only criminals go armed.

Chicago should first disarm LEOs and see how successful that is before trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

He can't differentiate between gang criminals and the law abiding citizens.

But he'll keep fighting a delaying action with tax money. He has nothing to lose except control over the serfs and peasants.

It's never about the guns, it's always about the control.

The part they don't seem to grasp yet, is if they don't have a CCW law by July 4th, that our very pro 2nd downstate Dems will approve, Constitutional Carry goes into effect and unless SCOTUS steps in, which I doubt, there's nothing they can do about it.

Seems to be a bit of an overstep on Chicago's part. We have to respect the 2nd Amendment, but there needs to be real regulation that protects the law abiding citizen. I just looked at this in my article on NRA and their efforts to lobby every legislation dealing with regulation.

Check it out if you'd like

[link:http://unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-killing-routine-nras-effect-on-the-us/|

You have mixed shootings up, blamed things that were not used. You also seem very unfamliar with the terms and technology. That will make impeachment of your statements trivial

BTW, there have been bad feeling here in the past about about posters doing little more than blog flogging. Participate openly and that will not happen.

I believe political leaders have recognized this fact: The gun-controller/prohibitionists have no political clout, little activist presence, and a thin donor base; and their chief ally, MSM, is shrinking back quickly. In short, gun-control ain't got nothing to show.

Making the NRA a bogey in this declining controversy not only denies the new reality, but seems (from the controllers' view) politically foolish. But I will not object.

We call those DGU (Defensive Gun Uses). Your blog acts like they don't happen.

You make no attempt to distinguish between legal and illegal gun owners. Most gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders with long criminal records. The legislation that gun-controllers push would have little to no effect upon criminals, but would be a burden upon legal gun owners.

While the NRA has only 4.3 million members they reflect the views of lots of non-NRA gun owners who VOTE. And those voters make a difference. That is why so many pro-gun politicians have been elected.

In the early 1990s Democratic governor of Texas, Ann Richards, vetoed legislation that would allow shall-issue concealed carry. At that time it was illegal to carry a gun concealed or openly. The she vetoed a referendum on the issue saying, "Texans don't need to vote on that." George W. Bush campaigned on that issue. He promised to sign a concealed carry bill. Texans voted him in and he signed the bill. If Gov. Richards had not vetoed it Bush would not have had a high profile issue, and likely would not have won, and would not have been able to use the governorship as a springboard to the Presidency. And shall-issue concealed carry has worked out well here. We haven't turned into the Wild West, and there are frequent incidents of an armed citizen successfully resisting criminals.

65% of offenders are known to their victims;

That factoid is often repeated to imply that the person who might kill me will be a family member or neighbor. What it leaves out is that in the criminal world, many of them know each other. Gang members know the members of other gangs, pimps and whores know each other, drug dealers know their customers and each other, and the list goes on. Over 50% of murder victims are themselves involved in crime.

I’ll add one more: every gun owner that insists that if they had been at that latest mass shooting, with their trusty gun, that lives would have been saved are assuming flawless execution. Who knows what happens when you start a crossfire in a crowded public space?

It has already happened several times. In each case the mass shooter was brought down with no innocents hit by the lawfully armed citizen. In two cases the shooter was captured with no shots fired by the armed citizen.

The context in which the document was written has little to do with the guns of today.

Neither do any of your other rights. Let's restrict all your rights to the methods available in in 1791. Get rid of your car and get a horse and buggy. No credit cards, cash only. No online banking, go to the bank and wait in line for a teller.

reasonable measures to reduce the amount of firearms in America
IOW - You want to take guns away from lawful owners. Criminals, by definition, won't pay any attention to your laws, just as they don't pay any attention to them in Chicago.

With parts of the city in the grip of gang warfare and spiking homicide rates, Chicago aldermen urged state officials to appeal an appellate court's decision tossing Illinois' ban on concealed weapons, with some suggesting they might launch their own legal battle.

I do not understand this. The people engaging in gang warfare and causing the homicides almost certainly have criminal records that would prevent them from ever having a CCW permit. Not that they would obtain one even if they could.

It is ridiculous to use gang violence as an excuse to curtail CCW by law-abiding citizens.

The two people making the biggest stink about this are Quinn and Rahm.

Two guys, that always arrive with several armed bodyguards everywhere they go.

Fine for them, but heaven forbid Otis McDonald walks his wife out to his own garage with a gun under his jacket.

the crime rate will drop dramatically.

Gun control believers are always quick to offer real world support to anyone fighting the scourge of these death spewers.

Or

They could do what they usually do. Sit on their ass and whine repeatedly online about how horrible all guns and gun owners are and how we're all going to hell in a well armed handbasket.

Funny how they never seem to notice when all the death and destruction they predict never comes to pass with CCW?