With more fallout from the Supreme Court's latest 2nd Amendment ruling, the Chicago Sun-Times has published an op ed wagging a finger at the Supremes saying that the Heller decision will be a "tax on Chicago citizens," and that it is a tax to be "paid in blood and money." The Times scolds the Court with all sorts of dire warnings and worries that blood will flow in the city but, as with D.C., the violence in Chicago with its extreme gun ban often causes the city to top the lists of the most violent cities in America. So, why the Sun-Times imagines the current 25-year-old gun ban is worth keeping is anyone's guess.
The Sun-Times, though, is filled with woe at the Heller decision and offers the downright stupid solution of more gun banning despite the singular fact that their "solution" has miserably failed in every city it has been tried -- including the very one they claim to care about. Not to mention that the Times seems to have no clue about the Constitution nor any respect for the citizenry of that same city.
Thursday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision gutting a Washington, D.C., handgun ban can best be viewed, from Chicago's perspective, as a tax on Chicago citizens... A tax to be paid in blood and money.
Oh, the gnashing of teeth.
Because of the court's ruling, Chicago residents, in the not too distant future, likely will be able to buy handguns and keep them in their homes for the first time in more than 25 years... That new freedom will come at a high cost for our citizens.
First of all Sun-Times, the Second Amendment is not a "new freedom." It is well over a 200 year-old "freedom." No, not even a freedom but a right bestowed upon us by God and not in your power to remove.
The Sun-Times' idea of how the ruling will "cost" the city is laughable, as well.
Today, Chicago effectively bans its residents from privately possessing handguns -- a law in effect since the early 1980s -- and that's not going to change anytime soon... First, there will be reams of litigation, with Chicago taxpayers footing part of the hefty bill.
A child of 10 could see the solution to eliminating that "cost," Sun-Times. That "hefty bill" that the city will incur in defending the indefensible could easily be rendered moot if the city simply admitted it was wrong, followed the law of the land, and dumped its illegal gun ban. There. Problem solved.
Then there is this untenable line of leftist group think:
Unless the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, the city will almost certainly lose, and more guns will flood into Chicago as a result.
Again, in typical left-wing fashion, this concept sees no difference between the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens and criminals making of them one and the same. Like most leftists, the Times proves that it does not trust the average citizen imagining he will suddenly become a murdering, psycho the second he takes a gun into his sweaty fist. And, how the new decision will cause a "flood" of new guns anyway is a mere assumption made by fearmongers as opposed to one predicated upon any sort of fact.
Now, look at how the Sun-Times imagines that this "flood of guns" will be used.
Handy for self-defense.
Also handy for blowing a spouse's brains out during a knock-down, drag-out fight.
Or for blowing your own brains out, when life becomes too much to bear.
Or accidentally shooting yourself as you go downstairs to check out a suspicious noise.
What overwrought tosh. Again, the statistics of what guns have been used for in parts of the country where gun laws were liberalized do NOT SHOW this sort of outrageous rise in accidents, murder and the like. It just doesn't. Yet, despite real evidence to the contrary, gun grabbers and anti-Constitutionalists everywhere insist on saying it does despite reality. It's as if they are sitting in the dark with their eyes tightly, shut saying to themselves over and over again, "there is no such thing as monsters." As if just saying "guns are evil" makes it true.
Well, to employ the old saying, Sun-Times, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
Then the Times indulges in the most bald faced absurdity about what will happen in Chicago. Along with the previously stated nonsense about how there will be a "tax" of "blood" on the city, the Times moans that more guns must mean more crime.
The court's decision will only, in the end, help criminals, by putting more guns out into society.
But, one must wonder how it could get any worse in "the city of big shoulders"?
In the Times' own paper over the last few weeks 9 were shot in one weekend, and a household of 5 people were found killed a few weeks ago. This is not uncommon as it seems every week we see half a dozen killed in the city.
Blind to the possibility that Chicago might find its crime rate go down (like it has elsewhere) when the citizens are able to defend themselves, the Sun-Times opens up the waterworks for a final, ridiculous stab at melodrama.
Such praise for the court's wrong-headed decision, though, does nothing to help pay the coming bill for Chicago taxpayers -- a bill that will grow for years to come -- or dry a mother's tears over the next child slain on the city's streets.
Here's a thought, Sun-Times. Instead of whining about guns, why not launch a program to encourage young black men to stay home with their children and to marry the mothers of those children so that those same kids won't end up in gangs? How's that for a solution that doesn't include destroying our God given right to self-defense?
Or does that idea make too much sense?