No Serious Gun Debate Until Gang-bangers And Political Corruption Eliminated

No Serious Gun Debate Until Gang-bangers And Political Corruption Eliminated

Anti-Gun liberals like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens yet offer no hope in furthering the gun debate because of his administration's inability to control gang bangers and their illegal access to them.

It makes no sense to strip citizens of their right to protect themselves until you can level the playing field.

Don't get me wrong either because I believe that having sensible gun laws isn't a bad thing. But aren't there already plenty on the books? How about looking at properly enforcing those laws and mandates?

But that is not what anti-gun liberals want. Their motives are far more sinister and nefarious than that. They would have you believe that gang-bangers are somehow cut from the same cloth of sensibility as law-abiding citizens are. However, we already know that that is the furthest from the truth.

Reality tells us that gang-bangers don't give a damn about society's laws and as such will always have access to firearms.

Rahm Emanuel, meanwhile, refuses to properly staff the Chicago Police Department so that they can meet their stated mission of "To Serve and Protect." How many nightmare stories have we heard about the lack of a police presence in those neighborhoods most affected by gang violence? Compounding the problem is the code of silence among residents who fear that the only result cooperation brings is a "snitch winding up in a ditch." Besides, residents have little faith in the police department because many feel they are as bad as the gang-bangers themselves.

It's a vicious circle.

That, in and of itself, is a deterrent to the gun control debate here. No sane person would give up one iota of their constitutional right to bear arms until society has a level playing field against those that have z-e-r-o regard for the rule of law. As such, big city mayors, like Rahm Emanuel, need to get off their collective asses and eradicate its streets of the war zones in their own backyards before demanding citizens give up their last hope of protecting themselves.

Of course that would also require brain dead governors to properly fund empty prisons and forgo those asinine early release programs for all those non-rehabilitated criminals rather than opening up the floodgates of hell unto society. And while we are on the discussion of funding, how about the state properly funding the many mental health facilities that have fallen victim to budget cuts?

You know, those of us living in the State of Illinois should be more than aware of these deficiencies. Yet the people don't seem to care as its elected officials have used taxpayer monies for anything but what their clear intent was. Instead they have allowed one politician after another to fill their (or their cronies) pockets with unethical sweet insider deals. If as that weren't bad enough, the people have also stood largely silent as politicians have been allowed to underfund a swollen pension fund system built upon decades and decades of overt patronage and the gaming of it by interlopers aided by windows of opportunity opened by a willing Illinois Legislature.

So excuse me if I am a little more than skeptical of the intentions of our "well-meaning Illinois Democrats." Their agendas rarely have the peoples best interests at heart and anyone saying that isn't so is clearly a beneficiary of that system. Yet these are the same people who see nothing wrong with forcing the state to take indecent liberties when it comes slashing funding required to protect its people and keep dangerous or mentally ill people off the streets.

I don't know about you but before I would let people like these dictate the debate on guns I would demand that they deal with the estimated 68,000 gang-bangers wreaking havoc on the good people of Chicago.

And let's be very clear here Mister Emanuel - there is a direct correlation to the number of gang-bangers and the ineptitude of city and state politicians keeping people in perpetual poverty. So really - is it any wonder then that there are so many gangs and gang members running amok in your city? Hardly! Again, if you want a serious debate or impose stricter regulations on gun ownership then it has to begin with the eradication of the gang-bangers.

Better yet, let's eradicate the corrupt politicians too!

 

P.S. Please Subscribe To My Blog, I Would Greatly Appreciate It.

Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Illinois politicians and government officials on all levels are in the long run more dangerous to the freedom and movement and pursuit of happiness than gang bangers.

    Especially troubling are the actions of recent presidents, who are "ruling" more and more by Executive Order, behaving more like King George than George Washington. President Obama is carte blanche with executive orders, and, is "ruling" and not governing. He is not the first, but he seems the most determined to use this method, along with federal regulation enacted by unelected government agencies to rule and not govern and execute the laws of the land, supposedly enacted by our elected representatives.

    This is the main purpose of the Second Amendment, and though people now want to be ruled and not governed, they cannot someday say that they were not warned.

    An armed body politic is a free peoples.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard, Couldn't agree more.
    This executive order "ploy" is troubling but by law the president cannot make new law with an executive order; the order must stand with a law Congress has already passed. So we'll see how this Obama / Biden B.S. goes but I don't think it is worth the breathe they wasted to scare people.

    As Thomas Jefferson said:

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    "An armed body politic is a free peoples."

    Besides the grammatical error, are you going all Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, or Sara Jane Moore on us, Richard?

    There are federal statutes passed by Congress on that.

  • In reply to jack:

    Don't know about that analogy Jack. I think all Richard is implying is what Jefferson himself thought of tyranny in government. To allow government to render it's citizens defenseless gets you people like Hitler or Stalin. It is bad enough our nation has become an oligarchy do we really want dictatorship?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I didn't make an analogy, maybe you and Richard did.

    Even if everyone had a six shooter in the pocket, that isn't going to deter the government. The only logical conclusion to Richard's point is that the U.S., if such things as assassination and treason laws can be overcome, can be converted into Syria. While the rebels or terrorists (depending on the characterization) have seized some Syrian Army weapons, the despot Assad is still there. Meanwhile, 60,000 of his citizens have been killed.

    While Richard said elsewhere that he would accept the result of this election, the only alternative for a person unwilling to do so to take the next step by going Lee Harvey Oswald, as I suggested. I said before here that I wasn't going to set off the next Loughner.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, please. I am not EB White, and I sometimes write the way I speaks, if that's okay with youse, which it ain't.

    Jack, you can eliminate all the guns in the world, and there will still be death and destruction.

    If you entirely trust the government, and believe one part of the Bill of Rights is not as good as the other, well, who am I to try to change your mind.

    Why not trash the whole Constitution and start over, which is what I recommend, because it would at least provide clarification as to what type of government we are living under? Then we could be friends. You would be happy being ruled, and I would know that I am to be ruled.

    Tell me: the argument is to ban violent video games, too. That infringes on the First Amendment. But, really, you don't care, do you, unless it is something you want to view, read, etc.? See, let's just stop pretending and draft a new constitution that will make those who want to be ruled happy?

    I hope I made my point "good".

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Dick:

    The Constitution has a means by which it can be amended. That means was used at least through the 1960s. Blacks and women couldn't vote until there was an amendment.

    So, tell us (1) in what manner you think the Constitution should be amended, and (2) how your arsenal promotes that end.

    Otherwise, you didn't make any rational point at all. Not even "well."

  • In reply to jack:

    Tsk, tsk, Jack. You know, I have to hand it to you, a faceless name always popping up and shouting at people who are front and center with their identities. You seem to be always angry too. And at me.

    Anywhoo.... Yes, the Constitution can be amended, so get right on it. Trouble is, those who rule by emotion and fiat do not want to go through the process, because, most likely, especially when it comes to disarming the public, a new amendment or changing the Second to make it apply to hunters, would not pass muster.

    I do not think the Constitution should be amended. I think -- and I'm only saying this in the interest of reality-- that it should be scrapped. We are living in a post-Constitutional Republic anyway, so let's get real.

    And if the authors of the Second Amendment wanted to outlaw the arsenals of the day -- cannons and bombs and gunpowder devices of all types, they would have included such language in the wording. The Second Amendment, as it stands now, is to protect you (Jack) against the tyranny of government, which the Founders knew well.

    Oh, wasted words.

    As for "Dick". Yes, I at least have one. Who know if "Jack" is short for Jacqueline. I at least attach my real name, first and last, and my ugly mug to comments.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    As Michael pointed out yesterday, you used to get posts from me on your blog, so you could at least verify my e-mail address and communicate with me if you really wanted to communicate. But it appears that you don't.

    And it would take an amendment to scrap it. You still haven't said what your alternative is.

    Since you have a Second Amendment right--tell us how you are exercising it to prevent tyranny. Otherwise, you are just empty words.

  • Mostly, I took your post as stream of consciousness, but it still leaves--how do you get rid of the gang bangers?

    The feds took care of the gang bangers of the 1920s by repealing prohibition and charging Alfonse Capone with tax evasion.

    So, given that large swaths of Chicago have been rendered uninhabitable by them, what should the authorities do...legalize crack, for instance and allow its sale at Walgreens?

    And then, as I previously mentioned, how do they then get the existing armament off the streets? I'm sure that the 2nd Amendment crowd is not going to go for a door to door search through Woodlawn, Englewood, South Shore, Avalon Park, Auburn-Gresham, etc., even though you argued that semiautomatic weapons and the like were not protected.

  • In reply to jack:

    Indeed it is more a stream of consciousness, but as I said there is a correlation between poverty and crime. And as we know the political apparatus here has largely ignored that. Naturally when people don't have much to look forward to, well where do they turn? I guess it is easier to stay on the dole and sell drugs (although the life expectancy is severely diminished). So in short I guess the first step in eliminating gang-bangers is by raising the standard of living - at least from a political point of view.

    Then we have the CPD, well what can we say about that? The people fear them and won't cooperate. Meanwhile on the flip-side you have a force that are numbers too low to harbor any expectations of law and order. I mean some of these neighborhoods are literally out of control and gang bangers exhibit no fear.

    No easy solutions, but I think it begins at a societal level and without the funding going to the appropriate areas, well tough nuts. Although the politicians and unions still figure out ways on how to rape the system.

    I have to say this too - what we are seeing here are largely decades of neglect and/or throwing good money after bad in some sort of band-aid manner; impoverished areas have slews of ministries getting grants - but neighborhoods remain blighted, etc. Just one big mess Jack.

    However, the short term solution to getting the excessive illegal guns off the street will take a large police presence and/or use of the National Guard (as they did during the riots of 68). Just letting the hoods take over neighborhoods exasperates all the issues.

    Your solution of selling crack at Walgreen's on the other hand I have to take as you being facetious and I think you know that is nowhere where I am going in the thought process. Oh and yes - as a gun owner, I still believe that assault weapons should be banned as there is no practical purpose for them other than to kill. But on the other hand, I also understand why some would not want to relinquish them so long as the bangers have access to them.

    So it still comes down to enforcing the laws we have with a sizable enough presence to make a difference. And the only way that happens is if these numb-nut politicians stop misusing taxpayer funds and using them as personal ATM's.

    Thanks for your comment Jack, as always - interesting.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I was looking for practical solutions, and the only one you proposed was calling in the National Guard, but I'm sure Wiz and his type (is he still around?) will say that that will result in all sorts of violations of Fourth Amendment rights.

    Obviously, the "funding" and "good money after bad" lead in contradictory directions. As said, "Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty in 1965, and poverty one." People were crying for funding for the CTA from 2005-2008, and see what that got us, other than the tax increase.

    Maybe the point I was trying to make is that neither you nor Richard get us to any logical conclusion, and the headline could be used as justification to do nothing, which probably will get done.

    And I was not being totally facetious; based on the record of Prohibition (and cigs and liquor are sold at Walgreens), I am still in favor of legalizing and taxing weed and prostitution.

  • In reply to jack:

    poverty "won." I am getting more incoherent.

  • In reply to jack:

    I disagree. You are consistent.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Unlike you.

    And at least I correct my errors.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack the practical solutions are what I described, albeit not easy but in context the correct path. It is, after all, made up of multiple contributing factors. For instance, what did Old Man Daley's "move everyone to the projects and isolate them" accomplish? It kept people mired in poverty right? Meanwhile monies traded hands, the rich and corrupt got richer while the impoverished were kept in poverty with no prospects for better jobs (if any), diminished education, etc. which led to a proliferation of gangs, etc..

    Do you not believe that political corruption has not been a part of this mess or that taxpayer money has not been properly utilized? Come on now, we have talked about this more than a few times.

    As for legalization of weed and prostitutes? So be it, it would probably lead to more revenue streams (that will wind up who knows where). But I have no moral issue with the legalization thereof.

    As for 4th Amendment violations, well what permitted Old Man Daley to call them out during the MLK riots and neighborhoods were burning down? I mean all he did was call the governor and the governor sent them out, as permitted. And if the gangs are a danger to society, well get them on the streets if we can't get the Police to do their jobs.

    At the end of the day it has been largely the malfeasance of government that created most of the societal breakdowns we are dealing with today. That can't be ignored and must be part of the solution.

    Look if you are looking for a broad stroke of a brush you must begin by taking the logical steps they should have taken. It isn't novel or new - it is just what they haven't done or what they refused to do all along.

    So yes - poverty won.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    To put it simply, if cleaning the government of acknowledged corruption is the prerequisite, we know that isn't going to be done, which gets me to the point I made before legalization. Not much different than the Tribune today saying that the new General Assembly should get done the work that the last one didn't. Not going to happen when most of the turnover was due to gerrymandering.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well then that is probably correct. But if we are to tackle any of these issues it must start with the political system. Now whether or not they do that is anyone's guess. But the point remains - they cannot have an expectation or begin imposing their will without addressing their own hand in all this. Seems to me if they keep pursuing this dangerous path it could possibly inflame the citizenry and perhaps lead to a Civil War. At some point the shit will hit the fan if politicians continue to ignore the will of the people.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    So, I guess, by raising Civil War, that you embrace the Syria solution. I don't know about Richard, yet.

  • In reply to jack:

    Embrace the Syrian solution? No wouldn't say that, but I am sure there are more than enough people within American society that would. It's okay to disagree Jack and we often do bit I don't think trying to put words in my mouth is the right path.

    Look I already know you don't believe in "fixing society" or investing the money into the disadvantaged areas, so any mention of that as part of the solution would probably meet with disfavor. But as I said, there are many factors in why gang-bangers have gained a foothold and part of that has been the inaction or misguided attempts by government. But unless you give people a reason to not want to peddle dope and protect some arbitrary piece of turf well what are you gonna get - exactly what we got.

    And if the powers that be do nothing to curb the violence and illegal guns off the street you won't convince others to follow suit.

    Now to date, every place this has posted it has been met favorably. But having you as a detractor is quite alright too. Opinions are what they are and they are taken at face value without malice. So I accept your criticism and all I can say is we have reached an impasse on this one. Hopefully we will agree elsewhere on another topic.

  • "Look I already know you don't believe in 'fixing society' or investing the money into the disadvantaged areas, so any mention of that as part of the solution would probably meet with disfavor."

    I didn't say that. However, if one wants to talk about prerequisites, I think both of us agree that it isn't going to work until graft is eliminated. Other than the feds repeatedly sending governors to prison and occasionally prosecuting others for mail or wire fraud, a clean solution has not been found.

    For whatever it is worth, at least I suggested two new revenue streams, and at least one method to eliminate a gang economic turf (if that is over which they are fighting, as opposed to just being dissed).

  • In reply to jack:

    I agree Jack. What i meant was we have had conversations in the past about corruption and throwing good money after bad. There was no indictment intended, I just know how you feel based on conversations. And as you said earlier, I don't know if that is even possible given how entrenched that graft is.

    Your revenue stream ideas sounded good to me and I personally do not have a moral objection to either and told you that. My only thought was where will that revenue wind up?

    Perhaps my views border on the idealistic, but when it comes to the problem at hand that's about the best I can do. Yes a losing battle I suppose - but if we want to change things we literally need those politicians to start being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. To say this issue is complicated is an understatement of great magnitude. It's as if all we are left with is to throw our hands up in the air. But there is still a side of me that wants to see something positive somewhere down the line.

    Call me a fool or a dreamer - but saying nothing isn't a place I want to go. Just like I don't want people to be deceived by political ideologies that don't exist either and that is why I throw things out there the way I do.

    One thing I do know though - there are no easy answers or solutions to what ails our society but most people will pick a position and stay steadfast. I try not to judge or disparage anyone because I also know I don't have all the answers. I like to see dialogue emerge and it is fine if everyone or no one agrees. But unlike so many of our elected at least we are talking.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I think we are in agreement on that.

    As far as cleaning it up, I advocated about early 2008 (certainly on Wiz, and maybe here) that the federal government enforce Article IV section 4 of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ..." by bringing home the National Guard, and then marching them from the North Riverside Armory up Ogden Ave. and bring democracy to Berwyn, Cicero and Chicago in that order. Certainly the current President is not going to overthrow his friend the Mayor, but, like the 2nd Amendment, it is in the Constitution, and the courts have ruled that only the Executive Branch has the authority to enforce that provision.

  • In reply to jack:

    I believe you said that here and I was in total agreement then, just as I am now. You know we don't always agree but I think we have learned to give and take, and again - that's an important lesson for our leaders to learn. Our country is a mess and people are frustrated as hell. Sadly, it just goes on and on and on. Like my Dad used to say "what to do?"

    And as I told him then - I am not quite sure but doesn't mean we shouldn't be turning over each and every stone in pursuit of an answer.

  • To solve any problem you must get to the root of the issue--the Cause of Gun Violence and Suicide is Poverty and Mental Illness.

    For example, Chicago's poverty rate among black people is #1 in the nation at 32.2% AND Chicago leads the nation in Gun Murders in 2012 (over 500).

    Mental Illness = Reason for Mass Shootings and the #1 cause of death by injury in the USA--Suicides.

    SOLUTIONS:
    -Raise the Federal Minimum Wage: Currently 45% below the 1968 rate (AFI).
    -Gang/Suicide Prevention: Early school-based social skills training, counseling, mentoring, and parent training for early detection.
    -Education Finance Reform: More funding for poorest schools.
    -Incentives for Job Creation in poor areas.
    -Job Training for at risk youth.
    -Drug Treatment costs ~75% less than prison and re-arrest rates are ~26% lower.

    CLICK THE LINK, SIGN THE PETITION, RE-POST TO FP MAKE GOVERNMENT ACT NOW:
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/solve-gun-violence-ending-poverty-and-treating-mental-illness/cG4ZC8ZD

  • In reply to Frustrated:

    Absolutely Correct Frustrated. I have been advocating for this since day one. Of course not all the problems are in the disadvantaged areas - but a large percentage for sure. But unless the proper programs and funding are in place it is difficult. We just cannot continue to throw good money after bad at the charlatans and political cronies in these areas either. There must be accountability that the money is going where it is intended - and right now many of the programs do not do that. There also has to be a shift in the political mindset in these areas, simply voting for products of the same machine that has kept poor areas of the city poor for the last 50 plus years must stop too. Problems are many and they cover the entire spectrum; political and social.

    I believe the time to wake up is upon us all. We must demand that our elected leaders, religious leaders, community leaders and activists and most importantly the parents - are all working towards the same goals. The status quo must change and will take all of us to accomplish!

    Thanks for your comment and link.

  • OK guys. You are of the few who understand the problem is not guns - it is the people who use them to harm/kill others. If the weapon is really the problem, then why didn't the government go after the Ham Sandwich after it took Mama Cass from us?

    While we have to deal with poverty some of the solutions proposed in another post are unworkable.

    Raising the minimum wage will not solve anything. It will only raise prices and cause inflation. We will always be chasing that. Plus, raising the minimum wage simply limits the number of people employed. We need more people working, rather than fewer people working.

    The unemployment rate is about educational level, not race. Compare black and white unemployment rates for those who did not complete high school and they are about the same.

    Today's economy and the future are about education and skill sets. Those who do not have them will not flourish. The poverty of the mind will create the poverty of the pocket and spirit.

    The affirmative action programs have only served to hinder, not help blacks today. The kid who would be good at Illinois State instead gets to go to up scale to a college where he or she simply cannot compete because they don't have the educational skills. It ends up that the diversity the college wanted to create is not a social or cultural diversity but a diversity between success and failure. So the kid who probably would have made it at Illinois State drops out or fails out of college. In some cases those kids have college loans to repay and no job skill to get a job that will help them repay the loans. That isn't success in my book.

    While I am all for helping everyone succeed, we MUST be careful with our plans and programs because they often create unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they are trying to solve.

    Of course, if I had all the answers I would already have been on Oprah. She hasn't called yet. Since I don't use performance enhancing drugs and deny it, I probably won't get my chance on her show.

  • In reply to Money:

    Thanks for the comments. Yes I agree we must always be wary of the "unintended consequences." Unfortunately the policy wonks can't seem to get that part right, although I understand that these are complex problems and there is no one size fits all solution. The argument on affirmative action has it's valid points too as I have often lamented on the same. Honestly I don't know what all the answers are, but I do know we must stop the insanity of throwing good money after bad. Especially when it comes to poverty - it is no accident that there is a ministry on every block. As they say - the money is good. But people have not benefited as they should have from the numerous programs designed to level the playing field because there are too many charlatans involved. People need to re-evaluate a few things that's for sure but I am also concerned that we are at a precipice.

    These are heady times for sure but we must also be careful that that is not a basis for our rights to be trampled upon in the process.

  • fb_avatar

    Why do you feel the need to be governed?
    When people cannot govern themselves, they will surely be governed. Are you a child or a man?

  • In reply to LW127:

    Personally I am more inclined to believe what Plato said: "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." As much as I would like to believe that we are all good people reality tells us otherwise and society must act accordingly. However, I also believe that an "unchecked government" is in the best interests of the people either. Like everything else there are no easy answers or solutions and sometimes we must give a little to get a little. Probably doesn't answer your question but my preference is less government. Draw your own conclusion. Thanks for the comment.

  • We all have to decide on what our basic world view is....Are people inherently good or inherently evil. I have always felt that those who wish to control each and every aspect of individual behavior and freedom operate under the "everyone is evil" principle and then rail at the world for being greedy and self serving. You can't have it both ways.....if you feel that people should be universally altruistic, then you are also stating that they are, at the core, essentially good. You cannot believe in the essential goodness of man, and be in such fear of your fellow man that you have to strip him of every right and liberty to insure your own safety. Given that the trend in Illinois is for our politicians to serve a term in the Governor's mansion followed by a term in in the Big House........I don't trust them to appropriately legislate dog tags, let alone my personal freedom. Politicians seem to be playing a huge game of transference, wherein they are trying to convince us, in the name of the safety of women, children, and the elderly, that we all have to leave the weapons in their hands and under their control (a control that we cannot change if we comply) The fears expressed are not our fears of one another, but the politicians fears regarding a dissatisfied and frustrated population, a group of factions who have all been promised the moon and delivered nothing.

  • In reply to Sue Fitzpatrick:

    Very well said Sue. Indeed we can't have it two ways and like you don't trust the politicians, especially here in our home state where they have taken governance to an entirely different level.

    You know it was no accident either that our Founding Fathers were well aware of what the future held for this nation and made to sure to bestow us with certain rights in the event government over-stepped its limits. Unfortunately it seems people have either gotten lazy or are too stupid to see what they have been given.

    As I have said it over and over again here - be careful what you wish for because politicians will take whatever they can so long as there is no opposition to them. We are living in dangerous times - not only do we have to fear an out of control society but an out of control government as well.

    Thanks for your comment.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    We are living in dangerous times - not only do we have to fear an out of control society but an out of control government as well.

    Out of control? They want to ban energy drinks that contain more than X amount of caffeine, yet there is more caffeine in coffee than in the energy drinks. New York wants to limit the size of softdrinks you can buy. Can't get a 16 ounce coke, but you can buy 3 or 4 or more 8 ounce cokes. The list of inane and insane ideas from our government goes on.

    I know the Founding Fathers had it right. At about 1900 or so the power balance shifted from state government to federal. Of course, living in Illinois, the federal government having more power may be a good thing.

    How do we get the people to wake up? How do we minimize the power of those on the dole. Right now there is 1.25 workers supporting 1 person on welfare. Not exactly a sustainable formula.

    Do you think people are unaware? Do they just not care? Are they so tired they don't have time or energy to fight the good fight? Do they think they won't win?

    What?????? What????? What is going on in this country that people sit by and watch us slide past England in the marathon of the has been countries?

  • fb_avatar

    I don't know about you but before I would let people like these dictate the debate on guns I would demand that they deal with the estimated 68,000 gang-bangers wreaking havoc on the good people of Chicago.

  • In reply to Ashlyine Broke:

    Ashly first, thank you so much for your comment. Now to your comment - I agree with you in principle but haven't these same people already done nothing - despite community outrage?

    What we need Ashly are committed public servants and community leaders who aren't more than common thieves and religious charlatans. A lot of money has been thrown at the problem to satisfy politicians like Bobby Rush but all too often that money disappears or very little is actually used for the intended purpose. So I guess the point comes back to the corruption.

    Seems to me no one has the guts to WANT to do something about the problem. But I will say this in all fairness - this is a very complex problem and its roots lie in giving everyone a legitimate economic and educational opportunity.

    Again thanks for commenting and please visit more often to voice your opinion or begin a discussion.

Leave a comment