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

[mcurrier]

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

http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/02/17/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-is-a-danger-to-public-safety/

[daddyo]

Well, the First Amendment protects his right to be a complete and total MORON.

[RobertNashville]

What a shame that such a great city has enough idiots in it that it will elect people who would hire such a moron to be their CoP.

[Mark@Sea]

Chicago isn't all that great.  With a police force known as corrupt, thieves and bullies, the 2A is really a danger to his officers, not public safety.

[Guest nra37922]

Title should be "Chicago Police Chief is A Danger To Public Safety".  Its just not the police whom are corrupt in that city but the vast majority of the politicians and other civil leaders as well. 

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, along with fabulous restaurants, theater, museums, shopping and many, many GOOD and decent people.  Of course, we all know that Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis has no problems at all nor have we ever had corrupt police chiefs or sheriffs in Tennessee either.  ;)

Edited February 18, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Monkeyman2500]

My heads gonna explode if I hear one more assbag tell me I should only have a musket. Freaking moron. Can we please for the love of God just get the deep dish pizza places out of there and moved somewhere decent.

[Moped]

What a bag of hot air!!!  He has a right to speak his mind as a citizen, but in his role as public official and chief LEO in Chicago, that is telling people that he considers them criminals.  We are starting to see that slippery slope.  What's next?  Is LE going to start policing Facebook and firearms forums looking for gun owners espousing the 2nd Amendment?  Is the city of Chicago going to subpoena NRA and other Gun rights Organizations for membership lists in their jurisdiction?

[Chucktshoes]

Eff that guy.
In the ear.
With a 5.56.

[Guest sL1k]

Has anyone noticed a trend that police chiefs are generally the ones against the second amendment? but sheriff's seem to be ultimately for it?
One is voted in and held accountable to the people and the oath they take to protect our constitutional rights. What a difference accountability makes.

[RobertNashville]

That's hardly a new trend unless by new you are going back about a century. ;)

 

The upper echelons of city police forces have always tended to be a LOT more about politics than about law enforcement; most of them or not much more than pawns of the (generally very liberal) politicians who fill the mayor jobs.

Edited February 18, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and Mayor Rahm Emanuel just experienced a crime rate that is the highest it has been in 10 years. It is those two men’s jobs to make sure that doesn’t happen. They have failed. It’s easier to blame the state saying they can’t get the gun bans they want than it is to admit they aren’t very good at their jobs. But it is what it is; the worse the economy gets, the more it will happen in other states.

[94user]

He's just sucking up to Rahm so he can keep his job since he cannot rely on his performance to keep him employed.

[RED333]

"McCarthy backs banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,
requiring background checks for anyone who buys a gun, mandatory
reporting of the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a gun and mandatory
minimum prison sentences for people convicted of illegally possessing a
gun."

 

If they would just do this and leave us alone, their crime rate would go down.

[East_TN_Patriot]

"McCarthy backs banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,
requiring background checks for anyone who buys a gun, mandatory
reporting of the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a gun and mandatory
minimum prison sentences for people convicted of illegally possessing a
gun."

 

If they would just do this and leave us alone, their crime rate would go down.

Actually, it more than likely wouldn't.  We have added more and more mandatory minimum sentences since the 1980s and have put so many Americans in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but the effect on the crime rate has been minimal.  That said, a so-called "assault weapon" ban and mag capacity limit won't help either.

[daddyo]

Now he's gone even further, stating that we are guilty of corruption. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-supporters-g/

 

I've never heard of this nitwit till today and I'm already tired of his idiocy.

 

Hey, Goober - come and take 'em.

[RED333]

Actually, it more than likely wouldn't.  We have added more and more mandatory minimum sentences since the 1980s and have put so many Americans in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but the effect on the crime rate has been minimal.  That said, a so-called "assault weapon" ban and mag capacity limit won't help either.

I dont care how many cells we build, I would rather my taxes go there than to some free phone, baby making clown car, welfare getting, food stamp selling POS.

We have to keep them in jail, Use a firearm in a crime and go to jail for 20 years, commit murder, you loose you LIFE.

It would take a few years, but it would go down.

[Major Kong]

He's a political douchebag and in certain circles would be considered a traitor to the Constitution. Screw him and he horse he rode in on.

[KaNuckles]

How do these people survive. I can't believe they have the good sense to eat food and drink water to stay alive if they believe this lunacy.

[RobertNashville]

Actually, it more than likely wouldn't.  We have added more and more mandatory minimum sentences since the 1980s and have put so many Americans in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but the effect on the crime rate has been minimal.  That said, a so-called "assault weapon" ban and mag capacity limit won't help either.

Apparently we aren't putting enough people in prison or at least not keeping the ones we do in there long enough.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but an inordinate/majority amount of serious crime is committed by people who have already been convicted of significant crimes, even violent crimes in the past but were still walking around free.

 

Obviously details would have to be worked out but in general, anyone who commits a violent crime against another person that cause significant or harm to the innocent person should be in jail long, long time with NO parole...commit a crime with a firearm and they go away longer; long enough that by the time they get out they are too old and infirm to be a danger to anyone any longer...commit a crime where they actually discharge a firearm and they go away for life...PERIOD.

[diablo982]

Actually, it more than likely wouldn't.  We have added more and more mandatory minimum sentences since the 1980s and have put so many Americans in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, but the effect on the crime rate has been minimal.  That said, a so-called "assault weapon" ban and mag capacity limit won't help either.

I generally agree with you, but I would say the homicide rate has plummeted since peaking in the early 90's. Google homicides in 1991 for Washington, D.C., L.A., and N.Y.C., then do the same for 2011. Gun violence is at a 40 year low, but we somehow think we need to enact new laws to make us even safer. I don't know if all the scumbag killers still incarcerated for their 1990's murder convictions is helping, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

[Wheelgunner]

Myth: the Second Amendment is a danger to public safety.
Fact: the Chicago political machine is a danger to American liberty.