Category: Anti-Gun Folks

By now we all know the story of Garry McCarthy, the Chicago Police Commissioner who recently went on an anti-gun tirade at Father “Snuffy” Pfleger‘s St. Sebastina Chucrh:

McCarthy has a history, and it’s not exactly good. Take this article from the New York Times which details a previous arrest, and his being disciplined by the NYPD:

Mr. McCarthy does not come without some baggage. Some critics have described his demeanor as occasionally gruff, and there has been much talk in New York about a confrontation last year in which he was arrested by two officers with the Palisades Interstate Police at a gas station on the parkway.

In March, a judge fined him and his wife $200 each for blocking traffic with his police-issued vehicle while they argued with the officers, who had issued a summons to their 18-year-old daughter, who was driving another car. At the hearing, the officers testified that Mr. McCarthy had been drinking and that he used profanities during the confrontation, which started after his daughter parked in a handicapped zone.

In an interview last night, Mr. McCarthy was unapologetic about the incident, saying he was simply protecting his daughter. “I will stake my career and reputation against any of the people involved in the incident,” he said.

In 1983, Mr. McCarthy was disciplined by the New York Police Department for an incident in the Bronx on St. Patrick’s Day, during which he was off duty and drinking when he and his brother, then a state trooper, were confronted by a group of men with a growling dog on a leash. During the dispute, Mr. McCarthy gestured to his gun, he told officials at the time. Mr. McCarthy acknowledged that his conduct was inappropriate, but that it was accepted practice at the time. “That was 23 years ago,” he said. “I think the more important thing is that crime in New York is down 40 percent since I became deputy commissioner.”

McCarthy was previous Police Commissioner for Newark, New Jersey, when the department was investigated by the feds for what the New York Times reports as “brutality, baseless searches, intimidation and false arrests.” Second City Cop reports that McCarthy and his brother were also allegedly shooting out streetlights and hurling racial slurs in the 46th precinct in New York City after they left a cop bar intoxicated. Here’s even more dirt on the guy.

This is someone we supposedly can trust with a gun, but the rest of us? Not to be trusted. This guy is a thug with a badge. I’d like to see those int he gun control movement try to justify this a**hole.

I can sympathize somewhat with Joan Peterson here, because I remember when I first decided I needed to implement some basic ground rules for comments. My one paragraph ground rule basically amounts to, “Don’t be a jackass,” and those of you who have been around for a while know I probably tolerate a good bit more jackassery than could be classified under my guidelines. I probably only remove or partially redact, at most, ten posts a year, and the majority of those are rambling nonsense from people who I think found me on Google and have mental health issues.

But Joan’s comment policy reads like a Hammurabi’s Code of blog commenting. What’s more, my, and most of our default is to allow comments generally, and only remove or redact ones that cross the line. It’s hard for me to understand how facts that are in dispute can be corrected if they aren’t published and discussed. There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. One thing I’ve learned from observing Ms. Japaete is that she often thinks she is, in fact, entitled to her own facts. Common Gun Sense has been much more open to dissenting ideas than many other blogs run by folks on the other side of this issue, and she deserved credit for that, but it seems as time has worn on, there’s been more and more Reasoned Discourse^TM going on. One of the other side’s greatest weaknesses has been not forming a credible response to our grassroots new media efforts, and their unwillingness to engage in open debate has been one of those.

Dave Hardy reports this interesting tidbit:

Even after deciding to leave his role as president, Helmke said he still wanted to stay with the Brady Campaign. He said that he and the organization could not agree on a suitable role, however, so the two sides mutually decided to part ways.

So basically, his previously agreed upon term was up, and they did not appear to want to renew. The question would be is Helmke’s expense a problem? It very well may be. Or is it possible they are unhappy with his leadership?

As an objective critique, I don’t think Helmke was a bad spokesman for the group, but I never got the impression he had a whole lot of passion for the cause. I would imagine, in looking for a replacement, the Brady Campaign is going to want someone with a bit of fire in the belly. Not the kind of fire that can get your Twitter account suspended, but someone who can fire up people like Joan Peterson and get them to open up their checkbooks.

They probably don’t have the money for someone like Daley or Rendell, as I’ve seen some speculating about. Even if they did, Daley and Rendell are both the kind of guys who revel in the spotlight. I can’t see them spending their time as just another small cog in the D.C. machine.

Remember that whoever replaces Helmke probably needs to be a particularly good fundraiser. Colin Goddard strikes me as someone who’s inexperienced, and not connected in that kind of way. If the speculation that he’d be next in line is correct, I’m going to suggest a Brady deathwatch, because that tells me they can’t afford or recruit anyone with experience in the areas they desperately need.

It’s generally well known that the the vast majority of gun control laws have a racist origins, so I was surprised to see the headline here. But this one can’t be filed under the category of winning:

“I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children,” he said according to an WMAQ-Channel 5 story that aired Thursday.

I hate to tell you, chief, but it’s not the guns, it is, unfortunately, mostly other black and brown children who are killing black and brown children. You don’t get to dodge that by blaming federal gun laws. He suggests “everybody is afraid of race. I’m not afraid of race.” No, I think you’re quite afraid of it, because you’re helping these communities find scapegoats for their problems, rather than helping them look within. Violence, with guns or otherwise, is symptom of a much larger and more difficult to solve problem. He ends with this bit of twisted logic:

In a statement Thursday, McCarthy said “strong gun laws against illegal firearms are critical in order to maintain public safety and private rights.”

If they are illegal firearms, wouldn’t that suggest there are already strong laws against them? I mean, the federal penalties are generally ten years for illegal trafficking, and handguns were illegal in Chicago for more almost 30 years. This guy would do well to remember the fence.

UPDATE: See Illinois State Rifle Association’s response here.

It looks like the board of the Brady Campaign is shaking things up. Paul Helmke’s contract wasn’t extended, and he doesn’t have any future plans for work. Dennis Henigan will be the acting president while the search is conducted, which indicates they don’t even have anyone in mind. It would seem that means they just wanted Helmke gone.

So, any nominations to suggest for the Brady family? They recruited a Republican in 2006 thinking that they could somehow appeal to more GOP leaders in switching over to the dark side. That didn’t work, and the Democrats haven’t done them any favors, either. If they follow the same strategy, maybe they will try to find a far left leader to try and earn back the attention of the party in the White House.

I must have really struck a nerve with our opponents in a recent post, because the CSGV, which has been pretty good about ignoring bloggers, apparently couldn’t ignore my latest post. I’m happy that has brought out the crazy:

Yeah, that was totally speaking fearfully, rather than someone who quite well understands exactly what dustbin of history your kind is destined for. To be sure, I don’t think opposition to campus carry is in any way on par with segregation or slavery, but I do think CSGV’s fundamental mission is a lost cause at this point, and will likely end up in the same place as those long discarded ideas.

I also like the fact that now we’re gun violence proponents, and advocating for gun ownership with no limits. Handing guns out to school kids and the mentally ill. Yeah, we’re all totally for that! Yippee! I’ve long argued that there are many limits on the criminal and mentally ill that are likely constitutional. It’s long established constitutional rights can be limited through due process of law. Our opponents, on the other hand, have not at all accepted that owning a firearm is now a constitutional right, just like free speech and religion.

These people are completely delusional. If you were to put this in the social conservative context, they are the same kinds of people who would argue a gay elementary school teacher is surely going to indoctrinate the kids with their “gay agenda,” and induce the children into homosexual relations. Because you know those kinds of people can’t help themselves.

They really are bigots, when you boil it down.