Let's Blow Away Some Southside Chicago Perceptions!

[Chomsky]

Yep, there's getting to be even more brothers with guns on the old Southside - and they're willing to use them. Some would say that's a bad thing, but in this case I'd say it's a damn good thing!

I'm still no fan of open carry where I live (my personal consideration), but with scenes like in this video I'm definitely warming-up to concealed carry. Hell, if I was the videographer I'd buy the man a beer!

What say you?

[BTW - The reference in the video to the "blue coat" refers to street-gang affiliation of being either a 'People' or a 'Folk', I forgot which is which, but they're the two major hierarchical alliances of pretty much all major gangs in the city and always at war with each other]

 

[jet57]

Yep, there's getting to be even more brothers with guns on the old Southside - and they're willing to use them. Some would say that's a bad thing, but in this case I'd say it's a damn good thing!

I'm still no fan of open carry where I live (my personal consideration), but with scenes like in this video I'm definitely warming-up to concealed carry. Hell, if I was the videographer I'd buy the man a beer!

What say you?

[BTW - The reference in the video to the "blue coat" refers to street-gang affiliation of being either a 'People' or a 'Folk', I forgot which is which, but they're the two major hierarchical alliances of pretty much all major gangs in the city and always at war with each other]

Is he still alive?

 

[Chomsky]

Is he still alive?

He looks pretty alive in that video, no?

But you bring-up a good point: If I was faced with having to live in that type of neighborhood, I'd simply leave.

As a matter of fact, I was faced with similar prospects nearly two decades ago in my old neighborhood (of three generations) due to socio-economic deterioration, and I didn't hesitate to pack-up my wife & kids and head to greener pastures in the best suburb I could afford!

No property/business/etc is worth endangering my family, or exposing them to a lower quality of life! Unfortunately, a fact of life in America today is:

If you live in a large American city, your general safety and quality of life will often have a direct positive correlation to the income demographics of the area you live in.

I wish it wasn't this way, but it is.

Urban life is such a double-edged sword, but for some of us with a positive taste of it, it's very hard to let it go; I could never see myself living too far away from a world-class (or near world-class) city.

 

[LaMidRighter]

He looks pretty alive in that video, no?

But you bring-up a good point: If I was faced with having to live in that type of neighborhood, I'd simply leave.

As a matter of fact, I was faced with similar prospects nearly two decades ago in my old neighborhood (of three generations) due to socio-economic deterioration, and I didn't hesitate to pack-up my wife & kids and head to greener pastures in the best suburb I could afford!

No property/business/etc is worth endangering my family, or exposing them to a lower quality of life! Unfortunately, a fact of life in America today is:

If you live in a large American city, your general safety and quality of life will often have a direct positive correlation to the income demographics of the area you live in.

I wish it wasn't this way, but it is.

Urban life is such a double-edged sword, but for some of us with a positive taste of it, it's very hard to let it go; I could never see myself living too far away from a world-class (or near world-class) city.

I don't live in a city nearly the size of Chicago but even then we are fairly large, approaching mid-major status and on the incline. With that said I can't do the country, nothing wrong with it and I think it's a slower pace and more relaxed life but I have grown up with the sound of things constantly moving and even emergency services constantly rolling so I can't even sleep unless I hear an ambulance, fire, or police siren. I totally get where you are coming from on that, it would be a system shock to move to a smaller, less urban area. That said, the people I feel bad for are the ones stuck in bad neighborhoods like the young families just starting out, and the elderly who bought in when the neighborhood was nice and who now are on fixed incomes and have no mobility now that the neighborhood has deteriorated.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I wonder if he speaks that way around children?

 

[cabse5]

I've always thought the best way to 'demilitarize' parts of Chicago is to criminalize ANYONE holding a gun, using a gun, holstering a gun or hiding a gun. Parts of Chicago should be gun-free zones. Gonna be lots of people in jails for 'non-violent' offenses. I don't care. I want areas of Chicago cleaned up for the good of the whole.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've always thought the best way to 'demilitarize' parts of Chicago is to criminalize ANYONE holding a gun, using a gun, holstering a gun or hiding a gun. Parts of Chicago should be gun-free zones. Gonna be lots of people in jails for 'non-violent' offenses. I don't care. I want areas of Chicago cleaned up for the good of the whole.

that was the case-of course along with pissing on the second amendment, you'd have to do the same thing to the fourth, fifth and a few others. Your suggestion has no merit

 

[cabse5]

that was the case-of course along with pissing on the second amendment, you'd have to do the same thing to the fourth, fifth and a few others. Your suggestion has no merit

You are another who thinks, incorrectly, the original intent of the second amendment was to give individual gun rights. It's original intent was to give militias gun rights.

I guess you don't care about the plight of African-Americans in the inner city of Chicago.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are another who thinks, incorrectly, the original intent of the second amendment was to give individual gun rights. It's original intent was to give militias gun rights.

I guess you don't care about the plight of African-Americans in the inner city of Chicago.

1) the purpose of the amendment was not to GIVE any one anything-Read some constitutional scholarship before making such a stupid comment again. I would suggest Akhil Amar's easy to read book, The Law of the Land (it took me 2 hours to read it-I got a copy from him Friday morning)

The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic: Akhil Reed Amar: 9780465065905: Amazon.com: Books

2) Rather the second amendment was intended to GUARANTEE a right the authors of the constitution and bill of rights ASSUMED free men had.


The plight of inner city African americans is not relevant to what the right is and its intellectually dishonest and pathetic to pretend it does

 

[Southern Dad]

I've always thought the best way to 'demilitarize' parts of Chicago is to criminalize ANYONE holding a gun, using a gun, holstering a gun or hiding a gun. Parts of Chicago should be gun-free zones. Gonna be lots of people in jails for 'non-violent' offenses. I don't care. I want areas of Chicago cleaned up for the good of the whole.

Criminals and liberals want victims to be unarmed. Do you really think the outlaws will obey your gun laws? Oh wait, they don't now!

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are another who thinks, incorrectly, the original intent of the second amendment was to give individual gun rights. It's original intent was to give militias gun rights.

I guess you don't care about the plight of African-Americans in the inner city of Chicago.

It is hard to argue that any "right of the people to ..." was really intended to mean "right of the militia to...". Using the plight of a minority of residents in a given city to justify a nationwide reduction of individual freedom is bad enough but to pretend that the 2A was only a militia right ignores reality completely.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I've always thought the best way to 'demilitarize' parts of Chicago is to criminalize ANYONE holding a gun, using a gun, holstering a gun or hiding a gun. Parts of Chicago should be gun-free zones. Gonna be lots of people in jails for 'non-violent' offenses. I don't care. I want areas of Chicago cleaned up for the good of the whole.

But people 30 miles away can have guns?

The only way to clean up Chicago is to change the culture of violence, and have the people who live in those neighborhoods assist the police in getting the bad guys off the streets. The people in those neighborhoods bring it upon themselves by hiding. There is also the 'snitch" stigma that goes along with this particular culture......not just fear.

 

[Southern Dad]

If the man in that video did not have a gun, there's a good chance that he would not have had a coat... nor a watch.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is hard to argue that any "right of the people to ..." was really intended to mean "right of the militia to...". Using the plight of a minority of residents in a given city to justify a nationwide reduction of individual freedom is bad enough but to pretend that the 2A was only a militia right ignores reality completely.

The gun banners and restrictionists basically don't care what the second amendment means or was intended to mean. many of them think that because THEY think the federal government should have a power, that power must exist. Its all intellectual fraud.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The gun banners and restrictionists basically don't care what the second amendment means or was intended to mean. many of them think that because THEY think the federal government should have a power, that power must exist. Its all intellectual fraud.

The federal power to tax income from all sources was (ab?)used to mean based on how that income was later not spent so anything is possible if you have the backing of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires.

 

[TurtleDude]

The federal power to tax income from all sources was (ab?)used to mean based on how that income was later not spent so anything is possible if you have the backing of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires.

The entire constitutional jurisprudential fabric of the USA has become so tainted by lies, dishonest and machiavellian machinations, that most members of the public have no chance of actually getting a straight answer from most law professors, and certainly few, if any, judges or politicians

 

[cabse5]

1) the purpose of the amendment was not to GIVE any one anything-Read some constitutional scholarship before making such a stupid comment again. I would suggest Akhil Amar's easy to read book, The Law of the Land (it took me 2 hours to read it-I got a copy from him Friday morning)

The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic: Akhil Reed Amar: 9780465065905: Amazon.com: Books

2) Rather the second amendment was intended to GUARANTEE a right the authors of the constitution and bill of rights ASSUMED free men had.


The plight of inner city African americans is not relevant to what the right is and its intellectually dishonest and pathetic to pretend it does

Misconception number 2: that there are natural rights to own guns. This natural right might've been prescribed by pre-Constitutional founders, but the mention of guns wasn't found, anywhere, in the original constitution. The second amendment is the only place in The Constitution where guns are mentioned. Before the second amendment could be passed in 1789, the language was changed from the original amendment submitted by James Madison (who wished for universal rights for gun ownership) to language and intent that the second amendment was a guns right for militias.

Since The Constitution is the only document determining our laws, all previous documents and thinking is void. Your disagreement is voided by The Constitution (until SCOTUS misinterpreted it). <Read one of my signature posts.> The Constitution reigns supreme.

I liken the inner city of Chicago to an old west town. Most everyone had/has a gun. Gunfights and killings were/are a common occurrence over, sometimes, activities that didn't/don't warrant gun play and killing. In the old west town, the only way for the sheriff to stop gun violence was to confiscate everyone's guns at the city limits. I'm not saying people shouldn't have the ability to have guns. I'm saying in certain places a gun does more harm than good and should be confiscated.

Why don't you tell me how you would solve the gun violence in the inner city of Chicago?

 

[cabse5]

It is hard to argue that any "right of the people to ..." was really intended to mean "right of the militia to...". Using the plight of a minority of residents in a given city to justify a nationwide reduction of individual freedom is bad enough but to pretend that the 2A was only a militia right ignores reality completely.

First, you shouldn't be a concrete thinker. Read the entire amendment not just the back end of it. Second, read the back story to the passing of the second amendment in 1789.

This is how the 13th-15th amendments are being misinterpreted so badly. Concrete thinking (and wanting to win your legal case). Read the back story to The Constitution, if you have any questions. Or do you just wish to satisfy your ideology and not The Constitution as I suspect?

 

[cabse5]

But people 30 miles away can have guns?

The only way to clean up Chicago is to change the culture of violence, and have the people who live in those neighborhoods assist the police in getting the bad guys off the streets. The people in those neighborhoods bring it upon themselves by hiding. There is also the 'snitch" stigma that goes along with this particular culture......not just fear.

Oh well, in the meantime more people in the inner city of Chicago die. I'm throwing up my hands. Some other tactic has to be implemented. Are you throwing them up as well?

 

[Goshin]

Oh well, in the meantime more people in the inner city of Chicago die. I'm throwing up my hands. Some other tactic has to be implemented. Are you throwing them up as well?

It's already been tried your way, for decades.


Only NOW has it become legally feasible for the law-abiding in Chicago to go armed, just in the last few months. The criminals were already armed.



Isn't equality a good thing? Almost all the oppression and misery inflicted by humans upon humans in the world, is directly attributable to an imbalance of power. Guns in the right hands go a long way towards equalizing that balance of power.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Oh well, in the meantime more people in the inner city of Chicago die. I'm throwing up my hands. Some other tactic has to be implemented. Are you throwing them up as well?

No, I am not throwing up my hands. The people in those neighborhoods bring it upon themselves, and they reap what they sow by allowing it to go on.

 

[cabse5]

It's already been tried your way, for decades.


Only NOW has it become legally feasible for the law-abiding in Chicago to go armed, just in the last few months. The criminals were already armed.



Isn't equality a good thing? Almost all the oppression and misery inflicted by humans upon humans in the world, is directly attributable to an imbalance of power. Guns in the right hands go a long way towards equalizing that balance of power.

Oh, you like more gun violence not less??

 

[TurtleDude]

Misconception number 2: that there are natural rights to own guns. This natural right might've been prescribed by pre-Constitutional founders, but the mention of guns wasn't found, anywhere, in the original constitution. The second amendment is the only place in The Constitution where guns are mentioned. Before the second amendment could be passed in 1789, the language was changed from the original amendment submitted by James Madison (who wished for universal rights for gun ownership) to language and intent that the second amendment was a guns right for militias.

Since The Constitution is the only document determining our laws, all previous documents and thinking is void. Your disagreement is voided by The Constitution (until SCOTUS misinterpreted it). <Read one of my signature posts.> The Constitution reigns supreme.

I liken the inner city of Chicago to an old west town. Most everyone had/has a gun. Gunfights and killings were/are a common occurrence over, sometimes, activities that didn't/don't warrant gun play and killing. In the old west town, the only way for the sheriff to stop gun violence was to confiscate everyone's guns at the city limits. I'm not saying people shouldn't have the ability to have guns. I'm saying in certain places a gun does more harm than good and should be confiscated.

Why don't you tell me how you would solve the gun violence in the inner city of Chicago?

idiocy #45 from your posts=trying to pretend that natural rights "don't exist" when in reality what is important is that the founders used that concept to set forth the scope of the amendment

comparing Chicago to old west cities (which had rather low rates of gun crime) is akin to comparing a Shakespearian Sonnett to a taco bell meal.

try confiscating guns from good people and see what Harm really means.

How would I solve gun violence in Chicago? well the gun laws didn't work so the first thing to do is scrap them

and then start giving 20+ year sentences (20 years seems to be the magic number to pretty much permanently incapacitate most violent criminals-by the time they get out, their physical peak is over) to those who actually commit real crimes; Plus enable honest citizens to KILL violent criminals who attack them

we've already tried your silly methods and they FAILED

 

[TurtleDude]

Criminals and liberals want victims to be unarmed. Do you really think the outlaws will obey your gun laws? Oh wait, they don't now!

gun banners are more about being able to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for trying to DO Something rather than actually solving any gun crime issue

Oh, and if it harasses or burdens honest gun owners-so much the better and indeed, for many banners-that is the main goal anyway

 

[Goshin]

Oh, you like more gun violence not less??

Yes sir. I like honest citizens blowing away gang bangers, instead of the other way around.