Two news headlines caught my eye this week and both involved Chicago's Mayor Daley. It's not bad enough that Chicago is known to be an inherently corrupt government. No. Daley has to prove that he cares more about quashing our civil rights than fixing his city. The first article, from the Los Angeles Times, had this headline:
Chicago Mayor Daley offers to shoot reporter to prove gun ban works
It happened at a news conference to discuss Chicago's gun ban and the Supreme Court's pending ruling on the issue. A reporter from the Chicago Reader asked him if the ban was effective. Here's how the exchange went:
"Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it’s been effective?" asked Mick Dumke.
“Oh!” Daley said. “It’s been very effective!”
He grabbed a rifle, held it up, and looked right at me, Dumke said. He was chuckling but there was no smile.
“If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is!”
“If I put a round up your—ha ha!”
Dumke said the room became "very, very quiet" before reporters realized he was joking.
As bad as this is, what is worse is Daley's comment about the Supreme Court. In referring to the court's likely decision to overturn the Chicago gun ban, Daley commented:
"Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said. "Maybe one of them will have an incident, and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work."
Now, I have to wonder at Daley's sanity, his mental capacity or possibly his hearing. His response to the question did nothing to answer it. In fact, he seemed to be showing that firearms were actually effective (which is the obvious reason to ban them). On top of that, had a city official been the recipient of such a "joke" by a Chicago citizen, Daley's henchemen in blue would charge him with aggrivated assault and confiscate the weapon. Daley, of course, was not charged with anything.
But for the mayor of a major city to say he hopes that one of the Justices (or one of their family members) could be assaulted and injured in a mugging, is just idiotic.
The second headline, from the Chicago Tribune, to catch my attention was simply ironic.
Police officer slain as mayor embarrasses himself and city
Thirty year-old Thomas Wortham IV was a victim of a robbery, shot down outside his boyhood home in the staunchly middle-class Chatham neighborhood, his body dragged 100 feet or so by the getaway car. Thugs tried to steal his motorcycle, a gift to himself upon his return from a second tour of duty in Iraq as a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard.
By all accounts, Wortham was leader, a good soldier, a dedicated police officer who tried to help others reclaim their neighborhoods. He was a man of service, giving his time to serve his city to make it a better place to live said family friends.
Ironically, however, in Mayor Daley's "gun free utopia" where his anti-gun laws are "effective", the criminals had guns and shot Wortham to death. Apparently it never bothered Daley that the death toll in Chicago was higher than the one in Iraq for two years.
Worse yet, Wortham's homicide occurred just as Mayor Daley was giving the above-mentioned press conference and threatening to shoot a reporter. How ironic and tragic is that?
Daley seeks ways to circumvent Supreme Court Decision
This ABCNews video reported on the likely legal changes that Mayor Daley would promote if the Supreme Court overturns the Chicago gun ban. Daley said they'd probably model their statutes along those draconian D.C. measures, plus requiring special liability insurance for gun owners. Why? Daley says it's for the protection of first responders, as if no one else anywhere in the country has had to deal with this alleged problem.
This is on top of Daley's call two weeks ago for an international court to decide an internal U.S. Constitutional matter. You can read about Daley's international ploy here on our website.
The question that I'd like to see answered, by a legal expert, is what prevents someone from charging Mayor Daley with violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution? Or charges of conspiracy to deprive 2.8 million people of the constitutional rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment