How are those gun bans working out? 

Two state representatives called on Gov. Pat Quinn Sunday to deploy the Illinois National Guard to safeguard Chicago's streets.

Chicago Democrats John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford said they want Quinn, Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to allow guardsmen to patrol streets and help quell violence. Weis said he did not support the idea because the military and police operate under different rules.

"Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is," Fritchey said. "Is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate? Without question. We are not talking about rolling tanks down the street or having armed guards on each corner."

What he envisions, Fritchey said, is a "heightened presence on the streets," particularly on the roughly 9 percent of city blocks where most of the city's violent crimes occur.

Weis previously identified those "hot spots" and said he plans to create a 100-person team made up of selected and volunteer police personnel to respond to crime there. If guardsmen were to assist police, they could comprise or contribute to that force, Fritchey said.

So far this year, 113 people have been killed across Chicago, the same number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the same period, Fritchey said.

"As we speak, National Guard members are working side-by-side with our troops to fight a war halfway around the world," Fritchey said. "The unfortunate reality is that we have another war that is just as deadly taking place right in our backyard." While the National Guard has been deployed in other states to prevent violence related to specific events and protests, the Chicago legislators said they are unaware of guardsmen being deployed to assist with general urban unrest.

Weis countered that the only scenario in which the National Guard would be helpful is in the situation of a tornado, earthquake or flood. If the military were brought in to help with city violence, they wouldn't answer to police command -- creating a "major disconnect" in mission and strategy.

Alluding to the 1970 Kent State University incident where the National Guard was called in and protestors and students were shot, Weis said having guardsmen handle crime could be "disastrous." But he said if the Daley suggested it, he would consider the option.

"I'm open to anything that reduces violence. But I have concerns when you mix law enforcement and the military," Weis said.

But Fritchey and Ford said prompt action is needed because summer is right around the corner and with the warm weather comes an increase in violence.

Fritchey and Ford serve two different constituencies, representing the North Side and the West Side respectively. "One half of this city views this as a part of daily life," Fritchey said. "Another part of the city doesn't care because it doesn't affect them." Yet the lawmakers said they are coming together because gun violence should be a priority to all Chicagoans.

"No help is too much help" Ford said. "This is not just about the murders. It's about the crime. It's about people being stabbed, robbed and in the hospital on life support."

Fritchey said he spoke to representatives from Quinn's office about deploying guardsmen and they "seemed open to the idea." The lawmakers had yet to speak to Weis or the mayor's office.

"I don't anticipate the governor implementing it over the objection of the mayor," Fritchey said.

"I hope this doesn't become a territorial issue. I hope this doesn't become an ego issue. This isn't about public relations or politics. This is about reclaiming our communities."

It's like a bad movie... what's the one, where Bruce Willis is a general, and maneuvers things so that his army unit gets called in to keep the peace, then takes over the city. 

Tom, I remember that movie, The Siege.  It also starred Denzel Washington and Annette Benning.  Yeah, it seems like anytime Marshall Law is called in its a disaster.  Just look at Katrina! 

"I'm open to anything that reduces violence. But I have concerns when you mix law enforcement and the military," Weis said.

Apparently not everything....why not trying allowing citizens to defend themselves?

Apparently not everything....why not trying allowing citizens to defend themselves?

It's Chicago, full of corrupt, backwards-thinking politicians.  Just pray none of those crooks ever become president... oh wait. 

Quote from: HiCarry on April 28, 2010, 07:49:26 PM

Apparently not everything....why not trying allowing citizens to defend themselves?

It's Chicago, full of corrupt, backwards-thinking politicians.  Just pray none of those crooks ever become president... oh wait.

If citizens were allowed to defend themselves it might reduce crime, in turn reducing the need for a huge police budget, in turn reducing the number of people sent to jail, reducing the need for lawyers judges and prosecutors and attorneys, in turn reducing taxes, in turn reducing salaries, in turn reducing the standard of living of anyone who depends on criminal activity for a paycheck!

So you see, we need criminals just like they need us!

Quote from: HiCarry on April 28, 2010, 07:49:26 PM

Apparently not everything....why not trying allowing citizens to defend themselves?

It's Chicago, full of corrupt, backwards-thinking politicians.  Just pray none of those crooks ever become president... oh wait. 

You just described Hawaii as well, especially when people just love to claim Obama is from here.  it disgust me when people say how proud they are that Obama lived here.

Quote from: Antithesis on April 28, 2010, 09:33:28 PM

Quote from: HiCarry on April 28, 2010, 07:49:26 PM

Apparently not everything....why not trying allowing citizens to defend themselves?

It's Chicago, full of corrupt, backwards-thinking politicians.  Just pray none of those crooks ever become president... oh wait.

If citizens were allowed to defend themselves it might reduce crime, in turn reducing the need for a huge police budget, in turn reducing the number of people sent to jail, reducing the need for lawyers judges and prosecutors and attorneys, in turn reducing taxes, in turn reducing salaries, in turn reducing the standard of living of anyone who depends on criminal activity for a paycheck!

So you see, we need criminals just like they need us!

hahaha....

It looks like the Washington Times has the right idea!

If Chicago were serious about bringing its violent crime problem under control, it would recognize the constitutional right of residents to use firearms to protect themselves.

The city's troubles are so extreme that a pair of state lawmakers are calling on a fellow Democrat, Gov. Pat Quinn, to deploy the National Guard to help restore calm. The latest figures show that Chicago had racked up 122 homicides for the year, exceeding the 116 killings over the comparable period in 2009, a very bad year. Among the top 10 U.S. cities, Chicago is within shooting distance of advancing from second place to win the dubious distinction of being the U.S. murder capital. It's no coincidence that the Windy City is already the U.S. gun-control capital.

Since 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns and rifles by requiring a convoluted registration process designed to be impossible to complete. Exceptions to the rules enable politicians and their personal friends to own and even carry handguns - but nobody else. This unconstitutional scheme has been a colossal failure. Before the ban took effect, Chicago's murder rate had been falling relative to the nine other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that border Cook County, and the United States as a whole. After the ban, Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these locations. During the first 19 years of the ban, there were just three years when the murder rate was as low as when the ban started.

Such facts are not important to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who continues to insist that more gun-control laws are the "solution" to his crime problem - as if hardened thugs carefully consulted the book of municipal ordinances before embarking on a crime spree. A more rational analysis would conclude that the restrictions apply only to good, law-abiding people looking for a way to defend themselves and their families. When the thugs know victims are defenseless, they pounce.

That means it is up to the Supreme Court to restore to Chicagoans their fundamental right to self-defense. In the pending case of McDonald v. Chicago, a number of residents are asking the high court to apply the reasoning it used to strike down Washington's gun ban. It is worth noting that a year after the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, Washington's murder rate dropped 25 percent - without resorting to using the National Guard.

Encouraging personal ownership of guns is the only proven solution to Chicago's crime problem.