I compared the gun homocide rate of my home state of Oregon to the neighboring state of California. Last year in 2010 Oregon only had 36 gun murders while California had 1,257 gun murders. Whats compare the gun laws in both of these states. Oregon has shall issue right to carry and no gun ban on the books while California has the nations strictest gun laws. Only 36 gun murders in Oregon while 1,257 in Califorina where would I feel safer? This proves gun control is nothing but a failure.
lol!! How can someone so old as mayor Richard Dayle be so ignorant and lacking of wisdom. As the youth of AMERICA i would depict this Mayor as old and corrupt. No wounder country's around the world HATE US. Your time has come mayor, as a young scientist, it is time for your old knowledge, brain corrupting booty to be kicked out of office. Take the corrupt dollars you have made off us law abiding citizens and run before we charge your ass for treason!!
Now is not the time for the citizens of Chicago to sit back and wait for mayor meathead to enact unconstitutional ordinances, it is time to push to expand gun rights by pushing for conceal carry and or open carry. Rights cannot be simply defended, they must be expanded. Push back harder then they push us. THANK YOU Mr. Mcdonald.
gun ban means bad guys KNOW you are unarmed. People who break the law, do not care if there is a law against what they do, since.. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!
Daley is a human turd, I mean that literally; no-one would mourn him if he was viciously murdered in the street (which would never happen, with all his bodyguards). He wants the people unarmed, but he is protected by hundreds of armed bodyguards (look it up!)! When Daley dies there will be a line miles long of people waiting to piss on his grave, me included.
In the hood, everyone knows that police doesn't protect people. Why? City doesn't have the money and the resources to do that. Big cities would rather spend their money on useless project and ridiculous welfare. When they run out of money, they start to hire more police to catch more traffic violators. What about the real police work that actually combats crimes?
SCOTUS ruled today in favor of 2nd Amendment gun rights for all 50 states. From the Fox news article it says and I quote "Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban."
Great news for citizens of Chicago and every where else.
Yep, so one of the choices that I hope Chicago residents will make is to vote a new mayor into office, preferably one that respects constituents rather than look down on them.
In the meantime, people will have to sue Chicago again if the "new" gun laws result in the same civilian disarmament nonsense.
@Watcher3223 Not a prayer of that happening. If he tries to enact ordinances that over burden people in exercising their right to own a gun, and it is challenged in court (which it will be) the courts will rule against mayor meathead. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that rights cannot be regulated out of existence.
Perhaps. But I'm still concerned about what may go on. For instance, Chicago can do many of the same things that D.C. did, despite the Heller case striking down the D.C. gun ban.
Basically, taking a mile when given a foot; that the ruling still found that municipalities and states still had ability to restrict rights, it wouldn't surprise me that Chicago will allow guns but enact registration requirements so onerous that it virtually would be like the ban was still in effect.
Now, this should be challenged and rightfully so, but I remain skeptical that the ruling would effect immediate change for the better regarding civil liberties. Daley and his ilk won't go down without a fight and they'll cry foul and pout like babies in the process.
And, considering that the ruling passed narrowly, it's also possible that, if Ms. Kagan or another activist liberal is appointed as justice of the SCOTUS, a lawsuit to assert McDonald might lead to it being twisted.
@Watcher3223 Things will change gradually and there are many fights left to fight but the big thing that this decision did is that those support gun rights now have a spear and the anti-gun folks have a shield. The war is already lost for the anti-gunners all they can do is fight delaying battles during their retreat.
"Things will change gradually and there are many fights left to fight but the big thing that this decision did is that those support gun rights now have a spear and the anti-gun folks have a shield."
You do make a point there. This is a first step towards a gradual process that may help to reassert Constitutional provisions and, by what you say, may begin a process where the anti-gun position may further deteriorate in the near or far future.
@Watcher3223 "We all must do what we can to keep the heat on. " Exactly correct. One cannot be satisfied to simply defend rights, rights must be expanded. Mr. Mcdonald is a prime example of what one person can do.
@Maxwedge12000 Expanding rights, "OK, you can keep a gun in your home". That's great but I want to carry one when I go out. "OK, you can carry a gun when you go out but you cannot carry into a bar". That's great but I want to carry it into a bar. These types of fights have been and are taking place all over the country and the pro-gunners are winning the vast majority of them. Keep fighting to expand rights, never be content to just defend them.
@jlakely1 Thanks for the compliment. Our rights are and have been under assault for quite some time. It is high time the liberty lovers among us start pushing back.
Now, even though there is legal precedence stating that governments can't regulate the 2nd Amendment out of existence and a fair, impartial and fully deliberated legal challenge would find Chicago in the wrong, I posit that Chicago will try anyways in the hopes that someone like Ms. Kagan may be appointed by that time, providing the fifth vote to the liberals already presiding in the SCOTUS to ignore the precedent and possibly even alter the precedent of the McDonald ruling in the process.
@Watcher3223 A majority constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, no matter the margin, is forever binding unless found unworkable, or unless changed by a future SCOTUS under irrefutable evidence. SCOTUS is very prone not to issue any ruling that would upset a previous opinion of SCOTUS. You worry too much.
And to show the anti-gunners that gun rights are not a racist ideal, the individual who brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court against Chicago is black!
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is for EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, regardless of race, creed and station.
@Watcher3223 You have to look at Liberals and their history of civil rights. Democrats voted against every single civil rights legislation. They voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Its in their history to keep everyone down but they seem to enjoy keeping the black community down even more.
As a veteran member of the CPD, I’m NOT a fan of Daley. But the truth is, any policy that has a chance of reducing the number of handguns on the street is good policy. The gun lobby is responsible for flooding our communities with handguns. Any idiot could tell you that a reduction in the number of handguns equals a reduction in the incidence of gun violence. Rifles and shotguns have always been legal to own, what more does the NRA want? Handguns are overkill and must be tightly controlled.
@IamTheBeginning Sorry chief, a little thing called the Second Amendment gets in the way of your desires. I'm willing to bet the Founders were a wee, tiny bit wiser than you.
"any policy that has a chance of reducing the number of handguns on the street is good policy"
The question is HOW?
So far, gun bans have only allowed a disarmed civilian population unable to defend themselves against criminals willing to use deadly force without fear of the consequences.
In addition, civilians can't rely on law enforcement to protect them most of the time.
Bolstering this is legal precedent that makes LEOs immune from failure to serve and protect.
"Any idiot could tell you that a reduction in the number of handguns equals a reduction in the incidence of gun violence"
Correct. Only an idiot bereft of wisdom could believe it.
The problem with your assertion is the assumption a direct relationship between a ban and its intent. But this assertion is glib and fails to consider possibilities and probabilities under such condition, like those not willing to follow the ban and those providing for a demand despite the law.
"Rifles and shotguns have always been legal to own"
Except if they had qualified under the dubious terms of the AWB before its sunset.
"what more does the NRA want"
It's more than the NRA, it's more than any gun rights organization. It's about freedom, including the freedom to make choices including the assumption of responsibilities, risks and consequences.
A LEO is still a citizen who must abide by the law like anyone else. You're privileged by a sworn duty to enforce it, but that doesn't give you any special rights above civilians, so what makes you more special to have a handgun while a civilian can't? That's what it means when saying "police aren't above the law."
Just as you may need a sidearm in execution of your duty, a civilian may require a sidearm in self defense when it's justified (when such use of force is correct and without doubt).
@IamTheBeginning Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Who are the individuals that are committing the high number of crimes in Chicago? Would that be the unarmed law-abiding citizens or the fully armed law-breaking criminals? Explain the FBI stats that show an increase of handgun ownership and the dramatic drop in crimes rates? Reducing the number of criminals on the streets would make all these liberal-controlled cities safer.
@IamTheBeginning Perhaps those that don't support the 2nd Amendment should move to another country. There are plenty of countries that have a total ban on guns, certainly that would be like paradise for you and your ilk.
Man real talk I know I would never live in any place that you cant walk around with a strap on or keep a hand gun in your house. I would not even feel like a Man if I could not protect my own home with a Handgun. All of yall who are lettin this ride in those cities are lame. Yall need to take your cities back or come down 2 da south where guns are a way of life.
wow an increase in violence after the gun ban? Ya think maybe the bad guys get more aggressive when they think everyone else is unarmed. Think about it. If you want to rob rape and maim, don't you want an unarmed populace to victimize?
The simplicity of Mr. McDonald's plea and the brilliance of Dr. Lott's research into the effects of gun control are inspiring and encouraging. I am sure the US Supreme Court will see the wisdom of both in its decision later this month.
we canadians need o call our MP's and MLA's tell them we want the right too carry.
notregme 1 week ago
Otis MacDonald is an American Hero. 'Nuff said.
samael1981 1 month ago
Well stated, @samael1981. The law, despite this historic ruling, continues to have trouble keeping up with our Second Amendment rights.
HeartlandTube 3 weeks ago
I compared the gun homocide rate of my home state of Oregon to the neighboring state of California. Last year in 2010 Oregon only had 36 gun murders while California had 1,257 gun murders. Whats compare the gun laws in both of these states. Oregon has shall issue right to carry and no gun ban on the books while California has the nations strictest gun laws. Only 36 gun murders in Oregon while 1,257 in Califorina where would I feel safer? This proves gun control is nothing but a failure.
1matsg 4 months ago
Gun bans increase crimes, as has been the case in Chicago, Washington DC and other large cities. These liberals are without any sense!
stephenabm 8 months ago
if guns make crime go up, they should disarm cops.
savage495 9 months ago
lol!! How can someone so old as mayor Richard Dayle be so ignorant and lacking of wisdom. As the youth of AMERICA i would depict this Mayor as old and corrupt. No wounder country's around the world HATE US. Your time has come mayor, as a young scientist, it is time for your old knowledge, brain corrupting booty to be kicked out of office. Take the corrupt dollars you have made off us law abiding citizens and run before we charge your ass for treason!!
nathangrz 9 months ago
Mr. McDonald is 100% correct. Well put sir.
fitz207 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
About as effective as a screen door in a submarine.
hogger129 1 year ago
Thank you Mr.McDonald!
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
Guns bans don't get rid of guns; criminals, the police and the armed forces they will still have them.
MangaChocobo 1 year ago
Amen for this video and for this African American senior citizen! Mayor Daley and his alderman are all elitists.
MadHatter34784 1 year ago
Now is not the time for the citizens of Chicago to sit back and wait for mayor meathead to enact unconstitutional ordinances, it is time to push to expand gun rights by pushing for conceal carry and or open carry. Rights cannot be simply defended, they must be expanded. Push back harder then they push us. THANK YOU Mr. Mcdonald.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
gun ban means bad guys KNOW you are unarmed. People who break the law, do not care if there is a law against what they do, since.. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!
Criminals are pro gun laws.
Brantoc 1 year ago
Great video, good stuff.
grannman 1 year ago
God Bless Otis!
troyez 1 year ago
Daley is a human turd, I mean that literally; no-one would mourn him if he was viciously murdered in the street (which would never happen, with all his bodyguards). He wants the people unarmed, but he is protected by hundreds of armed bodyguards (look it up!)! When Daley dies there will be a line miles long of people waiting to piss on his grave, me included.
troyez 1 year ago 2
In the hood, everyone knows that police doesn't protect people. Why? City doesn't have the money and the resources to do that. Big cities would rather spend their money on useless project and ridiculous welfare. When they run out of money, they start to hire more police to catch more traffic violators. What about the real police work that actually combats crimes?
Forget about it, just blame it on gun owners.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
SCOTUS ruled today in favor of 2nd Amendment gun rights for all 50 states. From the Fox news article it says and I quote "Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban."
Great news for citizens of Chicago and every where else.
LoveThyPitBull 1 year ago 4
@LoveThyPitBull
Unfortunately, I'll bet you brass to bullets that Dumbass Daley will find some way to twist the finding to keep the ban.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 I believe he's already said so. Headline: Daley Vows New Gun Ordinances
Translation: Screw the courts! I'M THE LAW!!!
jlakely1 1 year ago
@jlakely1
Yep, so one of the choices that I hope Chicago residents will make is to vote a new mayor into office, preferably one that respects constituents rather than look down on them.
In the meantime, people will have to sue Chicago again if the "new" gun laws result in the same civilian disarmament nonsense.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Not a prayer of that happening. If he tries to enact ordinances that over burden people in exercising their right to own a gun, and it is challenged in court (which it will be) the courts will rule against mayor meathead. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that rights cannot be regulated out of existence.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
@Maxwedge12000
Perhaps. But I'm still concerned about what may go on. For instance, Chicago can do many of the same things that D.C. did, despite the Heller case striking down the D.C. gun ban.
Basically, taking a mile when given a foot; that the ruling still found that municipalities and states still had ability to restrict rights, it wouldn't surprise me that Chicago will allow guns but enact registration requirements so onerous that it virtually would be like the ban was still in effect.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Maxwedge12000
Now, this should be challenged and rightfully so, but I remain skeptical that the ruling would effect immediate change for the better regarding civil liberties. Daley and his ilk won't go down without a fight and they'll cry foul and pout like babies in the process.
And, considering that the ruling passed narrowly, it's also possible that, if Ms. Kagan or another activist liberal is appointed as justice of the SCOTUS, a lawsuit to assert McDonald might lead to it being twisted.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Things will change gradually and there are many fights left to fight but the big thing that this decision did is that those support gun rights now have a spear and the anti-gun folks have a shield. The war is already lost for the anti-gunners all they can do is fight delaying battles during their retreat.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
"Things will change gradually and there are many fights left to fight but the big thing that this decision did is that those support gun rights now have a spear and the anti-gun folks have a shield."
You do make a point there. This is a first step towards a gradual process that may help to reassert Constitutional provisions and, by what you say, may begin a process where the anti-gun position may further deteriorate in the near or far future.
We all must do what we can to keep the heat on.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 "We all must do what we can to keep the heat on. " Exactly correct. One cannot be satisfied to simply defend rights, rights must be expanded. Mr. Mcdonald is a prime example of what one person can do.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
@Maxwedge12000 Expanding rights, "OK, you can keep a gun in your home". That's great but I want to carry one when I go out. "OK, you can carry a gun when you go out but you cannot carry into a bar". That's great but I want to carry it into a bar. These types of fights have been and are taking place all over the country and the pro-gunners are winning the vast majority of them. Keep fighting to expand rights, never be content to just defend them.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
@Maxwedge12000 Great attitude, Max. I like the way you think.
jlakely1 1 year ago
@jlakely1 Thanks for the compliment. Our rights are and have been under assault for quite some time. It is high time the liberty lovers among us start pushing back.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maxwedge12000
"Mr. Mcdonald is a prime example of what one person can do."
Indeed.
Just as one straw too many can break a camel's back, one man can make a difference.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
Now, even though there is legal precedence stating that governments can't regulate the 2nd Amendment out of existence and a fair, impartial and fully deliberated legal challenge would find Chicago in the wrong, I posit that Chicago will try anyways in the hopes that someone like Ms. Kagan may be appointed by that time, providing the fifth vote to the liberals already presiding in the SCOTUS to ignore the precedent and possibly even alter the precedent of the McDonald ruling in the process.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 A majority constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, no matter the margin, is forever binding unless found unworkable, or unless changed by a future SCOTUS under irrefutable evidence. SCOTUS is very prone not to issue any ruling that would upset a previous opinion of SCOTUS. You worry too much.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
@Maxwedge12000
"You worry too much."
Perhaps, and at least Kagan would be replacing Stevens, who was of the dissenting minority.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 One liberal replacing another liberal keeps things the same.
Maxwedge12000 1 year ago
McDonald is a fucking hero!
Salford999Red 1 year ago 3
And to show the anti-gunners that gun rights are not a racist ideal, the individual who brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court against Chicago is black!
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is for EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, regardless of race, creed and station.
Watcher3223 1 year ago 2
@Watcher3223 You have to look at Liberals and their history of civil rights. Democrats voted against every single civil rights legislation. They voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Its in their history to keep everyone down but they seem to enjoy keeping the black community down even more.
NCMan28025 1 year ago
As a veteran member of the CPD, I’m NOT a fan of Daley. But the truth is, any policy that has a chance of reducing the number of handguns on the street is good policy. The gun lobby is responsible for flooding our communities with handguns. Any idiot could tell you that a reduction in the number of handguns equals a reduction in the incidence of gun violence. Rifles and shotguns have always been legal to own, what more does the NRA want? Handguns are overkill and must be tightly controlled.
IamTheBeginning 1 year ago
@IamTheBeginning Sorry chief, a little thing called the Second Amendment gets in the way of your desires. I'm willing to bet the Founders were a wee, tiny bit wiser than you.
Halo4Lyf 1 year ago
@IamTheBeginning
"any policy that has a chance of reducing the number of handguns on the street is good policy"
The question is HOW?
So far, gun bans have only allowed a disarmed civilian population unable to defend themselves against criminals willing to use deadly force without fear of the consequences.
In addition, civilians can't rely on law enforcement to protect them most of the time.
Bolstering this is legal precedent that makes LEOs immune from failure to serve and protect.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@IamTheBeginning
"Any idiot could tell you that a reduction in the number of handguns equals a reduction in the incidence of gun violence"
Correct. Only an idiot bereft of wisdom could believe it.
The problem with your assertion is the assumption a direct relationship between a ban and its intent. But this assertion is glib and fails to consider possibilities and probabilities under such condition, like those not willing to follow the ban and those providing for a demand despite the law.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
"Rifles and shotguns have always been legal to own"
Except if they had qualified under the dubious terms of the AWB before its sunset.
"what more does the NRA want"
It's more than the NRA, it's more than any gun rights organization. It's about freedom, including the freedom to make choices including the assumption of responsibilities, risks and consequences.
Watcher3223 1 year ago 2
@IamTheBeginning
"Handguns are overkill and must be tightly controlled."
Then, if you are a member of the Chicago law enforcement community, let's start with YOU. Certainly, your service pistol is overkill.
What makes you more trustworthy than a law-abiding citizen not guilty of any wrongdoing in that case? Just because you wear a uniform and a badge?
Watcher3223 1 year ago
A LEO is still a citizen who must abide by the law like anyone else. You're privileged by a sworn duty to enforce it, but that doesn't give you any special rights above civilians, so what makes you more special to have a handgun while a civilian can't? That's what it means when saying "police aren't above the law."
Just as you may need a sidearm in execution of your duty, a civilian may require a sidearm in self defense when it's justified (when such use of force is correct and without doubt).
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@Watcher3223 Excellent point. As I love to ask Liberals "Since guns kill, do pencils misspell words?" or "Does a spoon make you fat?"
NCMan28025 1 year ago 4
@IamTheBeginning
As for handguns being "overkill," how so?
They are effective weapons for self defense, especially where carrying a rifle or a shotgun isn't exactly practical.
You trade off power for easier carrying and concealment.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
@IamTheBeginning Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Who are the individuals that are committing the high number of crimes in Chicago? Would that be the unarmed law-abiding citizens or the fully armed law-breaking criminals? Explain the FBI stats that show an increase of handgun ownership and the dramatic drop in crimes rates? Reducing the number of criminals on the streets would make all these liberal-controlled cities safer.
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@IamTheBeginning Perhaps those that don't support the 2nd Amendment should move to another country. There are plenty of countries that have a total ban on guns, certainly that would be like paradise for you and your ilk.
TruthFan 1 year ago
Man real talk I know I would never live in any place that you cant walk around with a strap on or keep a hand gun in your house. I would not even feel like a Man if I could not protect my own home with a Handgun. All of yall who are lettin this ride in those cities are lame. Yall need to take your cities back or come down 2 da south where guns are a way of life.
darriushandy 1 year ago
Gun bans are not about protecting people but about taking away people's rights, liberties and destroying the American Dream.
Madmann135 1 year ago 2
wow an increase in violence after the gun ban? Ya think maybe the bad guys get more aggressive when they think everyone else is unarmed. Think about it. If you want to rob rape and maim, don't you want an unarmed populace to victimize?
mor4us 1 year ago 15
The simplicity of Mr. McDonald's plea and the brilliance of Dr. Lott's research into the effects of gun control are inspiring and encouraging. I am sure the US Supreme Court will see the wisdom of both in its decision later this month.
djmiller45 1 year ago
Otis McDonald should move back to the South where we respect the 2nd Amendment, and let the North stew in their murderous climate.
oilhammer04 1 year ago 2
Criminals have got to love the Chicago Mayor, the typical Leftist ruler.
oilhammer04 1 year ago 15