Courtesy of the New York Times:
By the hundreds, mourners filed into the pews of a crowded church on this city’s South Side on Saturday, clutching one another, weeping and wearing buttons adorned with the smiling face of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl whose death has come to represent the miserable cost of gun and gang violence.
“She is a representative not just of the people in Chicago, she is a representative of people across this nation who have lost their lives,” said Damon Stewart, Ms. Pendleton’s godfather, as he urged people not to politicize her death.
An array of Washington officials — the first lady, Michelle Obama; Arne Duncan, the education secretary; and Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser — were among dignitaries sitting in the front row. Ms. Pendleton, a member of her high school’s majorette team, traveled to Washington to perform during President Obama’s inauguration festivities only a week before she was fatally shot here.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has met with the girl’s family and spoken emotionally of her dreams for her future, attended, too, as did Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, who had alluded to Ms. Pendleton in his State of the State address.
As an emerging national debate about firearms has focused largely on mass shootings in places like Newtown, Conn., Ms. Pendleton’s death last month became a symbol for a different element of gun violence — urban and often quickly forgotten. Ms. Pendleton, a student at King College Prep high school, was shot Jan. 29 as she sat after school in a park, about a mile from Mr. Obama’s Chicago home, with friends — a group that the police say was probably mistakenly swept up in the cross-fire of a gang fight.
In Chicago, people said they viewed the sudden rush of attention on Ms. Pendleton as a needed shift in the consciousness of the nation’s third-largest city, which experienced more than 500 homicides in 2012, many of them from gun violence, and 46 more deaths since the start of 2013. If the city had grown inured at times to the stories of gang-related shootings, largely on the South and West Sides, Ms. Pendleton’s death appeared — at least for now — to have reawakened many people, even those in more upscale neighborhoods away from the worst of the violence and far beyond Chicago.
Yet another senseless death. And this one had nothing to do with assault weapons. Like the majority of gun deaths in this country she was murdered with a handgun.
You know the gun control advocates are taking great pains to tell the pro-gun people that they are not "coming for their guns." But you know I personally have no such compunction.
I have very little respect for the 2nd Amendment these days and would have very little problem with seeing it dramatically changed or repealed altogether. I know that is never going to happen, but that does not make me want it any less.
The real problem with guns in this country is that there are too goddamn many of them! They are fucking everywhere!
I cannot fathom the rational which seems to say that if having one gun makes you safe, than having an arsenal makes you even safer. How does that compute? What are these people frightened of?
Oh that's right, they are afraid of their government.
But not the one that started tapping their phones, or lied them into two wars, or trashed their economy. No THAT government was perfectly fine, it was only when the guy with the dark skin took up residence in the White House that suddenly guns started flying off the shelves by the thousands.
But he problem with having more guns in the hands of so-called "responsible citizens" is that those same people store their weapons in their glove compartment, in their closet, or stuff it under their mattress. And then some unsavory sort steals it from them, and the next thing you know some young girl, with her whole life in front of her, gets gunned down on the streets.
If your right to own a gun infringes on our right to raise our children in a safe environment, guess which one has to go?
Earlier today somebody made the point that there are more deaths by car accidents than by guns. And that is true.
However the main purpose of cars is for the sake of transportation, NOT to deal death.
What's more you have to pass a test in order to be issued a license to operate a vehicle, when you purchase a car it has to be registered in your name, not to mention that there are safety laws which dictate how fast you can drive one and that also require you to wear a seat belt while driving one, and if you are caught operating one under the influence of drugs or alcohol your right to have one GETS TAKEN THE FUCK AWAY!
So let's compromise. We keep the 2nd Amendment in place, but we have to adopt the same safety measures and regulations that dictate a person's right to operate a motor vehicle on the highways and byways of this country.
If you agree with that, then you are a undoubtedly one of the millions of reasonable gun owners. If not, then you are either a criminal, a paranoid anti-government zealot, or somebody with a mental deficiency, which to me means you should never have access to a gun, of any kind, in the first place.
And yes the government should then most definitely take away your guns.
I'm just saying.
@Gryphen: We keep the 2nd Amendment in place, but we have to adopt the same safety measures and regulations that dictate a person's right to operate a motor vehicle on the highways and byways of this country.
ReplyDeleteI propose we go back to Constitution INterpretation principles. Obviously the writers of The Constitution never thought about revolvers, semi-automatic, assault rifles - nor napalm, cluster bombs, or nukes.
So we interpret what the writers were considering, and give everyone the right to own a musket and a canon. Everything else can be legislated. In fact, we already do that. ON what basis does the Constitution distinguish between revolvers and assault rifles, and cluster bombs and nukes. It's not in the Constitution. If we can regulate nukes, we can regulate guns - unless I'm missing the line in the constitution that would differentiate between them.
Lucy
+1
DeleteLucy said, "So we interpret what the writers were considering, and give everyone the right to own a musket and a canon. Everything else can be legislated."
DeleteThe problem with that thinking Lucy, is, that is like telling native Alaskans they have to go back to spears and rocks to be able to subsistence hunt. Mankind is forever evolving and you can't freeze them at one point in history.
Yes the framers of the Constitution couldn't imagine modern jets and missiles, aircraft carriers, tanks, machine guns, drones, etc, but their intentions were clear. They intended the citizens to be armed as well as the government, any government as a protection against tyrants. The time has passed for citizens to practically be as well armed as the the government, and that is too bad. But for the citizens to be totally unarmed and at the government's mercy is insanity. It's a recipe for disaster.
It was usually my annual vacation that I would travel to the US whether by air or driving. It was without hesitation that I would go shopping in the US numerous times a year as I'm 59 driving minutes from the border.
ReplyDeleteHave I stepped on US soil in the past 4 years -- NOT ONCE and have no desire to.
It's not only me as my school district has voted down school trips to the US. With the increase over the 4 years of guns and the conceal & carry laws, parents and teachers no longer feel that it's safe. This issue is becoming more widespread than you realize.
So not only is it 'killing' US citizens, it's causing a downturn in tourism which spreads to retail, hospitality, etc.
Such a pretty young lady; rest in peace, Hadiya.
ReplyDeleteGryphen, I completely and totally agree with you about the Second Amendment. I would like to see it repealed altogether. (As someone who grew up in a paranoid household with seven guns, none secured).
ReplyDeleteI fear it is too late for this country...although maybe not. My husband travels for his work a lot in Germany. They have absolutely repudiated their Nazi past and are horrified at the current U.S. culture. If they can do it, so can we.
There is something seriously wrong with a country that legislates unneeded medical tests for women, voting rules to restrict minority voting and "stand your ground" laws that legalize murder - yet ignore the thousands of people - young and old - who are killed by gun violence every day.
ReplyDeleteEvery politician should be addressing the 2nd amendment that has nothing to do with protection and everything to do with murder. There is NO need for the population to be armed - NONE. If it takes having the army patrol the streets of Chicago to get rid of the gang militia - then so be it. Use the military in the war on guns at home - rather than have them die pointless deaths in foreign lands.
How long will this gun insanity be with us?
ReplyDeleteAs a loyal reader of your blog for the past 4.5 years, I really have an issue with the title of this blog post. Michelle Obama did not "perform" at her husband's inauguration.
ReplyDeleteYou have done a dis-service to the First Lady and this blog by using this term. Are you implying that she is not genuine? She is performing a role? This article title is something that I would expect to see @ C4P.
Anonymous4:37 PM
DeleteUmmm...I think you may have miss read the title. Gryphen is talking about Hadiya who PERFORMED at the Inauguration was gunned down a week later.
Gryph was indicating that it was the young lady who performed at the Inauguration. He did not imply that Michelle Obama was a "performer".
DeleteDuh!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous4:37 PM
As a loyal reader of your blog for the past 4.5 years, I really have an issue with the title of this blog post. Michelle Obama did not "perform" at her husband's inauguration.
******
Reading is your friend! G did not say FLOTUS performed he
said the GIRL performed at the inauguration!!! She was in the school band at the inauguration prior 1 wk before she was gunned down!
I'm glad FLOTUS went to the funeral.
Something HAS to be done!
Anonymous4:37 PM
ReplyDeleteAs a loyal reader of your blog for the past 4.5 year
c4p
************
Any time I see that shit above it screams Alaskan concern troll!
So sad....
ReplyDeleteThis gun thing is totally out of control. :(
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is the line that precedes the "bear arms" part of the 2nd amendment. Clearly this was meant to assure that citizens could quickly form themselves into a self-defense team if their area was under attack in any way. In addition, they needed their guns for hunting purposes. It is only within the last several years that the Supreme Court extended this definition to mean that any meth head idiot with money in his hand can go buy a gun.
All of these gun-loving "go back to the original meaning of the Constitution" idiots need to be reminded of that original meaning.
I'm especially upset about this issue today because there was a murder in my town last night -- a gang-related drive-by shooting that killed a young father of two....a case of mistaken identity. So sad... :(
Gryphen said, "I have very little respect for the 2nd Amendment these days and would have very little problem with seeing it dramatically changed or repealed altogether."
ReplyDeleteFinally we get the truth out of you. You can nod and wink and tell us "Nobody wants to take your guns away." But the truth is, yes you do. You can bald face lie without compunction to try to convince gun owners that all you want is reasonable gun control. But you want it on your terms and you want all guns. You know you can't get them all at once so you try to chip away at gun rights. You pick and easy (to you) target in assault rifles when those guns hardly register a blip in overall gun death stats. But if you find success there, you'll just keep pushing and taking because, taking assault weapon won't change a thing as far as gun deaths.
Gryphen said......"What's more you have to pass a test in order to be issued a license to operate a vehicle, when you purchase a car it has to be registered in your name, not to mention that there are safety laws which dictate how fast you can drive one and that also require you to wear a seat belt while driving one, and if you are caught operating one under the influence of drugs or alcohol your right to have one GETS TAKEN THE FUCK AWAY!"
But that doesn't stop dedicated drunk or irresponsible drivers. How many people get arrested for driving without a license or insurance? How many drunks, already convicted and maybe without a license, get behind a wheel and cause death and destruction? Is there a law requiring a background check before you can sell a car to someone? I don't think so. And how many of those laws for driving cars get ignored every day, from speeding, to California stops, to tailgating, and driving while texting or otherwise distracted.
Would you restrict good safe drivers from driving for the bad actions of other drivers? No? Then why the Hell can't you be consistent when it comes to gun owners? Punish and restrict the bad eggs in both cases, and leave the responsible ones alone.
Gryphen said........"But he problem with having more guns in the hands of so-called "responsible citizens" is that those same people store their weapons in their glove compartment, in their closet, or stuff it under their mattress. And then some unsavory sort steals it from them"
How many responsible drivers and car owners have their cars jacked? It's a fricken cottage industry! Do you blame all car owners because thieves steal the neighbors' car? Hell no, you blame the thieves. Bad guys act bad, hold them responsible. Again, show some consistency.
Gryphen said........" it was only when the guy with the dark skin took up residence in the White House that suddenly guns started flying off the shelves by the thousands."
Two comments on that. First, isn't it funny that the whole time guns and ammo were flying off the shelf, gun homicides took a serious drop?
And second you imply that all gun owners are racist and that's why they started buying so many guns, and that simply isn't true. I myself voted for Obama his first run. What set off the buying spree was the fear Obama, a Liberal, would try to push through new anti gun legislation. and the buying spree was compounded when shortages of certain weapons and ammo started happening which caused greater demand and hoarding. It was the free market going hog wild. The same thing would have happened if Hillary had been elected.
PS I complained about Bushes torture, spying, the Un-Patriot act, lying us into the Iraq war, drone strikes, etc., the same as I complain about Obama not only not ending most of these things, but increasing them. I try to be consistent myself
Damn, Gryphen, you said too much and now they're onto the librul agenda.
DeleteTime to implement plan "B", they'll never know what hit them!