Well, that didn't take long. Just hours after the Supreme Court's takedown of the D.C. gun ban, a challenge was filed in court against Chicago's similar ban, and Mayor Richard Daley was vowing to fight it. Here's what he said:
Daley called the ruling "very frightening" and vowed to vigorously fight any attempt to invalidate the city's ban.
"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" Daley asked while speaking at a Navy Pier event. "If [the justices] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"
Lord, it's scary to think about how many people feel that way. I have news for the mayor -- it already IS the Old West in some places, and his solution is to disarm the innocent so the predators can have a better shot at us. This was a narrow ruling by the court, and a close call -- four justices agree with the mayor. If the individual right to bear arms affirmed in the case is to spread throughout the land, it will take vigorous followup. Bless those who filed the Chicago suit.
Comments
Daley just needs to get his Cranial-Rectal Inversion cured....
Wonder how much time he's spent in Chi-town's south side?
Care to Hob-Nob with the local Vice Lords, Mr. Mayor?
(more guns there than in Mosul...mostly all illegal too)
gun ban didn;t help all that much THERE, as it?
Heads out of the a** time, people.
B.G.
I think it's obvious that our efforts to bring peace and order to the Windy City have failed and we need to withdraw!
Good point Mitchell. How may combat deaths have we had in Chicago since 2003?
Chris Matthews asked has two guests, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and our one-time faux Republican Annexor-in-Chief Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign whether the battle for gun rights was over, LaPierre and Helmke both tried to speak at once, LaPierre answering that despite a monumental SCOTUS ruling the defense of gun rights is sadly far from over, while Helmke asserted that "Indiana is celebrating victory."
As usual, Helmke was, is and obviously ever shall be dead wrong on issues. Had I been in LaPierre's seat at the table I'd have answered Matthews simply by turning to Helmke and asking him if the argument is settled.
Anybody who thinks liberals are going to change their freedom-infringing agenda one jot is dreaming, and nobody knows it better than liberals like Helmke. I'm in Indiana, but I wasn't celebrating victory, because I know better and so do other defenders of the whole Bill of Rights.
If liberals want to claim that the individual right to keep & bear arms for our security (not merely sport) are now victorious, let them prove their corrected understanding of the 2nd Amendment by voluntarily dismantling, repealing and setting aside various unconstitutional infringements currently on the books at all levels of government -- without forcing good Americans to waste millions on expensive court fights against liberal diehards.
I'll be watching the news for reports of junked bad laws. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not giving liberals an inch of good faith on this one without proof. After all, just last Sunday they still thought gun bans were examples of "reasonable" gun law.
My prediction, and I hope I'm being cynical rather than realistic in it, is that liberals haven't moved their frontline against 1/10th of the Bill of Rights any more than a millimeter to the other side of total ban, if that far.
Given that to "infringe" means to "nibble around the edges," it should now be blatantly clear that iberals have a very long stride to step back over the real, legal, constitutional border of individual rights. Actions will speak much louder than words, particularly in the run up to November, I might add.
As the old caution goes, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." We shall see.