Big Win for Gun Control Adv. in Chicago

I think the article is a bit of sarcasm. Didn't see where the City was actually disarming anyone at all except by circumstance.

I agree, the City officials who are ranting about law-abiding citizens having firearms instead of doing something about the criminal element, are thieves of the publicly-funded paycheck they receive. If they weren't abetted by a willing media and a political party handing out money, they would have been fired for cause from their phony-baloney jobs years ago.
 
I think it was a poorly written article. Catchy headline, then goes off on a odd rant that didn't make much sense. JMO.
 
Every week one of the local papers prints a map with little red dots that represent shootings by neighborhoods. Every week it's the same two high crime areas that have a number of shootings. We don't have a gun problem, we have a criminal problem. Maybe we need martial law in the Garfield Park area and sections of the South side.
 
Saw that also. Given the guns were illegally owned, the implication is that legal guns must be removed also.

There is a problem with legal guns getting to criminals obviously. So banning them at the source, would seem to be their solution.

That there is a motivation for folks to buy illegal guns and shoot each other might be problem also. But that is a greater societal problem and not easily fixed. Thus, removing all guns would lessen gun violence. Still have stabbings, etc.

Is it possible to remove all legal guns - well, Rahm could do it, I suppose.
 
Chicago's violence starts with not counting murders; then goes on to not investigating; then to not enforcing current non-gun related laws and ends with money in everybody's pocket to continue this action plan.

Even the FBI doesn't believe Chicago's numbers.
 
They could build a wall around the crime districts, invest them with the National Guard, and seize each and every gun, all of them, and in a matter of days the rate of assault and murder would be just as high as it is today, using knives, bats, fists and feet, gasoline, automobiles, poison, whatever.
 
I'd like to see the following in any gun debate:

"Okay, I'll GIVE you the point that if you get rid of all guns you will get rid of all 'gun violence'.

"You GIVE me the point that you CAN'T get rid of all guns."
 
I hate having to read an article twice only to figure out that it wasn't really saying anything! I have no idea what the point is of the article or of the OP's topic?:confused:

What is it that Chicago, the epicenter of nutty gun-banning academics who used to bomb buildings and kill people, is doing that I'm supposed to go "OH GEE WIZZ, I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING THAT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top