Blagojevich: Chicago May Need National Guard Help

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NBC5 WMAQ

With gun violence at a crisis, Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday said he is in talks with Illinois State Police and the Illinois National Guard to see if more police officers can be deployed to the streets of Chicago.

The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn't asked for help, but Blagojevich says he'll call the mayor once he has some concrete suggestions about what help he can provide.

Blagojevich didn't have many specifics, but he said it's more likely that state police will be brought in than the National Guard.

Blagojevich also said there are a lot of retired Chicago police officers and state police troopers who could be rehired for the summer.


Read more: http://www.nbc5.com/news/16901117/detail.html

[truebrit71]

1. Great ideer there A-Rod....NOT!!!

Retired Chicago cops with itchy trigger fingers and a shitload of pent up resentment against the people they are supposed to "protect"...

Recipe for disaster if you ask me...

[Posteritatis]

2. Posse comitatus what? (nt)

[Xithras]

21. National Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus in this instance.

Remember, the NG units are organized at the state level and answer to the Governors, unless they're called into "federalized" service by the president. Posse Comitatus would prevent, for example, the president from ordering the California National Guard to replace the LAPD and assume law enforcement duties in Los Angeles. If called up by the federal government, the state National Guard units are operating under federal authority, and Posse Comitatus applies.

There is NOTHING in Posse Comitatus that would prevent THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA from doing the same thing though. While operating under state control, the governor has the right to call up his states national guard units for everything from law enforcement to firefighting. Many states have laws limiting the freedoms of their governments to do this, but Posse Comitatus wouldn't be applicable in any way...it is strictly a federal act limiting the power of the federal government to use federal troops in domestic law enforcement.

[Posteritatis]

30. Ah! I am become clued; thanks! (nt)

[sarcasmo]

70. As long as said State's National Guard isn't in Iraq.

[derby378]

3. So, Governor, how are those strict gun-control laws working for you?

Down here in Texas, some of us own full-auto. Legally. And I know it's going to sound crazy and all, but the Lone Star State has yet to implode due to our relatively tolerant laws governing guns.

[JoFerret]

6. Does that explain the MUCH higher gun deaths inTexas

compared with Illinois?

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Looks like it's not so safe with all you gun-toting Texans roaming free.

[WriteDown]

9. Notice also...

That DC and Alaska are well above TX.

[StClone]

17. So where do those guns come from I wonder?

Ask, Mexico and Canada.

[JoFerret]

18. From places where hand guns are legal and obtainable

that's what law enforcement usually says.

[StClone]

28. Sickening isn't it!

So if Mexico and Canada want to gun-related crime they have a huge hurtle to overcome...a tsunami of U.S. guns.

[-..__...]

29. What are you suggesting?

That we make concessions, compromises to our Bill of Rights in order to accommodate Canada and Mexico?

That is not going to happen.

They'll just have to find some other way to deal with their problems.

[StClone]

31. Enjoy

Saying the only thing that is keeping the world safe is even your cat having a f'n gun.

[tburnsten]

76. Heeheehee... It's not a real cat!

Or a real gun!

Silly clone!

[StClone]

84. How are Bible Thumpers and Gun Nuts Alike?

They both attest to supernatural powers found in inanimate objects as a Right Protected By the Constitution.

[tburnsten]

85. What is supernatural about a bullet?

It's pretty straightforward, a small piece of metal (or wood, if you happen to have one of those old Danish pistols) is propelled out of a tube of iron by a charge of combustible powder, the burning of which creates gases that push the projectile down the tube until it flies out at somewhat high velocity.

No hocus-pocus there! And another thing that isn't hocus-pocus, the threat of having a small piece of fast moving metal collide with an aggressive individuals body has been known to severely curtail their poor behavior, to the benefit of the individual who was formerly the object of their aggression. This deterrent effect is so powerful, most of the time the threat of projectile collision does not even need to be carried out! How wonderful!

Glad to see we're on the same page, StClone!

[StClone]

87. Yes or no?

Yes or no. Do you believe that possession of a shooting Iron will make you and the world more safe? (The Supernatural belief in the power of a gun is the point if I was unclear.)

Of course you do. There is almost no statistical proof overall to suggest you are though believe you will. Belief is the prime motivation for your possession of a Crucifix and Bible (or guns) and the powers they possess to civilize the world. Just as in "Democracy by force" doesn't work, neither does a society succeed when one of the main component for coercion to adhere to a civilized standard mean "I got a gun."

The heart/cause of crime are mostly factors a gun will never solve. But if you feel better then to possess one, so be it. Just don't shoot me as an innocent bystander.

[tburnsten]

89. Well crime and punishment isn't my job

I am not a peace officer, and it is not my responsibility to try to control criminal actions or the safety of the world at large. What is my responsibility is the safety of myself and my family, to the extent that I can protect us from the aggression of the occasional sociopath or individual bent on acquiring our possessions, to the point that harming us would further his goals more than leaving us in peace would. I have absolutely no control over the actions of others, but what I do have control over is my ability to respond to those actions. Should an individuals actions towards myself endanger my life and wellbeing, then should the appropriate response include the threat of or, unfortunately, application of deadly force, than I am capable of presenting that level of force as a significant deterrent to my aggressor. My owning of firearms has an impact on crime of exactly zero, there is no relation to crime and my guns. It is not my responsibility to try and control crime, and any crimes prevented by myself and my armed presence will exclusively benefit myself, unless I happen to be in a position where I stumble upon an individual or gorup of individuals attacking someone else. It is highly unlikely that I will ever have to present my weapon in response to another's criminal actions, but should the need arise, I will certainly be far better off with it than without it. I don't go looking for trouble, as a matter of fact I spend almost all my time at work, with my expecting wife, or with her and my mother in law. I lead a very quiet and stable lifestyle, and have no reason to expect to use my firearms against another person.

I just find it deplorable that in many places where other quiet, respectable citizens have a much higher likelihood of being victimized, they either cannot own a firearm at all or it is so costly, time consuming, and hard to get one that they will not be able to. I also think marksmanship training is very valuable and stress relieving. In fact I am going to a competition this weekend!

[StClone]

90. I've been a lot of places

In this country and the only place I felt unsafe was in rural Texas (Jim Wells Co.). When I pulled off the road to check my map a rancher quickly swung his vehicle around as his pard reached for a gun slung in a holster on the gun rack. Sweet Jesus!

My story is I am an expert shot and I used to shoot thousands of sheep, cattle and hogs at a slaughter house back in the 60's and 70's (.22 caliber shorts and longs). I know what guns do. I know the romantic attachment. I grew up in a military family and had fully stocked gun cabinet. Guns are a right I choose no longer to partake for reasons.

Enjoy your Right to Bear, but to me they are no solution.

[tburnsten]

91. I do, as often as possible

Your decision not to own any is fine, and you will most certainly never regret it. Scary story, by the way. To date, other than an incident where a roomate's girlfriend didn't think a gun someone was showing us was real, no one has ever made me feel threatened in any way. I hope to never have a firearm pointed at me, but being in the service right now, there is a good chance it will happen. Mostly I just really like shooting though, and like to get out as much as possible.

I don't think my owning firearms will ever impact the crime rate one way or another, and hopefully I am never proven wrong.

[JoFerret]

35. I certainly would like to melt down your guns.

sell the metal for scrap and use the money to help victims of gun violence.

or feed stray cats.

Bugger compromise and concessions.

[derby378]

44. Well, so much for advocating choice...

:shrug:

[JoFerret]

50. I am not in favor of the choice

of hand guns, rocket launchers or machine guns.
What on earth would you want them for except as ego props or ornamentation?

(Luckily for you I do make the law so no need to get upset by my opinions.)

[slackmaster]

52. One out of three's not bad

Rocket launchers and machine guns have been strictly regulated in the USA since 1934.

[JoFerret]

58. That's good. Now let's wise up and add hand guns.

.

[slackmaster]

72. You say you've got a real solution

Well you know, we'd all love to see the plan.

:popcorn:

[slackmaster]

75. How?

You know, things like an underlying Constitutional authority. Compensating people for lost property. Providing security to make up for the loss of self-defense capability.

Details, details.

[tburnsten]

77. Why?

It's alreay quite illegal for felons, domestic abusers, substance abusers, and anyone adjudicated a threat to themselves or others (oh and also anyone who has been a stalker) to own, purchase, possess, or even hold a single round of ammunition, let alone a pistol. Why go after handguns, why not just actually punish criminals and violent individuals to deter them from committing crimes? What's a little jail time to a gang member? Nothing, it's too easy. Make them perform lots of hard labor while in jail, and they will probably slow their roles a bit.

[StClone]

86. Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Don't you think the Founding Fathers meant rifles AND explosive cannon charges which were arms of the time. Why the knee jerk reaction to the 30's violence and ban on certain more effective self-protection was very questionable. My personal safety includes a 80mm. The Founding Fathers meant for me to take on the Government if it went astray not trespassers on my neighbor's property Texas-style. Peashooter won't do.

[tidy_bowl]

79. Straw man argument....

....lumping handguns with machine guns and rocket launchers. Talk about hyperbole.

:eyes:

[milou]

45. I certainly would like to melt down your car.

sell the metal for scrap and use the money to help victims of drunk driving.

[JoFerret]

49. Fine by me.

After you. (I don't have a car)

(And - cars of course are not designed to kill. That they do is accidental or misuse.
Guns however are designed to kill.

[derby378]

51. Uh, not so fast...

A gun is designed to expel a projectile out of its barrel by ignition of a propellant stored behind the projectile. The intended destination of the projectile is the responsibility of the operator of that gun. Therefore, the gun is not designed to kill. Just ask anyone who makes firearms for Olympic biathletes.

Remember what Aristotle said about law being reason free from passion? He sucked at astronomy, but I think he hit the target on this one.

[JoFerret]

57. OK - I've slowed down.

So you want hand guns to shoot projectiles from elongated objects?

Would a pea shooter do you?

(Not so likely to fall into the hands of the "wrong" people and have such with lethal results.)

[derby378]

71. It's not a matter of WANT, it's a matter of RIGHT

As in, a right that you and I possess that too many people still want to stomp all over in the name of "homeland security."

[JoFerret]

81. Bugger "homeland security"

It's guns and the people who possess them that cause the problem.

But - you are I both know that there is no point in arguing. You know what you think and believe and so do. It would be good to find some common ground but I doubt we could find it.

We would all be safer with fewer guns. Imo.

Cheers anyways.

[tidy_bowl]

80. So you want to ban guns because they kill people....

...how about:

cars
knives
baseball bats
crow bars
..etc.

All have been used to kill people. So why stop at guns?

[StClone]

88. Cars are a necessity -- guns are not

Cars are designed to be utterly as safe as possible (and still deaths occur) Guns are designed for a more effective kill. Actually you are countering your own argument.

[hack89]

64. I would like to read your mail and tap your telephone

to ensure you are not planning to do harm to me. I would also like the ability to lock you up on a whim if I feel threatened.

[JoFerret]

68. I am sure you would

Gun nuts - some of them - tend to have those kind of personalties (it seems).

(I fail to see the connection.)

Sane gun laws and controls does not equal the end of the world as we know it/ would like it to be.
It would in fact be a vast improvement. And especially for those people who will die today for lack of them.

[-..__...]

67. I like the way you think.

Just imagine if your sentiment was shared by a larger percentage of the voting public?

I can't think of a better way to make gun control an election issue.

[beevul]

48. How about asking mexico and canada WHY...

How about asking mexico and canada (or even chicago) WHY they aren't stopping them from getting into their own jurisdictions, eh?

If they can't stop them, then maybe they ought to be rethinking their own methods of doing so, or reconsidering the workability of the whole ball of wax.

Its no more the fault of the US that guns make it into canada and mexico than it is the fault of canada and other countries that marijuana makes it into the US.

[slackmaster]

13. Blagojevich isn't talking about the state of Illinois

He's talking about the city of Chicago.

[derby378]

14. So, using the figures that you provided...

...it sounds like Blagojevich is going into his "the sky is falling" routine.

So, here we go. In 2005, there were 551.5 violent crimes in Illinois for every 100,000 residents. In Texas, for the same year, there were only 529.7 per 100,000 - which is a net -2.1% trend in violent crime compared to Illinois' +1.1.

Nice try.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html

[Creideiki]

19. It's about a 4% difference

And really, violent crime trends up when the disparity between the haves and have-nots increases. So I'm not sure that everyone having a gun in Illinois would really noticeably change things all that much.

Oh, and I'm glad the 2nd amendment in Texas gives you what you would need for a violent overthrow of the government if that were called for.

Oh, wait. Your automatic weapons versus the combined arms of the military. Nope, that wouldn't work too well. Remember, if the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to overthrow the government (as the founding fathers said), then we shouldn't be restricting to small arms. You should be allowed tanks, fighters, bombers, and nuclear weapons. If it's not, then the 2nd amendment doesn't mean you should be allowed anything at all. (Granted, I do highly approve of open-access to guns in rural areas where police protection will likely take too long to respond, but when you allow it in urban areas, you have random idiots shooting people in the back in their neighbors' yards with the police present.)

[michreject]

34. Another one of the idiotic tank comparisons

Afghanistan managed to give Russia a good whoopin without tanks. Most of the mujahideen were using rifles that were 60+ years old.

Try again.


spellin edit.

[sudopod]

37. How's that freedom working out for the Afghan people these days? :3 nt

[michreject]

39. What does that have to do with tanks? nt

[trickup]

59. Afghanistan managed to give Russia a good whoopin without tanks

I'm sure the fact that we gave them Stinger missisles had nothing to do with that.

[michreject]

63. That was later

They held their own before our assistance.

[tburnsten]

78. Because shoulder launched anti aircraft missles

developed for use against low flying soft aluminum airframes are the perfect weapon against hardened, surface dwelling tanks with nice thick hardened steel armor developed to stop tank and anti-tank weapons, both of which have far better anti-armor properties than any pesky little anti-air missle.

Not even close to the same thing, I know you probably just see MISSILES! and EXPLOSIONS! but tank guns and anti air missiles inflict damage in vastly different ways.

[Thothmes]

74. Early in the war, some were using 1853 pattern Enfield rifle muskets.

[derby378]

36. Your rights as a citizen should not depend on urban vs. rural residency

I appreciate that you are taking police response time into account, and I hate hearing about inner-city shootings as much as you do. But, as alluded to above, overthrowing the government is a very real possibility, especially if current trends are allowed to continue unabated. The choice that all American will have to make at the point that the Constitution is scrapped outright may very well be whether to die on their feet or live on their knees.

[Zynx]

20. Illinois actually has higher overall violent crime:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=117&cat=2

[Wcross]

40. Damn, my state has one of the highest rates. (Tennessee)

I feel relatively safe here despite this statistic.

[JoFerret]

4. More hand-guns needed.

.

[cobalt1999]

5. That handgun ban is really working...

I can't wait to hear the opponents of the 2nd amendment spin this one.

[rfranklin]

7. See post number 6

Easily obtainable guns means more gun deaths.

P.S.--I am a licensed gun owner.

[cobalt1999]

10. That shows the statistics for the state of Illionis

I'd like to see the number of gun deaths per 100,000 for the City of Chicago that has a handgun ban. The state of Illinois doesn't.

[JoFerret]

12. Ask law enforcement

where the guns come from.

Ask law enforcement in the big cities what their take is on controlling gun violence.

And check out big city Texan comparisons too.

[benEzra]

54. Like in New Hampshire, Minnesota, or Washington state?

Easily obtainable guns means more gun deaths.

Like in New Hampshire, Minnesota, or Washington state?

Oh, wait...

[JoFerret]

8. You've seen the statistics right?

You've listened to law enforcement experts right?
You've applied common sense, right?
You understand the intersections between crime and poverty right?
You've paid attention to the information about the origin of the guns being used right?
You do know that the equation more guns = more gun deaths is right. Right?

[cobalt1999]

11. Nope.

Like I said, show me the handgun death rate for the city of Chicago where they are outlawed.

[derby378]

15. See #14

[wvbygod]

47. gang killings are about hate and power

They just happen to use guns to do it. Take away the guns and they will use knives.
The people doing the killing are the problem...that and no parenting.

[trickup]

60. hand gun ban

Isn't it strange that a city with a hand gun ban has a governor sending National guard troops to protect its citizens. I'm sure not confident in Chicago getting the Olympics and if they do sure as hell wouldn't go.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. Didn't Chimp already suspend the Posse Comitatus Act of 1876?

I seem to recall that it was a big discussion in DU a while back.

Hawkeye-X

[Xithras]

22. see #21. And those changes were repealed.

PC doesn't apply anyway, but the Posse Comitatus suspensions were repealed earlier this year in HR 4986

[Megahurtz]

23. Oh Fucking Great.

Don't give * any ideas!

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. We lost the Olympics on July 3, when 3 people got shot in the fucking Loop

after the fireworks display.

[Zynx]

55. Versus Rio de Janeiro, Chicago is northern Finland.

[JoFerret]

25. The politics of crime

suggest it has an awful lot to do with access to housing, jobs and to the unemployment and poverty rates.

Access to guns means the crimes get committed with guns leading to higher death rates.

And if we want to compare city to city - how about Houston?

Try this site for some interesting left political takes on crime and crime statistics.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/06/01/107/64240

[MadMaddie]

26. Soooooooooo.....the Gov wants to take National Guardsman

who have been to Iraq and Afhghanastan into an American city....and he thinks this will help.....recipe for disaster. Are they going to kick in every door? Are they going to imprison any American that doesn't agree with their tactics? Oh and bring back retired cops who remember the day when bashing in a head was okay and overlooked....wow...

[-..__...]

27. Daley and his boot licker Blagojevich will be in panic mode...

once we get the Chicago handgun ban overturned (and it will).

[JMackT]

32. Yep

Its only a matter of time.

Think baby steps

[trickup]

62. Overturn Chicago handgun ban

I can't wait till its overturned. No I can buy that one I wanted. Oh I forgot I couldn't afford the higher taxes (10 %) in Chicago, moved to far safer suburbs and didn't have to buy a gun. Daley is a retard. Just listen to him speak.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Chicago is in danger of becoming another Detroit

[slackmaster]

53. Freddie, that was cold

:rofl:

[Blue_Tires]

38. somehow i get the feeling that the NG may cause more headaches than cures

[Irreverend IX]

41. But I thought Chicago was a gun-free paradise with no crime or violence whatsoever...

Keeping in mind that most of those murders are connected to gang warfare, and that the main thing gangs war over is drug turf, maybe you could quell the violence by legalizing drugs and starving the gangs... but that's crazy talk. Banning guns in Chicago isn't enough; they need to be doubleplusbanned and then the murders will stop.

[WriteDown]

42. I was leaning toward double secret banned...

What many people do not realize is that many guns are illegals and imported into the U.S. There are many cheapo Chinese and Russian guns that make there way onto the streets. This whole scenario reminds me of NYC up until the 90's. Back when the subway was a true adventure.

[benEzra]

43. "Gunz!" is apparently the new "Terrah!".

And FWIW, 97 percent of Chicago homicides are committed by people with prior arrest records. So much for the myth of "most murderers are law-abiding people who snap."

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/March08CrimeStats.pdf

Since the beginning of the year through March, 70 percent of the murder victims had prior arrests records and 97 percent of the offenders had prior arrest records. Sixty nine percent of the murders occurred outdoors and 31 percent occurred indoors.

And I'm sure in the next few days, Blagovich and Daley will again trot out the "assault weapons" fraud, even though less than 1% of murders in Illinois involve any type of rifle.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

[wvbygod]

46. Stop making gangbanging romantic

Maybe add some parenting too. Attitudes need to change.

[LynneSin]

56. National Guard may be too busy in DC now that permits are legal

I believe in the right to bare arms and all that blah blah blah. But what these gunnuts don't understand is that the rules that fit those who live in Texas or Arizona or Wymoning may not fit for cities like DC, Chicago and NYC.

The funny thing was, the gun laws in DC were especially attacked by politicians NOT from DC who felt 'i'm not safe' and wanted their guns.

[trickup]

61. A police officer from DC started the lawsuit

A police officer from DC wanted to take his gun home for protection started the lawsuit. He wanted a permit and was denied.Check for yourself.

[LynneSin]

65. Trust me - it was more than a DC police officer that did this

and it would be foolish to believe otherwise.

[MicaelS]

66. Oh please....

Apply that same standard to the 1st Amendment or the Right to Choose. The Constitution is not a buffet where you can pick and choose your rights based on your geographic location.

[MicaelS]

73. Totally incorrect

This was started as a test of Constitutional Law, Levy who financed the case was not a politician, nor does he own a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[sarcasmo]

69. Bush is probably salivating over this idea. Looks like Chicago could be a Martial Law run.

This story scares me, but if I were in Chicago it would scare me even more.

[riverdeep]

82. All the gun talk is a red herring.

It's largely irrelevant. The real issue here is the drug war. We're so desensitized to its continuing stupidity, we don't even see what's in front of our faces anymore. The majority of the gun deaths are from gang violence. More churches, more prayers, more after-school programs, these things aren't going to jack shit.

Until we talk seriously as a nation about the fundamental dynamic driving the carnage, it'll just be hot air. The last national figure, until Ron Paul, to call for a conversation was Jocelyn Elders. She was promptly dismissed. Since her departure, even more evidence has piled up that the drug war, which I contend set the stage for the war on terror, has been a total failure. From the spraying of crops in other countries to the D.A.R.E program-a complete failure.

But the money is still flowing into law enforcement coffers, neither major candidate is talking about ending the drug war, and the bodies are still piling up on our streets.

[Hannah Bell]

83. yep. drug war = big bucks for big players

part of the bushco faction's operating funds