Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Alderman Brookins on the ruling to carry a gun in public

Our neighboring Alderman of the 21st Ward to the west comments on a ruling today in a federal appellate court that rendered any ban on carrying a gun in public in this state as unconstitutional:
Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, chairman of the City Council black caucus, welcomed the decision, saying allowing Chicagoans to carry concealed weapons would help level the playing field in neighborhoods where law-abiding citizens feel like they need firearms to protect themselves.

"Certain people will have a sense of safety and peace of mind in the ability to do it," Brookins said of conceal-carry. "I know that even people, for example, just trying to see that their loved ones get homes safely are in technical violation of all sorts of weapons violations. If you just walk out to your garage and see that your wife is coming in the house safely, and you happen to have your gun on you, you're in technical violation of our ordinance. So I would hope all these ordinances would be consolidated so there's one set of rules and people would know where the bright line is to what they can and cannot do with respect to carrying a weapon."

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."
If you were to ask me, Brookins is correct. Sadly we will continue to have those who believe in gun control who still fear that our streets will turn into the wild west. He's also correct in stating those who want guns law-abiding citizens or not currently possess guns. Banning guns isn't necessarily an answer, but what do we do about those who are intent on using a handgun to commit a crime?

Via Newsalert!

7 comments:

  1. Charles Butler on WVON had a role in changing Brookins view on guns. While appearing on his show over the last few years, he went from being AGAINST law abiding citizens having guns to MAYBE they should have it to they SHOULD have the right to carry guns.

    All there is now is for Brookins to resist the Mayor and convince the cowardly Black Aldermen and Lakefront Liberal White Aldermen (who have good police protection in their areas) to not fight this.

    HOORAY FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!
    BOO-HOO FOR THE HIPPIES!
    CRIMINALS BEWARE!

    Say what you will about Brookins, in terms of his part in destroying the 6th Ward, but he's correct on the gun issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. what do we do about those who are intent on using a handgun to commit a crime?

    Arrest them for illegally carrying handguns. Not that complicated.

    Speaking as one of those "Lakefront liberals," I don't think the abolition of gun restrictions would turn the South Side into the Wild West (that would imply that there's a deluge of people who wanted to get guns but didn't because of the law who would suddenly rush to get guns. As has been pointed out in this entry and elsewhere, people who desperately want guns would find ways to get them regardless of what the law is). For me personally, the concern comes down to the fact that guns are potentially lethal weapons that can be used by anyone without any sort of specialized training. The more guns are on the street, the greater are the chances that they will be misused. Looking at the crime reports over the past year, one is struck by how many people died not because somebody was aiming at them but because the shooter missed and shot them by accident. This cannot be allowed to continue.

    In the end of the day, the city cannot, on one hand, try to take guns off the streets and, on the other hand, allow people to get their hands on more guns. This is contradictory and, ultimately, counterproductive. So, while I don't believe that hallowing people to carry guns in public without fear of legal penalties would make the situation significantly worse, it wouldn't make it better, either. More people will die then before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are indeed a typical Lakefront Liberal. Vague intellectualism without saying anything. You think that stating both sides of this issue makes you enlightened. Absolutely not. Fortunately, I know what you are actually saying, thanks to your last few sentences. As a typical Lakefront Liberal, YOU DON'T WANT GUNS IN THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Be strong enough to admit it!

      Your fear of law abiding citizens accidentally shooting people in large numbers is incorrect. Where's the mass destruction of accidental shootings in Wisconsin, where Conceal Carry was recently enacted? What about other places in the country? If you were paying attention, our law makers and law enforcement personnel who support Conceal Carry require a mandatory training course. The accidental shootings come from the human pieces of fecal matter who don't obey the law. Wake Up!

      Let me be clear:
      Law-Abiding people MUST protect themselves.
      SELF PRESERVATION IS THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE!

      If you're going to dissect my comments, please take a stand when you're done!
      I doubt it, but you might surprise me.

      Delete
    2. You either deliberately misuunderstood me because you have the partisan blinders on, or you honestly don't get it, so let me try to explain it one more time.

      1. It isn't that I "don't want guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens." It's that I don't want guns in the hands of anyone who is isn't a police officer, National Guard officer or member of the other law-enforcement organization. Because said officers are trained in how to use the weapons and, most importantly, taught not to use them unless absolutely necessary. Civilians, whether they are criminals or perfectly law-abiding citizens, don't have that sort of training and are thus more likely to screw up and get perfectly innocent people hurt. Which brings me to...

      2. I don't think "law abiding citizens" would be "accidentally shooting people in large numbers." I said it in the original post, and I reiterate it again - this is silly, because I honestly don't think that most people were eager to own guns in the first place, and they wouldn't suddenly become eager to buy them once conceal-carry law is lifted. My point is that there will be increases - smaller than some of the more reactionary gun control advocates would fear, but the increases will be there nonetheless. Besides...

      3. If most of murder rates are caused by guns, why would you want to add more guns into the mix? It would be sort of like trying to put out the fire by tossing in more logs. The fire would end quicker, but only because it would burn down the entire forest quicker.

      Delete
    3. You're not against law-abiding citizens having guns, but you don't want guns in the hands of anyone who is not law enforcement. Typical Twisted Liberal Logic!

      So, no amount of training prevents law-abiding citizens from screwing up and shooting innocent people. Can you give proof of this on a national scale?

      Just admit that this is YOUR INTERNAL FEAR. No real facts to prove otherwise.

      I ask again, where do you stand on Conceal Carry? Can you give a direct answer?

      It's obvious that you don't want guns in the hands of law-abiding people, even if they are trained to handle guns. You're hiding behind false intellectualism, but, at your core, you don't want "CERTAIN PEOPLE" to have guns. You surely have not addressed the rise in gun purchases and training courses in your area of town.

      By the way, did you accuse me of having partisan blinders on, concerning this issue? Well, here's my answer...

      ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

      However, when it comes to life and death, I deal in REALITY, not stupid political ideologies.

      I have lived in different parts of this city, from Englewood to the Gold Coast. I have seen the differences in safety and quality of life.

      Lakefront Liberal nonsense disgusts me. Why? In this matter, it's real simple. Lakefront Liberals get IMMEDIATE police assistance, usually in the realm of seconds. Do you think South Siders get that? Absolutely Not! The residents of Chatham (a community considered middle class upscale before Lincoln Park) do not get the same police support. It would be wrong to give "uppity" Chatham residents better police protection over other Black communities, but it's perfectly ok to give preferential police protection to Lakefront Liberals.

      It's easy to be a clueless Lakefront Liberal when your life is fairly safe. For the rest of Black Chicago, it's a war zone of urban terror. Therefore, we need our guns! Law-abiding citizens don't go looking for trouble, yet, criminals are, by nature, cowards against good citizens who fight back. And don't give me that "more guns, more violence" crap. If you have hard facts to prove otherwise, please present them.

      Delete
    4. It's obvious that you don't want guns in the hands of law-abiding people, even if they are trained to handle guns.

      I have said it before, and I'll repeat it as often as it takes. I don't believe civilians, be it law-abiding citizens or people with criminal records, have any business handling guns. George Zimmerman had a fairly clean record, and he tried to defend himself against what he perceived as a threat, and we know how that turned out.

      Lakefront Liberals get IMMEDIATE police assistance, usually in the realm of seconds. Do you think South Siders get that? Absolutely Not! The residents of Chatham (a community considered middle class upscale before Lincoln Park) do not get the same police support. It would be wrong to give "uppity" Chatham residents better police protection over other Black communities, but it's perfectly ok to give preferential police protection to Lakefront Liberals.

      There's systematic racism in the way CPD treats black neighborhoods as opposed to white neighborhoods (regardless of income), this is somehow my fault? Not the fault of the police department that won't treat all neighborhoods with equal urgency? What kind of logic is that?

      For the record, I have personally been to Chatham. And Calumet Heights. And Englewood. And Marquette Park. And Brainerd. and Washington Heights. And South Chicago. The fact that black neighborhoods are treated differently by city service providers that white neighborhoods is obvious to anyone with eyes. Resentment is understandable. And, if it makes you feel better to pick on a random white North Sider than try to address the very broken system, it is your right, but it's not a terribly productive approach.

      As for what I know about safety - I'm from Rogers Park. It's not Englewood, it's not even Uptown, but it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of kids got shot near a local high school. I accept a "Lakefront Liberal" because I am a liberal and I live within walking distance of the lakefront, but not every lakefront North Side neighborhood is the same... any more than every South Side lakefront neighborhood is the same.

      Delete
    5. You finally admit you don't want law-abiding citizens having guns, without all of the intellectual masking you've been doing. That's my core issue with both you and other Liberals. However, as long as you don't try to interfere with my Second Amendment rights, there's no problem.

      Well, almost no problem.

      Did you bring up Zimmerman to get me shaking in my boots? I'm not your average person who subscribes to group think, perpetrated by the Liberal media and Civil Rights FRAUDS. There are far more cases of people using guns correctly in self-defense. I think the US DOJ states around two million a year.

      For everyone reading here, go to jpfo.org or look up Dovid Bendory. He's a Rabbi who supports gun rights (yes, a Rabbi with a gun). His organization is behind the videos, "No Guns For Blacks" and "No Guns For Jews". His site has the most extensive reporting of gun matters, both here and worldwide. But pay attention to an article about why a certain influential ethnic group is so irrationally fearful of guns. It could apply to other groups, as well, like local Blacks who follow a certain White priest.

      Finally, I had no intention of blaming you for inequalities in police protection (this is one of the biggest reasons for Conceal Carry).

      I'm well aware of Rogers Park. There are good and bad neighborhoods in this city, but all are slowly becoming bad. Stay safe.

      Delete

PLEASE READ FIRST!!!! Comment Moderating and Anonymous Comment Policy

While anonymous comments are not prohibited we do encourage you to help readers identify you so that other commenters may respond to you. Either read the moderating policy for how or leave an identifier (which could be a nickname for example) at the end of the comment.

Also note that this blog is NOT associated with any public or political officials including Alderman Roderick T. Sawyer!