Illinois, A State Of Corruption

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”   David Brin quotes (American science-fiction writer b.1950)

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” David Brin quotes (American science-fiction writer b.1950)

The history of Illinois is rife with corruption and scandal as far back as recorded history goes.  So it is no surprise to learn that the ex-Governor of Illinois, Rob Blagojevich is the 7th Governor to be removed from office for committing illegal acts.  This article is not about Blagojevich though, it is about its history of corruption and how that is being used against the people of that State.  Seeing as how this State wants to ban guns in certain zip codes just made me wonder about how corrupt these officials in this State are.  To ban guns from the citizens in these zip codes would be to allow free reign to the criminal element, something that there is ample proof of to begin with.  Instead of banning guns, they need to pass a law like that in the small town of Kennesaw. After all, if a criminal suspects that the person he is after may be armed, he will probably think twice about going after that person.  Criminals don’t like to have their safety compromised at all.  That’s why they run as soon as they can after committing a crime.  But what does logic have to do with government?

Lincoln would turn over in his grave to see what Illinois is doing, both to its citizens, and to the reputation of the State as a whole.  From electing corrupt officials to promoting a man whose parentage and legal status as president of these united States remain in question, to the 79 other elected officials who have been convicted of crimes, one has to wonder just what is going on up there?  Don’t they have the ability to do background checks or is the corruption so complete that everyone in that State that holds an office is corrupt?

Watching Lou Dobbs the other night I thought how typical of a corrupt government to deny citizens the right to defend themselves while hiding behind the facade of legality.  This new bill makes it illegal for anyone (b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, it is unlawful for any person within the following zip codes 60637, 60636, 60629, 60621, 60620, and60619 to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed, any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.

Here is what Lou Dobbs had to say about this bill:

DOBBS: Lawmakers across the country tonight continue their assault on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Illinois’ legislature now considering legislation that would ban people living in certain zip codes from owning certain types of firearms. And there’s another attempt in Washington, D.C., to adopt more gun control. Bill Tucker has our report.

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: If you live in certain predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods on Chicago’s south side, your right to bear arms could be in jeopardy. The Automatic Weapons Safe Zone Act 2009, the Illinois legislature would make certain types of guns illegal in those neighborhoods and only those neighborhoods. They are mainly inner city areas with high crime rates. The bill would impose a ban on semiautomatic guns, assault weapons. The vendors of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are outraged.

RICHARD PEARSON, ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION: It discriminates against black people, against Hispanic people, and none of them are criminals. They’re all citizens like everyone else is. So I don’t know why a representative like Mr. Thapedi would introduce such a bill.

TUCKER: The sponsor of the bill is Chicago Democratic State Representative Andre Thapedi. He declined our request for an interview. Gun control is also on the agenda in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the district’s 30-year ban on handguns violated Second Amendment rights.

The mayor of D.C. predicted the ruling would result in more handgun violence and the district adopted a new restrictive gun law, which allows only guns on a roster to be registered. All others are banned. A court challenge has already been filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, which argues gun control keeps guns only out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gun control in general is misguided for one key reason. It’s based on the fact the only people that obey those laws are law-abiding citizens and because of that it can’t ever work.

TUCKER: Gun rights groups promise that if the gun control bill is passed in Illinois, it too will be challenged. They say the bill is worded so that if any part of it is found unconstitutional, the zip codes could be dropped and they say Illinois could then find itself with a de facto statewide assault weapon ban, Lou.

DOBBS: Oh, they’re being very cute in Illinois as well then.

TUCKER: Exactly.

DOBBS: All right, Bill, thank you very much — Bill Tucker.

This bill is an AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 1966 and I honestly could not find any reference to the fact that if this bill were challenged in court, the ban would then cover the entire State.  It doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that I didn’t see it.  This bill is explicit in what it bans.  Basically it bans all *assault type weapons* and a clear description is given as to what those are considered to be.

I also didn’t find any reference to this being made State wide in the bill itself.  The link just above this will take you to the actual bill and not the amendment.  But the bill is clearly discriminatory and if/when challenged will fall.  It can’t be any other way.  You cannot tell people on one side of a street that they can buy ice cream at any time and tell the people on the other side of the street that they cannot.  What is the Illinois legislature thinking?

A case in point of pro-guns:

25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 pm Eastern
© 2009

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesawresponding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

After the law was enacted and during the last 25 years, the city has experienced a huge growth rate.  From the 1982 population count of just 5,242 to todays, (2005), count of 28,189. And yet not a single accident by anyone.  Imagine that!!!  It is all about responsibility.

This just illustrates the point that gun bans do not stop crime, they encourage it.  If a criminal knows that the citizens cannot defend themselves, that law enforcement may be occupied, the chances are good he can commit the robbery or murder with impunity.  The logic behind gun bans is flawed at best and borders on criminal when all the facts are considered.

Our Right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed!

Our Right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed!

Morton Grove, on the other hand, has had a slight decrease in population and a higher crime rate than the national average.

Many lawmakers confuse issues.  They confuse gun bans with controlling violence, but this just isn’t sound logic.  You cannot say that in banning guns your crime/violence rate will go down.  It just doesn’t make sense.  Violence is a separate issue all together and has nothing to do with guns.  Most gun owners are very responsible people.  They know their weapons capabilities and they know how to avoid accidents.  It is the uninformed, those who do not bother to learn about their weapons, and the criminal element that cause gun accidents and crime.

By the very definition of *criminal,* this is a person who exists outside the law. What good is banning guns going to do the law abiding citizen???  Why punish those citizens who haven’t broken the laws by making it so they cannot own a gun?  Here are some absolute truths when it comes to guns and criminals: Please read this article:

More guns = less crime:  If a criminal knows the chances of finding an armed victim are high, s/he will move on to an area where the citizens don’t have guns.  The chances are much greater s/he can find a victim without risk to himself/herself with an unarmed population versus one where the citizens are armed.

Criminals are basically cowards: A criminal will go for a woman or a crippled person before he will go for a mature male anytime.  They will also choose an older person over a younger one.  While a criminal will threaten your safety, they don’t want their own violated!!!

Criminals don’t obey the law: If they did we wouldn’t have crime. (Big duh here)

Violence doesn’t equal guns: Violent crime can be committed with almost anything that is easily found at hand.  Violence is a separate subject from the issue of guns or gun control.

1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime:
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful:

1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime

Nowhere in there does it state that a criminal obeys the laws or describe a law abiding citizen, HELLO!!! Therefore by banning guns, the only ones hurt by it is the law-abiding citizen. Criminals will still get the guns they want and use them as they will.  And this part here made more sense to me than just about anything else.

On page 160, he says, “Many factors influence crime, with arrest and conviction rates being the most important. However, non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. The cost of hiring more police to change arrest and conviction rates is much higher, and the net benefits per dollar spent are only at most a quarter as large as the benefits from concealed-handgun laws.”

That may sound the death knell for every one of Lott’s common sense arguments right there. I mean, how many people have ever heard of a politician who would rather spend less money?!

Web Site

I don’t know how many ways to say it or to explain it.  Guns are the best way of deterring crime there is.  Take guns away from your citizens and you promote crime in their neighborhoods.  Make the guns illegal and the only ones to have guns will be the police and the criminals.  And the cops can’t be everywhere at once.  That leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless at times when they need to be able to protect themselves.  It doesn’t mean that those law-abiding citizens are going to then go on rampages and become criminals.

If government employees would use half the sense they are supposed to have in order to get into office, they might start to understand that fewer laws and more common sense is what is needed.  And no gun control laws.  No citizen wants to be in trouble with the law.  No citizen is going to go out of their way to break a law.  We are not the criminals so stop penalizing us for the crimes and violence that criminals commit.

In looking for facts to either support gun bans/control or support common sense where guns are concerned I came across this site:

Gun Facts – Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths

INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control.  It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Gun Facts has 94 pages of information.  Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

So I pulled up the ebook and looked it over.  It is very complete.  It is probably the first time I’ve seen common sense and cold hard facts when it comes to the issue of citizens owning guns versus control/bans.  Just click on one of the links on the home page under ebook and you will be able to see it yourself.

The ebook covers the following chapters:

  • Gun Shows
  • Assault Weapons
  • Sniping Rifles – Sniper Rifles
  • Handguns For Women Handgun Sales
  • Violence and Violent Crime
  • 2nd Amendment Issue
  • “Pocket Rockets” and “Saturday Night Specials”
  • Concealed Carry and Concealed Weapons Permits
  • Licensing and Registration
  • Firearm Deaths (Homicide, Accidents)
  • Social Costs of Guns
  • Children and Guns
  • Automatic Weapons
  • 50 Caliber Rifles
  • Microstamping
  • Ballistic Fingerprinting
  • Assault Weapons Ban
  • Crime Gun Traces
  • International Gun Ownership and Crime
  • Gun Dealers
  • Gun Control Statistics
  • Deadly Force Encounters
  • Guns, Crime, Criminology and Crime Prevention (Self Defense)
  • Firearm Availability
  • Guns and Police (Law Enforcement/LEO)

As you can see this is a very complete ebook. I’m impressed with its content and the time taken to cover so many subjects and to delve into the facts versus the myths. Please check out the book. All references are clearly available.  If you want the facts, this book has them.

I’m one of those who prefers facts to the hysteria, (which seems to be government agencies lately), or lies.  This book will give you the facts from sources that can’t be denied such as the U.S. Department of Justice, or Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony – Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993.

Time to put the facts where they can do the most good.  Present your facts to your legislaters and let them try to dispute them.  Once you have facts in your court you have a much greater chance to succeed if your goal is common sense.  The world needs a lot more of it today than ever before.


~ by justmytruth on April 16, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: