The Chicago Tribune noted:

“The investigation by Chicago police officers and FBI agents included the purchase from the suspects of weapons that they themselves had purchased in Wisconsin, Indiana and other Midwestern states, and in Europe and South America.”

ABC 7 News in Chicago added to the facts:

“authorities displayed the majority of the 65 weapons confiscated by investigators, including three AK-47s, a .50-caliber magnum handgun and several sawed-off shotguns.”

Two questions must be asked. First, why isn’t the source of the guns being mentioned? Could it be that the mainstream media doesn’t want to show how easy it is for criminals to get guns from foreign sources? And why isn’t it noted what guns were actually seized? If “authorities displayed the majority” of the guns, why aren’t we getting more facts?
 
The answer to the second question is simple. If the authorities show that these include fully-automatic weapons or guns that are clearly beyond a reasonable doubt from Europe and South America it proves our point that criminals will find a way of importing guns.

Let’s face facts. If criminals can smuggle in cocaine in large quantities what is to stop the criminals from importing illegal firearms? The answer is nothing, but Chicago’s authorities don’t like that fact known. It would make their argument to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens’ hands all the harder if it was known that criminals will find a way to get guns.

Hoffman notes something that most anti-gun groups, and many in the MSM would like you not to know or think about too closely:

“It is a mistake to equate lower gun crime statistics to restrictive firearms laws. The two areas of the country with the highest rates of gun crime are Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Ill. It is no coincidence that these two areas have the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation.”

And yet Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley and others in law enforcement continue to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, as if it will somehow make criminals think twice about picking up a gun.

Kudos to Hoffman for putting the record straight, and we encourage our readers to check out what he has to say. He makes some excellent points on the issue of guns and crime.

Oakland Tribune: My Word: Columnist wrong about effect of anti-gun laws

Is this a fair title? And is it a welcome gun law? Given that Otis McDonald brought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, and now several individuals are suing Chicago over its restrictive gun laws, we must question whether this is actually “welcomed” by anyone? Yount further tries to imply how the state’s line is drawn on the issue:

“Illinois attempts to regulate, or deregulate, guns face the same regional challenges every year. Lawmaker in Chicago want to get tough on guns, but downstaters want to allow people more freedoms.”

Clearly again, given those suing the city of Chicago, as well as Mr. McDonald, this isn’t merely about “downstaters.” Equally clear is that the author has an agenda and does very little to hide his anti-gun bias in a “news” story.

“The new law, signed Monday, will increase penalties for unlawful firearm possession including a one to three year long prison sentence for aggravated use of a gun without a registration card. The bill also includes offenders merely in possession of an illegal gun. Quinn called it a right step to keeping the streets of Illinois safe.”

We have long stressed that law-abiding citizens should have the right to legally own firearms, but what we continually see is that some politicians continually move the bar, making it all the more difficult to in fact “legally” own a gun. FirearmsTruth also questions why this law is only now being introduced?

So we’d like to ask Govenor Quinn how exactly will this keep the streets safe? Why would those who already had illegal guns suddenly give them up?

Clearly there have been many criminals with guns prior to the SCOTUS ruling, but this law just seems aimed at all gun owners. Of course it won’t affect criminals as they likely would own illegal guns anyway.

“Last month, the Supreme Court ruled against the city of Chicago’s longtime ban on handgun ownership. Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate are using this decision to reevaluate the way guns are regulated in cities across the country.”

We do question the words “gun-control debate,” as this implies that everyone believes in some form of “gun-control.” While we do think there are reasonable limits of what someone can own – fully automatic firearms – we really don’t think of this as “control.” We notice that liberals tend to use the word “control” a lot when they don’t like the issue.

Listen to the “debate” at Minnesota Public Radio.

“I filed the lawsuit because I want to sell a legal product and you can’t outlaw a legal product.”

Mr. Franzese is absolutely correct and we wish him well! Good luck, keep up the good fight.

And should we be surprised that few in the mainstream media took note of this fact? Since the recent SCOTUS ruling many in the mainstream  media took aim at the court’s ruling instead, and we noticed that The Richmond Times-Dispatch is one of the few papers to actually offer commentary on the Sotomayor showing her true colors. The paper offered this quote from her:

“I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”

It is interesting that she didn’t offer this opinion when it came to McDonald vs. Chicago. Should we really be surprised?

Yes, this is an issue, just as much as how elderly individuals with dementia and other mental problems shouldn’t be driving or possibly living alone, but this seems to be yet another case where the media can take fire at gun owners. So should we be surprised that The New York Times chose this time, as the gun debate is hotly in the news, to come out with this one sided article?

We say one-sided because one aspect that seems to be missing is a counter point. While the article does address dementia and other issues, it fails to note that some elderly individuals do indeed need guns to protect themselves, such as Mr. Otis McDonald of Chicago. The paper also ignores the fact that many of today’s elderly men fought in World War II and as such certainly know to handle a gun with respect and confidence.

“We want to know who has weapons so that first responders can be award of that information before they enter a home.”

This “first responder” argument has been made before, but we must question whether this is really an issue in an emergency? Is there a more ominous reason as to why the Chicago PD might want to know who has a gun?

“Daley’s obstinacy sets a great example for the citizenry – if you disagree with a court ruling, don’t comply; just exercise your power as a government ‘leader’ and circumvent the decision.”

Well put Bob, well put.