Blagojevich: Chicago May Need National Guard Help
Mayor Unaware Of Plan; Welcomes Partnership

POSTED: 1:11 pm CDT July 16, 2008
UPDATED: 7:41 pm CDT July 16, 2008


CHICAGO -- As Governor Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed a new law that
will put in place tougher penalties for selling guns to minors, he also
announced he's got a new idea to help combat the violence that Chicago is
experience: he's talking to the Illinois State Police and the National
Guard
to see if they could help.

"Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control," Blagojevich said
at the bill signing ceremony. "I'm offering resources of the state to the
city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we
can
possibly do to help stop this violence," said the governor.

The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich
said there's been a child shot nearly every day since June 26. Bringing in
state troopers -- even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas --
is
still very much in the planning stages.

"It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses
for
capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or
possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these
violent
zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge is that
gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one," Blagojevich said.

The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn't asked for help, but
Blagojevich said he'll call the mayor once he has some concrete
suggestions
about what help he can provide. He didn't have many specifics, but he said
it's more likely that state police will be brought in than the National
Guard.

In fact, Daley's office said the mayor did not know anything about
Blagojevich's comments and did not know he was going to make them.

"The mayor welcomes partnerships, not just on this issue but on a variety
of
issues," said spokeswoman Jody Kawada. "Beyond that, it is difficult to
comment because we don't have any facts."

And police department spokeswoman Monique Bond said they learned of the
comments after Blagojevich made them as well, and said it was too soon to
comment.

But Bond took issue with the governor's contention that crime is "out of
control" in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in
the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is
expected
to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 years.

On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city
council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics
that suggested to them that the police department wasn't doing enough to
stop it.

They also come as the governor tries to find support for a massive
statewide
construction program that would be funded by expanded casino gambling. So
far, Daley has refused to go along because he objects to the amount
Blagojevich wants to charge Chicago to run a downtown casino.

Blagojevich raised that issue as he discussed the possibility of state aid
with Chicago's crime problem.

"We need help in that legislative process and the mayor could be a big
help
in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big
capital
program or versions of it," the governor said.

Blagojevich's offer, whether or not it comes to anything, also puts him in
the position of trying to help on an issue dominating the news in Chicago.

Blagojevich said it is far more likely that state troopers would be used
than guardsmen. In fact, his office moved quickly after the governor's
comments to stress in a news release that Blagojevich was not considering
bringing in National Guard troops to the city.

"The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved,
is
with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in narcotics
operations," spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared statement.

Blagojevich had few details, but suggested that one possibility would be
to
assign state troopers to areas of the city with lower crime rates, freeing
Chicago police officers for areas where there is more crime.

"Maybe we can play a role in providing more manpower so that the mayor
doesn't have to make that choice between taking a police from, let's say
the
North Side, and putting that police officer on the street on the South
Side," he said.

He also suggested that retired Chicago police officers and state troopers
could be hired on a temporary basis to help out during the summer months
when the violent crime rate typically climbs.

Blagojevich Signs Tougher Gun Bill

The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in
the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.

The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to
minors
are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent
crimes --
including murder -- in which they used the weapon.

Before the law was signed, the maximum sentence an adult could get for
providing a gun to a minor -- whether it's used in a crime or not -- was
seven years.

Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of
Chicago school children.

Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer
sentence
will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors.


--
Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.
www.finalprotectivefire.com

Greg Mossman wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
Pop... at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

"Greg Mossman" <moss... at (no spam) qnet.com> wrote in message

news:6192300f-856b-49b2-b20f-5a8da72d311b at (no spam) 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:

Greg Mossman wrote:

On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:

I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city,
is
good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.

I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law
abiding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so,
what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.

   That's not what he said.

So you're saying there's no overlap between the "most likely victims"
that Lee wants to arm and the children victims that were cited by Lee
as the basis for arming victims?  That makes Lee sound even wackier.
I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot?  They
obviously don't need to be armed.

Lee said children are being shot. He did not state that they were the
most likely victims, or that they would outnumber other victims.
So your suggestion is not based on facts, but on assumptions. As we
know, assumptions are the mother of fuckups.

On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
Pop... at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

"Greg Mossman" <moss... at (no spam) qnet.com> wrote in message

news:6192300f-856b-49b2-b20f-5a8da72d311b at (no spam) 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:


Greg Mossman wrote:

On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:

I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city,
is
good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.


I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law
abiding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so,
what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.


That's not what he said.


So you're saying there's no overlap between the "most likely victims"
that Lee wants to arm and the children victims that were cited by Lee
as the basis for arming victims? That makes Lee sound even wackier.
I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot? They
obviously don't need to be armed.

Greg Mossman wrote:
On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:
Greg Mossman wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think I see the problem.  A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is
good, not bad.  Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.

I have an idea.  How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work.  I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.

So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims,
correct?  In other words, you want to arm the children.
Good for you, Lee.  You've outdone yourself yet again.
Congratulations, you earn the Wackiness of the Week award.  (WOW, for
short)
This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.  (2) Lee suggests
arming victims of gunfire = children.

How is that hard for you to grasp even with your limited grasp of the
language?  If Lee wasn't suggesting arming the victims of gun crime,
who was he suggesting be armed?  If he meant to arm just adult victims
of crime, why does he start his post with a quote about children shot
by guns?

It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your
stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements.

Leave it to a lawyer to completely misinterpret, then reinterpret what
Lee said-

"Miracles do not cluster.  Hold on to the Constitution of the United States
of America and the Republic for which it stands - what has happened once in
six thousand years may never happen again.  Hold on to your Constitution,
for if the Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the
world." - Daniel Webster, 1851

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:VtCdnTkha_kPM-LVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...


That's not what he said.

That's not what I said.

You're the only one that said it.

Yes Doug, it takes a bit of thought to say more than "That's not what he
said.", "That's not what I said.", and "You're the only one that said it."

Lee doesn't think children should have guns? Oh come now, how could
anyone think something so stupid? Protection knows no age or limits.
Everyone needs to be protected. It's WOW to the power of 10! You been in
Canada too long to think we real Americans don't need guns - lots of guns,
guns, and more guns. Crank up the brain and get with the program Doug. I
have faith that you can and will do it. Now spring off that rubber doll
and prove me right.

http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/

On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:
Greg Mossman wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city, is
good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.

I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law abiding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so, what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.

So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims,
correct? In other words, you want to arm the children.
Good for you, Lee. You've outdone yourself yet again.
Congratulations, you earn the Wackiness of the Week award. (WOW, for
short)
This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children. (2) Lee suggests
arming victims of gunfire = children.

How is that hard for you to grasp even with your limited grasp of the
language? If Lee wasn't suggesting arming the victims of gun crime,
who was he suggesting be armed? If he meant to arm just adult victims
of crime, why does he start his post with a quote about children shot
by guns?

It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your
stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements.

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:VtCdnTkha_kPM-LVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

That's not what he said.

That's not what I said.

You're the only one that said it.

Yes Doug, it takes a bit of thought to say more than "That's not what he
said.", "That's not what I said.", and "You're the only one that said it."

Lee doesn't think children should have guns? Oh come now, how could anyone
think something so stupid? Protection knows no age or limits. Everyone
needs to be protected. It's WOW to the power of 10! You been in Canada too
long to think we real Americans don't need guns - lots of guns, guns, and
more guns. Crank up the brain and get with the program Doug. I have faith
that you can and will do it. Now spring off that rubber doll and prove me
right.

http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/

ben bradlee wrote:
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:VtCdnTkha_kPM-LVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

That's not what he said.

That's not what I said.

You're the only one that said it.

Yes Doug, it takes a bit of thought to say more than "That's not what he
said.", "That's not what I said.", and "You're the only one that said
it."

Lee doesn't think children should have guns? Oh come now, how could
anyone think something so stupid? Protection knows no age or limits.
Everyone needs to be protected. It's WOW to the power of 10! You been
in Canada too long to think we real Americans don't need guns - lots of
guns, guns, and more guns. Crank up the brain and get with the program
Doug. I have faith that you can and will do it. Now spring off that
rubber doll and prove me right.

http://stu50guru.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!4701B94559249DAC!278/


As usual right on cue - here's kennybenny

On Jul 17, 3:46 pm, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:

Greg Mossman wrote:

On Jul 17, 1:14 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
Pop... at (no spam) finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:

"Greg Mossman" <moss... at (no spam) qnet.com> wrote in message

news:6192300f-856b-49b2-b20f-5a8da72d311b at (no spam) 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 9:38 am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:

Greg Mossman wrote:

On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:

I think I see the problem. A child shot every day, in a gun free city,
is
good, not bad. Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire = children.

I have an idea. How about arming the most likely victims, the law
abiding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work. I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if so,
what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire = children.

That's not what he said.

So you're saying there's no overlap between the "most likely victims"
that Lee wants to arm and the children victims that were cited by Lee
as the basis for arming victims? That makes Lee sound even wackier.
I mean, why would you arm the people that aren't getting shot? They
obviously don't need to be armed.

Lee said children are being shot. He did not state that they were the
most likely victims, or that they would outnumber other victims.
So your suggestion is not based on facts, but on assumptions. As we
know, assumptions are the mother of fuckups.


So why then did Lee mention the children if children have nothing to
do with his argument that we should arm the victims? Was he just
rambling? That I can believe.

Greg Mossman wrote:
Lee used the example of 500 dead children to buttress his argument
that the victims should be armed.  How would you arm 500 dead children
without arming them?

Not at all. They cited the newspaper: "Blagojevich said
there's been a child shot nearly every day"

Then Lee wrote: How about arming the most likely victims,

the law abiding citizens...

I don`t see your assumptions neither follow your "logic".

"ben bradlee" <NoWay at (no spam) Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:VOGdnYTvF_ZrLuLVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d at (no spam) centurytel.net...

Again, yah?

On Jul 17, 9:38=A0am, "mat.voss" <spammat.v... at (no spam) gmx.de> wrote:
Greg Mossman wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:09 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:

I think I see the problem. =A0A child shot every day, in a gun free cit=
y, is
good, not bad. =A0Yep, that's a problem.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire =3D children.

I have an idea. =A0How about arming the most likely victims, the law ab=
iding
citizens, or, since money is tight, encouraging them to arm themselves.
That might work. =A0I wonder if it's been tried anyplace else and, if s=
o, what
the results were.

(2) Lee suggests arming victims of gunfire =3D children.

So if the children are being shot, they're the most likely victims,
correct? =A0In other words, you want to arm the children.

Good for you, Lee. =A0You've outdone yourself yet again.
Congratulations, you earn the Wackiness of the Week award. =A0(WOW, for
short)

This belongs clearly to you, for having Lee arming the children.

(1) Lee discusses victims of gunfire =3D children. (2) Lee suggests
arming victims of gunfire =3D children.

How is that hard for you to grasp even with your limited grasp of the
language? If Lee wasn't suggesting arming the victims of gun crime,
who was he suggesting be armed? If he meant to arm just adult victims
of crime, why does he start his post with a quote about children shot
by guns?

It's amazing how much you guys undo any concepts of logic in your
stumbling efforts to correct Lee's outlandish statements.
So Greg, with your logic you can fool all of the people all of the