Chicago Police Chief McCarthy’s Shocking Ignorance of History, the Law, and the U.S. Constitution

Chicago’s top cop is a shockingly ignorant man. Apparently what he knows of American history, the law, and the U.S. Constitution can be held in a thimble. This became glaringly obvious in a radio interview he gave to WLS Radio’s political reporter Bill Cameron.

Chief Garry McCarthy’s blather blather about the Second Amendment is amazing for its total lack of knowledge. For such a high-ranking official he displays an incredible lack of command on the subject. But, perhaps there is a reason? Perhaps it is less a simple lack of knowledge and more willful ignorance on his part, a purposeful dearth of knowledge he indulges to excuse his authoritarian, un-Constitutional desires to take away the natural, God-given rights of the citizens he polices?

His ignorance is so egregious the only proper way to reply to it is to take his “points,” such as they are, one at a time. So, the following is a transcript of the segment interspersed with my comments.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy on WLS, AM 890 with reporter Bill Cameron. 2//17/13

McCarthy: You know, I’m troubled by the special interest. I really, really am and I wonder if we looked at other parts of our society and if there was special interest influencing police work I believe that would be called corruption. So, if it has to do with donating money versus a popular vote I think we have a bigger problem in this country and somebody’s gotta wake up to that.

Even as it almost sounds logical, this is little else but a rhetorical smoke screen that is meaningless and is purposefully meant to both muddy the waters of the discussion and mislead the public. After all, a democratic republic is special interests guiding politicians. Our entire system is set up to operate this way. There isn’t anything shocking, new, different, or even necessarily dangerous about special interests. We’ve always had them.

It is even in the Federalist Papers, the articles written to encourage the people to vote yes on the U.S. Constitution. (Federalist Number 10)

Do you work for a packaging plant? Then you are part of a special interest. Do you belong to a union? You are a special interest. Are you a teacher? Special interest. The fact is a “special interest” is nothing more than a group of citizens getting together, appointing industry representatives, and going to the halls of government to ask for attention from the politicians WE have all sent to Washington (or the state, or the city, etc.).

As to McCarthy’s idiotic example of it being “corruption” if the police listened to special interests… well, of course that would be corruption. Why? Because the police are not setting policy. The police are there solely to execute policies made by the politicians we are supposed to be controlling through our rights to associate and our vote.

Now, the next logical question here is this: Is Chief McCarthy saying we should not be allowed to have unions, trade groups, and associations giving money to politicians because it is just a “corruption”? And, if so, why should we as individuals be allowed to give donations to politicians? Isn’t that “corrupting” too?

The fact is, the Supreme Court has already affirmed that giving money to politicians is free speech. So, the only conclusion we can come to is that McCarthy wants to remove our right to free political speech. McCarthy is an authoritarian, tyrant.

Worse, it looks as though McCarthy is purposefully misleading people in order to smear “special interests” with a meaningless boogie man, a straw man argument in order to take away our freedom of speech. Yes, I’m saying he’s a liar as he’s doing it, too. How can anyone believe other wise?

Cameron: Well, wait a minute, are you saying that gun rights groups are somehow corrupting public safety?

Good question, Mr. Cameron, because that is exactly what the well-named McCarthy is saying. He’s attempting to set up a situation that his namesake did–it’s a witch hunt he wants. Only, Senator Joe McCarthy was actually hunting real enemies to the country, communists that had truly infiltrated our government as historical documents prove. In Garry McCarthy’s case it is all a mythical, strawman argument he’s setting up to gain more personal power. He should be ashamed of himself.

McCarthy: Well, how is it that they are controlling politicians, how are they controlling elected officials? It’s not by popular vote. They might be presenting certain parts of the community that feel this way or that way, but at the end of the day, how can it be a popular–opinion polls in this country all show that the vast majority of Americans believe that we need reasonability in the gun laws. Yet they’re outright dismissed by certain elected officials. How can that possibly be?

And here, McCarthy pretends we are a direct democracy and that our politicians are “controlled by popular vote.” In fact, we are not and never have been. We elect officials to make policy generally. We do not vote on each and every policy in a direct, popular vote. He again lies here in order to smear those scary “special interests” that “give money.”

So, I say to him, if you are so worried about groups that give money, stand by me and demand that unions be forbidden to “give money” to politicians, Mr. McCarthy. Of course, he won’t do that because he is not against left-wingers giving money to politicians. He is only against the rest of us doing so. McCarthy is trying to shut down our free political speech because he is an authoritarian, a tyrant.

Cameron: Well, I mean, you s.. they’ve got the Second Amendment on their side, they’re saying much of the laws proposed by you guys simply would abuse their right to protect themselves with a legal product called a firearm.

Another good question from reporter Cameron. Gun rights supporters do have the Constitution on their side. McCarthy only has his un-constitutional, authoritarian tendencies on his side. In fact, McCarthy is the exact sort of tyrant the founders wanted to give we the people the power to oppose. McCarthy is a George the Third for Chicago.

McCarthy: Great editorial today talking about what the Second Amendment does actually say. First of all the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and as I’ve said before I still haven’t heard a debate as to whether or not we should be selling hand grenades over the counter at Walgreens in this country. Because its unreasonable. It’s unreasonable to say arms–which include hand grenades, bombs, bazookas, rocket launchers–are not the types of things we are having a debate about whether or not it’s OK to own them.

Second of all, as somebody pointed out some time ago when the founding fathers put that caveat into our Constitution they were referring to a black powder, smoothbore, flintlock-type weapon. Not rockets, not grenades, not things of that nature and there comes a point where we have to examine the reasonability of it. And what it says is the right to b ear arms. The question is, what does that mean? And it doesn’t mean, none of these things that I’ve proposed, or different people have proposed, or as the mayor has proposed, or as the president proposed–accountability does not mean you can’t have a firearm.

This is shocking ignorance of our history on display, here.

First of all, the right to bear arms, even as far back as the 1100’s, never meant anything other than standard, infantry-styled weapons. Weapons such as swords, daggers, and portions of armor were initially included in the declarations of the sorts of arms that citizens were legally expected to own in English legal history. Later, pistols and rifles were added as that technology came to the fore. But weapons legislated either by royal decree or, later, by the English Common Law, never included hand grenades, cannons or ships of war–the weapons of mass destruction of the day. Our founders were not ignorant to weapons of mass destruction and neither were those authorities in pre-American English law that created rules to govern military needs and the natural rights of self-protection upon which our own Second Amendment is based. The historical facts are clear.

So, by extension, it is just plain stupid to throw in scary words like hand grenades, bazookas or rocket launchers. The founders did not include such things in their ideas of the natural rights to self-protection, nor for the militia’s needs, nor for the need to keep government from turning against the people.

And if you lose, if it gets stolen, or if you sell your firearm to somebody we need to tell somebody. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a gun. I don’t understand how that infringes on it?

If this was all McCarthy wanted, who could say this was bad? But what McCarthy really wants is full registration beforehand. He doesn’t want residents just to tell him what happened to their firearms after the fact. He wants residents to come to him, hat in hand, pleading to be allowed to observe their rights and sign up on his registration lists before being allowed to observe those rights. And with such lists comes all sorts of power for government to say who is allowed and who is not allowed to have a firearm and with that power comes government telling us what we are allowed to have and what we aren’t.

What McCarthy wants is us to ask his royal leave before we are allowed to indulge what is supposed to be an unalienable right. What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand, Chief McCarthy?

Then he went on with his strawman argument about tanks and bazookas again…

Saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a tank, for instance, would somebody see that as an infringement on the Second Amendment right? I don’t know. But that’s where we have to define what it is we’re talking about. The biggest debate in this country is what level of firearm. Right? People say OK the AR15, the AK47, the extended magazines, that’s my right. I think the reasonable argument is it does not serve a purpose in a civilized society. Those are weapons that are created for military people to go out and kill their opposition.

Cameron: And so the…

McCarthy: You don’t use it for squirrel hunting.

Actually, there is no law against owning a tank. All you have to do is have a big wad of cash and the luck to find a sale of military surplus. All sorts of Americans legally own tanks–collectors and WWII enthusiasts, museums, etc. But, that aside, I’ve already demolished McCarthy’s idiotic claim that the right to own a tank might possibly be included in the Second Amendment.

Then, McCarthy went for another one of those common, left-wing strawman arguments, a rhetorical trick that amounts to an outright lie. The Second Amendment has precisely nothing at all to do with hunting squirrels or any other creature. The Second Amendment is not and has never been about hunting.

Cameron: So the NRA’s ability to use money to put guys in office who allow that sort of thing corrupts public safety, is that what you’re…

McCarthy: It may. It may. What I offered was, if that is being used in the police world, if there was a thing called special interest that’d be called corruption.

No, Mr. McCarthy, it may not be. Lobbying government is an essential aspect of a democracy. The right to petition government for redress and the right to gather in guilds and associations to help guard our interests as citizens is an essential right to self government. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be electing representatives, we would be emplacing short-term, miniature dictators in office who would have no reason to respond to we the people.

After this interview an informed listener is struck with the possibility that McCarthy is either a very, very stupid man, or a liar. He is either completely bereft of any knowledge about American history, the U.S. Constitution, or the law or he is purposefully lying about it all in order to push an authoritarian, thoroughly un-American policy. Either way, it is shocking that he’s been allowed to become the top law enforcement officer for the city. He shouldn’t be dog catcher.

But, what does one expect from a many who uses the power of his office to indulge racist rants?

Here is the audio of this odious man and his interview:

Liberal Media Members Silence Dissenting Voices
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • jim_m

    Chicago police have tortured suspects to coerce false confessions. That their leader knows nothing of the Constitution or civil rights is not surprising. Heck, it’s probably a prerequisite for the job.

  • retired.military

    He has to do something to cover up his incompetence.

    • herddog505

      I think that really hits the nail on the head. The streets he’s supposed to police are amongst the most blood-soaked in the country. His response?

      “WAAAAHHHHH!!!! The NRA is buying politicians who let people have GUNS! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!”

      Yeah, it’s all the NRA’s fault. It’s not the gangbangers. It’s not the Chicago PD that seems as incapable of dealing with them as it was dealing with Capone and Moran and the rest. It’s not the parents or a broader society that is incapable – perhaps doesn’t even wish to – of instilling the simple moral values that make it a Bad Thing(TM) to kill other people. Nossir: it’s the nasty ol’ NRA and, by extension, our democratic process.

      Are we STILL supposed to believe that nobody wants to take our guns away?

      • PudgyChicagoProgressive

        Check the rate of gun deaths in Chicago with, say, Indianapolis. Also look at the decline over the past couple of decades. It is easy to get a trunk full of guns in Indiana and come back to Chicago. In fact, two of the top ten gun shops in terms of selling guns later used in crimes are in northern Indiana and Milwaukee. Wonder why?

        • jim_m

          If it is that easy to get guns in Indy or Milwaukee then why is the crime not greater there? According to the leftist BS, the more guns there are the greater the crime. Why do we not therefore see crime centered around the gun shops themselves and fanning out from them?

          And where is your data to support this claim? Does it not make sense that it would require a gun store outside of Illinois to sell to a Chicago resident seeing as Illinois gun stores will not due to Chicago’s ban on handguns? So even if guns used in crime come from outside that is only proof that in general gun stores obey the laws and you have to go further away to get to a store that is unfamiliar with the Chicago ordinance and is therefore willing to make a sale.

          You should also check out the Redeye’s interactive map, where you will see that most of the crime is centered in Englewood and Austin. Nope, not much racism there, Let’s let the minorities fester in crime ridden neighborhoods.

          The murder rate is climbing at 16% a year in Chicago and declining 2% per year nationwide. Chicago is the exception on gun ownership and gun rights. Explain why it is that if guns are more available and concealed carry is more available everywhere BUT Chicago, that crime and murder should be so much more a problem in Chicago when your answer is that stricter gun laws mean less crime?

          • herddog505

            Because of the NRA, ya silly!


        • herddog505

          What’s your point? Chicago is wracked by gang violence. Blaming Indiana for that seems… silly.

          But that’s lefties for you: it’s ALWAYS somebody else’s fault.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            jim_m…You are probably not remembering how much larger Chicago is than those cities. Check the gun crimes per capita for those cities, you will have a sadz. More guns = more crime.

            herddog…I do blame Indiana & Milwaukee. Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.

            “A decade ago, politicians and the press routinely reported on gun stores across the nation that had the most traces for firearms recovered by police. In 2003, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress passed a law that hid from public view the government database that contained the gun tracing information.”

            “The Washington Post has obtained the names of the gun dealers nationwide with the most tracesover the past four years.

            Don’s Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis has the third-highest number of gun traces, about 1,910 firearms. In October 2004, Don’s sold six handguns to a Chicago gang member and his
            straw buyer while both were in the store. The gang member selected five Hi-Point pistols and an AK-47-type rifle, but the straw buyer filled out the paperwork and paid for the guns in cash, according to court records.

            Badger Guns in Milwaukee is sixth, with about 1,700 traces. On the 2004 list, the store, then known as Badger Outdoors,
            ranked No. 3 with 1,906 traces.

            This fall, attorneys for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed two lawsuits against Badger on behalf of four Milwaukee police officers who were wounded with guns purchased at the West Milwaukee store. The complaints allege that Badger negligently and unlawfully sold firearms to people who were prohibited from buying guns and who then shot the officers.

            The lawsuits alleged that Badger has accounted for two-thirds of all guns recovered by police in Milwaukee.

          • Derp.

            Crime rate (and murder rate) are per-capita.

          • herddog505

            Again, what’s your point? That the federal government is laying down on the job when it comes to enforcing existing laws? That’s hardly news to us. Indeed, it seems pretty clear that Barry and Co. have been in the outright business of causing illegal firearms sales (see “Fast and Furious”).

            Are you also then saying that, because a handful of criminals sell guns illegally, and other criminals use them illegally, then the rest of us should have our rights curtailed? This is akin to saying that, because some people drive drunk and hurt people, the rest of us should not be allowed to buy alcohol or cars. For that matter, it’s akin to saying that, because some people elect crooked politicians who create all sorts of problems, the rest of us should not have the right to vote.

            I’ve never committed a crime with a gun. Why do you wish to punish me?

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Always with the car and alcohol fake analogy. Cars are not designed to kill people. Also, car ownership and driving are highly regulated activities including an elaborate licensing system, insurance mandate, penalties and terms for getting licenses revoked.

            This is like saying drinking and driving is about alcoholism and we should only discuss treatment for alcoholism and not discuss how to prevent drinking and driving.

            In 2012, the airline industry had its safest year ever…twice as safe as the previous record-making year, 2011. All while the number of flights increased 5.5% from 2011 to 2012.

            Remember when planes fell out of the sky all too often in the 70’s and 80’s? In 1996, after two crashes that killed a total of 375 people, a White House Commission “cracked down” on the airlines, mandating they improve their safety record in the next 10 years.

            By 2007 accidents were down 65% and 2009 was the last time someone died in a commercial plane crash in the USA.

            Airplanes were not outlawed. People still fly. People are safer. We *can* enact (and enforce) common-sense gun regulations and reduce our embarrassing gun death rate.

            But only if you are willing to change mags after 10 shots at the range so someone else has a chance to tackle a nut as he reloads and save lives 11-30.

          • herddog505

            Again, I have done nothing wrong. I have committed no crime. Why do you wish to punish me?

          • jim_m

            It’s not a false analogy. Herddog has it exactly right. The point is that you want to punish people who have broken no laws because others have broken the law. The analogy of taking away a person’s rights because someone else broke the law is exactly on target.

            In this case you are proposing to take away the constitutional rights of innocent people who have undergone a criminal background check and passed and have broken no laws. In Illinois you further have to pass a background check from the state police in order to get a FOID card, which you need so you can undergo the federal check to purchase a gun (and it takes up to 90 days to get a FOID card). So we are spending a lot of time and money to check people out and now you are saying that we should simply abrogate the rights of millions because a few criminals do what criminals do and break the law.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            No. {buzzer sound} There is no “punish” here…unless the inconvenience of reloading more often is more than you are willing to do to save a life. Or limit guns that belong on a battlefield. Or have to wait a few days.


            Are you against universal background checks? Limits on magazine size? Or do you just shrug and say oh well, that’s just the way it is and live with a gun death rate 4X other “developed” nations.

            It’s nuttin futz and we have to address it…I shouldn’t have to do more to get sudafed than buy a gun.

            I’m a Colt Cobra owner…but when I die and leave it to my son, he should have to go through a background check to take possession, just like he’d have to have a driver’s license to drive a car he inherits.

          • jim_m

            When did you ever have to do more to get sudafed than to get a gun? You personally. Don’t give me make believe BS about what people theoretically could do.

            Bogus youtube videos of a-holes demanding gun control is not evidence of your claims.

            And yes, there is no excuse in demanding that I have to do anything differently because some people are breaking the law. Why not mandate limiters on cars that prevent people from speeding because some people break the law?

            There is no other explanation for what you are proposing than to say that you are a fascist, who believes that punishing the whole of society is necessary to purge from it the unlawful elements. You don’t take away rights from people who obey the law. You enforce the law. Under obama prosecutions for gun law violations has dropped precipitously.

            recent studies show the Obama administration has not enforced many gun laws already on books — with gun crime prosecutions hitting a decade low in 2011, down 40 percent from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004, according to federal data crunched by Syracuse University

            So the cure you demand is that in the face of the dem controlled federal government refusing to enforce the law against criminals is that we should further restrict the rights of the law abiding? Explain to me, Mr Fascist, whuy it is that we should accept any further abridgment of our rights when the govenrment refuses to enforce the laws against those who break them? What guarantee could we possibly expect that further restrictions will be enforced? This is not about guns it is about your desire to disarm the public and establish a government that is not held accountable to the public.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Look, this has been fun. I know you guys aren’t really “gun folk”…heck, you are probably as pudgy as I am.

            If you were serious about guns (as opposed to some warped understanding of the 2nd amendment) you’d not care about assault rifles or magazine size…because the best home defense is a shotgun and if you haven’t hit that deer with the first couple of shots you will have plenty of time to reload waiting for the next one.

            You talk about enforcement as if the GOP has not blocked the appointment of a permanent head of the ATF for *years*…or expanded ATF manpower since 1980’s levels.

            You talk about background checks and permits as if 100% of gun purchases and transfers have to go through that process.

            You post statistics about people dying gleefully yet refuse to consider even the smallest action to save a life.

            And no, Rodney G. Graves, I don’t want to move to a socialist utopia…I want my country to be safer.

            Dinnertime, talk amongst yourselves…

          • jim_m

            The second amendment was not written for hunters you moron. It was written to defend against tyranny.

            No one is gleeful about the murder rate in Chicago other than Chicago politicians. However, since Chicago is atypical when compared to the rest of he country with respect to gun laws, we do not want their mistake to be replicated everywhere else. Nor do we wish to see the 35% increase in the murder rate that the UK saw following their ban.

          • jim_m

            In 2000 the average number of rounds fired by NY police in an incident is 8 and that the average hit rate for all of NYPD is 20%.

            Given that in shootouts such as the North Hollywood shootout (10+ hits per shooter) and the Miami shootout (6 & 12 hits to each shooter) it took multiple hits to bring a criminal down, one could estimate that it would take firing between 30 and 60 rounds to subdue a criminal attacker if they refused to retreat.

            Why is it that you demand that people not be able to access a constitutional right to defend themselves and their families?

          • herddog505

            It had to come out sooner or later:


            Gimme a break…

          • Then you won’t object if we require you to get a permit to post here and limit you to 10 words per post?

          • jim_m

            10 words? ten characters, including spaces.

          • jim_m

            Last month a woman in Texas fought off 4 attackers with a pistol. If she had been limited to 10 rounds (or 7 in NY now) she would have had to be an exceptional shot compared to the average police officer.

            Jose Guarena was shot 22 times by 5 police officers who invaded his home. They fired 71 rounds for an average hit rate of 31%. Amadou Diallo was shot 19 times by 4 officers who fired 41 rounds for a 46% hit rate. Neither victim of the police was resisting.

            Using the lower rate, with 4 attackers you would have to fire 13 rounds in order to hit them all. In the Miami Shootout William Matix was shot 6 times before dieing. Michael Platt was shot 12 times. In order to stop either of these criminals a person would have to empty the entire 10 round magazine into them and hit the every time (in NY you would need two magazines for Platt)

            Why should we be forced to shoot better than so called professional police who are allegedly trained in handling a weapon? The supreme court ruled in Heller that the 2nd amendment covered a right to self protection. That was also in the recent ruling by the 7th circuit against the State of Illinois.

            According to these cases it would be unconstitutional to set a restriction on gun magazines that unreasonably hindered an individual’s right to defend themselves.

          • herddog505

            Sorry, but no [buzzer]. I’m not especially interested in what you’re willing to put up with without considering it a “punishment” or what you want to do to your son: I’m interested in what *I* consider to be a punishment. I’m interested in upholding the plain language of the Constitution (or have you got others of my rights that you want to curtail?). Finally, I’m also interested in NOT wasting the taxpayer’s money in creating an enforcing a law that statistics demonstrate will do little or nothing to reduce the violent crime rate. We’ve already had an “assault weapons” ban, remember? And it did two things to reduce the violent crime rate: jack and sh*t.

            And while we’re on the subject of children, I’m not interested in my niece being forced to (God forbid) deal with a vicious criminal by dialing 911 and cowering the bathroom or peeing on herself because people like you want to ensure that she can’t have a gun.

            By the way, where do you come down on capital punishment? I ask because, in my experience, the same lefties who want to punish me for the acts of a lunatic… don’t particularly want to punish the lunatic.

          • herddog505

            Lessee… Firearm purchase / ownership is also a “highly regulated” activity. Indeed, there is an entire federal agency devoted to it (BATFEIEO). If I wish to buy a handgun here in No. Carolina, I’ve got to go to the sheriff’s office to get a permit. This involves a background check through the FBI; if I lie, I am subject to criminal prosecution. I have to wait several days to get my permit, which allows me to purchase one handgun at a time. I then have to complete a BATF form 4473; again, if I lie, I am subject to criminal prosecution for a felony that would put me in a federal prison for up to (I believe) ten years.* Just a little bit more “regulated” than a driver’s license, don’t you think?

            I realize that lefties like to think (or are simply so ignorant that they honestly believe) that buying a gun in our country is about as easy as buying a pack of gum, but I do assure you that this is not the case.

            And, as I’ve written elsewhere: we’ve been to this dance before. Lefties yap about “common sense regulations” when what they mean are draconian restrictions including confisications (they are even going to far as to allow law enforcement to conduct “inspections” – i.e. warrantless searches – to ensure that people haven’t got icky ol’ “assault weapons”). You’ll forgive me if I believe that you people are completely untrustworthy in this matter and hence have no more interest in negotiating than I have in negotiating with a psychopath.


            (*) Not that I’ve really got to worry about it. Uncle Choo-Choo (that would be Vice President Biden; you’re new here) has said that the government simply hasn’t got time to prosecute people who lie on their 4473’s:

            Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

            Read more:

          • herddog505

            MURDER AND NON-NEGLIGANT HOMOCIDE RATES (2011 DATA, per 100,000 people):


            1. New Orleans: 57.6 (Mitch Landrieu, democrat)

            2. Detroit: 48.2 (Dave Bing, democrat)

            3. St. Louis: 35.3 (Francis Slay, democrat)

            4. Newark: 33.8 (Cory Booker, democrat)

            5. Baltimore: 31.3 (Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, democrat)

            6. Oakland: 26.3 (Jean Quan, democrat)

            7. Kansas City, MO: 23.4 (Sly James, non-partisan)

            8. Philadelphia: 21.2 (Michael Nutter, democrat)

            9. Atlanta: 20.7 (Kasim Reed, democrat)

            10. Cincinnati: 20.5 (Mark Mallory, democrat)

            I’m sensing a pattern here. And, for the record:

            16. Chicago: 15.9 (Rahm Emmanuel, democrat)

            The data are clear: if you want high murder rates, put a democrat into the mayor’s office.

            Or are the crooks in all these cities driving to Indiana, too?




            and various other websites

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Very funny. I can see you really don’t care about solutions.

            1) Try Metropolitan Statistical Areas instead of city limits.

            2) Check out State data…8 of the top 10 most violent states have republican governors.

            3) Check out how low France, UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, etc gun deaths are…all have socialist governments.

          • You should move to one of those socialist utopias.

          • herddog505

            Oh, yes: when the statistics don’t go your way, get some more. Hey, let’s go for broke: the president is a democrat and we’ve got a very high murder rate. What does that tell you?

            And check out how low Switzerland’s gun death rate is… the Swiss government mandates that its male citizens keep machineguns in their houses.

            Finally, spare me the whine about “you really don’t care about solutions” because I don’t happen to want to apply YOUR “solutions” and turn myself along with most of my family and friends into criminals because we own firearms.

          • jim_m

            Socialism is that great? US murder rate is 4.8 per hundred thousand.

            Cuba – Communist – 5.0 with all guns being illegal

            N Korea – Communist 15.2 with all guns illegal

            Russia – socialist – 10.2 with all guns illegal

            Venezuela – socialist darling of the left – 45.1

            Mexico – Socialist – 22.7

            Screw you mr communist. Try posting a link to back up your BS otherwise it is just BS with no proof what so ever.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Back from dinner…a nice French socialist dinner.

            Just read all the piling on, totally making my point for me, not one post in support of killing fewer Americans. Just whining about “my guns”.

            Not one post suggesting 11 round or 19 round or 29 round magazines instead of 30 or 50 might be reasonable since it’s when the shooter is reloading that he/she is most vulnerable. The AZ shooter was taken down as he was pulling another magazine from his pocket after shooting 30 rounds.

            Assuming that the AZ shooter would’ve achieved the same hit ratio with a smaller clip, he would have shot six people and maybe killed one or two instead of shooting 20 and killing half a dozen.

            I especially like “the Swiss government mandates that its male citizens keep machineguns in their
            houses.” comment. If you are going to make a wild statement like that, make sure you get up-to-date information.

            Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the provinces used to let you have the guns at home. Recently they have been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household because studies show that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

            But it doesn’t matter, your reluctance to consider any action no matter how small to save even one life is thankfully a fading attitude. There will be some reasonable laws passed soon and more after that.

            But more importantly my sons and grandsons will live in country with fewer guns…the percentage of US households owning guns has been declining steadily since the 1970’s.


          • herddog505

            Yes: MY guns. MY car. MY house. MY money. Things that I acquire and use legally. Things that I’ve never used to harm anybody else.
            I thought that the point of our country was that we WEREN’T part of some collective or autocracy where our “rights” were dribbled out to us by some monarch or committee. I also thought that the point of our legal system was that people are not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without having been found guilty of some offense.
            I suppose that lefties see it differently.
            And, again, spare us the “you want people to DIE!” horsesh*t, because I could hurl that right back in your teeth: you clowns on the left want people to die, women to be raped, children to be butchered, because you want to make sure that they can’t have a gun, that they are at the mercy of any musclebound hoodlum who is bigger than they are. There was a case not too long ago in Texas where a teenaged boy, home alone with his younger sister, stopped a home invasion with his father’s AR15. Who knows what might have happened to those kids had it NOT been for ol’ dad’s eeeeeevil assault weapon?
            Finally, enough with the “we only want to limit the size of your mags” lie. There are entire lists of guns that DiFi and the other gungrabbers want to proscribe; in states like Oregon, they are talking about going door-to-door (no warrant) to get them, and tossing people into prison who refuse to give them up.
            We’ve been to this dance before. In ’68 and through much of the ’70s and early ’80s, the left “only” wanted to ban “Saturday Night Specials”: “You don’t NEED cheap revolvers!” Then it was hi-cap handguns. Then is was “assault weapons”. 50-caliber rifles have also come up on their list.
            So, frankly, take your sanctimonious whining about home we’re mean and selfish and want people to die because we won’t go along with your sensible, moderate, modest proposals and stick it in your ass.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            1) The *point* of the country is E Pluribus Unum which doesn’t mean everyone for themselves.

            2) For every piece of “if not for the AR15” folklore there are dozens of “because of the AR15” deaths.

            3) For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

            4) The odds of an assault victim being shot are 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater…In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. And woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

            5) The point of the legal system is to balance your rights with my rights.

            You aren’t mean but you are selfish. More guns means more deaths yet you won’t entertain any sensible measures to save a neighbor’s life. Not one.

            Fortunately the country is heading in the right direction…gun ownership continues to decline. Young adults own 50% fewer guns than in the 70’s. African-Americans, Latinos and Asians have lower gun ownership rates and we know which direction that demographic stat is heading.

            So have a nice life, I sincerely hope a gun tragedy never visits you, your family or your friends…because I can tell you from personal experience that it truly sucks.

          • herddog505

            I’m very sorry that you have suffered from some criminal act or moment of carelessness. However, I say again: I see no reason for you to punish me for that. I consider it not only selfish but tyrannical of you.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Thanks, I appreciate that. But I’m still fuzzy on the “punish” thing…how can universal background checks or a permanent head of the ATF be punishment?

          • herddog505

            Don’t shift your terms. In an earlier thread, you were talking about merely making me have to load magazines more often. Your fellow travelers out in Oregon want to ban certain firearms completely AND allow John Law to make no-warrant “inspections” of people’s homes.

            Anyway, we went down the road of limited mag capacity. Didn’t do much of anything to lower the homocide rate. DAMN those criminals! Why can’t the obey the laws like everybody else???

            Let’s talk about “universal background checks” for a moment. As it stands, any licensed dealer has to do those checks (thanks in large part to the NRA, it’s possible to do that instantly). I know, I know: “But people can go to GUN SHOWS and buy machineguns without a background check!!!”

            Quite aside from the fact that a tiny (less than 2%, I believe) of crimes are committed with guns bought at gunshows, the dealers at such shows have to follow the same rules as do brick-and-mortar gun shops. As we see from one of my earlier posts, the federal government (per Uncle Choo-choo) simply hasn’t got the time to prosecute those who don’t play by the rules. Am I to be punished for that, too?

            “But… but… but… PRIVATE SALES!”

            Yes: it’s entirely possible for a private citizen to sell a gun without having to run a background check… just as he can sell just about anything else without having to run a background check, get a license, collect sales tax, or anything else that is not usually required of private citizens. I daresay that the vast majority of such private sales are between people who know each other, which is a “background check” far more efficient than anything the FBI could do.

            And, by the way: strawman purchases (“You buy it from him and I’ll buy it from you”) are illegal.

            Frankly, you lefties are grasping at straws; less charitably, you are patently dishonest. You trot out lurid, horrifying statistics about deaths involving firearms (and usually including suicides to inflate the numbers) and claim that you want to save lives, but pooh-pooh the fact that guns are far down on the list of things that kill Americans. You screech about “assault weapons”, ignoring the fact that they are used in a very small fraction of crimes (it being a damned sight harder to conceal an AR-15 than a small pistol). You blather about “sensible” restrictions on mag capacities, “forgetting” that we know from experience that such laws do nothing to the violent crime rate. You point hysterically to the US gun death rate as if guns make ours the most blood-soaked country in the world while ignoring the violent crime rates in countries where guns are flatly illegal. Worst of all, you have to make excuses for the failure of gun control by blaming other cities / states.

            The facts are clearly not on your side. All you’ve got are lies, half-truths and appeals to emotion, all in the interests of robbing me and other innocent Americans of our rights.

          • jim_m

            Half a million AR15’s were bought last year. How many mass shootings were committed with them? 2?

            So we should punish 99.9996% of the public with restricting their rights because 0.0004% broke the law? Yep, sounds like the typical leftist solution. Any excuse to control and dominate others.

          • Conservachef

            Actually, when you consider historical manufacturing, it’s been estimated that there are upwards of TWO MILLION AR-15s in the US.

          • herddog505

            “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

            — Col. Jeff Cooper

            That so many of my fellow Americans are well-armed gives me a good feeling.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            How many dead kids did you budget as acceptable in your analysis?

          • jim_m

            Fewer that you want to kill by abortion. Fewer than Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn killed after being born before obama left for the US Senate so the rest of the state legislature could outlaw infanticide.

            And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

            Are you such a fascist that you would make millions criminals using the excuse of one tragic death? How many people will you enslave for the advancement of your political ideology?

          • jim_m

            So your answer is yes, you would choose to punish 499,998 people for the actions of 2. And as others have pointed out there are millions more AR15’s out there so you are saying that you will punish 1,999,998 people for the actions of 2.

            Fascist. So if obama burned the Reichstag capital building to the ground you would support his seizing dictatorial power wouldn’t you.

            Yeah it is an extreme illustration , but it makes the point that you are wiling to use any excuse to advance your agenda over the rights and lives of others. You believe you are doing it for our sake so your conscience excuses any and all violations of other people’s civil rights. You would put people in concentration camps and march them straight into the ovens if it advanced your agenda because you would find a way to say that it is for their own good,

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Or limit mags to 10 rounds. Is there ANY action you would support to help make guns safer?

            Sure there are laws…but do you know *why* the government “doesn’t have time” to enforce them? Did you know the ATF hasn’t had a permanent director since the Patriot Act was passed all those years ago?

            Or that more than half the guns used in crimes come from less than 5% of dealers? And that the ATF has the same number of agents as they did in the 1970’s? And they are not allowed to have a gun registry so they can track back to those bad dealers or even require a dealer to keep track of their inventory?

            Probably not. Probably don’t care either.

            And a gun is not a bicycle, microwave or jet-ski or anything else you find on Craigslist. It is a dangerous tool and by not acknowledging that, you prove yourself to be something other than a responsible gun owner.

            “I daresay that the vast majority of such private sales are between
            people who know each other, which is a “background check” far more
            efficient than anything the FBI could do.”

            Of course your statistical sample size is sufficient to daresay that…and your access to arrest records and mental health records is probably at least as good as the FBI, correct?

          • herddog505

            It’s as I wrote above: you lefties ALWAYS have somebody else to blame. Are you seriously trying to claim that BATFEIEIO simply CAN’T prosecute people who falsify their ATF forms… because they haven’t got a director? Seriously? Work has just completely ground to a halt because the top desk is empty? I realize that the government isn’t all that efficient, but this surpasses even my worst expectations.

            Further, if it’s established that a relative handful of bad actors are selling guns AND WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE (you certainly seem to), why are they not prosecuted? Uncle Choo-choo said that they government simply hasn’t got time.

            As for the poor, poor BATFEIEIO not having a “gun registry”: EXACTLY. We oppose them having one because we know where it ends up. Witness Oregon.

            Finally, I’ve owned and operated these “dangerous tools” since I was about eight years old. Incredibly, I’ve not injured myself or anybody else in all that time. But I know, I know: I’m just a selfish ol’ meany who just doesn’t care if other people die so long as I can have my sooper-deadly assault weapons. I’m just an irresponsible prick because I won’t agree to “common-sense” laws that will penalize me and other law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to stop the villains and lunatics.

            Try again.

          • jim_m

            or how about Chicago where they started with gun registration and then passed an ordinance that put an end to new registrations effectively banning guns.

            Gun registration always ends in a complete ban or confiscation. Always.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Just a bit disingenuous, aren’t you? Google the number of ATF agents…covering the entire country AND responsible for alcohol & tobacco too. You complain they are inefficient, some stable leadership might be helpful, no?

            Without tracking, how do you propose law enforcement get the really bad actors off the playing field?

            There is little manpower, few tools for ensuring trunk-fulls of guns don’t flow from lax law states to strict law cities…hopefully that begins to change.

            But like I said, the country is moving demographically in the right direction…less guns. And if we legalize pot and divert those resources to gun safety, even better. ☮

          • herddog505

            You’ve asked about what *I* would do. A fair question deserves an answer:

            1. Capital punishment: the hoodlum who commits willful murder (this includes murder committed in the commission of another crime) will end up either shot to death by the police or on the gallows. In extreme cases of rape and kidnapping, ditto. This will solve our problem with repeat offenders;

            2. Revision of the mental health laws. This is tricky ground: I have no wish to see people tossed into the booby hatch because they are “eccentric”, having a bad time, or (worse) a “problem” for the government. However, given that most if not all of the recent horrors have been committed by people who were plainly nuts, something ought to be done;

            3. More vigorous prosecution of those who break the existing gun laws. “Mr. Holder, you are under arrest…” If necessary, tougher sentences for those bad actors you keep going on about. It strikes me that the RICO statutes might be applicable to them, though I’m not sure;

            4. This may seem odd given my otherwise old-school views of crime and punishment, but legalize drugs. I believe that many crimes are related to drugs: either gangs defending their “markets” or else strung-out junkies committing robbery to get enough money for a fix. Further, while I regard drug use as a filthy, self-destructive habit, it is not the government’s place to tell people what they may eat, drink, smoke, chew or otherwise put into their bodies;

            5. Vigorous action against the gangs that have made many of our cities into war zones. To borrow from the movie “Tombstone”, “I see a red sash, I kill the man wearing it.” Lefties like to yap about hiring more cops. Fine: then put them into these bad neighborhoods (we know where they are) on foot patrol, and start getting these punks off the streets and into prison or their graves.

            Naturally, I expect lefties to have the vapors about these ideas, they being generally opposed to any crime control measure that doesn’t f*ck over law-abiding citizens.

          • jim_m

            1) the motto, e pluribus unem, referred to the states forming one government, not many people forming one monolithic slave state.

            2)citation needed. All you have given is a bullshit sound bite and no data not even a single anecdote to back up your claim.

            3) there are estimated between 800,000 and 2.4 million defensive uses of guns annually according to Kleck and even the US Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates over 108,000. There were 11,000 firearm homicides, 19,000 firearm suicides, there are about 80,000 non fatal firearm related injuries annually according to the CDC of which at least 5000 were purely accidental injures.

            Add the non-accidental injuries and murders together and you get 86,000 shootings. Many of the suicides are going to find alternative ways out (why? because other nations have higher rates of suicide and they have lower gun availability. And wasn’t the left in favor of the right to die? Why are gun suicides wring but overdosing or hanging yourself OK?).

            So at best the real ratio is 1 murder or injury to 1.25 defensive uses of guns. if you use the Kleck estimates it is 1:10 to 1:30 in favor of defensive use. Your claim is just a lie.

            4) you need some kind of citation here. I have given you the DOJ, CDC and Kleck as sources for my numbers. Start ponying up some sources for your claims and/or links. You’re just spouting BS.

            5) Yes. And how do your rights mean that people who obey the law must be punished because your totalitarian ideology demands it? You have the right to be a fascist, just not to impose it on the rest of us.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            1) Monolithic slave state? You *do* live next to Snake.

            2 & 4) Just google a bit, you’ll find a ton of studies. By far, actual controlled-case studies show that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

            3) Kleck:

            5) Still unclear on this whole “punish” meme. How does a 10 round mag punish you? How does universal background checks punish you? Inconvenience ≠ punish.

          • jim_m

            Any restriction on a law abiding person’s rights, particularly their right to self defense and their right to protect themselves against state tyranny is a punishment. We generally do not restrict people’s rights without them having broken the law. Possessing a 30 round mag is not a dangerous act. Why should anyone be restricted because a very very few have broken the law. You are talking about taking the rights away from 1000’s if not millions of people due to the actions of less than 10.

            That’s why we think you are punishing people.

          • jim_m

            Show me where an increased risk of homicide is not also associated with other criminality. Oh yeah, you won’t because you don’t back up your arguments.

            I anticipated your objection to Kleck and therefore included the DOJ. You made no counter argument to the substance of my comment. You have not countered the fact that I demonstrated your claim to be BS. You posted a link (finally) criticizing Kleck, but that does nothing to touch my central argument, which is that your numbers were patently false according to government sources.

          • jim_m

            Not one post suggesting 11 round or 19 round or 29 round magazines instead of 30 or 50 might be reasonable since it’s when the shooter is reloading that he/she is most vulnerable.

            In fact my posts say that it is unreasonable if I am the defensive shooter barricaded in my house fighting for my family’s safety.

            Bottom line, as Herddog repeatedly points out and you ignore, is that your restrictions will only ever effect the law abiding citizen who has already demonstrated that he is not the one who goes out an d mass murders people. You ignore the fact that mas murders are caused by mentally disturbed people and in many of the most recent ones they were people of whom others thought that they were seriously disturbed but nothing could be done under current law to help them.

            As to the percentage of households with guns, that will be increasing according to a recent poll from American University which suggests that 60% want to own or plan to own a gun in the future. As for you actually owning a gun and still desiring gun s to be controlled or confiscated, I call bullshit. We’ve had your type here before claiming how they own guns and hunt or target shoot and they were just posers.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Seriously Jim, 2-5 shotgun blasts won’t do the trick? 15 rounds from your glock instead of 31? Where the hell do you live, next door to Snake Plissken??

            What is your reason for resisting universal background checks? Why don’t you care that the NRA has hamstrung the ATF? If you really wanted to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong folks that is.

            As far as the American University poll…why do you delight in the fact someone wants a gun?

            From that study:

            • About 50 percent of young people who self-identify as “depressed,” “stressed out,” and/or have “difficulty making friends” plan to have a gun in their household.

            Doesn’t that scare you? It does me.

            • Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to fear gun violence (45 percent compared to 25 percent) and less likely to report planning on owning a gun in the future.

            • Half of black respondents fear gun violence, compared to only 31 percent of white respondents. Blacks are less likely than whites to report planning on owning a gun in the future.

            Looks like a couple groups are less likely to let their fears drive their life choices.

            And call bullshit all you want, I’ve had that colt for longer than you have probably been alive (considering your use of ‘poser’)…concealed carry license for the first 5 years, then retired to a safe when I started having kids.

            I’m also old enough to know what high school and college kids think they will do with their life changes when they start living their life.

          • jim_m

            I live in the NW suburbs of Chicago. You are definitely a liar claiming to have a CCW license when your moniker indicates you are from Chicago.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            When did I say I was born in Chicago? I was born and raised in a very red state. I carried the colt in a very red state. Today I am pudgy and progressive and live in the loop.

          • jim_m

            And you own a gun?

            Up to last year that made you a felon.

          • PudgyChicagoProgressive

            Jesus. Did I say the safe was in my house? No. I obey the law, the safe is in the suburbs with my oldest son. As is my Weber grill and dining room table which I also have no room for here in the loop.

            I see how you selectively process information.

            Preemptive: No, the bullets are with the gun in the safe.

  • McCarthy’s ignorance really is shocking. Has he even bothered to read the U.S. Constitution?

  • jim_m

    I think the reasonable argument is it does not serve a purpose in a civilized society.

    Ok Mr McCarthy. So what say you about Chicago, which is as far from civilized as we get in the United States? Does an assault rifle serve a purpose there? Perhaps you are afraid that the population will use it to protect themselves from your predatory police force? Or worse yet, perhaps you are afraid that they will prove better at controlling crime than you are?

    Yeah, I’ll bet the latter is what really keeps him up at night.

    • A distant second, behind Detroit, on the uncivilized scale here in the United States.

  • uffdaphil

    So the chief will grant that we have the right to bag squirrels? Does he want us to register the slingshots?

  • SicSemperTyrannis

    How in God’s name did this man rise to his current position? Given his job, his ignorance of the laws of this nation are breathtaking.

    • It’s Chicago. Money and influence are the keys – not capability or competence.

      • SicSemperTyrannis

        There is very few things anymore regarding liberals or liberal city garbage that can surprise me. But I must admit this one actually did.

        • The real problem is that with the internet such things can’t be hidden well. What was once a local problem, easily hidden in the local paper if reported at all and quickly forgotten is now accessible nation-wide and permanently on display.

          In the long run (20-30 years) we’ll possibly see a change in our political class. The more we see of them (Hello, Joe Biden!) the worse they look – and eventually the craptastic ones will get forced out.

          But it won’t be fast – and they’ll still be doing damage for a long time to come.

          • herddog505

            JLawsonThe more we see of them (Hello, Joe Biden!) the worse they look – and eventually the craptastic ones will get forced out.

            Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: lefties just looooooves them some Joe Biden. Why, he’s the Grand Old Man of American foreign policy, a potent defender of the working class, a wise and thoughtful politician who yet isn’t afraid to duke it out with nasty ol’ conservatives. And colorful! Oh, the hilarious jokes he cracks! Yep, that’s just Joe: tough, smart, not afraid to speak his mind, a true defender of the people.

            Kind of like Barry is a great compromiser, Bill Clinton was a stout champion of women’s rights, Ted Kennedy was the Lion of the Senate, Napoleon was Father of the Animals, etc.

          • Napoleon was Father of the Animals? The implications of that are… disturbing.

            Dems are really big into self-delusion, aren’t they?

    • Conservachef

      Considering what I know about the Peter Principle, I’d say this guy has risen to his level of incompetence.

  • JWH

    I want a tank. Not for the cannon. I just want something that will make my morning commute easier. Not to mention on-street parking.

  • GarandFan

    McCarthy isn’t a “cop”, he’s a politician. He’ll lean which ever way the wind blows.

  • Conservachef

    One may assume that Mr. McCarthy has a problem with this SPECIAL INTEREST group? I’m sure he doesn’t like the “corrupting influence” that THIS one exerts, does he?

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Of course, it depends, as always on which groups have the guns. There have been many times and even relatively recently, when conservatives and not liberals were the ones promoting gun control. for instance if blacks had guns readily available,The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it”.

    “Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” (particulary if he belonged to the Black Panthers). He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

    • herddog505

      Oh, yes: the race card. Why, Ronald Reagan and the NRA are JUST LIKE the klan.

      Let’s dig a bit deeper:

      To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.

      That the NRA supported the creation of the NICS – the instant background check system – seems to (ahem) contradict this statement.

      I also sugges that the NRA is firmly in favor of NOT allowing felons or the mentally ill to have firearms. So much for “all rights and no regulation”.

      In short, this Winkler fellow seems to be a liar or, at best, woefully uninformed. Why, then, should we bother to read his “secret” history of guns?

      Well, except for the fact that Winkler unwittingly makes our points for us. He breathelessly assures us that the NRA and Ronald Reagan were bigots who wanted to take guns away from black people as if, because the great and noble Reagan supported “gun control”, we should, too. But have we not pointed out MANY times that gun control has been exactly what he claims, i.e. a tool to keep the victims of oppression from being able to fight back? So, which is it: guns are mean and nasty and icky and should be taken away, or taking guns away is a favorite tool of RAAAAACIST oppression?

      Like most lefties on this topic, he’s a buffoon, a clown whose mental processes are so clouded, who’s so incapable of thinking clearly on the matter, than he can’t make his points at all without undercutting himself. What’s next? Advising women to get a double-barrelled shotgun as an extra-loud signalling device as did Uncle Choo-choo?

      One last point: he makes a hash of the liberal argument that the Second Amendment is about civilian sporting and hunting rifles by admitting – hell, TRUMPETTING – the fact that the Founding Fathers demanded that citizens be armed with “military-style” weapons:

      A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia.

      So, it would seem that the Founding Fathers not only would have been comfortable with Joe Citizen owning an “assault weapon”, they would have made it legal requirement for him to do so.

      Jebus, what a putz.

      Honestly, Steve, if you’re going to cite an article in defense of your position, could you choose one NOT written by an idiot?

      • Ah, the things he knows which just ain’t so…

      • Conservachef

        … could you choose one NOT written by an idiot?

        Good luck finding any…

        EDIT to add: I’m pretty sure Crickmore is the one that has tried so desperately to paint 2nd Amendment supporters as “gun nuts” and brought up the RAAACISSSTTT origin of the amendment some time ago.

        • jim_m

          Steve likes posting links to articles written by people who know nothing about guns other than gun are icky. This particular link starts with trying to reopen the argument of whether the 2nd amendment creates an individual right.

          Since the SCOTUS and prominent legal scholars on the left including people like Lawrence Tribe have all concluded that the answer to that question is, yes it does constitute an individual right, trying to redebate the issue is a sign of an idiot leftist who does not understand what the argument is about.

          This is someone for whom the only answer is gun confiscation

          • herddog505

            jim_m[T]rying to redebate the issue is a sign of an idiot leftist who does not understand what the argument is about.

            A more charitable view would be that they are availing themselves of their right to free speech to criticize government policy and push to get that policy changed.

            O’ course, that means convincing the SCOTUS (really, the only “votes” that count) that the plain meaning of the Second Amendment… isn’t (anybody want to bet how the Wise Latina and the dumpy little mongoloid troll would come down on the RKBA?) I noticed that this Winkler tried that:

            The text of the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.
            Um… no. The Second Amendment is only “ambiguous” to lefties who are determined to prove that it doesn’t mean what it clearly says; that the Founding Fathers meant something entirely different than what they said and wrote in their contemporary speeches, letters, and writings; and that generations of lawmakers and jurists – somehow – haven’t been interpretting it correctly. Sorry: I’m not playing the game and admitting that it’s open to discussion or argument any more than I’d say that the right to trial by jury or the abolition of slavery are open to discussion. The text and meaning are clear. End of story.

            Can you imagine the left applying the same logic to the parts of the Constitution that they actually LIKE? What if we claimed that “equal protection” merely means that the Army and the Navy protect all parts of the country equally (which they do)? Or that “freedom of the press” applies SOLELY to paper-and-ink newspapers, not to broadcast or internet journalism? Once you start treating the Constitution as a “living document” (which is to say, as a piece of toilet paper), the sky’s the limit.

          • jim_m

            It says a lot that someone who is really trying to not find an individual right in the language, that the best they can do is argue that the amendment is “ambiguous”. It is a great example of how strained their arguments are.

          • Conservachef

            Yes, “ambiguous” to either of the following- (1)those that are ignorant of the history of the amendment and who can’t be bothered to take 10 minutes of internet time to learn, and (2) those that DO know the history and purposefully distort it, in order to fool those in group (1).

    • jim_m

      I like how the left always trots out the reaction to the black panthers carrying guns to the CA capital as an example of gun control acceptable to the right.

      I other words, if racism will get them to their ideological goals they are perfectly fine with it. Racism in the name of global oppression is OK.

  • PudgyChicagoProgressive

    The author of this piece splits some mighty fine hairs. Yes, it’s legal to own a tank in the USA. A *decommissioned* tank…so I’m OK with folks owning *decommissioned* assault rifles.

    • You’ve exceeded your ten character limit.

    • jim_m

      Except that a tank is still a tank as the military uses. What you leftists call an assault rifle in not the same as what the military uses.

  • rangerrebew

    I don”t believe the good chief considers unions as political special interest groups who have a stronger influence on legislation than the NRA ever dreamed of having. Since he feels that unions are not special interests, it seem obvious he doesn’t believe they would corrupt politicians in spite of the CTU’s illegal strike in the fall. He clearly doesn’t have a grasp of the Constitution or its evolution so he would be wise to read “Democracy in America” by Alexis De Tocqueville, if he can read. In it he would find that as early as the 1600s in some colonies males over 16 were REQUIRED to bear arms and be proficient in there use; having the right to bear arms in this country comes long before the Chicago police even existed. One question, have the Chicago police made an attempt to take arms away from muslims as they are trying with everyone else? I’ll bet the answer is no.

  • Mac

    Huh, this is a common theme, violent cities led by inept rock heads…. McCarthy being Chief rock head for sure….no real plan and no training or qualifications to lead a large city agency.

  • herddog505

    RE: Owning a tank

    Surprisingly enough, it is perfectly legal to own a tank, and even own a tank with fully functional main armament. They are not “street legal”, but if you’ve got a big piece of property, there’s nothing illegal about playing Creighton Abrams if you can afford it.

    Novices often buy British Chieftains, a good starter tank because, though it weighs more than 50 tons, it is generally cheaper than a Sherman or Stuart. The Neal brothers bought theirs in 2011 for $65,000, in need of restoration. Plus, the State Department doesn’t restrict imports of British armor.

    “Every kid wants a toy tank,” says Phil Josephs, who imported a Chieftain to catch the eyes of passersby at his Army-Navy store on a busy road in Delran, N.J. He found the antiaircraft gun he had outside before just didn’t do the trick. Would-be tank importers must prove the weapons have been disabled.

    A tank in the U.S. can have operational guns, if the owner has a federal Destructive Device permit, and state laws don’t prohibit it. The permit costs $200, and the applicant must swear he hasn’t been a “fugitive from justice,” “adjudicated mentally defective” or convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” A local law-enforcement official, usually a sheriff or police chief, has to sign off on the application.

  • john53

    It is Chicago, intelligence not necessary, logic not necessary only the ability to follow the political orders of the current DNC bosses.
    This man is an embarrassment to all intelligent life on the planet, working for him must be a joy, just slugging down the politically correct corruption and Kool-aid that Chicago is so famous for.

  • Kevin P. Sharp

    WOW! I found this today. This guy really is a moron.