The gun rights community is sickened, I say, I say, sickened I say by reports that ex-Chicago Mayor Richard “No Guns for You” Daley has requested armed bodyguards into retirement, at the taxpayers’ expense. “Richard Daley is living proof of liberal anti-gun arrogance,” Second Amendment Foundation jefe Alan Gottlieb thundered. “This man has devoted himself to disarming law-abiding citizens, leaving them to the mercy of inner city thugs who habitually disobey Chicago’s gun laws. If he truly believed that guns are bad, then he would drop his request and take his chances with 911 like all of the people whose rights he has trampled.” I disagree. Daley should be given a quartet of armed bodyguards from now until the day he dies. Two words: Jack Lord . . .

Jack Lord was the actor who played Steve McGarrett in the original pre-abs are fab version of Hawaii Five-O. During the last two seasons, Lord thought he was McGarrett.

Rather than disabuse him of that notion and risk millions in advertising revenue, the network assigned men to cater to Lord’s delusion. They treated him like McGarrett and ran interference against any real world cognitive dissonance. Needless to say, this accelerated Lord’s mental illness.

Rather than forcing Richard Daley to confront reality—the fact that he’s no longer the beleaguered Boss Hawg of Chicago, a citizen without the right to armed self-defense living in a city whose level of violent crime reflects his antipathy to the Second Amendment—we should cater to Daley’s delusions of grandeur.

If Daley has two or three or more armed bodyguards with him 24/7, he’ll eventually descend into madness. All the trappings of power without any real power? It’ll be like Sunset Boulevard, with his bodyguards playing the part of Max the butler. I can hear it now: “I am big. It’s the politics that got small.”

 

Recommended For You

17 Responses to Why Chicago Mayor Daley Should Have Armed Guards

  1. Thanks for that anecdote about Jack Lord. Is that true? I’ll look it up.

    About celebrities and famous politicians who believe in gun control being hypocrites if they use armed guards, I disagree. I don’t see the two positions as mutually exclusive. Who should pay for it is another question, but I think your point is not about who pays but simply that if he opposes it for the average Joe then he shouldn’t go for it himself. I don’t buy the logic behind that. The average Joe doesn’t have crackpot gun owners from California calling him up on the phone making threats.

    • “Who should pay for it is another question”

      But Mike, that is the main sticking point. Nobody is saying that ex-mayor Daley is a hypocrite for wanting body guards. No, I’m sure he’s made a lot of enemies along the way. It’s probably a pretty good idea that he has bodyguards. What makes him the hypocrite is requesting that taxpayers foot the bill for them, while simultaneously denying them the right to protect themselves.

      • Another hypocrisy is his insistence that 911 and the police are more than adequate protection for citizens of Chicago. Except him.

        I am sure there have been Chicagoans with specific threats against their lives who were unable to obtain a handgun for self-defense, and the vast majority of us can’t afford bodyguards and certainly wouldn’t get them at taxpayer expense.

        He is saying that he is more entitled to the right to defend himself than the rabble he is surrounded by.

    • You sir, are an elitist. As an American who believes in equal protection under the law, I find your attitude dangerous and repulsive.

    • “The average Joe doesn’t have crackpot gun owners from California calling him up on the phone making threats.”

      And you speak for every “average Joe” do you? The fact is that there is one soon-to-be-former Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, who might get death threats from crackpots in California; and there are dozens or hundreds of “average Joes” in Chicago who might get death threats from crackpots in California. The funny thing about crackpots, they don’t really need to focus their attention on famous people, nor do they isolate their motivations to politics. They pick regular people to threaten, stalk, and kill too; and for no other reason than they like or don’t like the way the other looks.

      While he is a public servant, the Mayor of Chicago serves a vital role for his community. He is an important public servant, and his protection serves the public. When he is no longer an important public servant, he becomes a private citizen little different than any other. The value of his continued life is no more important than that of any other private citizen. His continued life no longer serves the public. In fact, if anything, it becomes an ongoing drain on public resources … Point is, once he leaves office, he’s no different from you or I. His life or death is of no greater interest to the average private citizen than any other guy living across town.

    • Really, Mike? So Hizzoner’s life is more important that mine? He should have the means to defend himself against an attacker using deadly force, but I should not?

      I don’t doubt that he has more enemies that I do. You shake down that many people and dole out political graft to your favorites for decades, you’ll piss off a few folks. But I’m pretty sure the constitution doesn’t discriminate between former politicians and average Joes.

      Who else, besides retired machine politicians, would you like to add to the list of the rarified few who can defend themselves with guns?

      • Why do you put words in my mouth? Isn’t what I actually do say bad enough for you?

        I didn’t say his life is more important than yours.

        Celebrities are in the spotlight, controversial political figures too. I’m perfectly fine with making them pay for it themselves, but hiring armed body guards does not make them hypocrites, nor does saying that make me an elitist.

    • About celebrities and famous politicians who believe in gun control being hypocrites if they use armed guards, I disagree. I don’t see the two positions as mutually exclusive.

      You may not see the contradiction between saying “No guns for you but all the guns I want for me” – but you need to get your vision checked.

  2. I think he should have guards… it’s a dangerous city.

    BUT! I also think that his hypocrisy should be the headline in every paper in Illinois if not America… These “no guns for you but guns for me” thugs need to be outed!

  3. we should cater to Daley’s delusions of grandeur.

    By which you mean “People who aren’t me should be forced by threat of guns to pay for Daley’s guns”.

    Clever but insane.

  4. Daley has armed guards to protect himself from crackpots? I figured he mainly had them to keep from being tarred and feathered by patriotic Americans.

  5. “mikeb302000 says:
    May 10, 2011 at 10:24 AM
    Thanks for that anecdote about Jack Lord. Is that true? I’ll look it up.”

    About celebrities and famous politicians who believe in gun control being hypocrites if they use armed guards, I disagree. I don’t see the two positions as mutually exclusive. Who should pay for it is another question, but I think your point is not about who pays but simply that if he opposes it for the average Joe then he shouldn’t go for it himself. I don’t buy the logic behind that. The average Joe doesn’t have crackpot gun owners from California calling him up on the phone making threats.”

    LOL! Your first sentence is hilarious! What a joker! Thanks, MikeBWarhammer. Of course you think celebrities and famous politicians are different from the average Joe. They have a lot of money and for you that means they are more important then the average American. This is why you are labeled a hypocrite and elitist.

    Who should pay for this is the person that wants the service of an armed guard. That is a no brainer. Just because you became a fat cat and pissed a lot of people off does not entitle you to have taxes twiddled into your (as MikeBWarhammer would say) imaginary fears. The benefit to becoming a ‘celebrity’ is becoming very, very rich. Them becoming famous is also a bad thing they would say but I highly doubt there are any celebrities out there that are arrogant enough to ask for my tax dollars to pay for their (as MikebWarhammer would say – fear related) expenses.

    Only an elitist/politician would ever think themselves that important and above the laws and regulations they themselves help impose and shore up. And only MikebWarhammer would ever defend a greedy politician because his not supporting him makes many of his ‘feelings’ seem silly.

    Those of us who live in high crime areas are less important then such a staunch figure in society. Right, Mikey?

  6. Daley needs armed guards to protect him from crackpots? No way. The average Joes and Janes of Chicago need armed guards to protect them from Daley.

  7. Daley’s enemy’s are not from him being some crusader who took on the titians and now his life is in danger, he is a crook. read up on his time as mayor.

  8. To butcher the quote “Live by the Gun, die by the gun” I say Daley should “Live without and gun and die by the gun” He spent his career tell us to call 911, he should too and hope they show up in time to save him. Of course he will mostly apply for a concealed carry permit and use his influence to get it issued even in Chicago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *