Chicago Police Chief: Second Amendment Is A Danger To Public Safety

From a statist point of view the Bill of Rights is a danger to public safety.

It's dangerous as hell to acknowledge freedom of the press, freedom of religion, weapons obviously, housing our brave troops, unreasonable search and seizure is clearly a danger to public safety. If we cant search and seize whatever we want whenever we want the whole public is always at risk of any lunatic out there.

Due process and trials just get in the way. Another roadblock to safety.

All other rights not specified? Jesus, that could wipe out the nation!

Most cops are statists and in the constant pursuit of power and wealth every right is an obstacle.

You filthy peons think these rights are for your freedom but the reality is these rights make you slaves. Slaves to an unsafe world always working for yourself and your families when you should be working for the state and the great society.

That's what they believe and that's what they are always working toward.

You know I love this thread for the way it so BLATANTLY illustrates the complete logical disconnect the liberal left has with reality.

I mean hey it's not like virginia tech ended badly because not only did they take away the student's rights to protect themselves with lethal force if necessary, but also took the egregiously stupid step of keeping campus officers from carrying their weapons on patrol. How many people had to die that day because someone in authority thought guns were "icky nasty terrible evil things that only cause problems"?

How many times have armed citizens and teachers, in states with some of the good sense god gave a mule left where teachers can carry to work if they have a ccw, stopped a school shooting before it could even happen or before it could leave tens or dozens of families grieving? I know the answer to this question do you?

How many years has a basic psychological profile of rampage killers been available for and what does it plainly and blatantly spell out about the patterns their attacks will follow? HINT: Rampage shooters are COWARDS they will ALWAYS attack in areas where they have reason to believe they will be the ONLY ARMED INDIVIDUAL for enough time to accomplish their "mission"

Better yet do you think maybe congress the house and the senate also have access to this information? If not why the HELL do YOUR TAX DOLLARS go towards paying their staffs of 50 or more people that are supposed to bring them information like that?

Hey even more than that have any of you that are anti gun read or taken the time to digest the story of Pandora's Box?
Helpful Hint: You can't put the guns back in the box just like they couldn't put the evil back in the box in the story.

The moral to this story is... no matter what the idiots in power say if you're ever caught in a situation that is quickly turning lethal it's ALWAYS better to be caught with one than without one.

Do you just sit around all day looking for these types of stories?

Look, it's cool to be pro-gun. It's not cool to be obsessed about it, like you obviously are.

Who cares what the police chief says? He's not in a position of power to do anything about it.

reply to post by neo96


Seriously?!

How many people are murdered in Chicago everyday by firearms? Lets consider the ones that go untold/not reported as well.

AND Chicago has gun bans!

This police chief is seriously deluded.

reply to post by neo96


This man should be stripped of his office and imprisoned for tyranny and crimes against the people.

Chicago had 500 gun related homicides last year.....I wonder how many of those were committed by law abiding citizens and how many were committed by law breaking criminals?? The Chicago Police Chief should know better...but he obviously does not know his American Civics.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Chicago had 500 gun related homicides last year.....I wonder how many of those were committed by law abiding citizens and how many were committed by law breaking criminals?? The Chicago Police Chief should know better...but he obviously does not know his American Civics.

Well, by definition if a "homicide" was committed it was by a criminal. Homicide is a crime.

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by neo96

 

This man should be stripped of his office and imprisoned for tyranny and crimes against the people.

Tyranny is not a crime, but I get what you are saying. What crime has he committed? I don't agree with him or his views presented but to charge him with what?

We are ALL Chicagoans now. How so? Why did our Dear Leader, après Harvard Law, chose ChiTown to "community organize" in? He could have stayed in Massachusetts, could have gone back to NYC (remember he went to Columbia for undergrad schooling or to CA--he was a student at Occidental as well). Those places ALL had some "tie"' to his past (possible friends/job contacts, etc)...but instead, the Hawaiian exile chose Chicago to "organize" in. Why NOT the other places...well because the "other places" don't have the uninterrupted history of unabashed Democratic despotism. What a great place to "learn" the way...and he did. And now, Chicago's own "Dear Leader" Rahm Emmanuel is mulling a Presidential run in 2016.

Daleys everywhere must be "face palming" over THAT revaluation.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Tyrants are criminals....guilty of abuses against the people but their locus of power insulates them from prosecution from said crimes (ie, "above the law"). King George was a tyrant and there was a long list of his abuses against the colonies. The Virginia state flag's motto says it best: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus Always to Tyrants).

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Of course....but my point is how many gun crimes or deaths were caused by people already labeled as "criminals" from previous law breaking behavior. I guess you could have a CCW sunday school teacher with a spotless record walking down the street who decides to rob a liquor store on a whim and shoots the owner to death when he looks at her incredulously but I am sure most gun crimes are committed by "experienced" criminals with a long past.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Tyrants are criminals....guilty of abuses against the people but their locus of power insulates them from prosecution from said crimes (ie, "above the law"). King George was a tyrant and there was a long list of his abuses against the colonies. The Virginia state flag's motto says it best: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus Always to Tyrants).

Agreed in whole here, but what would you charge him with? Speaking his mind? Last I checked we had a First Amendment that protected such speech. Now if he puts those thoughts into action, I would be in agreement with you. Till then, he is only exercising his First Amendment rights.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

When I think of Tyranny I think more of on the national level (ie exec branch) than I do of a Police Chief of a large city but if he became above the law like some "Boss Hogg" then I would supply that label on him as well. I was speaking in general terms....as to the specifics of the Chicago PC I agree that he has a right to speak his opinion but he also has a sworn duty to protect the Constitution as well as a duty to "protect and serve" the public. He obviously feels that those two elements are polar opposites but the Second Amendment does not protect the gangbangers in Cabrini Green.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

When I think of Tyranny I think more of on the national level (ie exec branch) than I do of a Police Chief of a large city but if he became above the law like some "Boss Hogg" then I would supply that label on him as well. I was speaking in general terms....as to the specifics of the Chicago PC I agree that he has a right to speak his opinion but he also has a sworn duty to protect the Constitution as well as a duty to "protect and serve" the public. He obviously feels that those two elements are polar opposites but the Second Amendment does not protect the gangbangers in Cabrini Green.

City chiefs are not required nor authorized to swear any oath to the Constitution. The only law that does is the sheriff. In this instance, I do believe that the chief only makes an oath to uphold the "badge of honor". I will look into what they do, but generally, unless a city has made it law, their oath is nothing akin to an Officer of the United States or of their respective State. (officer in this manner is not military but that of a public servant; I have taken the oath twice; not sure why twice.

Sweet Home Chicago!

I hope more and more of these measures get brought up to scare all the right-wingers out of the state. Chicago should be what San Francisco is.

reply to post by neo96


i love how all this great stuff is comming out of ill, they have the strictest gun laws, and yet have TEN of the top worst cities out of 100 in america haha


i really wish just one state would completely outlaw all guns big small what eva ,just so we can sit back and watch it turn inot a cesspool over night, heh. let it run for 5-10 years and REALLY SEE what difference no guns make.


im betting half the people leave, half the people dead, and crime through the roof on all ends

All I have to say is thank God I don't live in Chicago, not that Massachusetts is much better in many ways. I am interested in which states are going to preserve the 2nd and which ones will side with the firearm grabbing Agenda. Seriously considering a move to Vermont they have always been pro 2nd amendment. Can pretty much count on Texas staying 2nd friendly, and I hear Oklahoma has passed a stick your gun grabbing agenda bill to oppose a federal reach.

reply to post by neo96


its no one fault they let their situation over there get out of hand.

this is coming from the same police that threw in the towel and said that they cant do anything about anything, and that their city was in a state of emergency....that they couldnt /wouldnt patrol certain areas......

Yeah......well then you will have certain areas that will look like "escape from LA"......good luck...

reply to post by neo96


I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that the legislature in that dump of a town downstate (Springfield) doesn't find a way to block concealed carry. Personally, i'd rather have open & blatant carry, but I'm looking forward to my wife being able to walk the Bby by herself with more than just mace. Its difficult to push the stroller with more tHan 1 dog. 1 of our 3 dogs makes for deterrent. 2 of them makes for a deadly defensive weapon. When i'm at work, i'd be really happy if she was packing - there are a lot of crazies who walk around our area. Criminals don't really concern me - crazies do.

And people wonder why crime is so rampant in Chicago? The Chief of Police doesn't understand a very basic law.

I think I should author a bill to be put before Congress:

All elected and appointed officials that wish to circumvent the US Constitution without following the amendment process have 30 days after passage of this law to leave the country. Failure to do so will result in arrest with mandatory deportation. All US citizens will have arrest powers to these means and may use whatever force deemed necessary to evict said persons. Reentering the country without legal appeal will carry the death penalty.

Call it the Love It or Leave It law.

Don't want to leave the country but hold your opinions? Fine, resign your position and work in the private sector. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent to support illegal activity from our officials.