Wild West City, or City of Madness and Folly?
Why am I comparing Chicago to the Wild West?
One reason is because the city has been applauding itself is because this past labor day weekend. It sent 1300 police into known past high crime areas in an attempt to reduce last years shooting record of it citizens. The result is only 52 people were shot compared ot last year total of 71. (Source HERE)
They used to shoot each other to settle disputes in the wild west, right?
Why City of Madness and Folly?
Two Alderman want to use an old Wild West solution in Chicago? Remember how Wyatt Earp in the movies made every one that came into town not be allowed to carry guns.
The Chicago Tribune reported on September 7, 2017 that Alderman are proposing a ban of weapons at rallies. However, every effort in the past to ban weapons in Chicago has failed in the Supreme Court. The latest Supreme Court decision was the result of a Chicago man who won the right to own a gun to defend himself over a City Ordinance that forbade the City to impose gun permits.
I wonder if instead of passing another Chicago ordinance that will wind up enriching more Chicago connected lawyers to profit on already challenged city tax payer’s funds might be wiser.
I am encouraged that the proposal is proactive to prevent the same violence as the folly exhibited by the City Leaders in Charlottesville, However, the Charlottesville tragedy was a woman died as the result of a car and not a weapon.
Perhaps though, the city should use a similar past wild west alternative instead.
If interested, read a previous post, and then decide if an alternative ordinance would be wiser. Actually,. The police would have a hard time to enforce the proposed ordinance because people can easily conceal weapons.
All that is needed instead would be a means for the city to easily make a decision of either yes or no, based on who asks first. It also would only require minimum police having to be at the rallies because it is a self-enforcement solution.
If persons who do not obey and protest at an opposition opinion rally with the intention to disrupt emotions or cause bodily or property harm, they will do so at their own risk. If they themselves are harmed, they can only blame themselves for choosing to disregard tbe rights ruled lawful by the Supreme Court. That ruling gives the right for every person to defend themselves as explained HERE.
If interested, read the alternative HERE
In other words, if a group wants to demonstrate at a rally, all they need to do, is get in line an obtain this simple approval based on a first come, first served basis. Same as in the wild west when two opponents drew guns against each other. In other words, the opponent who gets the permit first is the winner of who gets to have their rally first.
In My Opinion
If the City goes ahead with the ordinance that is certain to fail in the Supreme Court again, perhaps the city should add another star to their city flag change their City Flag. (Source HERE)
The meaning of the added star would be to symbolize an ancient King Solomon wisdom verse to describe his analogy of the difference between two extremes…
I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.(Ecclesiastes 2:13)
Which alternative is wiser?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Chicago Tribune HERE