Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Guns guns guns (Your Opinion #2)

What are your opinions on gun control? And we mean seriously thought out positions on it. Most cops we know (and we seem to know quite a few) are ambivalent about the whole thing. Some are adamantly NRA, Right Wing, "from my cold dead hands" types. Most seem middle of the road or completely uninterested. And everyone has heard the story about the recruit asking academy instructors if they needed to carry a gun if they had no intention of pulling it out of the holster.

This article is the main reason we ask. Florida recently passed a "Castle Doctrine" law in order to close an odd loophole. Under the previous law, persons were required to attempt every means of escape before using deadly force to defend themselves. The new law, based on English Common Law, states that you are entitled to use deadly force to defend you and yours in a place you have a right to be - like your home/castle. Makes sense to us. The measure passed 94-20 in the Florida house and unopposed in the Florida Senate, so it made sense to the legislature.

Of course, all the gloom and doom gun control freaks were out in force, claiming Florida would turn into a wild west shooting gallery, e-mailing travel agents to warn gullible europeans that Floridians were now permitted to shoot them for traffic violations and similar BS. The same arguments were made 18 years ago when Florida passed "Concealed Carry" and the homicide rate dropped precipitously.

We'll make no bones about it: We believe "An armed society is a polite society." The evidence backing the measurable drops in crime upon passage of concealed carry laws is just about unassailable, though the left tries to scare everyone into believing otherwise. And we are forcibly reminded of this press release a few years ago pointing out that the cities with the strictest gun control laws always seem to lead the nation in total homicides. What do you guys/gals think?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strongly in favor of permitted concealed-carry with time-place restrictions, such as school grounds, libraries and taverns (though not restaurants that serve liquor incidentally).

The permitting process should be thorough, but not burdensome on the permittee. Veterans and retired law-enforcement should be affirmatively encouraged to go through this process.

I'm opposed to the non-permitted "open" carry that exists in some places, as it would be a bit disconcerting to see people walking their dogs with guns on their hips.

All in all, police should be encouraged to stop anyone suspicious, but suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon should not along justify a stop.

There are some qualms about this though. The first time a public housing resident gets a permit would be the last time I'd step foot into public housing. On the other hand, I think this would increase safety in probably 75% of the city. Just about everywhere except 006, 007 and 011.

Having seen this in some pretty hard-core NRAish parts of the country, I simply would not be too worried about this for most people in most neighborhoods.

10/18/2005 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm one of those "ambivalent" or more precisely, apathetic, people on this subject. I wouldn't own one if it wasn't part of the job. Mind you, I'm NOT anti-gun, just not entirely comfortable with the idea of having everyone armed. Considering the unbelieveably stupid shit I've seen young, off-duty coppers do with their guns, I'm not convinced that arming citizens is such a great idea. The arguments for "responsible gun owners" kinda go out the window when you've seen more than a few drunken coppers leaving a bar and taking target practice at street lights or other inanimate objects. And anyone who has ever worked on the west side has probably responded to more than a few "10-1's" that ended up involving an off duty Cook County deputy who has either showed his weapon, fired his weapon or pistol whipped someone. If we're supposed to be trained professionals, and even 1% of our profession acts that way, then how many private citizens would do the same, or worse if they were armed?

10/18/2005 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After moving to Arizona when I retired I think concealed carry is the best thing going . Covers both Officer saftey (someone armed is more likly to come to your aid if your getting your ass kicked) and the display of a weapon slows down many an aggravated crack head. Might want to ask Surgeaon General Carmona about this, he has first hand experience.

10/18/2005 10:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alaska just relaxed its concealed carry laws, allowing people there to carry a weapon without a permit (that was previously required in some of Alaska's biggest cities)....

10/18/2005 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Florida has the right idea. An armed citizen is a safe citizen. The only ones who should worry are the shit heads, because there are very few victims now and alot of justifiable shootings, in those states.

10/18/2005 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous leftisthebest said...

And now the other side:

A study from the Harvard School of Public Health showed children between five and 14 years of age were killed at dramatically higher rates in states with more guns.

The study showed children in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury; seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership.

Children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall as children in the five lowest gun ownership states.

The five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were: Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia.

The five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership were: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware.

10/18/2005 11:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very rare to catch a regular guy with a gun, or his gun out and about.

10/18/2005 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And people in Seattle commit suicide more often. And people in Wisconsin eat more Cheese. And people in Florida have more sun. "Harvard Study" WHATEVER!!!!!!

10/18/2005 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The closest place to Illinois with a Gun card System is Cuba! We Here in Chicago, have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Yet, look at the incidents of gun violence that are taking place. The laws on the books are no deterrent to the bangers out there shooting at Pookie and the PoPo. It’s obviously not working. I would rather have a Shithead wondering if the person about to be Robbed, Raped, Beaten, or Killed is armed and ready to defend themselves. “Gun Laws” only restrict law abiding citizens, if they worked, Chicago wouldn’t be Murder Capital of the USA and we wouldn’t be recovering thousands of weapons off the streets every year. How many armed store owners in L.A during the Rodney King Riots were burned out and looted?

10/18/2005 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea but mayor daley wants to get the guns common sense we got to get the guns!

Thats why the idiot mayor of ours made UUW's a misdameanor.

I am all for concealed carry. But the idoit liberals would carry on about a useless piece of dogworm getting blown away from a citizen that was protecting him/herself.

Again I say shoot to kill wich sends a message of CONSIQUENCE!

10/18/2005 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of violence, guns and the murder rate, did anybody see todays headlines in the Slum Times? It appears that Cline is trying to get credit, claims that the nationwide murder rate is down because of us.

10/18/2005 12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:14 POSTER

10/18/2005 01:18:00 PM  
Blogger Fenian28 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/18/2005 01:40:00 PM  
Blogger Fenian28 said...

For a great read on the subject:
"More Guns, Less Crime" by John R Lott.
He is a U of C professor and, even at that liberal bastion, he presents a great case.

10/18/2005 01:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone actually DRIVEN in Florida??!!??!! What a bunch of JAGOFFS! And to think they might be carring conceiled! SHEZZ

10/18/2005 01:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ya, Florida isnt a "polite society".

10/18/2005 02:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a friend in Texas, they have had concealed carry for quite a while. When it was first in effect, he could only remember one incident in the Dallas area where there was a road rage type of shooting. That was highlighted in the media soon after the law was passed, obviuosly to show that it was a bad law. He couldnt think of another incident since then.

Im thinking that there are some of us that would like to think that most citizens are not responsible enough to carry a handgun. I would like to think that most citizens are responsible.

Every person should have the right to defend their family within their homes.

10/18/2005 02:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, here is a proposal:

First, handgun in your house/ apt is 100% ok. Period. Cmon! If you can't defend your home them you should just leave any good property out in the drive way!

However, once you leave your home the story changes. This proposal will be costly and require manpower. But, the City can drop $40M on dump trucks that idle and there are plenty of house mice laying around solet's go for it.

Baackground check will remain the same: no felons, no psychos, no wifebeaters, no kids, etc. No carrying into a bar. No being intoxicated with your handgun.

Every gun that is purchased will be test fired and cataloged. Spent shells and bullets will be collected and entered into databases. Every purchaser will be made aware of this. If you fire the weapon the LE will know whos weapon it is.

Every purchaser will have to register it: a short class on how to safely handle, secure, and aim the weapon, followed by a not so impossible qualifing course (ours is pretty easy). This will be complied with every year.

Everyone will be required secure the weapon inorder not to loose it--you wanted it, its YOUR responsibility NO MATTER what happens!

I am in favor of RESPONSIBLE gun control. If you cannot be responsible with it you do not desreve it. Your kids shoots a friend playing with cause you left it out, you get charged. You shoot some private/ public property, you get charged. You "loose" the gun, you get charged. You shoot someone and runaway and not report it, you get charged. You wave it around in the I-90 toll booth, you get charged.

Is this proposal Big Brother, ya. Is it expensive, ya. Is it manpower intensive, ya. Would it be worth it, ya.

Fine you can have your precious gun! The gun manufacteur's would love your money (that's all they and NRA care about--don't fool your cold dead hands).

"Not everyone should have a gun."

10/18/2005 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

Hey FENIAN 28... Can you find us a better source to cite than this schmuck Lott...?

John Lott’s unethical conduct

John R. Lott "author" of "More Guns, Less Crime" is embroiled in several controversial affairs:

He almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly behaved unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data (basically- his dog ate the survey results!;-)

He presented results purporting to show that “more guns” led to “less crime” when those results were the product of coding errors

He pretended to be a woman called “Mary Rosh” on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.

Wow- Even Michelle Malkin admits LOTT is shady as hell! You go girl! (click to read her take...)

10/18/2005 02:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

along the lines of protecting your homes, the examples in Illinois where a State's Attorney tries to charge a homeowner for shooting a home-invader are great examples of idiots not thinking things through.

Remember two years ago when the North Shore homeowner shot the returning burglar? THe Lake County SA (mighta been Winnetka, land of our own Joe DeLopez, no?) tried to charge the homeowner with a weapons violation.

And what happens next? Even the Liberal Illinois Legislature wrote a law to make sure homeowners can shoot home-invaders without threat of charges.

Its similar to Chicago. I know that guns get taken away from law-abiding store owners on occasion, but do we really charge them with anything when they shoot a robber?

Hell no. Nor should we. If anything, the police should maybe be able to "endorse" a few store owners for permits. Unfortunately, in a corrupt city like Chicago, any kind of subjective allowance will be instantly abused by the idiots in charge.

10/18/2005 02:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Less dicussion and more rumors please!

10/18/2005 03:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/18/2005 12:14:59 PM

The State Supreme Court overturned the safe neighborhoods act that contained the "Armed Violence" statute. Included in that act were the provisions for UUW. So while the Springfield put another bill together and added all the pork projects to it, UUW's were a misdemeanor for several months. Daley, as much as I dislike him, had nothing to do with it. I work with retards. You're probably a supervisor.

the word is Consequence.

10/18/2005 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger 1096 said...

our gin laws are unconstitutional Try and find a city attorney willing to prosecute a failure to registure charge or a states attorney willing to go to bat on a no FOID charge the SOL them at the prelim because they are loser charges

10/18/2005 04:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are laws against gin?

10/18/2005 04:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm 100% behind allowing a home owner to own a handgun in his/her home and to use it to protect his/her property and family. However, when it comes to concealed carry I gotta say no thank you.

10/18/2005 05:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the impossible situation in New Orleans with police response shows why each homeowner had better have a gun. Daley wants to disarm the homeowner what bullshit!!!

10/18/2005 06:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with those posters who support concealed carry laws and the ability of homeowners/property owners to protect their property/loved ones w/firearms if necessary. I wonder: this country is unable to protect its border (thousands of illegals enter every year, tons and tons of dope coming in), we have no handle on the prison situation (every year in Illinois, for example, 20,000 + prisoner releases from IDOC (enough to fill the United Center, most coming back to the Chicago metro area), and perhaps most on point, there are an estimated 300 million handguns/long guns already in the hands of Americans (I don't know who did the estimate, but hey, even if they're 50 million off, so what?). So, why not take a step forward and legalize it? I mean, does anyone really think that this country can stop illegal immigration, or the dope trade, or the possession of guns?

10/18/2005 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger Fenian28 said...

Shadynfreud....who would you recommend?

10/18/2005 07:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do the V/Ls and G/Ds or any other ass holes give a fuck about what the law says. Only the law abiding citizen turn in their guns. Gun Control is amoral. I guess "Fuck the Police" means fuck the police but here is my handgun.

10/18/2005 07:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Crimefile said...

The law against concealed weapons or as Illinois calls it by a misleading name, Unlawful Use of A weapon should be renamed. It in reality it is the ILLINOIS MUGGER AND RAPIST PROTECTION ACT.

Bearing arms in the United States is a right, not a privilege that can be licensed or taxed. Everyone has that right unless their conduct has caused the loss of rights such as in a felony conviction.

Unfortunately the permit, FIOD or similar systems have garnered favor among people that believe these programs have value. The facts are clear the people that jump through the hoops to get permits are never the problem.

For street cops there somewhat of a benefit when an armed citizen is pulled over for a traffic stop and produces both a valid driver’s license and a valid concealed weapon permit (volunteered separately with the information he or she is armed). It’s reasonable evidence that the person stopped is not a felon or danger to the officers.

It’s beyond laughable that retired and out-of-state cops could be charged with a felony should they place the protection of themselves and family above the ILLINOIS MUGGER AND RAPIST PROTECTION ACT. Federal law was written and passed to remedy this problem and it’s still a long way from being fixed.

I have long ago taken a position that when I found someone with a concealed handgun with a valid FIOD that I’d send him home with his gun. That is unless he or she was involved in some other criminal activity. It was a not so subtle message that I value the safety of the citizens I was supposed to protect. This PR move has resulted in getting unexpected cooperation and gratitude.

As for Mayor Daley, the dopes on the City Council and the pathetic Liberals in the Illinois Legislature, they need to follow the lead of 38 other states that have created Shall Issue Concealed Weapon Permit systems. In addition there are two states have no law against concealed weapons nor do they require permits, Vermont and Alaska.

Violent crime is controlled not by criminals worrying about the penalties for breaking the laws passed by politicians. One serious violent crime should be enough to keep a criminal off our streets for 25 years.

The same dopes that LOVE gun laws only want to slap the wrists of our most dangerous criminals. I never could figure what that was about…

10/18/2005 07:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no less then TWO U S Supreme Court Opinions that have barred the prosecution of felons caught with guns for failure to have a gun license or register their firearms. That requirement violates felon's right against self-incrimination. Ain't that cute?

Gun laws only affect the law abiding folks.

Most gun laws violate our rights under the Second Amedment.

Gun laws give a giant false sense of security.

Guns are needed far more by citizens who are outside the safety of their homes.

My wife is a nurse and she packs a .45 in spite of the law. Should she have to shoot anyone she will simply run away and refuse to incriminate hereself. No law requires her to hang around some slimedog she has shot.

If you catch up with my wife after a shooting she will tell you that she wants a lawyer and nothing more.

10/18/2005 08:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sgt's class friday 130 total detective training for 90 days first but list will emerge

10/18/2005 08:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/18/2005 03:29:07 PM

really!! tired of hearing these mopes go on and on about something that will never happen in our lifetime..... RUMORS PLZ!!!

10/18/2005 08:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who need guns to defend themselves are pussies - like all you ignorant racists!

10/18/2005 09:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing, my brother.

10/18/2005 10:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10/18/2005 10:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the 08:03 pm guy I hope your vride never is forced to use her gun , but if she is I hope she aims true and hits the asshole in the 10 ring
However theres a law called concealing a Homicide

Of course she has to be there to be arrested and Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by six my own damn self.

10/19/2005 01:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say let citizens with no felony record and a valid FOID card legally own and register a handgun in the City of Chicago.We as coppers know there are tens of thousands of unregistered handguns out there in the hands of joe citizen as well as the mopes.The mopes are gonna always carry.I think law abiding citizens should have equal access,

10/19/2005 03:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

daley is the devil. vote for jesse jr. (who, incidentally had a vehicle of his seized by the DEA).

yeah, daley is the enemy, jesse jr (meeks included) is a the friend of the police.

if you hate chicago, and what goes on, why didn't you move long ago? you must be still on the "list" for the fire dept.

10/19/2005 04:04:00 AM  
Blogger Shadi said...


10/19/2005 04:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: 10/18/2005 08:03:07 PM

You and your wife are dumb asses. It's a long drive to Taylorville, hopefully you never have to find out if she ever gets pinched for doing something stupid with that pistol. And hopefully she never gets it taken away from her by some mope and shot with it. And hopefully it never gets stolen while she's at work. Shit, is she some sort of ol' wild west gun slinger? Is she some sort of hood rat that knows how to flee the scene after putting a cap in someone's ass? "Yeah honey, just point and shoot...then run and hide." That's priceless, thank you for making me laugh. And hopefully, aw fuck it, the list goes on and on, good luck with that....do me a favor though...tell your wife that she is married to a RETARD and that she is no better than smoke dog standing on the corner toting his house gun around for protection....man you are an idiot. And take Navy Seals out of the DVD player, will ya??

10/19/2005 07:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:14 POSTER
Learned this the hardway. The ASA wouldnt approve charges because the car was not registered to the Felon.
"(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,

firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;"
"(b) Sentence. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24‑1(a)(1) through (5), subsection 24‑1(a)(10), or subsection 24‑1(a)(11) commits a Class A misdemeanor"

10/19/2005 07:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

....unless the weapon is possessed in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle as defined in Section 1‑146 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, or on the person, while the weapon is loaded, in which case it shall be a Class X felony.

10/19/2005 07:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My wife can out shoot and out survive most any Chicago mope. As long as nobody threatens her she will not harm a fly.

She will shoot het her target until he or they are no longer a threat.

She won't be calling 911 to report, "I just shot a carjacker" The body will lay in the street like garbage. Later some CPD homicide dick will be scratching his head.

My wife will live, and come home unlike the sheep that have filled many a rubber bag.

10/19/2005 09:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Confession is good for the soul. You should tell you wife to talk to the nice homicide detectives.

The poor dead mope won't be there to testify. That Assistant State's Attorney can use your wife's own words in court to put her in prison.

10/19/2005 09:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yea and unless the offender admits its his the ASA will not aprove felony charges. And we all know where the paper goes then.

10/19/2005 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last three posts are completely retarded.

10/19/2005 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want a level playing field between the law-abiding and criminals? We can't have that! Only the police can protect you!

Call for a pizza and call 911 at the same time. That way the cops can join you later for some cold pizza!

10/19/2005 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:39 Then why is it that the overwhelming numbers of offenses comitted w/guns in this city are done by african-Americans? Are you from a race of cowards?

10/19/2005 01:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO 10/19/2005 09:14:05 AM:

Please stop talking. Every time you open your mouth about how your wife is a stone cold killer you sound more and more idiotic. You two are perfect for each other, you probably sit there watching COPS with her talking about how hardcore you two are. RETARDS. Have you thought about the consequences of your wife actually taking someone's life? Mental anguish, worrying about getting caught for the next few years, etc., etc.? And what happens if she does cap someone and a few years down the road you use the gun legally in your home and ballastics match up to a homicide that your wife committed? Let me guess, you have a special "house gun" for intruders? One used for your drive-bys? Yeah, your lives will be completely normal after the shooting...."Hey honey, how was your day?" "Oh fine, Tackleberry, I had to pop someone in the parking lot earlier for grabbing my ass, but other than that, everything was fine." Both of you are ignorant asses. And you both need serious help. Damn this department hires some serious psychos.

10/19/2005 02:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish people would change their focus on this issue. Owning firearms, under our second amendment, IS A RIGHT!!! There are NO preconditions on exercising a RIGHT! Privileges, like a drivers license, do allow the several states to establish preconditions before issuance. Granted, I do not want to see knuckleheads with guns, BUT, taking rights away from people "we" perceive to be inferior is a frightening path to go down. I think that's why our founding fathers made the boat trip in the first place.

10/19/2005 03:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amendment II
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.

that is the 2nd amendment word for word.

"well-regulated militia"? -yeah, i guess that could pertain to the general population.


An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.



n 1: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army [syn: reserves] 2: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

10/19/2005 03:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Crimefile, you said:

"I have long ago taken a position that when I found someone with a concealed handgun with a valid FIOD that I’d send him home with his gun. That is unless he or she was involved in some other criminal activity. It was a not so subtle message that I value the safety of the citizens I was supposed to protect. This PR move has resulted in getting unexpected cooperation and gratitude. "

Call me a liberal, gun hating, Big Brother or whatever you want but...

How can you read his mind and know with out a doubt that he is an ok citz? Or a bird in citz clothing?

That gun could be used, or sold / stolen then used in an attack on one of your brothers.

10/19/2005 03:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: My Wife

She has an absolute right to protect herself. She has another absolute right to bear arms. Illinois and Chicago have stolen her right to bear arms. We don't give a shit what laws are passed in this regard. They are all unconstitutional.

My wife nor I need ever call 911 to report anything. Laws about concealing homicides can not conflict with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Justifible homicide is NOT a crime. UUW and failure to register may be in violation of laws that infringes on the Second Amendment. We have no respect for such trash laws or the people who support them.

Rapists, muggers and carjackers will get what they deserve, quick death should they fuck with my wife. There's no pissy, departmental sub-sonic 9MM ammunition in her .45 ACP.

10/19/2005 04:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Crimefile said...

10/19/2005 03:51:51 PM

I never fear guns in the hands on otherwise law abiding citizens any more than my brothers in blue. If I name checked him and he came up clean with a valid FOID, he walks WITH his gun/s.

The City Of Chicago government with the help of the madia has brainwashed the population that honorable citizens can not be trusted with firearms.

The relaxed laws of so many other states prove that concealed weapons in the hands of real people does not create a public safety issue.

I've long ago advised citizens wanting handguns to run out and buy a short 18" .12 gauge pump shotgun for home defense. It's more effective as a man stopper than any handgun.

The problem is citizens all can't stay locked in their homes. They have to go to work and spend time on the streets. On the street a good handgun is the only answer.

It's time to force a change on this issue. Those of us that believe as I do need to stand up and demand a system like the rest of this country. Do this for your children.

10/19/2005 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"RETARDS. Have you thought about the consequences of your wife actually taking someone's life? Mental anguish, worrying about getting caught for the next few years, etc., etc.? And what happens if she does cap someone and a few years down the road you use the gun legally in your home and ballastics match up to a homicide that your wife committed?"

I think her worry is better placed in the area of self-preservaion and survival then these other things you mention.

She need not ever worry about those things if she is unarmed and gets murdered. I'm sure you'd rather see that happen.

Homicide? Since when is justifiable homicide a crime?

Look in the mirror and you'll see a real retard, jerk.

10/19/2005 04:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The doomsday provision
By John Stossel

Oct 19, 2005

Co-anchor, 20/20

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.

"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

10/19/2005 06:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post!!! Point made in a very articulate manner with examples and facts. Hey Shady AKA Leftisthebest,Shadenfreuden, O'Grady if you weren't filled with so much contempt for Bush and America you might be able to articulate your position (albeit its' all anti-american anti-poice pro defendant) in a cohesive manner. Instead you are filled w/ so much self hate, inner directed spite and self loathing you are UNABLE TO EVEN FORMULATE A PLAUSIBLE POSITION. THE PREVIOUS POST IS EXCELLENT WHETHER YOU AGREE W/ IT OR NOT. IT'S WELL WRITTEN BASED ON FACTUAL EXAMPLES AND IT IS NOT FILLED W/ HATE AND SPITE. This is why you suck.

10/19/2005 06:39:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

(Ummm- DUH! The previous "post" was written by professional coprorate news whore John Stossel... it should be slapped together halfway decent dummy- and you should know- you posted it in all likelihood! What a transparent hate-baiter you is! Listen- I like havin' me gun- and I'd rather not have more morons like you have 35 of `em! Simple- like you!

I thought you said you liked me when you called me on the phone today Booby Lotto (weird that we were both at work... hmmnn... the phone... BRAAAVE... gotta check your EYES Larry David style 2morrow- no shades Pugsley!) What gives "B-u-d-d-y" ? Such a quick Reversal of Fortune? (SO SURPPRISING! not... sigh- disappointed in humankind once again... woe is me!;-) Do Cops lie away fr4orm tee-vee? Damn- for this kind of mental abuse I coulda got involved in FLOP-o-tics!

Are you S-U-R-E you don't want to mix it up a bit? Any of you other TorqueSuMadre-sadists (portraying Lotto or not) have the stones to reach out and touch me?? (not holding breath... waiting... feh!) Listen- I know- you simply can't achieve orgasm in the presence of others... I have sympathy for your type... beaten as chillins... sad... anyway- practice your kegel exercises, you might not wet the bed tonight! Have a super duper night, and thanks for the attention! ALWAYS appreciated!

- Le Shadow

(Can the White Sox just play already... Go, Go already!)

10/19/2005 07:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

10/19/2005 09:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you and your wife are tards, two idiots who think they'll know what to do in a real life gun battle......fucking morons.

10/19/2005 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Fuckface, 10/19/2005 11:20:03 PM.

My wife can outshoot most coppers, but that's not difficult. Perhaps because she hits the range rain or shine once a week. She likes shooting.

I hope she never has to deal with some attacker. I think she's be safer with some mope than you any day.

I suspect that you're not a copper anyway, but some bleeding heart, Liberal, gun hating, blow job.

10/19/2005 11:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 06:39 "MadDog 20/20 Deep-Thinker" - You're gullible enough to swallow Stossel's predictable group-think treacle... then this is why your mind is so tiny... and your brown-eye has been reamed so wide by conventional corporate wisdom. Go back to posting about "Police Fashion" again- it goes nicely with your "Police Intelligence" you poxy-moronic closet cross-dress case.

The Stossel Treatment
Selective editing and other unethical tactics

F.A.I.R. "Extra!" March/April 2003

By Rachel Coen

Sometimes John Stossel's technique is no different from the sensationalism of any other tabloid TV entertainer. Witness his report on "dwarf tossing" (20/20, 3/8/02), in which he professed indignation at "busybodies" who want to stop the practice. "Dave Flood is a dwarf who is angry because his rights are being violated," declared Stossel. "He wants to be tossed."

But Stossel's approach can transcend the merely embarrassing, becoming careless or unethical. His reports are billed as news, but they sometimes rely on questionable methods such as deceptive editing that distorts arguments made by interviewees, the exclusion of facts that might conflict with his personal opinion, and the provocation of guests so as to broadcast their reactions out of context.

"We were hoodwinked"

One controversy that caught mainstream media's attention concerned Stossel's interview of a group of grade-school students for his ABC News special "What's Wrong With Tampering With Nature?" (6/29/01). The children's parents had signed releases for them to appear on the show, but after witnessing Stossel's methods, several withdrew their consent and protested to ABC.

The special caricatured environmentalists as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose fanaticism would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young." A key theme was Stossel's claim that U.S. schools have become an "environmental boot camp" to indoctrinate children with green propaganda, when in fact the environment is doing just fine.

To illustrate his point, Stossel arranged an interview with a group of California kids, asking what parents described as leading questions to try to show that the children had been taught environmentalist lies. Several parents said they hadn't known about this slant when they granted permission for the interviews. They complained that ABC had "misrepresented" the segment by telling them simply that it was an Earth Day special, and by concealing Stossel's involvement (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

One father, Brad Neal, told the Washington Post (6/26/01) that Stossel's questioning was "entirely misleading," and that "he'd repeat the questions until he got the answer he wanted…. We knew we were hoodwinked." Parents said Stossel even tried to lead the children in chant suggesting that "all scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect" (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

As a result of the negative publicity, ABC pulled the interviews before the show aired, though the network stood by Stossel's work. Stossel's own response was instructive. He found new kids to interview, apparently with the same techniques: On the special, they responded in well-coordinated unison to Stossel's questions. He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been "brainwashed" by environmental activists, whom he characterized as "the totalitarian left" (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01).

Tricky editing

Little kids aren't the only ones who should beware of Stossel's tactics. During his one-hour special "Is America No. 1?" (9/19/99), Stossel used tricky editing to misrepresent the views of James K. Galbraith, a leading economist at the University of Texas.

Rife with factual inaccuracies (Extra!, 11-12/99), the show attempted to demonstrate that laissez-faire economics are "what makes a country work well for its people." Stossel claimed that Europe has high unemployment rates because of policies that provide benefits such as paid parental leave and make it "very hard" to fire workers.

The facts are so persuasive, said Stossel, that "many economists who once argued that we could learn from Europe, like James Galbraith, have now changed their minds." Stossel then played a clip from his interview with Galbraith: "There might be a moment for the European to learn from us, rather than for us to be studying them." The implication was clear: Galbraith believes Europe should follow the U.S.'s lead and require fewer protections and benefits for workers.

In fact, Galbraith is an outspoken opponent of the adoption of U.S.-style laissez-faire policies in Europe. "My point is quite different from the one Stossel makes in the lead-in," Galbraith told Extra!'s Seth Ackerman (11-12/99). Galbraith explained that he had actually told Stossel that "Europe could, in short, benefit from adopting some of the continent-wide transfer mechanisms, such as Social Security, that we have long enjoyed in the United States." In other words, Galbraith did feel Europe could learn from the U.S. by expanding social benefit programs--the opposite position, essentially, from the one implied by Stossel's editing.

After FAIR issued an Action Alert (9/28/99) critiquing this and other distortions in "Is America No. 1?," Stossel issued an evasive rebuttal (11/6/99)--signed, oddly, by Stossel and "some of his staff"--which insisted that Galbraith's "views on this particular matter were not misrepresented," but hedged that "we did not intend anyone to think he endorsed every statement made in the hour."

Despite Stossel's claim that he had done no wrong, the sentence introducing Galbraith's soundbite had been changed when ABC rebroadcast "Is America No. 1?" a year later (9/1/00). "Even economists who like Europe's policies, like James Galbraith," said Stossel the second time around, "now acknowledge America's success."

Some facts are better than others

Sometimes Stossel responds to uncomfortable facts not by spinning them, but by omitting them. In one instance, producers resigned from a Stossel special after their findings were dismissed because they cast doubt on Stossel's "preconceived notion" of the truth. The show was "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" (4/21/94), a 90-minute special about the evils of government regulation.

Positing that America's ability to "compete in a world economy" could be compromised if we worry too much about "dangerous-sounding" things like "pesticides, pollutants, bioengineering, electromagnetic fields" and so forth, Stossel reassures us: Today, "we live longer than ever." Therefore, advocates like Ralph Nader--who is portrayed as a fear-monger who "screamed about everything"--have it all wrong. The real danger is regulation, since "regulations may shorten lives by making people poorer."

It's tough to argue with such relentlessly simplistic logic, as Stossel's own staff found out. As reported by Karl Grossman (Extra! Update, 6/94), a source close to ABC said that two of the three producers hired to work on the special resigned because their findings were unwelcome.

Producer Jan Legnitto found that government product-safety regulation was cost-effective, while Vicky Sufian's research on comparative risk indicated that some regulations actually served to protect people. Neither finding supported Stossel's anti-regulatory stance, so their research was dismissed. Both producers asked to be released from their contracts and left the program.

Similarly, in the 1995 special "Boys and Girls Are Different" (2/1/95), Stossel's team seems to have discarded evidence that complicated the show's biology-is-destiny slant.

Claiming that men and women think differently "because our brains are different," Stossel argued that "trying to fix these differences will be pointless, expensive, even hurtful." On this basis, Stossel attacked remedies for inequality such as sex discrimination laws and affirmative action, saying they force unnatural outcomes.

As documented for Extra! by Miranda Spencer (5-6/95), Stossel featured a variety of scientists supporting biological explanations for gender traits and roles. Instead of contrasting these views with the numerous scientists who disagree with that approach, Stossel set up feminists without scientific backgrounds to refute them.

Spencer found that Stossel's staff had in fact talked to some of the scientific authorities who were left out of the program, including Brown University biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, a prominent figure in gender studies.

Fausto-Sterling--whose research has found more overlap than difference in male and female abilities--was contacted by fact-checkers for the program before the show aired. Her input, however, didn't seem to pass the litmus test. One ABC producer told Fausto-Sterling that interviews were already "set up" and that it was too late to restructure the show to introduce more balance.

Joan Bertin--then co-director of Columbia University's Program on Gender, Science and Law, now a professor at Columbia and executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship--was also called by an ABC staffer who had no interest in material that didn't confirm Stossel's preconceived notions. "She left me with the clear impression she had explicit marching orders to find material to support gender differences," Bertin told Extra! (5-6/95).

Part of the story

Particularly troubling is Stossel's 1997 report about a rape allegation at Brown University. The controversial sexual assault charge was prominently covered by Brown's newspaper--it also generated stories in the Associated Press, Boston Globe and USA Today, among other outlets--and sparked rallies on campus, along with intense debate about sexual assault and Brown's disciplinary system.

In 1996, Brown student Sara Klein charged that she had been raped by a fellow student, Adam Lack, while she was too drunk to consent or remember the event. Lack maintained that the sex had been consensual. Klein filed a complaint with Brown's disciplinary council and Lack was suspended for sexual misconduct. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to "flagrant disrespect" and the suspension reduced to probation (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 1/30/97). Lack later sued both Brown and Klein, a case which was settled in December 1997 (Brown Daily Herald, 10/25/00).

The facts behind the Lack/Klein case remain unclear, but Stossel's 20/20 report about it--"When Yes Means No" (3/28/97)--exploited the incident to make some disturbing claims about sex and rape. The way 20/20 told it, the questions about consent and assault raised by the case were problematic primarily because of Brown's "political correctness."

"There is something of an authoritarian atmosphere surrounding women's issues on this campus," Stossel announced, adding this memorable bit of wisdom: "If nobody had sex except when they were totally sober, I bet there would be a lot less sex on this campus."

The report consisted of an extensive interview with Lack (Klein reportedly declined to be interviewed) and footage of a verbal fight between Stossel and students at a campus rally against sexual assault.

As portrayed in the segment, the rally was angry and combative. "I got a feeling for the intolerance when the activists asked if anyone else wanted to speak," Stossel said, introducing his own entrance into the story, in which he took the stage to ask the crowd to define rape. According to Stossel's report, students were unwilling to consider his questions even though he was "just trying to educate" himself, and so drowned out his innocent inquiries with hostile chanting.

An article in a local paper, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (1/30/97), told a different story. According to the paper, the "orderly rally" degenerated into a "free-for-all" only after Stossel stepped out of his journalistic role to take the microphone.

Stossel reportedly "responded with an obscenity" when a student questioned his journalistic integrity, mocked a student who quoted Brown's discipline code--"I'm glad for $30,000 you learned to read"--and tried to provoke one woman by asking her, "If I were dating you, and put my arm around you and put my hand on your breast…."

Stossel's cursing and innuendos were not included in his 20/20 report.

When all else fails, fabricate

In 2000, revelations about Stossel's shoddy journalism caused a brief media furor that ended with an on-air apology by Stossel for having cited non-existent test results in a report.

The report was "The Food You Eat," originally aired by 20/20 on February 4, 2000. In it, Stossel warned that organic produce may be more dangerous than conventional produce, saying that tests commissioned by ABC found increased levels of E. coli bacteria in organic sprouts and lettuce. He also stated that the tests found no pesticide residue "on either organic or regular produce," thereby obviating a key reason for buying organic food.

But, as the Organic Trade Association pointed out in a letter sent to ABC before the report aired (11/8/99), Stossel's E. coli tests were non-specific, meaning that they did not distinguish between dangerous and benign strains of the bacteria. The distinction is crucial to a story about food safety, but the 20/20 report omitted it, leaving the impression that the presence of any E. coli whatsoever could prove fatal.

OTA also pointed out that although one of their representatives was interviewed on the show and asked to comment on the study, Stossel's producer replied evasively to their "numerous" requests that he "clarify what types of E. coli were tested for." The group says that they learned the details of the test only after they were interviewed.

What's more, the pesticide tests Stossel cited were never done. In July, a story brought to light by the Environmental Working Group was picked up by the New York Times (7/31/00): The scientists that ABC commissioned--Michael Doyle and Lester Crawford--said that they never tested any of the produce for pesticides, only for bacteria.

In addition, Crawford told the Times that he did perform similar tests on chicken, and found pesticide residue on the conventional poultry but not on the organic poultry. That data is nowhere in Stossel's report, which suggests that, true to form, he took a selective approach to reporting scientific evidence.

Prior to these revelations, several groups--including FAIR, EWG and OTA--had voiced concerns about other aspects of "The Food You Eat," including its failure to disclose a primary source's ties to the chemical industry. At the time, ABC dismissed the questions, and rebroadcast the report uncorrected on July 7.

After the news about the non-existent test was picked up by mainstream media, ABC announced that it would reprimand Stossel and suspend his producer, and Stossel issued a lengthy on-air apology (8/11/00). FAIR wrote to ABC News urging them to take the occasion to investigate Stossel's overall record on accuracy, and to consider whether it lived up to the network's journalistic standards. The network, however, seemed to have decided to treat the debacle as an isolated incident. FAIR never received a response.

- - -

Media Outlet: John Stossel

"I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market."

--ABC News correspondent John Stossel (Oregonian, 10/26/94)
Action Alert: Will ABC Balance Stossel's Election Year Axe-Grinding? (7/30/04)

Action Alert: Does Stossel Deserve a Promotion? (5/23/03)

Extra!: Give Us a Break: The world according to John Stossel (March/April 2003) By Peter Hart

Extra!: The Stossel Treatment: Selective editing and other unethical tactics (March/April 2003) By Rachel Coen

Action Alert: Will Stossel Endorse Phony "Lynxgate" Story? (8/2/02)

Action Alert: Stossel Tampers with the Facts (7/17/01)

Action Alert: Stossel's Shoddy Reporting on Government Waste: ABC's Free-Market Booster Needs Some Competition (2/7/01)

Press Release: Stossel's Distortions Finally Catching Up With Him? (8/7/00)

Action Alert: Stossel Fabricated Data on Organics, Researchers Say (8/1/00)

Press Release: FAIR's Correspondence with ABC RE: John Stossel Organics Report (2/22/00)

Press Release: For ABC's John Stossel, Workers' Safety Is Regulatory Excess (2/7/00)

Action Alert: For ABC's John Stossel, Workers' Safety Is Regulatory Excess (2/4/00)

Action Alert: In Attack on Public Schools, Did ABC's Stossel Do His Homework? (11/24/99)

Action Alert: FAIR Responds to ABC's John Stossel (11/11/99)

Activism Update: A Responce by Stossel and Some of His Staff to the Group "FAIR" (11/6/99)

Action Alert: Stossel Spins Science Funding (10/26/99)

Extra!: Greed Is Bad Reporting (Update April 1998)

Extra!: Selling Social Insecurity: Stossel Embraces Pinochet’s Pension Privatizer (March/April 1998) By Fred J. Solowey

Extra!: The Stossel Beat: SOUNDBITE (November/December 1996)

Extra!: Desperately Seeking Difference:: ABC Finds Biology Is Destiny (May/June 1995) By Miranda Spencer

10/19/2005 11:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

will you shut-up about your wife already? no one cares how hard she is, ok tool box?

10/20/2005 01:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im a gun-nut too! Can your wife Jack me off with a fist full of Hoppes!

10/20/2005 03:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/19/2005 11:41:44 PM
Bolshevik drivel by a gun rights hater for sure.

10/20/2005 07:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/20/2005 01:12:13 AM Goofy civilian on a Cop Blog. Go crawl back under your rock Dildo head.

10/20/2005 07:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dildo head? that's good, how long did it take you to put those two words together?

10/20/2005 08:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Crimefile said...

Daley's wet dream of gun bans has ended in America. The tide has turned.

House passes gun lawsuit shield legislation
WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed and sent to President George W. Bush for his signature legislation giving the U.S. gun industry sweeping protection from civil lawsuits, a victory for the powerful gun lobby.

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" bill passed with a bipartisan 283-144 vote, with a several dozen Democrats from gun-friendly southern or rural areas joining the Republican majority. The Senate has already passed the legislation, and the White House strongly backs it.

The bill would provide broad immunity from civil lawsuits filed by dozens of cities and municipalities against gun makers, dealers and distributors. Critics say the lawsuits are frivolous, are politically motivated and are designed to undermine U.S. citizens' rights to own guns.

"The intended consequence of these frivolous lawsuits could not be more clear -- the financial ruin of the firearms industry," said House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican.

The legislation is another huge victory for the National Rifle Association, which with its many allies in Congress has been able to outvote and outflank the dwindling number of vocal gun control advocates in Congress. Last year the NRA successfully blocked renewal of the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons.

"I think the air is out of the gun control balloon, and I think what popped the balloon is politics and elections," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said, noting that many Democrats see gun control as a losing issue after more than a decade of Republican political gains.

10/20/2005 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any one that thinks having a gun will protect you is a tool. Big deal, you have a gun! Guess what anyone can sneak up behind you and bash your head in with a brick and take your wallet AND your sweat gun. Or jump out stick THEIR gun in YOUR face. Ok, gunslinger you gona drawwwww? Whatever, you'll be minus a wallet, your sweet gun, and your face.

Unless your Jackie Chan...


You wish you were Chinese, you Takleberry!

10/20/2005 02:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Crimefile said...

This is where gun control came from... A way to keep dem Negros in live!

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. [4]

It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. [5]

Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. [7] But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. [8] The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.

One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence," [9] to: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." [10] [emphasis added] It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race. [11]

Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. [12] The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:

That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor. [13]
Elijah Newsom, "a free person of color," was indicted in Cumberland County in June of 1843 for carrying a shotgun without a license -- at the very time the North Carolina Supreme Court was deciding Huntly. Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Newsom's attorney argued that the statute requiring free blacks to obtain a license to "keep and bear arms" was in violation of both the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution's similar guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. [14] The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to accept that the Second Amendment was a limitation on state laws, but had to deal with the problem of the state constitutional guarantees, which had been used in the Huntly decision, the year before.

The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:

That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [15]
The Court asserted that: "We cannot see that the act of 1840 is in conflict with it... The defendant is not indicted for carrying arms in defence of the State, nor does the act of 1840 prohibit him from so doing." [16] But in Huntly, the Court had acknowledged that the restrictive language "for the defence of the State" did not preclude an individual right. [17] The Court then attempted to justify the necessity of this law:

Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals. [18]
The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that free blacks were protected by the North Carolina Constitution's Bill of Rights by pointing out that the Constitution excluded free blacks from voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens. Unlike a number of other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that limited this right only to citizens, [19] Article 17 guaranteed this right to the people -- and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue that a "free person of color," in the words of the Court, was not one of "the people."

It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! [20]
Finally, after this paean to liberty -- in a state where much of the population remained enslaved, forbidden by law to possess arms of any sort -- the Court defined the valid limits of laws restricting the bearing of arms:

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self- defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void... [21]
"Citizen"? Within a single page, the Court had gone from "right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys" to the much more narrowly restrictive right of a "citizen." The motivation for this sudden narrowing of the right appeared two years later.

The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah (1848) was not, principally, a right to keep and bear arms case. In 1839, the city of Savannah, Georgia, in an admitted effort "to prevent the increase of free persons of color in our city," had established a $100 per year tax on free blacks moving into Savannah from other parts of Georgia. Samuel Cooper and Hamilton Worsham, two "free persons of color," were convicted of failing to pay the tax, and were jailed. [22] On appeal, counsel for Cooper and Worsham argued that the ordinance establishing the tax was deficient in a number of technical areas; the assertion of most interest to us is, "In Georgia, free persons of color have constitutional rights..." Cooper and Worsham's counsel argued that these rights included writ of habeas corpus, right to own real estate, to be "subject to taxation," "[t]hey may sue and be sued," and cited a number of precedents under Georgia law in defense of their position. [23]

Justice Warner delivered the Court's opinion, most of which is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, but one portion shows the fundamental relationship between citizenship, arms, and elections, and why gun control laws were an essential part of defining blacks as "non-citizens": "Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office." [24] The Georgia Supreme Court did agree that the ordinance jailing Cooper and Worsham for non-payment was illegal, and ordered their release, but the comments of the Court made it clear that their brave words in Nunn v. State (1846) about "the right of the people," really only meant white people.

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive." Unlike whites, however, a license was required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons. [25]

The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery. [26] A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement. [27]

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]

The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives. [30] Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid. [31]

What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same decision -- so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument today -- sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden perspective change:

The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self- defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law. [32] [emphasis added]
This particular decision is more open than most as to its motivations, but throughout the South during this period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions were being narrowed, or simply ignored. Nor was the reasoning that led to these changes lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun--while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [33]
While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker's closing paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist, who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:

I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:
"The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one's person in one's home, even in one's bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun." [34]

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. [35]
Today is not 1893, and when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious question is, "Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?" Here in California, even the state legislature's research arm--hardly a nest of pro-gunners--has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males. [36] Even if overt racism is not an issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to the applicant's concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official when we applied for concealed weapon permits, "If more police chiefs were women, a lot more women would get permits, and be able to defend themselves from rapists."

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men "were armed and had to be armed..." Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges. [37]

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it.

Another point to consider is that in the American legal system, certain classifications of governmental discrimination are considered constitutionally suspect, and these "suspect classifications" (usually considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong presumption of invalidity. The reason for these "suspect classifications" is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on these classifications, and because these classifications often impinge on fundamental rights. [38]

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.


Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a telecommunications manufacturer in Northern California. His first book, ...By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine..., was published in 1990. ...For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent & Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms... will be published by Greenwood/Praeger Press in 1994.


1. Thomas N. Ingersoll, "Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans, 1718-1812", _William and Marry Quarterly_, 48:2 [April, 1991], 178-79.

2. Daniel H. Usner, Jr., _Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783_, (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 139, 165, 187.

3. Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, _The Course of Mexican History_, 4th ed., (New York, Oxford University Press: 1991), 216.

4. Ingersoll, 192-200. Benjamin Quarles, _The Negro in the Making of America_, 3rd ed., (New York, Macmillan Publishing: 1987), 81.

5. Theodore Brantner Wilson, _The Black Codes of the South_ (University of Alabama Press: 1965), 26-30.

6. Stanley Elkins, _Slavery_, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 1968), 220.

7. Eric Foner, ed., _Nat Turner_, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall: 1971), 115.

8. Harriet Jacobs [Linda Brant], _Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl_, (Boston: 1861), in Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed., _The Classic Slave Narratives_, (New York, Penguin Books: 1987), 395-396.

9. Francis Newton Thorpe, _The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming The United States of America_, (Washington, Government Printing Office: 1909), reprinted (Grosse Pointe, Mich., Scholarly Press: n.d.), 6:3424.

10. Thorpe, 6:3428.

11. Simpson v. State, 5 Yerg. 356 (Tenn. 1833).

12. State v. Huntly, 3 Iredell 418, 422, 423 (N.C. 1843).

13. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).

14. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844).

15. Thorpe, 5:2788.

16. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).

17. State v. Huntly, 3 Iredell 418, 422 (N.C. 1843).

18. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).

19. Early state constitutions limiting the right to bear arms to citizens: Connecticut (1818), Kentucky (1792 & 1799), Maine (1819), Mississippi (1817), Pennsylvania (1790 -- but not the 1776 constitution), Republic of Texas (1838), State of Texas (1845).

20. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).

21. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).

22. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 69 (1848).

23. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 70, 71 (1848).

24. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848).

25. Juliet E. K. Walker, _Free Frank: A Black Pioneer on the Antebellum Frontier_, (Lexington, KY, University Press of Kentucky: 1983), 21. This is an inspiring biography of a slave who, through hard work moonlighting in the production of saltpeter (a basic ingredient of black powder) and land surveying, saved enough money to buy his wife, himself, and eventually all of his children and grandchildren out of slavery -- while fighting against oppressive laws and vigorous racism. Most impressive of all, is that he did it without ever learning to read or write.

26. Walker, 73.

27. Stephen Middleton, _The Black Laws in the Old Northwest: A Documentary History_, (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press: 1993), 27-32, 227-240, 309-314, 353-357, 403-404.

28. Michael Les Benedict, _The Fruits of Victory: Alternatives to Restoring the Union_, 1865-1877, (New York, J.B. Lippincott Co.: 1975), 87. Francis L. Broderick, _Reconstruction and the American Negro, 1865-1900_, (London, Macmillan Co.: 1969), 21. Dan T. Carter, _When The War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865- 1867_, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press: 1985), 219-221. Eric Foner, _Reconstruction_, (New York, Harper & Row: 1988), 258-259.

29. Foner, _Reconstruction_, 200-201.

30. Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402, 403 (1859).

31. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 475 (1872).

32. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 479, 480 (1872).

33. State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).

34. State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 436, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).

35. Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941).

36. Assembly Office of Research, _Smoking Gun: The Case For Concealed Weapon Permit Reform_, (Sacramento, State of California: 1986), 5.

37. Edmund S. Morgan, "Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox," in Stanley N. Katz, John M. Murrin, and Douglas Greenberg, ed., _Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development_, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1993), 280.

38. Thomas G. Walker, "Suspect Classifications", _Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States_, (New York, Oxford University Press: 1992), 848.

10/20/2005 02:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

... the Black-to-White per capita murder perpetration rate ratios remain essentially consistent from year to year. In each year, the average Black commits murder about seven times more often than the average White does. Furthermore, the average Black commits interracial murder about twelve times more often than the average White does. Beyond that, the average Black kills Whites about fifteen times as often as the average White kills Blacks.

Although most murders involve killers and victims of the same race, the interracial murders that do occur are heavily weighted toward Black perpetrators and White victims. Furthermore, for violent crimes other than murder, the "mostly same race" phenomenon does not hold. For rape, assault and armed robbery, there is more Black-on-White crime than Black-on-Black crime, according to Frank Borzellieri in The Unspoken Truth (page 125). He says,

Black-on-White murder is 17 times more likely than White-on-Black murder; Black-on-White robbery and rape are both 70 times more likely than the reverse; and Black-on-White gang violence is 83 times more likely. (These numbers are actually worse than they appear because Hispanics are included in the "White" perpetrator totals, thereby exaggerating the White crime rates.) "

10/20/2005 03:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Omigod! SILENCE!!!

While the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) by the U.S. Dept. of Justice corroborates your posted data, we don't want to offend anyone with the TRUTH. This is America's "sacred cow".

Nice people do not discuss the FACTS of interracial violent crime. Make some attempt to be "politically correct", you RACIST!

10/20/2005 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger SCC said...

Crimefile: Next time, post a link to the article please. That is just way to huge for people to page through. Thanks

10/20/2005 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous marquette park white power said...

QUEENS, NY - Issues is a small club in the Ridgewood section, just a few block away from the Fresh Pond Road Subway Station on the M Line. On October 25, there is a planned show there featuring several bands that play NSBM - National Socialist Black Metal. As a call goes out to oppose the show, it is putting a spotlight once again on an area of New York City that has been openly embracing hatemongers for some time now, particularly from the local school board, which is not just conservative, but has an open white supremacist member.

Queens Peace Action is the organization putting out the call to contact the club and demand that the show does not go on. If the show does continue as planned, there will be a demonstration to oppose the show. "These bands recruit membership for white supremacist hate groups like the National Alliance who run a campaign of terror against Jews, blacks, Asians, South Asians, immigrants, queers and anyone else who does not fit what they consider to be an Aryan ideal," the statement reads. "Please call this club to tell them that this will not be tolerated in New York's most diverse borough where tolerance and peace--not hate--should be practiced." Reportedly there has been other shows like this in the neighborhood, possibly at this particular club. It has been suggested that some boneheads that hang out at a bar called Hans Gasthaus on Myrtle Av. are the ones who put them together.

The neighborhood is very Italian, but there is evidence that this is changing as there are Hispanic and Indian-owned establishments on the same street. The youth one sees on the street there are very influenced by hip hop culture, as the music they listen to and the way they dress would suggest. Some people from this neighborhood however, have not embraced these new elements of culture, particularly one Frank Borzellieri. Terming himself an "unapologetic conservative," Borzellieri has spoken at a number of conferences put on by American Renaissance, the white supremacist newsletter published by Jared Taylor. Last year Borzellieri held a press conference in Maspeth to support Taylor's report on crime that promoted the notion that African Americans were responsible for virtually all violent crime. The report was a complete distortion of FBI statistics, only looking at race as a factor in crime and even making a suggestion that the findings came from a genetic inferiority among blacks, something that Taylor routinely promotes. Nevertheless Borzellieri defends the report. Nobody has a problem acknowledging that men are more violent than women, so why don't we recognize the difference between races?" he said at the conference. In addition, he is a columnist for a small local newspaper, produces a public access television show, and has written several articles and books rallying against immigration and bilingual education and frequently lashing out against gay rights and welfare that are well-received among the white supremacist ranks of the Council of Conservative Citizens and American Renaissance conferences, where he often speaks about being a unabashed racist living in New York City.

The thing that makes Borzellieri stand out however is the fact that for the past eight years he has served as a member of Community School Board District 24, making decisions that affect everyone in that district regardless of race. When he ran it was on an "English-Only" platform, and once elected he has tried and failed to have books removed about Martin Luther King, Jr. He is considered one of the more controversial members of the board, although this board has a bit of hatemongering in its history even before Borzellieri joined them. This board, which has banned the use of the word "homosexual" in its schools was the most vocal opponents of the Rainbow Curriculum, a 443-page bibliography that was designed to teach respect for all types of families. In 1992, the board took issues with three paragraphs within those 443 pages that mention books with gay characters and themes. These books were not required to be taught or read in the classroom, but were merely suggestions. NYC Schools Chancellor Joseph Fernandez, who supported the Curriculum, became a target of the board and it's right-wing supporters. Mary Cummins, president of School District 24 in Queens said in a Newsday interview the Rainbow Curriculum "says teachers must tell children that all families are not heterosexual. We can't do that in the first grade." In the end, the Curriculum was amended to remove the two suggested books, and Fernandez was later ousted after a bitter campaign from District 24. Not long after, Borzellieri joined their ranks. It is unclear if the show at Issues will go on, but the activity opposing it suggests that residents are recognizing that things might have gone too far in their neighborhood.

Call from Queens Peace Action

On Friday, October 25th, several neo-nazi heavy metal bands are scheduled to play at a club called Issues in Ridgewood, Queens. These bands recruit membership for white supremacist hate groups like the National Alliance who run a campaign of terror against Jews, blacks, Asians, South Asians, immigrants, queers and anyone else who does not fit what they consider to be an Aryan ideal. Please call this club to tell them that this will not be tolerated in New York's most diverse borough where tolerance and peace--not hate--should be practiced. Call 718-497-3434, ask for Paula (the manager) or ask to speak for the owner. If Issues allows these bands to play, the community will organize a demonstration in front of the club. Information copied below is from a neo-nazi online bulletin board, advertising the show. "NSBM" stands for National Socialist Black Metal. "1488" is a coded neo-fascist greeting equivalent to "Heil Hitler." Shut them down!

( This numeral represents the phrase "14 words," the number of words in an expression that has become the battle cry and rallying slogan for the white supremacist movement: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." This expression was coined by the now imprisoned David Lane, a long-time racist and member of The Order, a far-right revolutionary group based in the Northwest, that was responsible for a number of bank robberies, the bombing of a synagogue and the murder of Denver radio talk-show host Alan Berg in the 1980s. ) ( The eighth letter of the alphabet is "H." Eight two times signifies "HH, " shorthand for the Nazi greeting, "Heil Hitler." 88 is often found on hate group flyers, in both the greetings and closing comments of letters written by neo-Nazis, and in e-mail addresses. )

10/21/2005 12:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really easy to figure this gun shit out. If Mayor Daley is against citizens carrying guns, then it must be a good thing for citizens to carry guns. You can use this formula for just about anything. I do.

10/21/2005 12:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if it would be ok in the eyes of NY's "peace and tolerace" police for a White band to make music about hating Whitey?

Cause I hate myself..... lousey, good for nothing white people!

10/21/2005 02:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you please post links when you're railing on like you've been up for two days smokin' dat cain.

10/21/2005 06:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 2nd ammendment says US citizens have a right to keep and bare arms. We have laws against criminals carring guns. Why don't we put them in jail. Check armed robbery law with carring a gun. 6 yrs. and above for the robbery and 15 yrs at least additional for using a gun.

For the wackos who want the 2nd ammendment to go away, consider this, if it is that easy to eliminate the 2nd then how abour the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th etc.
That would sure get your pinko panties in a twist, wouldn't it?

10/22/2005 04:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get rid of the 4th and we can get rid of the illegal guns!

10/22/2005 11:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Start by searching the copper's houses, cars and garrages. The haul in unregistered firearms from the cops alone would overload ERPS and the crime lab.

10/23/2005 11:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed......
Dr. Doolittle.

10/25/2005 02:04:00 AM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts