Category Archives: Guns

He may be an actor, but he’s from Chicago — and speaks the unspeakable about guns . . . more

. . . arguing the obvious, that bad guys ignore no-gun signs:

Vince Vaughn Wants Guns In Schools: Tired of hearing about school shootings? Actor and former Chicagoan Vince Vaughn apparently thinks more guns would help stop the heinous acts. Politico shares part of an interview the actor did with British GQ, where he suggested that schools would be safer if guns were allowed:

“In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f——ing schools because they know there are no guns there,” he told the magazine.

He’s clearly not been keeping up with the news in Chicago, where more than 300 people were shot, 37 fatally, in May.

Instead, we moan and groan (correctly) but refuse to recognize the Wild West situation.

The presumed quick rebuttal misses the mark, telling how many were shot. Vaughn argues the more-guns-less-crime case, which precisely aims to reduce the bloodshed.

Now you see concealed-carry, now you don’t:: D. Harmon’s proposal

Oak Park Newspapers

A new twist on Sen. Harmon’s proposed twisting of concealed-carry to insert in the law the presumption of no-guns-allowed, as envisioned by a guns-fearing woman:

Nicole said she sees signs indicating gun-free zones are currently posted at her child’s pre-school, and finds them to be a frightening reminder of the tragic mass-shooting of young children in Newtown, Conn. in 2012.

She told FOX 32 news that Senate Bill 2669 would render gun-free zone signs redundant and unnecessary at places like her child’s school. She also said local businesses would benefit from posting positive signs as opposed to negative ones.

The positive sign would say guns allowed, presumption being not allowed. Progressive Dem sleight of hand, right?

View original post

Gun laws? Oh?

Question arises: Why are gun laws not enforced in Chicago, where gun violence is a household word?

Answer suggests itself: Because these laws are not enforceable.

No more than anti-beer and -liquor laws were enforceable during Prohibition.

Question: Why limit this to Chicago?

Answer: I do not know.

%d bloggers like this: