followed this case, and have read the majority opinion and both dissents.
I am also thoroughly schooled on second amendment history, constitutional law,
and firearms laws in Illinois State and her municipalities.
The purpose of this letter is to point out that the Heller ruling unequivocally
does NOT square with "gang-bangers" or anyone else who criminally terrorizes
neighborhoods, urban or otherwise. I am certain that Scalia and the four other
"conservative' justices ... or all justices, for that matter, are not on the
side of criminal gang members. For you to say so is quite frankly misquidedly
judgemental and bigoted, if not altogether disingenuous.
& gt;
As you fully are aware, there is no right to conduct criminal activity - and
nothing in the constitution gives anyone such authority to conduct illegal
actions against others or their property. Quite literally, the second amendment
guarantees citizens (non-felons and non-mentally ill) the right to keep and bear
arms for any and all lawful purposes, including recreation, collecting, pursuit
of historical or mechanical interests, hunting, lawful self defense (persuant to
the Illinois Criminal Code), and the fulfillment of the constitution's militia
clauses. Under no reading whatsoever does the second amendment protect unlawful
activity, such as that often perpetrated by criminal gang members or other
miscreants. I suspect you fully understand that.
I trust that Oak Park will take this ruling in stride, as will the District of
Columbia, Chicago, Ev anston, and other municipalities with unconstitutional laws
on their books. You don't have to agree, necessarily, or even like it, but you
must comply with the law of the land should the time come that you are forced
to. The sky will not fall, you will not lose your jobs, and your community
will not loose its ability to enhance community safety and build strong
neighborhoods via lawful means. I know you are responsible citizens of Oak
Park, and of Illinois. I know you love your wonderful community ... Oak Park is
one of the "gems" of Chicagoland. We ALL love our communities and our children,
and strive to make them better. But also, we are all "grown up" enough to know
that wishful, idyllic thinking or policy (including the enactment of "gun free
zones" or "gun free towns") doesn't make us safe. This ruling doesn't mean guns
will be legal for gangs and criminals. It simply means that prohibiting good,
lawful people from owning and bearing firearms is off the table.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Dr. X
Polite and to the point. Here's the response from the only board member who deigned to reply:
Dear Dr. X,
Thanks for your perspective from 8 miles to the southwest.
As you must know, Oak Park and other communities with handgun bans are on the NRA's list of targeted communities. If we don't defend our right as a community to disallow handgun possession, then what's to stop the NRA from returning to the trough to press for permission to carry concealed weapons? Or to allow possession of assault weapons? Or composite weapons that evade metal detection? Their litigation represents the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
You can live as you like in your town. We'll live as we choose.
Greg Marsey
Trustee, Village of Oak Park
So damn the Supreme Court or the Constitution, we'll do what we want even if the only thing we know about guns is from 20 year old VPC press releases. I mean come on Greg. The whole "evading metal detectors" nonsense went out with balloon pants. Can you even tell me what an "assault weapon" is? Howabout why Illinois is one of only two states which doesn't have CCW?
Note he doesn't comment on the "gangbanger" comment. He must feel that it's OK to trumpt the rights of the individual for an alleged community benefit. Kelo v New London is his kind of case.
Greg's really gonna crap when the 2A is fully incorporated.
More bad education from biased educators...
In the Chicago Trib.
"It is certainly helpful to know, for example, that when opponents such as George Mason worried that the militia under the Constitution might be "disarmed," they did not envision nasty Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents going door-to-door confiscating private weapons, as the court implies, but rather that the militia would be disarmed through congressional neglect."
Yep. The Founders could never have imagined a Gov't trying to disarm the populace.
I guess those little incidents at Lexington and Concord never happened and General Gage was never ordered to destroy militia stores.
What they wouldn't have imagined was that some Americans, who they fought and bled for, would not only allow it to happen, but to advocate for it.
He must have studied at the Bellisiles school of history.
"It is certainly helpful to know, for example, that when opponents such as George Mason worried that the militia under the Constitution might be "disarmed," they did not envision nasty Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents going door-to-door confiscating private weapons, as the court implies, but rather that the militia would be disarmed through congressional neglect."
Yep. The Founders could never have imagined a Gov't trying to disarm the populace.
I guess those little incidents at Lexington and Concord never happened and General Gage was never ordered to destroy militia stores.
What they wouldn't have imagined was that some Americans, who they fought and bled for, would not only allow it to happen, but to advocate for it.
He must have studied at the Bellisiles school of history.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Support Firearm Rights? You're a GangBanger..
According to Oak Park, IL manager (and former Detroit "Only One)Tom Barwin:
"It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers."
So Oak Park residents. How do you feel about what your 'manager' thinks of you if you want to defend yourself? Obviously he patrolled a desk in Detroit if he classifies us in the same category as the people who are shooting 7 and 8 year olds in Chicago.
"It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers."
So Oak Park residents. How do you feel about what your 'manager' thinks of you if you want to defend yourself? Obviously he patrolled a desk in Detroit if he classifies us in the same category as the people who are shooting 7 and 8 year olds in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)