Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the United States. They have a “one gun a month law,” firearm registration and licensing and fees associated with the same, an “assault weapon” ban, a ban on some types of handguns, a lost or stolen ordinance, etc. Basically, a progressive gun-grabbing fool’s dream.
Many of Chicago’s gun bans have been in place for some time. Its gun ban, for example, began in 1982. The federal government has many of its own laws regarding firearm ownership like not being able to purchase a handgun until 21, criminal background checks required for some purchases, and a separate registration process for automatic firearms.
Despite having some of the most strict laws in the country, Chicago remains about as safe as Kabul. Just recently, for a high-profile wedding, up to 200 police officers had to be assigned to the event to keep everyone safe.
Think about that. 200 cops were needed just to keep people safe at one wedding. Odds are, your average Chicago resident doesn’t get that kind of protection when their kids get married.
So, the majority of the population in Chicago is disarmed and helpless to protect themselves, their children, or their families against an onslaught of crime that produces a body count greater than Afghanistan.
Put aside for a minute the Constitutional right of every lawful man and woman to own and use a gun. What of common sense? Do the politicians in Chicago think it is fair to force their people into the unenviable position of “bringing a knife to a gunfight?” Actually, the politicians in Chicago don’t even trust people that far since you can’t even carry a knife in Chicago unless the blade is less than 2.5 inches long.
But, I digress. The point is, gun control laws do not work. Law-abiding citizens disarm to be in conformity with the law while criminals continue to violate the very same law and prey on the lawful.
No matter how “responsible” or “reasonable” a gun control measure may seem, criminals will not follow it and people will die for it. If Chicago isn’t enough to prove the point, look to history.
Why all the talk about Gun Control? Democrats are in favor of gun control, they control the United States Senate, and their view on freedom is a little shaky.
Page 50 of the most recent Democratic Party Platform illustrates my point. Under the heading “Firearms” it says the following:
“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”
Told you that we wouldn’t be able to escape the word “reasonable.” And please, don’t focus on the fact that despite all of its gun restrictions Chicago remains one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
The salient point is that Democrats believe your Constitutional rights are subject to both regulation and geography. Different people have different Constitutional rights, depending on where they live. If you live in Chicago, you have less rights than if you live in Cheyenne.
Like I said, shaky.
Democrats also know that gun control can be political poison. In April of 2012, Pew Research Center did a poll on gun rights. When asked what was more important, gun rights or gun control, 49% thought gun rights were more important than the 45% that though gun control was more important.
No Democrat, outside of a big-city Democrat, is going to push gun control with numbers like that.
Enter the UN Small Arms Treaty.
This month, the United Nations is putting the finishing touch on its Arms Trade Treaty. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will effectively limit gun rights in the United States and subjugate your rights to foreign nationals at the UN.
Both Hillary Clinton and President Obama support the treaty. Do you know how your Senator feels about it?