Chicago Gun Laws Can't Protect Chicago Police

[red states rule]

A police office is murdered by a armed punk

I guess the punk didn't get the memo on guns not being legal outside his home.

Or could it be punks like this do not give a damn what laws liberals pass - they will still have their guns and murder anyone who gets in their way





Chicago police officer killed in gun battle with suspect


CNN) -- A Chicago police officer was shot and killed Wednesday afternoon during a struggle with a suspect in a police facility parking lot, police said.

Officer Thor Soderberg was walking to his vehicle in the parking lot at 61st and Racine on the city's South Side, after completing a shift with the department's Operation Protect Youth program, when he encountered the offender, said James Jackson, assistant superintendent of police operations.

"The 24-year-old suspect disarmed the officer and then shot him," Jackson said at a news conference Wednesday night.

The department believes the suspect was involved in an armed robbery a short distance away from the shooting, where he fired additional shots, said Jackson.

"Several officers quickly responded and there was an exchange of gun fire with the offender. The suspect was shot. His injuries are non-life threatening," said Jackson.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/07/illinois.police.officer.killed/index.html

[Binky]

A police office is murdered by a armed punk

I guess the punk didn't get the memo on guns not being legal outside his home.

Or could it be punks like this do not give a damn what laws liberals pass - they will still have their guns and murder anyone who gets in their way


I believe that's the answer Red. The anti gun laws will only hurt law abiding citizens. The criminals won't feel a thing.

And if by chance the powers that be steal our right to bear arms out from under us, it is only because they want to control the people. Disarm and control....That's what the whole thing is about. They couldn't give one ounce of crapola about safety. That's nothing but bullpucky....They think we're all stupid enough to believe every line of crapola they fling at us....

Maybe they should think again......

[Gaffer]

The same criminals that had guns when the old law was in effect still have those guns. Nothing has changed for the criminals. The same people that were unarmed under the old law will remain unarmed with the new law.

[red states rule]

I believe that's the answer Red. The anti gun laws will only hurt law abiding citizens. The criminals won't feel a thing.

And if by chance the powers that be steal our right to bear arms out from under us, it is only because they want to control the people. Disarm and control....That's what the whole thing is about. They couldn't give one ounce of crapola about safety. That's nothing but bullpucky....They think we're all stupid enough to believe every line of crapola they fling at us....

Maybe they should think again......

http://www.americanpatriotsprevail.com/images/h.r.45.jpg

[red states rule]

The same criminals that had guns when the old law was in effect still have those guns. Nothing has changed for the criminals. The same people that were unarmed under the old law will remain unarmed with the new law.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/burglarize-house.gif

[Sweetchuck]

I dare someone to argue how gun laws impact criminals as much as they impact law abiding citizens.

I dare.

[red states rule]

I dare someone to argue how gun laws impact criminals as much as they impact law abiding citizens.

I dare.

That is not the goal of liberals when they demand more gun laws. They lnow moree gun laws impact only law abiding citizens. They know that no criminal is going to fill out the paperwork and wait three days before they buy a gun

No, the liberals will keep passing more laws, the criminals wil keep ignoring the laws - then one day libs act al fustrated and cry "We have tried everything possible. The only thing left is to ban all guns from everyone except law enforement personel"

Liberals know exactly what they are doing

[DragonStryk72]

I dare someone to argue how gun laws impact criminals as much as they impact law abiding citizens.

I dare.

I'll take it. See, it really does impact them just as much as their law abiding counterparts. I mean, right now in Texas, criminals have to worry that the florist is packing heat, let alone the people who actually look like they would own a gun. Do you know much risk vs. reward changes when people aren't armed? First, you no longer have to worry that people are armed, so you don't need to worry over get shot in the ass as you walk away, and then of course, you won't need to worry about having to run away from the crime nearly as fast, since they can't really do anything about you. I mean, you could knock over 9-10 people in a night if you were motivated enough. Profit margins for criminals are way up, and that is going to have a tremendous impact on their way of life.

[red states rule]

Of course, the liberal media keeps pushing for more gun laws - ignoring how they will only help criminals commit crimes





The Hard Work of Gun Control


Thirteen days ago, the Supreme Court undermined Chicago’s ban on handguns by applying the Second Amendment to the states, ruling that people have a right to protect their homes with a gun. Four days after that, Chicago passed another handgun restriction that edged right up to the line drawn by the court. And on Tuesday, a group of gun dealers and enthusiasts sued the city again to overturn the new law.

Bullets are flying on city streets, but the vital work of limiting gun use has become a cat-and-mouse game. Beleaguered citizens deserve better from both sides.

We strongly disagreed with the reasoning that led the court to find an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, ending handgun bans in Washington, D.C., in 2008 and everywhere else last month. Nonetheless, the law of the land is now that people have a constitutional right to a gun in their home for self-defense.

That right can be limited, the court explicitly said, with reasonable restrictions. But it provided very little guidance as to what is reasonable, leaving lawyers, lawmakers and judges to thrash it out in a bog of lawsuits that could take many years to clear.

Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns, but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago ordinance. Lawmakers there sensibly limited residents to one operable handgun per home, with a strict registration and permitting process. But residents are not allowed to buy a gun in the city. They must receive firearms training, but ranges are illegal in the city. Chicago lawmakers sloughed off on the suburbs the responsibility to regulate sales and training. As a result, more people will travel more miles to transport guns.

The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller. The District of Columbia passed a largely similar ordinance last year after its law was struck down by the court. But it permits sales at the few gun shops in the district, and a federal judge upheld that ordinance after it was challenged. It could stand as a model for other cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion