RFFM.ORG

Jesse Jackson + Chicago Mayor Are Stymied By High Court's Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban: Afghanis Get It, Too Bad Anti-Gun Elitists Don’t

NRA To Target Chicago + Neighboring Suburban Hand Gun Bans, After Supreme Court Ruling

 

Commentary by Bill Zettler *

 

According to the Associated Press, June 27, 2008, "The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior U.N. official said Sunday." 

 

We have all seen pictures on TV of Afghan citizens walking the streets with AK-47's draped over their shoulders.  And who can forget the Afghan weddings where hundreds of shots are fired in the air to celebrate the event.  Every Afghan male who can afford a gun has one and, more often than not, they are assault rifles like the AK-47.

 

To the average Afghani, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the right to bear arms in your own home for self-defense must seem like a no-brainer.  In fact, the Afghan people must be shaking their heads, trying to figure out why it is an issue at all.  Only a decadent society, on its way to oblivion, would deny its people the right to self-defense.

 

Which brings me to the breathless quote from the AP above.  Seven hundred deaths in a nation of 33 million people fighting a murderous clique like the Taliban is truly astounding--because the number of deaths are so low.  For example, there were more than 700 violent deaths (homicides) in Chicago, L.A. and New York combined in the first six months of 2008.  At the same time, Afghanistan's population is two to three times more than that of Chicago, L.A. and New York in total.  And, of course, all three cities have strict gun control laws.  That means U.S. citizens without the right to bear arms in defense of their families and property are more at risk of violent death than Afghan citizens in the middle of a war zone.  Gang-bangers, murderers and thieves constitute the American Taliban and their reign of terror continues in the inner-cities--aided and abetted by liberal gun control policies.

 

As for Chicago's Mayor Daley, he did not take kindly to the High Court’s decision which struck down one of the strongest hand gun bans in the U.S. in Washington, D.C.  Daley's response was, "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?"  To answer your question, Mr. Mayor, no, not everyone.  Just those non-felon citizens who want to have one.  Let parents decide whether a gun in the home is more dangerous to their children than the guns in the hands of the criminals roaming the streets of Chicago.  I know it goes against your Democratic Party belief which asserts elitists, like you, know better than the citizen-electorate as to what is best for their families.  We have the Bill of Rights to counter the rule of the few and the elite.

 

As for Reverend Jesse Jackson, he is going to lead a protest against gun shops in Chicago.  This is certainly a safe option, since there are no gun shops in Chicago and little likelihood there will be any in the foreseeable future.  A more meaningless gesture would be hard to imagine.  Jackson is also going to lead a prayer vigil against a suburban Lake County business, DS Arms, to protest gun manufacturing.  This despite the fact that DS Arms' customers are mainly police and military personnel and there is no record of any of their guns ever being used in a crime.

 

Facts show Reverend Jackson’s constituents in Chicago's inner-city would be safer in Afghanistan than their own neighborhoods.  This despite the fact there are violent insurgents, including Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, present in virtually every Afghani neighborhood, city or province.  Yet there are gun shops in virtually every Afghan market place.  I am surprised Jackson does not protest in front of the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. to complain about all the guns in Afghani civilian hands.  That would make as much sense as what he is planning to do in Chicago--in front of gun shops that do not exist.

 

All this is more evidence that Jesse Jackson has become a caricature of an out of touch liberal elite.  Only a complicit media could keep this man in the news.

 

The right to defend one's self and property is basic and so obvious the Constitution's Framers did not even address the issue in the U.S. Constitution.  Afghans understand this implicitly; too bad Daley and Jackson don’t.

 

* Bill Zettler recently was a guest on Champion News Talk Radio, discussing Illinois teacher salaries and pensions.  Champion News Radio has a one hour show which can be heard on AM560 WIND in Chicago and is be posted in podcast form on The Champion News website.

 

Here is the link to the archived interview with Zettler in its entirety:

http://www.championnews.net/talk/mp3s/20080629_ChampionNews.mp3 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Is Baghdad Safer Than Chicago or Detroit? Liberal Politicians Blame Guns, Not the Gunners

Homicide Spurt in American Cities Is a Crime-Control Problem, Not a Gun-Control Problem

by Bill Zettler

 

During one week in March of this year, 13 homicides took place in Washington, D.C.  On a per capita basis that was higher than most weeks in Baghdad.  Chicago was not far behind, as they witnessed a crime spree that left 12 Chicago citizens shot dead in a six-day period in April.
 
Blame was quickly placed on gun owners with Chicago School Superintendent Arne Duncan leading the way, commenting the murders resulted from “our appalling fascination with guns”.  It seems to me it represents an “appalling fascination with murder” not guns since 99.99% of Illinois gun-owners were not involved in the murders.  Most of the murders were committed by young people, making one wonder if there is a stronger relationship to Chicago school’s 51% graduation rate than a “fascination with guns”.  The graduation rate is something Mr. Duncan has control of, so it may be something he would rather not talk about.  It is much easier for Duncan to blame guns and lack of gun control, rather than address his own shortcomings.
 
Washington, D.C. and Chicago have some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.  Obviously, the criminals who committed these crimes were ignoring those laws.  In fact, according to Chicago Police statistics from January 1st through April 30th, 96% of murderers had criminal records, as did 72% of the victims.  So what we have are criminals, who should not have guns under current gun control laws, killing mostly other known criminals.  Of course, about 30% of victims (and maybe more) were innocent bystanders or victims of robbery and home invasion.  The question is why are these violent criminals on the street?  Isn’t that a “crime control” problem rather than a “gun control” problem?
 
And who is in charge in these high crime areas?  By and large, liberal Democrats control American cities.  For example, in Illinois, if you eliminate Chicago murders, the state's murder rate is about the same as Finland's, while Chicago’s rate would be greater than Mexico’s, whose murder rate is the sixth highest in the world.  Mexico, by the way, has more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., but a murder rate three times that of the U.S.  And, no, restrictions on gun sales do not help.  Mexico has only one gun store (in Mexico City) and it takes 30 days for a citizen to be approved to purchase a very restricted list of guns.  This pretty well disproves Chicago Mayor Daley’s contention that tighter government control of gun store sales would minimize gun crime.
 
Another very liberal Democratic city is Detroit--where no Republicans hold an elected citywide office.  Disproving Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s contention that it is the white power structure responsible for the African-American dilemma, the mayor, the district attorney and eight of the nine city council members are black.  No white guys to blame in this city, just liberal Democrats.  Again, when we separate Detroit from the rest of Michigan we find the gun crime problem concentrated in the Democratic areas with Detroit’s 8% of the state's population perpetrating 59% of the murders.  That puts Detroit’s murder rate above Jamaica’s, which is the third highest in the world.  And Jamaica’s gun laws may be the most restrictive in the world.  Possession of a single bullet, with or without a gun, is punishable by life in prison.
 
Crime control is and always has been a political issue.  So, when crime is not controlled adequately, we must then look to the political system in charge.  In the case of many American cities, liberal Democrats are in charge and, therefore, must take responsibility--rather than trying to redirect blame to those law-abiding citizens, including gun owners, living outside urban areas.  Statistics show--beyond any argument--legal gun ownership, i.e., guns not owned by convicted criminals, is not an issue in inner-city crime.
 
So, what are the liberal Democratic policies that contribute to the Third World murder rate prevalent in our cities?
 
1.  Undying liberal Democratic support of public sector unions, especially the teachers unions.  High salaries, benefits and pensions of public sector unions drive up taxes, even as economic output decreases.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in Detroit where only 21% of high school students graduate.  Considering the abject failure to deliver quality education services to their hard-pressed constituents, why don’t liberal Democratic politicians in Detroit opt for school vouchers to allow at least some children to escape the education prison they are shackled to?
 
2.  An anti-business bias which stifles job growth.  In Chicago, both Jesse Jackson and  ACORN  [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] led protests against Wal-Mart opening a store in a poor Chicago neighborhood.  Apparently, the creation of 500 jobs was not in the best interest of either Jackson or ACORN.  Therefore, Wal-Mart simply moved the store just outside city limits and 500 other people took those jobs.  Add to that high property taxes, high crime rates and high regulation hurdles and you have a formula for economic failure which is obvious in places like Chicago and Detroit.
 
3.  Not discouraging the violent, misogynist and anti-police rhetoric of the hip-hop/rap culture.  Failure of officials to take a stand on moral issues contributes to the death spiral of inner-city neighborhoods.  When you live in the most crime-infested areas of the country, the police are not pigs, racial profilers or brutality-merchants.  They are saviors.
 
Only by changing self-defeating public policies like those above can city politicians diminish crime rates and encourage self-help and self-improvement.  These elected officials should start with vouchers for kids who don’t graduate, create enterprise zones, lower taxes and provide micro-loans to encourage business (and job) development and hand down longer jail sentences for violent criminals.  Finally, how about offering more support for law enforcement in crime-ridden neighborhoods to counter the poverty-industrial-complex supporters, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
 
This would not be a resolution for all problems related to our inner-cities, but it would be a start.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org 

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hperlinks allowed.

Jesse Jackson and Gun Control -- A Study in Hypocrisy by Bill Zettler

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28.

Recently, Rev. Jesse Jackson led a protest outside of a Barrington, Illinois gun manufacturer, DS Arms. Barrington is a wealthy Chicago suburb about a one hour drive from the loop. During the protest, Jackson stated that this company “manufactured death” and the guns used were the same as those used “to kill Martin Luther King and Jack Kennedy” and that “Chicago did not manufacture guns”. What he forgot to mention is that Chicago does manufacture murderers -- about 5,000 in the last decade.

Of course, Jackson has never allowed facts to get between him and a news camera. The fact of the matter is DS Arms manufactures very high-end guns for the military and law enforcement with prices ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 -- not exactly the Saturday night specials that cause so much havoc in the inner cities. DS Arms states it has no record of a gun manufactured by DS Arms ever being used in a crime.

The problem is not DS Arms or guns. The problem in the inner cities is dysfunctional fatherless families producing dysfunctional children who attend dysfunctional schools who, logically, become dysfunctional adults.

Perhaps Jackson should start by addressing the 70% illegitimate birth rates for black children. This is difficult for Jackson, since he himself fathered a child out of wedlock, not as a hormone-driven teenager, but as a supposed 60-year-old pillar of the community. He needs to ask himself if there would be fewer homicides in the inner city if there were fewer illegitimate births? If so, then why isn’t he protesting illegitimate births?

Since public schools in the inner cities have proved unequal to the task of educating those children who live there, perhaps Jackson, and his stand-in Ted Kennedy, could stop supporting the teachers unions and start supporting vouchers, the way out of the hood for poor kids. In spite of 1,500 Chicago Public School employees making over $100,000 per year, barely more than half (54%) of Chicago high-school freshman graduate as seniors. But no, for Jesse Jackson it’s the teachers unions and their reactionary approach to education -- now and forever.

And jobs -- Jackson is against Wal-Mart opening a store with 500 jobs in the Chicago inner city and thus driving them right over the city border. Five thousand people applied for those 500 jobs, but Jackson thought they were unworthy.

So, Jesse Jackson refuses to address 70% illegitimacy, refuses to allow poor families to choose their schools, refuses to allow legitimate businesses to open and hire unemployed poor people, but yet he claims he is a man of the people. I claim Jesse Jackson the millionaire is a hypocrite.

As for guns, recent FBI statistics for 2006 (fbi.gov/ucr, tables 2, 3, 5) show that blacks perpetrate 55% of U.S. homicides where the race of the perpetrator is known. And 90% of those homicides are black on black homicides. That means without black on black homicides, the U.S. homicide rate ranks between Portugal and France -- very European like.

This also shows that cab drivers, whether black, Asian, Hispanic or white, who refuse to pick up young male blacks in the middle of the night, are showing rational behavior, not racist behavior. Based upon the FBI statistics, black men are nine times as likely to be a murderer as non-blacks.

Here in the U.S., the five states with the lowest gun ownership per capita (New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey) on average have homicide and violent crime rates 50% higher than the five states with the highest gun ownership (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and Idaho).

Compare that with Illinois and Chicago where restrictive gun laws have resulted in an unarmed citizenry with a per capita gun ownership rate ranked 44th in the country and homicide rates more than twice the top five ownership states. So, one could say, based upon these facts, low gun ownership plus restrictive gun ownership laws leads to high murder rates. It is much safer to live in Idaho than Chicago -- even though guns are banned in Chicago and welcome in Idaho.

It is completely illogical for Jackson to assume that criminals, who by definition willfully disobey laws outlawing robbery, rape and murder, will willfully obey laws outlawing gun ownership.

The most interesting comparison of gun ownership is between # 1 Wyoming and # 51 Washington, D.C., both with populations of about 550,000. While Wyoming’s gun ownership is 15 times D.C.’s, Washington’s homicide rate is 10 times Wyoming’s. How much more evidence do you need to prove that gun ownership and crime are not correlated?

You will notice that the governmental units mentioned -- New York, New Jersey, Washington D.C., Massachusetts -- are long-time bastions of liberal Democratic political control. These liberal Democratic politicians and their apologists, like Jackson, seem to be unable or unwilling to provide to their citizenry the most primary of government functions -- security and safety. And by denying their citizens the right to bear arms, these so called defenders of civil rights are denying the first and most basic civil right -- the right to self-defense. They have indeed, as Hamilton said, “betrayed their constituents”.

And, of course, unlike the constituents they claim to represent, Kennedy and Jackson can afford to hire bodyguards for their self-defense.

Since there is no government provided safety or security for inner-city citizens, why doesn’t Rev. Jackson support gun rights rather than gun control. Give a gun to every law-abiding citizen in Chicago and Washington D.C. and watch the violent crime rate go down.

What the inter-city poor need are:

… Fathers for their children

… Vouchers and education for their students

… Jobs for their unemployed

… The right to bear arms in defense of life and property

What they don’t need is for a hypocritical political operative to deny them all of those legitimate needs for four decades while organizing a gun control photo op in the leafy suburbs.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Why Gun Rights Save Lives

Why Gun Rights Save Lives

by Bill Zettler

If, in 1935, six million European Jews had six million guns, would there have been six million dead Jews in 1945?

The answer, obviously, is "no."  Maybe there would have been 100,000 dead Jews, maybe a million (and probably a like number of dead Nazis), but certainly not six million.  And, eventually, the Germans would have made an accommodation with the Jews and millions of lives would have been saved; millions saved simply by adding the-right-to-bear-arms to the political equation.

In fact, tens of millions of other lives might have been saved because an armed Jewry may have made the Germans think twice about their concept of Aryan superiority before attacking the rest of Europe, thus possibly saving the lives of 20 million Soviets and eight million Poles, not to mention five million Germans.

The value of an armed citizenry in saving lives is further provided by Israel where, from 1947 to the present, six million armed Israelis have staved off the predations of 150 million Muslims hankering for their destruction.  Is there any doubt that eventually an accommodation between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East will be reached?  Is there any doubt that an unarmed Israel would have resulted in another six million dead Jews?

Instead of six million dead unarmed Jews at the hands of 150 million armed Muslims, we have only 140,000 dead (Jews and Arabs) since 1947 just because the minority was armed.  The fact is guns have saved millions of lives in the Middle East...Jew, Christian and Arab.

If you look at the recent history of the slaughter of innocent unarmed citizens, one may wonder why the United Nations (UN) does not encourage arming the citizenry worldwide.

Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Ethiopia...the list seems endless.  Perhaps if rich nations and wealthy UN bureaucrats had provided guns, instead of hand-wringing and too-late policing, millions would have been saved.  But no, we sat, met, discussed and threatened sanctions while innocents died mercilessly, their hacked and bleeding bodies bloating in the sun.  These innocent victims deserved a Second Amendment and a gun, but they had neither.

You will notice, in every case referenced above, it was the government in power at the time that did the killing.  German Nazis were sent to kill Jews and Poles, ruling Sudanese Muslims sent Mongol-like mounted Janjaweed to kill starving Darfuran women and children, armed Khmer Rouge Communists sent millions to their death in the killing fields.  In every case, the killers were representatives of the state and had guns, while the innocent did not.

As Heinrich Himmler said in 1936, “Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."  I would re-phrase that quote to read, “Ordinary citizens need guns, as their having guns does assure the state will exist to serve the citizenry.”  Remember, in America we do not exist to serve the state, the state exists to serve us.

So, examples of the power, morality and compassion of the Second Amendment are all around us.  We are the fortunate ones.  We have the right to bear arms.  Pity those who do not have that right.

Although no one expects tyranny to reign in America anytime soon, is it not easier to imagine tyranny at some point in the future, than to imagine infinity without it?

"Let your gun therefore be your constant companion on your walks." by Bill Zettler

"Let your gun therefore be your constant companion on your walks."

The title of this article is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States of America.  No one needed a gun more as her "constant companion" than Clara Riddles when on April 4th, while walking in the CNN Complex in Atlanta she was dragged down an escalator by her hair and shot three times by Arthur Mann, killing her and her five month-old unborn child.  Mann was then shot and wounded by one of the building’s armed guards.  How many innocent lives were saved by having one armed person confront the murderer?

Cynthia Tucker, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote an article in the Atlanta Constitution Journal containing just about every dishonest liberal myth extant about guns and gun control.

In her liberal, disingenuous rant on the evils of guns Ms. Tucker conveniently forgot to mention that Mr. Mann was a convicted murderer, a twice-convicted felon who had served eight years in prison and was a registered sex offender.  Amazingly, Tucker did not write how a convicted killer murdered an innocent woman and her unborn child.  Instead she said criminals are not the problem, guns are.  This was not only journalistically dishonest, but a disservice to her readers, to Clara Riddles and every crime victim in the country.

That was the worst, but not the only falsehood and half-truth in Tucker’s article:

She begins by asserting, "Gun assaults are rising."  While this is marginally true for the time period 2004 to 2005, from 1990 to 2005 murders are down by over 40% and without any new gun control laws. Enforcing the 22,000 gun-control laws already on the books seems to be working.

For example, Georgia has a law which states: "Any felon who receives, possesses or transports any handgun commits a felony punishable by 5 years in prison".

Mann was therefore breaking a gun-control law when he murdered Clara Riddles.

So, Tucker purposely fails to tell us Mann was a murderer, that he was a twice-convicted felon, that he spent eight years in prison, that he was a registered sex offender and that he was breaking a gun-control law when he committed his horrific crime.  Why does Tucker still have a job?

Tucker continues her liberal smugness by stating she does not understand the "perplexing cultural ethos that worships individual gun ownership."  Perplexing to Ms. Tucker and other out-of-touch liberals perhaps, but understood by most other humans going back to the cave man.  Imagine a cave man being told, "You can keep that club in your cave, but you cannot carry it with you."  As with a club, knife or sword, a gun is just the latest version of "arms' as in 'the right to bear arms".  Perplexing indeed are people who do not understand this historic right to self-defense.

Unable to help herself, Tucker then felt compelled to bring up the prototypical gun bogeyman...the "irrational gun lobby."  In her own words, Ms. Tucker quotes police authorities, saying gun violence has increased because of "an epidemic of methamphetamine".  The FBI states the rise was the effect of escalating gang violence.  So is it irrational to want to defend yourself against meth crazies and gang members and in Clara Riddles' case a convicted murderer?  Or is it irrational to suggest, as Tucker does, those criminals are not a threat and therefore law-abiding citizens should be defenseless against them?

Finally, she bemoans the loss of the liberal solution to all problems they can’t tolerate: sue 'em.  "In 2005, Congress handed firearms manufacturers a huge gift when it passed a law that shields the industry from virtually all liability lawsuits."  Tucker’s logic goes like this: gun manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths, but car manufacturers are not responsible for car deaths.  Why not blame Toyota for car bombings in Iraq?  Neither a gun nor a car will kill anyone without a reckless operator.

If newspapers want to stop the decline in their circulation they could start by eliminating dishonest one-sided writers like Tucker.  It seems as if newspaper editors are more interested in writing to impress their fellow journalists and others in the mainstream media than their customers, the readers.  But customers are saying, "We do not like your product, it is not relevant to our lives, therefore we are not going to buy it."  Newspapers better start listening to their customers--rather than their employees--if they want to stay in business.

The fact of the matter is:  if just one more gun had been available in Atlanta on April 4th, the "constant companion" (in the words of Thomas Jefferson ) of Clara Riddles, perhaps Clara Riddles and her unborn child would be alive and Arthur Mann would be dead.  And the world would be a safer place.

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler

*Author's Footnote*

Since this article was written, we have witnessed a horrible tragedy of 32 unarmed, defenseless people who were killed by a sick, deranged individual at Virginia Tech.  If just one more gun had been available at Virginia Tech on April 16th, the "constant companion" of a professor or student, dozens of innocent lives might have been saved.