Ah simple truths, wisdom, we need to use them more
Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his cohorts should be as interested in fighting crime as they are in trampling human right. Bearing Arms has the story
When you talk about cities that aren’t friendly to guns, Chicago is going to be one of the first few names you mention. While they no longer outright ban private ownership of firearms within the city, it’s only because the Supreme Court of the United States told them they couldn’t.
Meanwhile, guns are still not particularly plentiful in the hands of the law-abiding in the Windy City. As a result, the city is a veritable war zone with more people being killed each year than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
That doesn’t stop the city of Chicago from trying to pressure banks to cut ties with the firearm industry. Unfortunately for them, however, it isn’t working.
Few places know the toll of gun violence as well as Chicago. But even the city that saw more than 2,700 shootings last year is finding out that using economic muscle to push Wall Street into enforcing gun control is easier said than done.On Monday, the Chicago City Council’s finance committee put on hold an ordinance that would have barred the city from working with banks whose clients failed to adhere to certain policies, such as not selling firearms to anyone under 21 or dealing in high-capacity magazines. Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced the proposal three weeks ago in the wake of the school shooting in Florida, saying “when it comes to fighting for stronger, smarter gun laws Chicago is putting our money where our mouth is.”The plan stalled in the face of opposition from the entities it seeks to police. The Illinois Bankers Association called the measure “overly broad.”If enacted, a financial institution couldn’t win or renew city contracts unless it “adopted a safe gun sales policy applicable to its retailer clients, partners or customers.” The result was a proposal that could have hampered Chicago’s ability to deposit or borrow money — especially given that the city already has a junk rating from Moody’s Investors Service, making it more difficult to float bonds.
“We were concerned that we wouldn’t be able to identify banks we could do business with,’’ Chief Financial Officer Carole Brown, a part of Emanuel’s administration, told reporters at City Hall, citing the “very broad’’ nature of the ordinance. “In the current form, it definitely impacted our ability to access the capital markets. It also affected our ability to have a relationship with our municipal depositories.’’
It is easy to see how anti-liberty the leftists goons running Chicago are. Rather than targeting gang bangers and criminals, they prefer to attempt to intimidate financial institutions into infringing on second amendment rights. This is one of the new tactics of the Cult of Gun Control. Making it harder and harder for Americans to exercise the right to self-defense. Tom Knighton notes the inconsistency of leftist doctrine
I’m more than a little troubled by this tactic being employed. However, it’s funny how a baker who doesn’t want to make a cake for a wedding he feels goes against his religion should be forced to do business anyway, but an industry that provides tools necessary to fulfill a civil right is a different matter entirely.
Hypocrisy is the hallmark of so many of our opponents it’s not even funny.
But I must enshrine Katie Pavlich. Lord how she agitates the Left. Beautiful, smart, wise, and one of the best defenders of self-defense out there. Here is the Tweet heard round the world!
DAMN!!!!! Rock on Katie! I wonder if she has a single sister?
Leftists love to point to Australia as an example of how they would like to see gun control implemented here. Give what Bearing Arms found, I see why America’s Cult of Gun Control would approve
When talking about our own current gun debate, I’ve maintained that the real problem with so-called “assault rifles” is that they look scary. It’s the reason they don’t hold up a Mini-14, for example, as a terrifying piece of military hardware despite it chambering the same round as the AR-15. It’s also why someone like Shannon Watts would hold up a bolt-action .22 as an example of a weapon we shouldn’t let 18-year-olds buy.
Well, we have another data point to consider. This time, it’s from Australia, that country anti-gun activists look to for guidance and hold up as a shining example of how guns should be handled.
It seems that despite letting a handful of guns into the country, authorities are now demanding owners turn them in. Why? Because they look like AR-15s.
See it works this way. When you give gun control zealots an inch, well, you know the rest.
Reprobates! Asshat Manny Gomez is a former FBI agent, he knows he is lying here. Want to guess his true agenda? I think we know. Of course he is targeting uninformed Americans with this propaganda. He figures he can scare enough people with his lies to bring the changes his Statist heart desires.
Former FBI agent Manny Gomez claimed on MSNBC on Monday that hunters use suppressors so that deer cannot hear the gunshots.
“Sportsmen, hunters would make an argument that they need that so that their target, whether it’s a deer, etc. don’t hear the shot,” Gomez claimed, “but numerous other sportsmen have shot from muskets–when the founding fathers started the Second Amendment–up until now successfully killed game animals without the use of a silencer.”
Good freaking grief! Bullets travel faster than the speed of sound. A deer, or any game animal will hear the shot that kills them after they are hit. But his lies do not stop there. There is no such thing, say it with me, no such thing as a silencer. These devices suppress, and do not come close to totally muting the sound of a gunshot. Again, this clown knows this, yet he chooses to deceive. But he does not stop there
the former FBI agent claimed that crime will increase if suppressors are made more widely available.
“It gets us more assassinations and a higher crime rate,” Gomez said of efforts to loosen regulations on suppressors. “Silencers were made for one purpose and one purpose alone–that’s nefariously kill people with little evidence and little to no sound.”
I could say he is stricken with Nuclear Grade Stupidity Syndrome, but, again he knows what he is saying is wrong. So why do gun owners want
silencers suppressors? It is very simple. People going to a gun range use eye and ear protection to protect their eyes from flying shell casings, and ears from the sound, which is very loud, and will destroy your hearing. But what if you carry a firearm? What if you are forced to use your firearm for self-defense? You will likely not be wearing your hearing protection, so a suppressor would silence decrease the decibels from the gunshot(s) and could very well save your hearing.
I corrected someone at work on the statements about “silencers” that village idiot Hillary Clinton made today. They had no idea what a “silencer” really was. Now they do. It is important that we never allow such baseless lies to pass without being corrected.