Chicago’s top cop: ‘Federal gun laws are racist’
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy claims that “federal gun laws are akin to ‘government-sponsored racism.’ ”
“I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children.”
Garry: you’re crazy.
Clayton Cramer shows how American gun control historically facilitated Black oppression. (Of Japanese and Indians, too.)
After the Civil War, White Democrats like Garry McCarthy sought to disarm Blacks, and for good reason.
I recently correlated Black homicide rates from the CDC with Brady Campaign report cards 2001-2007. Brady evaluated states on how well they implemented gun control laws. The result shows that more gun control correlates with higher Black homicide rates and lower Caucasian homicide rates.
Most of Brady’s reports graded states on “A” to “F”, though that’s recently been replaced with stars. In any case, it conveniently divided states into quintiles. When comparing Quintile 1 (most gun control) with Quintile 5 (least gun control), Blacks averaged 20.7% higher homicide rates in states with the most gun control, while Caucasian rates averaged 64.1% lower.
Gun control still benefits Caucasians and harms Blacks, just like it did before and after the Civil War.
Garry McCarthy just happens to be Caucasian (picture here). For that matter, so’s Brady president Paul Helmke.
Just a curious coincidence, no doubt.
Thanks Rahm, another idiot in the pipeline who’ll blame crime on everything he can throw at a wall but the people who actually do it.
With flash mobs pushing innocent bikers into the lake just for fun, Chicago seems like A Clockwork Orange with morons in charge.
And let’s leave aside the fact that no gun has ever killed anyone. The person holding the gun on the other hand…
I am sure the administration has been tempted to use this reasoning to minimize ‘Fast and Furious.’
Pay attention to this guy. This is how Democrats think. Racist gun company owners living in gated communities are killing children of color for profit. And it’s all Sarah Palin’s fault because she hunts moose with her family.
Leave these people in power and they will take your guns, and every other freedom you have as well.
If you refuse to vote for a RINO in the next election, you are voting to put Stalinist morons like this guy in charge of your freedom.
I don’t want a RINO on the ticket any more than anyone else here, but the worst Republican we have is better than 4 More Years of Obama.
While gun crime may well be the basis of legislating ‘gun controls’ gun crime will NEVER be the basis of abolishing the gun ownership right.
ALL legislated laws comes only through the hands of the irresponsible citizens.
There is NO constitutional danger that sensationalized rhetoric of morons will ever be entertained seriously by the Supreme Court to abolish gun ownership rights. On the other hand, there is little doubt that the Supreme Court will continue…and rightfully so, to have something to say if folks demand that they have a constitutional right to own modern day military classes of weapons. That said, if any legitimate need were to arise, any worthy gun owner knows what legal weapons should be in their gun cases and how to easily modify them……
Furthermore, with or without any governments blessings, weapons of all classes will always be marketed around the world to anybody and any government who has the cash in hand….thats the reality!
Folks are doing nothing more than chasing their own shadows on this subject, obviously without the capacity to differentiate between gun controls and gun owner abolishment.
Troll Troll Thomas, you’re mumbling to yourself again. We already know you support the destruction of the Bill of Rights, so what’s the use in sharing your confusion with us?
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/10/atf-%e2%80%9870-of-mexican-cartel-guns-originate-in-u-s-%e2%80%99/
I only insist on the arms that I can bear; I am not a martyr like St. Sabina.
Howie…because you know not what you speak of! You’re a monger of propaganda on this issue! When a person has nothing more to throw out than irrelevant and personalized comments…that person has NO credibility on the subject matter. For example! One who was informed would recognize the legal standings as provided by the Constitution through federal, State and court rulings to include the U.S. Supreme Court. That same person would acknowledge the controversies yet to be definitively ruled upon by the Supreme court….if pushed into a corner.
You assume and attach meanings to the constitutions reference of “militias and people” that have in part been settled law and in part not yet definitively settled by law. Your assumptions especially, as they pertain to collective states rights versus individual rights has yet to be definitively settled by the Supreme Court.
For example! You ignore the 1939 Supreme Court rulling: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Likewise, you ignore the 1997 Supreme Court ruling: “we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Furthermore, you could have cited the most recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller with special attention to the language of regulation of guns and the language of “…in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute…”
It is one thing to have some conceived fear of losing individual gun ownership rights and quite another thing to wildly and most likely intentionally, perpetuate uninformed ramblings that cannot possibly serve as an organizing defense for your fears. For example! The defense by use of militia rights is dead on arrival. Gun controls and the explict purpose for lawful defense of self, family, and property stands the test of the Constitution and is being followed by the Supreme Court.
If you don’t like where your fears are directing you then mobilize on the basis of legal standings and seek a specific constitutional amendment to grant you your specific demands and ease your obsessive fears. By the way, the long standing intellectuals who have spent decades preparing the arguments for both sides on these issues before the Federal courts and Supreme Court have some agreements. Do you even know what they are?
Again, grow up and present something of substance in a responsible adult manner or continue being irrelevant and without credibility.
Ah TrollTroll. You can’t deal with reality so you result to insults. Part of the mental disease of modern liberalism is to be consumed by anger and then blame that anger on others. It remains your anger, so deal with it. But at least we’re making progress. Now you’re expressing your anger in public in an attempt to derogate the messenger. Next step is to admit that you are full of rage and to accept that it has made your life unmanageable.
“On the other hand, there is little doubt that the Supreme Court will continue…and rightfully so, to have something to say if folks demand that they have a constitutional right to own modern day military classes of weapons. That said, if any legitimate need were to arise, any worthy gun owner knows what legal weapons should be in their gun cases and how to easily modify them……”
Your writing is a bit hard to decipher, you are trying too hard to sound smarter than everyone else, but if I understand you correctly, you are wrong on all counts.
One, there is no guarantee of what an future Supreme court will do. Get five Lefties on the court and the right to own guns will vanish.
Right now, there are no military weapons sold to the public. The semi-auto rifles in gun stores just look like military weapons, but do not function the same. Most lefties know this, but continue to use this deceptive language to cover what is really a move to start banning rifles.
It is not easy to modify existing semi-auto rifles to full auto. Again, this argument has been debunked a million times, but that has never stopped the Left from blathering on a moment after they have been proved wrong with the same argument. I am sure it won’t stop you.
And finally, the Second Amendment includes protection for civilian militias, which is a redundancy, but I use it to make sure you get it.
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.
They specifically are talking about a militia, which is the armed men of the neighborhood, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. Not a word about no military arms, only arms for hunting, no concealed carry, gun registration, gun licenses, or any of the rot the Progressives have foisted off on us since FDR packed the Supreme Court.
The whole of gun control is unconstitutional. It is all an infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which means the right of you and me and everyone else to own and carry guns.
Thanks, OG. Good synopsis. Should be useful for anybody but TrollTroll Thomas who reads the comments here.
Old Guy…You and your cronies are so intellectual let me give you some homework.
["The whole of gun control is unconstitutional."]
PROVE IT!
["...the Second Amendment includes protection for civilian militias..."]
I think with all your intelligence you only made a mistype as it actually reads: “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.” Now prove with no room for controversy the argument that the constitution means individual right and does not mean the collective right of the State.
Only a certifiable idiot would contend that private individuals should be allowed to own any kinds of arms known and available with the money to purchase them.
Now, I await your presentation of constitutional, federal and States legislated laws concerning “malitias” in the context of common unorganized citizens facilitate the definition of malitias…thus, all citizens regardless of age or other circumstance are protected by the constitution to have and maintain any weapons of their choice by the claims of malitia or individual rights.
Get your buddy Howard to help you!
TrollTroll: You’re comprehension of English grammar is the problem here. Therefore, your argument regarding the Second Amendment is corrupt and moot. Maybe you make sense when you mumble to yourself. However, while I respect your right to lie to yourself, if you try that here you’ll have to face the music.
T.T. Thomas is German I suspect-his first language is not English, so his writing is stilted. For some unknown reason Thomas is fascinated/revulsed by our freedoms in the U.S.A., particularly the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As you can see, he makes his data up as he goes along.
“Gun control still benefits Caucasians and harms Blacks, just like it did before and after the Civil War.”
The first half of that is a very dubious proposition.
The gun control laws enacted in the Jim Crow era selectively disarmed blacks to leave them vulnerable to racist terrorism.
The comparison to current gun control laws implies that these laws are alo intended to disarm blacks in a violent racial struggle with whites; that the large reduction in the white homicide rate (the rate of homicides committed by whites or against whites?) is achieved by disarming blacks.
If that WAS true, it would be a very powerful argument for gun control. But it’s not.
When numb-skulls like McCarthy mumble in public about how the NRA and federal gun laws are racist, he “opens the door” as they say in court.
The consequences of modern gun control correlate with benefit to Caucasians and detriment to Blacks. Whether that was intentional or not is irrelevant. Outcomes matter. Since McCarthy introduced the criteria that gun control laws, or their lack, indicate racist intent, I merely use HIS criteria to prove that he’s the racist.
Today’s gun control laws disarm everybody. States with more gun control have lower gun ownership rates. When this happens, more Blacks die.
Your point is good, but you need to ask it of Brady, McCarthy, etc. Brady and Violence Policy Center leadership are all white, yet they propose policies which have always been inherently racist. See what they have to say about that.
Police Superintendent McCarthy has it exactly backwards. Gun laws disarm good citizens, assuring criminals a virtual monopoly on deadly force. The effects of this misguided effort are felt more by the poor, which includes a good number of minority members. Illinois, the only state in which a law-abiding citizen cannot get a permit to carry a gun, is one of the highest gun-crime states, and many of the crime victims are black.
McCarthy doesn’t want law-abiding citizens armed (especially black citizens) cause he wants to the populace dependent on the govt. People dependent on the govt vote Democrat.
Bingo!
The New Plantation.