Since the Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s total handgun ban, the criminals at City Hall flouted the court by making it nearly impossible for anyone to legally possess a handgun. Under Chicago’s new, but still unconstitutional, gun laws, Homer was not allowed to possess a handgun. So in exchange for simply defending himself, Chicago’s cops and politicians took away Homer’s gun and sent him back out into the world.
But why would they do something as patently stupid as taking away a man’s only viable line of defense and then send him back into a veritable warzone? To make the city safer? There is no proof that the draconian gun laws of Chicago ever prevented a crime. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that allowing citizens to possess firearms actually prevents crime. Don’t believe me, just ask the FBI. As the number of states that allow concealed carry permits grows, violent crime rates have gone down substantially. As a matter of fact, Illinois, which has a nice little city by the lake with quadruple the murders of New York City and double those of Los Angeles, is the only state left in the Union that does not allow a private citizens to carry concealed under any circumstance.
So why does Rahm (and the DNC in general) maintain the same, flawed rallying cry? All I can figure is that there must be some cluster of neurons in the dyed-in-the-wool Democrat brain that ceases to fire correctly when they fill out a political affiliation declaration form. For an organization that champions so many other rights, it has always struck me as distinctly bizarre the DNC’s overwhelming and utterly irrational hatred of the second amendment. Are they afraid of regular citizens using guns to settle everyday disputes (which is plainly not true), or are they worried that an armed citizenry will be harder for the increasingly powerful (and pushy) centralized federal government to ignore?
