In fact, our Founding Fathers had in mind the crimes of today when they instituted our Second Amendment right, so we could defend ourselves from evil-doers. How else can we protect our children and wives from killers, rapists, burglars and, dare I say, even tyrannical government? Yes, even the Founding Fathers knew citizens needed to be protected from the government. Do not forget they staged a coup against the British to form this great nation. If the government ever becomes controlled by a communist party, which I do not believe has occurred yet, we will need our weapons to rise up against our oppressors. This is exactly how the Founding Fathers saw it and it is the way the U.S. Supreme court will see it. How dare you Mayor Daley, how dare you.
Beyond confident, I am certain the Supreme Court will not find Daley’s argument credible.
It is the job of law enforcement officers and the department of corrections to bring the murder rate down in America, as they have been doing right along. Legitimate, non-criminal gun owners should not have to pay the price. Guns are merely tools, like knives, ropes, baseball bats and explosives. Each of these tools can aid a murderer, just ask Chicago Outfit boss Johnny DiFronzo (he loves killing quietly with knives), but in the end a person using the weapon commits the murder.
Removing guns from the equation prevents the law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from evil-doers. In addition, the millions of guns that are already in the hands of criminals will remain in their hands. This is exactly why a ban on guns will only hurt the non-criminal citizens. For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court must affirm what our amazingly intelligent Founding Fathers have allowed us to rely on in self-defense – our Second Amendment right.
Mayor Daley, take a hike.
63 Comments
Thats right, take a hike Daley!!!
Wow. Joseph Fosco has switch tactics down pat!
Good one!
Dear Barney,
Call it what you wish, however, thank you for visiting my latest article.
Daley has destroyed Chicago in ways that will not be noticeable for years to come.
Dear Frannk,
I agree with you.
Dear Joseph,
Do you think that Daley is connected to the Chicago Outfit or the boss John? I read somewhere that his father might have been.
Despite my cheeky comment, I have a serious question.
WIth respect to this: “Without Guns there would be no America today” (attributed to you), what do you mean?
Do you mean: without the Second Amendment America wouldn’t have become what it is today?
Or do you mean: with the Second Amendment more or less still intact, American is allowed and can continue to be what it is today?
Also – what do you consider American to “be” today?
That’s a piece of information that will help put your quote into context. Thank you much.
Joseph great article. Americans i believe are awakening to the wisdom of the founding fathers. To those who dont like guns dont buy one but i and many others will not allow jag politicians to restrict our rights. The first thing the british did pre revulotion was try to take away the colonists guns away – sort of like today with the liberal elite tyranny like daley. Stay frosty america!
There is some stuff in here that I find very off-base, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong.
I would like to ask you if you carry a gun?
You seem like a strong supporter of everything from Saturday Night Specials to bazookas for citizens based on your writing
Dear Barney,
I was referring in general to the numerous benefits of guns when I made the quote. I believe that I was relying on both versions of what you are inquiring about. I have many thoughts on the issue. I firmly believe that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with handguns, especially in their family home. If Chicago wants to place a litany of regulations on gun ownership, i.e., keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, etcetera – that is fine with me.
I consider America to be a free nation.
Dear Fat As* (lol),
I do not even own a gun. However, do not let that influence you to conclude that I am not truly in favor of gun rights for citizens.
I find it interesting that people assume that gun rights activists own massive collections of weaponry. I am proof that that is not the case.
Read book More guns = less crime. Also in 2008 the supreme court ruled on heller. Result has been 25% less murders in wash dc in 09.
Dear Ted,
Thank you for the information, but I have read it already. I recommend it to others to read as well.
Gee, I wonder what Daley is trying to accomplish with this one? I’m sure he isn’t trying to save mankind! Just another one of Daley’s schemes to try and tax the f**k out of people.
Great article Joe, keep up the good work.
i saw that ktf now allows literary submissions, so here’s my own failed attempt at a limerick
barney buck (4:39PM)
has a big fat butt
and a big fat duck
as a pet
joe, please start allowing the words ‘shit’ and ‘bastard’ so i can rally tear into barney.
Why dont you talk about the gun store in elmwood park that difronzo has a piece of??
Dear John,
DiFronzo owns the building that Lonny’s gun store is located in (the name of the store is not Lonny’s – Lonny is the person I remember that owned the store – he may still own it).
He may have transferred the ownership of the building when the media ran the story about 12-years ago.
Rudy used to lie and tell people he owned the building. lol. What a creep.
Law abiding citizens with guns can control and prevent some crime, but only up to a point. For years Louisiana has allowed almost anyone with a pulse to legally have home guns and carried guns but it continues to have a high violent crime rate. The same can be said of Memphis, Miami, St. Louis and many other cities and states.
Crime rates might be higher in those places without legal home guns and guns legally carried by ordinary citizens, but less restrictive gun laws do not keep crime rates as low as many people say they do. The United States has the world’s largest violent prison population, larger than China’s and China has more than a billion people to our three hundred million. Our violent prisoners are in prison for crimes that were not prevented, in a country with more than two hundred million law abiding, citizen owned guns, where for years almost every state has allowed home guns and carried guns that are supposed to intimidate criminals enough to keep violent crime within tolerable limits.
Many of our crazy shooters open fire in areas where they know that home guns and carried guns are allowed. The shooters know they may encounter armed opponents wherever they decide to attack but it does not prevent their homicidal behaviour, although some of them are cautious enough to use bullet proof vests and body armor.
Allowing greater numbers of ordinary citizens in Chicago to carry guns will help but do not expect it to keep crime rates low.
Dear Will,
I am not sure how allowing citizens the use of handguns will change the crime rate. What I am sure about – allowing citizens the use of handguns, a parent will have the opportunity to defend their 8-year old daughter when a 40-year old career criminal is holding her a knife point in her bedroom and about to rape her. Citizens having an opportunity of using a gun in a situation like the one I described are far more fortunate than people that are limited to calling 9-1-1.
Citizens should not be robbed of their right to self defend and defend their loved ones from dangerous criminals, no matter what the level of the crime rate is.
I a rewriting the last sentence in my comment above:
Citizens should not be robbed of their right to self defend and defend their loved ones from dangerous criminals, REGARDLESS of how high the crime rate is.
I am rewriting the last sentence in my comment above:
Citizens should not be robbed of their right to self defend and defend their loved ones from dangerous criminals, ESPECIALLY if the crime rate is extremely high.
Will love how you are so willing to take communist china at thier word on crime stats. I bet if china stated “really our citizens like being limited to only one child and dont mind forced abortions” you would entertain the idea for america. Studies have shown where there are no gun bans and even concealed carry there is less crime. Take your liberal talking points and move to canada. Nice spelling of behaviour quite a poker tell. God bless you will you are a misguided soul.
Joes right again as citizens it is our god given right to choose whether or not to own a gun and not the government deciding.
Ted, I agree with you.
If crime rates are on the rise, the government should not stand in the way of citizens preparing themselves by purchasing guns to protect their family.
As I said before, a parent should have the right to defend their 8-year old child, if the child is held at knife point in her bedroom by a career criminal that is about to rape her. Calling 9-1-1 would not be a viable option in a split second situation. Anyone that disagrees with the scenario above is a piece of shit. Keep in mind; I almost never use vulgarity on this site.
I am rewriting the last sentence of my last comment:
Anyone that disagrees with the scenario above must be a CHILD RAPIST. Keep in mind; I almost never use vulgarity on this site.
Ditto. In addition states like az and tx which are concealed carry (az with 1.5% of population choosing to carry) do have less crime and cannot recall any mass shootings there. Guns in responsible and capable hands deter crime.
Ted, again, I agree with you. However, my argument is this:
No matter what the level of crime is in our society, no matter if citizens with guns deter crime or not, citizens should have the right to ‘shoot’ a criminal that holds their 8-year old daughter at knife point in her bedroom as he is about to be raped.
Again, only a child rapist can disagree with me, or someone that loves child rapists.
Wonder if the canadian (will) agrees or disagrees? What of the horrific triple murder/home invasion in darien? Would a gun owning homeowner be alive today esposing the importance of gun rights? I realize there is no ban in darien. The point we as citizens should never yield our rights as when we do those rights liberties are never if rarely regained.
Ted,
Mobster Rudy Fratto lives in Darien, I wonder if he is a suspect?
No some 23 yr old with dark 94 bmw coupe believed to be heading to ft meyers or miami. Had to be in vicinity of neighborhood?
Okay, I will clear Rudy of this one.
Joe,
Remove your cruel attempt at a joke about the triple homicide in Darien.
You’re an asshole.
I was not joking. I will not remove it. Fratto is a gangster/killer that lives near the crime. If it were a sex crime, police would be looking at area sex offenders.
On the news tonight, Daley said “if guns are okay, why can’t I bring a gun in to the Supreme Court?”
Mayor Daley, if you ever do without armed security and find a prowler in your home one night holding a knife to your lovely wife’s throat who is about to rape her, would you be happy to be holding a handgun?
Ted, Arizona is the 16th most criminally dangerous state in the United States and Texas is in 15th place, out of a total of 50 states, which does not exactly make them with their law abiding gun owners and gun carriers extremely safe places to live.
Ted said he recalls no mass shootings in Texas or Arizona, but there was a mass shooting in Arizona in 2009 in the Mesa area. There was an attempted mass shooting in Austin, Texas in January 2010 but the gunman was captured by police before he hit anyone. Some people were killed and wounded in a mass shooting outside a Texas church in 2005. You may not wish to include the recent Fort Hood massacre because most of the people on the base are not allowed to carry guns but the base had armed security.
No one has to take communist China’s word concerning the number of violent criminals they have in jail. We have spies for that.
The recent Darien, IL victims might have been more likely to survive if it had been a gun owning household.
None of my posts have opposed legal guns owned by responsible persons.
My thanks to Joe Fosco for your refreshingly polite replies to persons with different points of view, without resorting to juvenille name calling. Others need to learn from your good example. You always try to give everyone a fair hearing.
What defines a mass shooting anyway lets use time? There were several hundred murders in Chicago last year – more than New York City (NY city has three times the population of Chicago)
Wow Chicago’s gun ban sure is effective if by effective you mean having a city more dangerous than a city three times as large as it.
But on the other hand Chicago doesn’t have NBA stars shooting themselves in the groin at night clubs – Yeah Daleys right this gun ban IS working!
Will Arizona and Texas are 15th and 16th due to mass illegal immigration and their criminal activity which is caused by US’s inability or lack of fortitude to effectively curtail it not because of law abiding citizens whether armed or not.
Whether there are guns or not there will be crime nonetheless states with no gun bans, concealed and or open carry have experienced lower violent crime rates. Joe referenced the book More Guns Less Crime. Give it a read.
Also crime stats from the Brady campaign to ban guns are not what I would describe accurate. (If you happen upon them)
Dont know how China came up but surely our CIA is more concerned with espionage etc rather than whether the Chinese are keeping accurate crime stats.
By the way Mao when he took over many years ago and through the years murdered over 70 million people. I am sure the Chinese will kop to that stat. How do we know – 70 freggin people disappeared over 20 years.
Last sentence – 70 million freaking people disappeared.
Didn’t the White House have a ‘Mao’ ornament on their Christmas tree this year? Creepy!
Will im sorry if i offended your delicate sensibilities. Where did you get your info on az and tx? I dont recall any national news coverage of any of your mass shootings and am certain virginia tech massacre would not have been as tragic if gun carry were allowed on campus (virginia allows gun carry the vt campus did not) Congrats there are 50 states! Im not going to engage in a your stats or info vs mine as i believe some of your comments ie china indicate youre niave and need education or guidance. Gun control, abortion are the lib medias favorite topics for misinformation so i would suggest you carefully vet or validate what you think you have learned. Good day from a god fearing gun owning american.
Joe ,
Different question unrelated when is Rudy go to jail ? Also any comment on the poker machine king ?
Dear Tom,
On January 27, 2010, Rudy was granted 90-days to turn in. However, his lawyer hinted he would be filing a motion seeking additional 90-days, total of 180-days. I do not know if the motion was filed, or if it will be granted.
Still looking in to the poker machine king.
Joe–you realize that theoretically, there is a far greater chance of your gun being stolen (later used in criminal action) or being involved in an accidental shooting (usually be children) than of you ever having to actually shoot someone. Why shouldn’t I be able to buy grenades, flame throwers or install roadside bombs on my driveway?
I’m sure given your Outfit-ties, you are a little more on edge than most. However the vast vast majority…99.99999% of gun-owners will never, ever, use their gun in violence.
Where does do criminals get their guns? From legal gun owners…take away supply, demand fizzles out. Guns are not imported from Mexico…they are imported TO Mexico…You gun owners defy facts and logic and thats why are the laughing-stock of the vast majority of this “unparanoid” nation.
Joe–as a regular American, how much of a possibility do they have of actually getting attacked by a criminal and using a gun?
Is it worth the risk of holding a deadly weapon? Is it worth allowing an open legal market for guns that allows criminals to steal and buy them at will?
No.
Dear Logic,
I do not disagree with you. However, for those who want the opportunity to defend their family with a gun should be able to do so. The people that think like you, have the right to not buy a gun. Thank you for your participation.
Joe–you seem to not understand something: Allowing those who “want” to own guns to do so, simply increases the danger and also keeps the flow of guns to criminals going.
As a society and Americans, those who simply “want” to own guns will simply just have to be told “no” for the better of the majority. Do you agree? Why or why not?
“Right to Bear Arms” was written when there was an american fronteir, frequent indian raids, threat of British troops invading again and when hunting for food was for survival. There is Jewel and the Police now…give it up guys…times change…”adapt.”
“As a society and Americans, those who simply “want” to own guns will simply just have to be told “no” for the better of the majority.”
Thanks for lollipopping this can of worms at us.
Are you being serious?
Well I’m sure there are certain people who wish they could own flamethrowers, grenades, and mustard gas. They are told “No” becuase obviously that’s insanely dangerous to the general population.
So let’s include guns in there while we are at it…just use bats and clubs for protection and keep guns for police and soldiers. Increase penalties of gun ownership so severely that most criminals wouldn’t take a chance.
The ATF has shown that vast majority of guns confiscated from criminals were legally bought in US. Where else would they get them then?
Well, why not just ‘include’ those plastic sword-shaped cocktail picks while we’re at it, too? You could put a person’s eyes out with one of those.
Yes, plastic sword-shaped cocktail picks have the potential to be insanely dangerous to the general population, as well.
People, again, its the killers that are the problem, not their choice of weapon.
A child likely won’t kill themselves playing with a plastic cocktail pick idiot. The killers are the problem…but their task of killing would be made much harder without a gun.
Only guns have the ability to kill unwanted targets…no other weapon allows for “stray shots” or “accidental shootings.” How deadly would DiFronzo and his band of thugs be with swords and bats? I doubt Outfit killings would be done so efficiently.
Joe I see you enjoy avoiding logic.
Dear Logic,
A friend of mine is a gang-crimes detective in Chicago. He told me that more gang killings in Chicago are committed by gasoline and fire than by guns. If his facts are incorrect, the numbers of arson related murders are very high, regardless. Any suggestions how to stop arson related deaths? Arson kills many innocent people every day (like “stray shots”). In fact, in Illinois (perhaps everywhere), there is no statute of limitations on arson – why? Because it is a serious problem, obviously.
If your kind of thinking prevails in the Supreme Court on guns (I believe it will not), whats next? Making gasoline illegal? How about fire? lol
Should we ask the Boy Scouts of America if fire should be illegal because arson kills innocent people?
Are my points silly? Yes, just as silly as the idea of preventing citizens from protecting themselves with weapons of their choice.
If guns are the popular mode to commit murder, and the Supreme Court decides to take are guns away, the new popular mode to commit murder shifts – does not end. There is no end to murder. Murder is as much a part of our society as filtering water. Accept it or not. When you accept this reality, you will probably want to buy a gun to protect yourself.
I am sorry about the typo are/our.
Joe don’t be an idiot…your “friend” saying that gangs use arson to murder those on their bad side over guns is about as idiotic as you can get.
Want to know why arson can’t be compared with guns? Becuase in 2008, there were a mere 315 arson-related murders in the US. Now take a guess on how many murders guns caused…hmm…ready to concede that was dumb?
Fact is your entire blame lies with the “killer” vs. the “weapon” logic is flawed because you fail to acknowledge what would happen if the ease and accessibility to a weapon where death is made so easy were to be taken away? Guns dwarf any other weapon used in homicide…any other method used in suicide…why? Because its quick, easy and efficient. Guns are designed to kill.
Gasoline is not. Plastic cocktail swords are not. I think its quite obvious for even the most irrational of any of us to assume that with guns taken away, yes murder would continue, but the rate of muders…frequency of muders…would all fall instantly because you take away the “efficiency” of murders and make it much more difficult to kill from a distance as you can with a gun.
Actually, if you want to get technical, your logic is fundamentally flawed. Your making an inductive claim, and inductive claims can never actually be proven true.
“There are many firearms and murders in our society. By reducing the amount of firearms, we will reduce the amount of murders” is not a sound or valid argument. It is not necessarily true.
That is logic, Mr. Logic.
I guess we’ll wait for the Supreme Court to show us who the idiots are.
Dear Viewers,
Sometimes your posts are delayed in appearing on the thread because the system gets confused and slows down (this does not occur very often). I am sorry if the delay has caused you any complications. Your post will be up soon. Thank you.
Furthermore, the delays do not always effect everyone – its kind of strange, sorry.
Logic, in addition to the 11:23 AM remark, I would like to add are very bad at picking fights.
How so?
Gun owners have created this conservative culture of “take away guns, take away liberty.” The NRA and their lobbyists have done well. Money is pouring in and you idiots have clammored to this idea and identify yourself now not as an ordinary citizen walking around with something designed only to kill other human beings, but as a member of a culture. The NRA is successful…any organization that can create a logic-defying culture geared towards its business interests and bottom line is exceptional indeed.
I hope that logic overcomes in the end. The actual chances of you using that gun to defend yourself from a criminal are about the same that a meteor falls on your house. Yet I don’t see anyone reinforcing their roof.
Let the police carry the guns…they are the professionals and they do just fine.
Sure innocent people are attacked by criminals on a daily basis…people also die in cars in a daily basis…chalk it up to “life.” In no way is that a justification to walk around with a concealed instrument of death.
Your handle is “Logic”, but yet you seem to be unaware of the fact that logic is a very specific thing. Your logic–as it is being laboriously demonstrated–is bad. As it is being presented, you do not have a winning argument. The irony is almost too much to bear. No offense, but I would adopt a different attack strategy.
Typical conservative…all you can do is “attack” yet never actually refute specific arguments or offer alternatives.
Guess that’s why you are America’s entertainment.
dear logic,
maybe no one is refuting your argument because the “logic” you are intending to convey doesn’t work the way you want it to.
that is, no one is refuting your argument because it is self-refuting.
does that make sense?