Southern Illinois Gun Owners Are Going to Pay for Northern Illinois’ Crime Problems

Illinois gun control

courtesy WEHT

Mandatory registration, social media checks, assault weapons bans…northern Illinois has a crime problem and southern Illinois gun owners end up paying for it.

It was standing room only at the Family Life Center in Enfield.  All wanting to know more about a series of bills being considered that they say could limit their rights as gun owners.

Many believe they are paying the price here for all the violence up north.

“I have not had anything except one traffic ticket in my entire life,” said White County resident James Totten. “Why is the state of Illinois all of a sudden sticking their nose into my business and expecting me to pay for it?”

If the size of the crowd Monday night was any indication, residents in southern Illinois are very concerned about proposed gun legislation being presented by state lawmakers,

“We’re just not going to stand for it,” said Valinda Rowe. “We’re going to fight back.”

– Brandon Bartlett in Hundreds attend Second Amendment Town Hall to oppose proposed gun legislation in Illinois


  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Well, somebody has to pay. The State seems reluctant to hold the real parties responsible.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Well yeah, because that would be raciss!

      1. avatar Asdf says:

        More like realist.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          No no, raciss. TCook County Board of Supervisors (which includes all of Chicago) recently passed a bill requiring the Sheriff to permanently delete its entire gang database. Having discovered that most of the individuals in the database are brown males and Hispanics, and are thus “overrepresented”, the Board has determined that the database is “racist.” [Once it is gone, they can claim, one surmises, that there are no gang members in Crook County.]

  2. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Sigh. The gun grabbing politicians just never give up until they are dead.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    It’s going to be the creditors that are really going to pay for northern Illinois’ problems.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Yep….under-funded municipal pension plans and way too many entitlements will cause the collapse of the area’s tax base and economy….then the REAL carnage will begin. Big blue cities will start falling like dominoes.

    2. avatar BatPenguin says:

      The idiot Chicago elected to the governors office wants to skip a 800 million dollar payment to the pension fund because we don’t have the money but proposes 400 million in new spending. Here is an idea no new spending and pay at least 400 million to the pensions!

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        No, they’d rather just tell the unions that they’ll pay them DOUBLE in ten years if they just agree to forgo it for now.

        Then it will be someone else’s problem…

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If most states were to split in half. The large city parts would be veritable hell holes of crime. The rural half would be almost crimeless
    So Id say time to wall off most of the states.
    Lets have 2 countries and see how that goes.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Time to start splitting them all up. Vote on it by county. Counties with more than 1,000,000 citizens should be split up too, along voter preference lines.

      1. avatar Omer says:

        Sounds wonderful to me. I also think that every county in the state should get a state senator, that would give power to the south to even the playing field. Either way, Chicago has too much power and is not taking responsibility for the mess there.

        1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

          The collar counties around blue cities should pass laws that allow them to shut down power, gas, and highways supplying the city for “maintenance” for any or no reason. Chicago passes a law that the rest of the state doesn’t like they get no power or heat for an amount of time to make them regret it.

        2. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

          > Either way, Chicago has too much power and is not taking responsibility for the mess there.

          EXACTLY the same thing in Seattle and Olympia (capitol). They are seriously looking to disarm the state while inviting heroin addicts into Seattle and Olympia. Downtown Oly is all but a no-go zone.

          There is BIG, sanctioned a tarp-and-crap homeless encampment RIGHT DOWNTOWN next to the transit center (bus super-hub). If you take a bus, you pretty much have no choice but be exposed to the filth that is laying around down there. You can shoot up H, but no, you can’t defend yourself. 1/4 mile from the capitol building.


    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Or we could just fix the educational system and keep the country whole.

      Takes more work but I think the outcome is preferable.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Or we could just fix the educational system and keep the country whole.”

        Fix it? They are 90 percent of having the ‘education’ system right where they want it!

        This is a death match. They won’t budge, and we won’t budge. The natural evolution of that relationship is plain to see by all but the blind.

        I will advocate for a peaceful national divorce. I fear they won’t let that happen…

        1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

          > I fear they won’t let that happen…

          They fear that it WILL happen. Where does the food come from? Not the cities.

          Once you leave The Hive, you enter RED country. They (we) have guns and bullets.

          I would like to know when the anti-gunners truly think (not politico-talk) is going to happen when they ban guns. We’ll all just line up and toss our property in a dumpster?

          NO ONE I know will be giving up ANYTHING. Molon Labe. The problem is that the grabbers won’t be the ones that come to your house. It will be your neighbor the cop…that is IF they choose to help the G with the process.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “Fix it? They are 90 percent of having the ‘education’ system right where they want it!”

          You want them to get the other 10%? (Personally I’d say it’s closer to 5% myself, but why quibble about such trivialities?).

          This is one of those things I don’t get at all. Like all the Conservatives online saying “I won’t send my kids to that university indoctrination center!” as if that’s a fix. Stepping away from the table just ensures you don’t get a say. You want to fight and win? Educate your kids and send them into the lions den. Break the cycle of indoctrination by arguing facts and logic right in the thick of it. There is no other way.

          “This is a death match. They won’t budge, and we won’t budge. The natural evolution of that relationship is plain to see by all but the blind.”

          Yup. And, to quote Rory Breaker “If the milk turns out to be sour I ain’t the kind of pussy to drink it”. I don’t want a draw. I aim to win and choke the fucking life out of these people (metaphorically). Total fucking industrialized warfare to the point that nothing remains of their philosophy. I keep telling people how to do that. They don’t listen.

          “I will advocate for a peaceful national divorce. I fear they won’t let that happen…”

          No offense but IMHO this is, at best, whistling past the graveyard.

          Drawing an imaginary line on a map won’t help us any more than it helped Poland in 1939. Divide the US into two countries and “they” will make the same “iron pipeline” argument about the free country you establish and we’ll have a war within a few decades where both countries are completely ravaged. That war will be based on the pretext that we’re causing trouble on their border with our “dangerous lawlessness” (aka freedom). And no, it’s not one we’ll “win decisively” with small arms and freedom. Instead it will be a modern state v. state affair with the attending destruction of civilian populations on both sides.

          There are two basic choices here in my view: Fighting and winning what some might call the “culture war” which I actually see as a more intellectual/educational endeavor, but minutia again, or we can have a real war where a fuckload of people are going to die. The latter may become unavoidable but up until that time I’d prefer to go with option 1 which is winnable if we’re willing to actually stop fighting each other and do some smart shit. The culture war is basically identical to the advertising wars. The difference is we have no real advertising and where we do it fucking sucks. Just like the GSL article today.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          For some reason Geoff I cannot leave my actual reply to you.

          So I’ll simply see if this takes: I disagree with your assertions here because 1) they won’t allow a divorce and if they do it will rapidly become a reason for a state v. state industrial war between us that will cause massive civilian death on both sides. They’ll blame our “lawlessness” for an “iron pipeline” and attack us out of “defense”.

          A line on the map didn’t help Poland in 1939 and it won’t solve this problem. Giving up a seat at the table just ensure you get no say. The better answer is to fight back with the same tools “they” use but to back that with facts and logic. That position is unassailable and will win over time. The only reason we lose now is because we refuse to acknowledge how people function and take advantage of it.

          There is nothing wrong with manipulating people for the right reasons and the right outcome. The Left is doing it for the wrong reasons and the wrong outcomes, if we’re going to fight back we have to do the same thing but in the right direction. One way or another the only alternative is killing a ton of people and that isn’t necessary at this point. Making it inevitable is a cowardly way to do things IMHO when the “right” fight can still be won if we put in the hard work.

          Nothing worth having comes easy.

    3. avatar TruthTellers says:

      I’ve long believed that the answer to the problems presented by large, crime ridden Democrat run cities like Chicago and Detroit and all those urban voters holding so much power over the rural areas is the rural areas of those states need to begin partition.

      Not saying one state becomes two, I think it would be better if South Illinois got split up and absorbed into Missouri and Indiana as more voters would vote Republican and make those two states so red no Democrat would ever win them for 100 years.

      The Western parts of Oregon and Washington, two huge, rural states that are dominated by the Socialist mega cities or Portland and Seattle, could become one state.

      It’s just not right that one huge city and its Left leaning people determine the laws that impact people in the same state who live 200 miles away. That’s not democracy, but the Left has always been more into Totalitarianism than Freedom.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Actually, that IS democracy. We’ve all been conditioned to think democracy=freedom, but that is untrue.

        Democracy in essence is just a more organized form of mob rule. The many riding roughshod over the few, taking what they want along the way. That’s why the Founders set up a constitutional republic.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          And the Bill of Rights.

        2. avatar TruthTellers says:

          Well, the problem still remains that you have a majority of people with one view whose views are influenced by their surroundings (urban mega cities) and they believe they have the right to oppress the minority who live 200 miles away.

          Nothing is gonna change for the better in South Illinois, it’ll get progressively worse, so partitioning is the only option and if that fails, then you just declare independence and when the Gov sends in the State police and National Guard to suppress those movements, then you have an old fashioned civil war and victory at all costs.

      2. avatar Jbw says:

        Great idea where I live we could end up in Iowa or Wisconsin, any place but illinois

    4. avatar ATTAGReader says:

      Split all these states. IL, NY, CA, FL, WA, OR and any others where the geography works. With just those 6, that is 12 more Senators who would be elected by non-urban voters. That alone would change Congress for the good, and probably forever. Does anyone have the legal or historical knowledge to know how to begin the process? I know it would have to be state by state. Back during the period of settlement, counties were routinely split as the population increased. And then there was the creation of West Virginia. Took a war to do that. Hopefully there is a better way. I like the way Czech Republic and Slovak Republic split. Decided they didn’t want to stay together. Took a vote. Split up. No war needed. We need this in all the states where the geography and demographics work. Then the only people talking about needing to split up the country would be in the handful of large, crime ridden cities. And the rest of us could let them go!

  5. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    These are civil rights violations and lawsuits should be filed to address this.

  6. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Down there in the hill country I’d think they’d have little trouble finding sheriffs who would institute Gun Sanctuary Zones. Better yet, maybe along with that places like Rockford, Chicago, Auroro and others could build walls around their city limits ro keep the unwashed hoards out, of course in IL under current “exit law” regs, they might be better used to keep their residents in ala the Berlin Wall.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      That’s already happening. Of course the Chicago people are bitching and moaning despite it being a “sanctuary state” in violation of federal law.

  7. avatar MarkPA says:

    We need effective arguments and poster-child examples to illustrate them. (We have all the IN-effective arguments in the world. They aren’t getting us anywhere.)

    This posting strikes me as effective; if only we could figure out how to best package it.

    American voters should be able to get the idea that Illinois’ problems are in Chicago, not down-state. And, they should be able to get the idea that the Illinois gun-controls have little-to-no impact on Chicago but burden down-staters.

    The major point to emphasize is that while Illinois legislators are targeting the WRONG citizens, nothing is being done to target the APPROPRIATE citizens. Putting old-fat-farmers in prison doesn’t help pacify gang-bangers.

    The difficulty – I think – is that voters really don’t care about gun-owners. If a “common sense” law burdens gun-owners then voters don’t care. (If Jim Crow laws burdened Black people then white voters didn’t care.) How can we make this relevant?

    What if legislators proposed laws requiring photo-IDs and background checks when a wife or adult-child picked-up a prescriptions for an elderly patient taking opioid pain-killers? How about 4473 forms when the prescription was handed-over to the patient? How would that help the opioid epidemic?

    Would such laws on prescription drugs distract from more effective efforts to stem drug abuse?

    I don’t imagine my example is the best. I’m struggling to inspire other – BETTER – suggestions. How to make the example impactful on voters?

    Everybody needs to pick-up prescriptions. Everybody has some sympathy for elderly patients who need to send a family member or neighbor to pick up their prescriptions. This is the kind of “poster child” we need.

    Better still would be something that directly impacts virtually everyone. E.g., buying groceries or gasoline. What example of a “common sense” regulation concerning groceries or gasoline could we think of?

    We gun-owners have a libertarian streak that makes it hard for us to think of “common sense” regulations we might impose on other people. It just wouldn’t occur to us to suggest that a home-owner should be forbidden to lend his lawnmower gas can to a neighbor who ran out of gas and needs to cut his lawn. And so, we don’t easily come up with comparable examples that impact all voters.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mark PA,

      We need effective arguments and poster-child examples to illustrate them. (We have all the IN-effective arguments in the world. They aren’t getting us anywhere.)

      Agree wholeheartedly.

      American voters should be able to get the idea that Illinois’ problems are in Chicago, not down-state.

      Agree most likely.

      And, they should be able to get the idea that the Illinois gun-controls have little-to-no impact on Chicago

      I do not agree. Most people are willfully ignorant. Many will figure that disarmament laws will work. Others will figure that disarmament laws may not work although there is no harm in trying. Even worse, many will delight in disarmament laws, even if they know those laws will be ineffective, because they believe it is virtuous and honorable to “stand up for what is right”.

      And, [American voters] should be able to get the idea that the Illinois gun-controls … burden down-staters. The difficulty … If a “common sense” law burdens gun-owners then voters don’t care.

      Agree and THAT is the problem.

      How can we make this relevant?

      I wish I knew.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mark PA,

      I have mentioned a parallel example that I believe could be our poster child. Unfortunately, no one ever responds to my suggestion — either positively or negatively.

      My suggestion:

      Ask the masses if they would support subjecting the purchase, acquisition, and possession of tampons to background checks, waiting periods, quantity limits, and confiscation under “red flag laws” if arsonists used tampons to start fires which killed 100,000 people every year.

      And we could further stipulate that laws “regulating” the sale and possession of tampons should be okay because they would only affect women, only during their childbearing years, only for a few days every month, and alternative options for feminine hygiene are available.

      In my opinion this should be a compelling argument which illustrates the inequity of disarmament laws.

      I am concluding that most arguments do not really matter because many people simply want what they want, no matter how unreasonable or dishonorable their desires may be. Saying it another way, we are trying to persuade people based on arguments of rights, what is effective, and our feelings. Many other people have ZERO concern for your rights, what is effective, and your feelings.

      Consider a serial rapist. He does not care that raping a woman violates her rights, jeopardizes her physical and mental health, and leaves her feeling devastated. He just wants to rape. That is the mentality of much of our populace. They don’t care that disarmament laws violate our rights, are ineffective, and leave us feeling awful being unable to protect our families. They just want us disarmed. Period.

      If a rapist is about to rape a woman, should the woman spend significant time and energy raising arguments about the merits of not raping her while her rapist is undressing, ripping her clothes off, and getting ready to bind her? Or should the woman use lethal force if necessary to stop the rapist? Civilian disarmament advocates are rapidly pushing us into a corner where we will be forced to make the same decision: either let civilian disarmament supporters (both voters and government employees) “rape” (disarm”) us — or use whatever force is necessary to stop them from “raping” (disarming) us.

      Disclaimer: my apologies to rape victims and to anyone who thinks that my comparison of rape to disarmament seems callous or insensitive. While the act of disarmament itself is not as devastating as rape, it is nonetheless deeply disturbing to people who deeply cherish liberty and their sacred duty to protect themselves and their family. And anyone who was disarmed against their will and, as a result, was unable to save a family member from a rape, brutal assault, or murder has an equal claim to the devastation of disarmament.

      1. avatar RA-15 says:

        UNCOMMON_SENSE : the anti’s are raping us that’s a fact. I fear the only solution is .do not comply , I personally like to get a kiss before being f….. Up the arse.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        That is a good analogy. I’m going to have to remember it.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Why do you think I talk, rather incessantly, about how we work on a cognitive and evolutionary biology level? Why do I harp on education so much?

      You want to win this kind of thing you have to understand the people you’re dealing with. To do that you need an understanding of who and what they are. Only then can you start to present them information in a way they will process in a way that creates better outcomes.

      The reason so much of this shit doesn’t work is very specifically because laws that run counter to what we are at a basic level cannot work. But the vast majority of people have no idea of what they are and never even think about it.

      Philosophers 1500-3000 years ago studied this a lot. Today, because of our ability to blend numerous disciplines, we have a much better understanding of it but that knowledge is much less widespread. The result is that a small number of people, at this point, are using that knowledge for their own benefit while those of us fighting against them are doing so poorly because our weapons are inferior.

      The same is true about a lot of what the Left proposes. For example “universal basic income” sounds great to a lot of people but, because it ignores key facets of what makes us what we are, will end up as a total nightmare.

  8. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Why there are any democrats south of I-80 and east of I-39 amazes me. The city folks don’t care one bit about you….until voting time.

    1. avatar jram01 says:

      Hey folks South of I80. Not to worry. Someone has to help us pay for No. Illinois Crime Problems.:)

  9. avatar pwrserge says:

    It’s not “Northern Illinois”, it’s “Crook County”. There are plenty of gun friendly and crime-free areas north of I-80.

    1. avatar G O B says:

      Yeah, Wisconsin.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Try most of Kane County.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Pwrserge is correct, of course. It’s not north vs. south. It’s only about 60 miles between Illinois’ stinking, crab-infected crotch (Chicago) and its stinking left armpit (Rockford), and there are peaceful rural areas between them in the north end of the state.

      It’s urban vs. rural. Of course when you divide a state that way, you notice obvious differences in political affiliation, racial demographics and other things.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    As long as they recognize they are being shit upon by their government for the actions of others we’ll get some sweet acceleration out of it.

  11. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Any pol who thinks this is a good idea should be asked if/why don’t support 10/20/30.

  12. avatar mark1955 says:

    False Flag Alert! ( Sorry for thread “Hijack” )

    Possible FBI staged Hoax “Attack” Today ( Where no one actually gets hurt )
    “FBI appears to be involved in staging or covering up active shooter and terror hoax events every six weeks”

    ( Today is exact 6th week anniversary of, Sebring, Florida bank mass shooting “attack” )

    It was exactly six weeks between the Torrance, California alleged bowling alley mass shooting attack and The Aurora, Illinois alleged mass “Shooting” attack!

    Today is also ‘Ash Wednesday’ and the FBI could Try and stage a Hoax attack ( Where no one actually gets hurt ) against a Catholic Church, to Try and “Grease the skids’ for all of the pending Gun Control legislation now pending locally and nationally!

    If “Anything” happens today and the next several days, please call it into question!

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    There is a solution that falls short of “fight for 51” or Second Amendment sanctuary counties. The State should grant Chicago home rule powers like NYC has. Then Chicago can have all the crazy gun laws that can pass muster in the Courts it wants and leave the rest of the State alone.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Chicago already has home rule powers. The Demokkkommies that run it just aren’t happy ruining their own city.

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        And the state has pre-emption. Maybe it’s a double edged sword in this case.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pre-emption only applies to handguns and concealed carry. Chicago already has an “assault weapons” ban on the books.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        They don’t have home rule like NYC has home rule. They should be able to regulate guns without affecting the rest of the State.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Close enough. They aren’t getting an out over complying with state concealed carry laws.

          Home rule is overrated. If Chicago doesn’t like how the rest of the state sets the laws, they can secede.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “If Chicago doesn’t like how the rest of the state sets the laws, they can secede.”

          There’s an old saying that “Cities are the creatures of states”. That is to say cities exist as political entities because the State allows it and grants the city power via allowing it to be incorporated.

          So Chicago doesn’t have to secede. The rest of the state can make the decision to unincorporate Chicago, dissolve it’s political bodies and take over the area that is now the city. The city as a real place would still exist but as a political entity would cease to exist.

          Problem solved.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “So Chicago doesn’t have to secede. The rest of the state can make the decision to unincorporate Chicago, dissolve it’s political bodies and take over the area that is now the city.”

          Ooooh, I *like* that!

          And Wash state can apply that to Sea-Tac, NY to NYC, and, and, and…

          Do you *seriously* think they will take that lying down? 😉

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “Do you *seriously* think they will take that lying down?”

          No. However it’s an option, it’s a viable option and it side-steps all the territorial integrity issues that secession would create. It’s also something that, in most cases, can theoretically be done without the approval and/or over the objection of the city’s voting base.

          So long as the entire rest of the state outnumbers the population of said city, the people can vote for the state can revoke the city’s status and there isn’t a damn thing the city can do about it.

          In the case of Chicago and Illinois, Illinois has a population of 12.8 million, 2.71 million of which are legally residents of Chicago. So, Chicago is about 22.1% of the overall state population. With less than 1/4 the total population of the state what I’m suggesting is entirely possible as long as the rest of the state has it explained to them that Chicago remains part of Illinois, and part of the tax base etc etc, but simply loses any “home rule” status that it might have and effectively becomes the same as unincorporated rural areas.

          Of course, with their political apparatus stripped from them, Chicago becomes something the rest of the state can milk instead of the other way around. Which is an imminently abusable situation, but WTF do I care? I don’t live in Chicago and it’s not like the city isn’t asking for this pretty much every day.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    ““We’re just not going to stand for it,” said Valinda Rowe. “We’re going to fight back.””

    If you’re outnumbered and out voted you will live with it.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      or not comply.

      1. avatar BatPenguin says:

        Or be like me. I live in Southern Illinois but I work in Downtown St. Louis. I am moving to Missouri as soon as my stepson graduates high school. My wife’s divorce agreement prevents her from moving out of state. 4 years and Illinois can kiss my buttocks and my tax money goodbye.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        ….or be a felon.
        They don’t prosecute major crimes in Cook County but rest assured they will go after non compliant gun owners down south and parade them on TV.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Gun owners have been identified as class enemies and, according to Marxist rhetoric, need to be punished collectively as a class.

  15. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    SOBs won’t go after drugs and gangs. I’d bet that 95% of gun violence in big cities is drug and gang-related.

  16. avatar BatPenguin says:

    The real issue is the fact the courts in Chicago don’t hold people accountable for gun crimes. They give them a slap on the wrist but want to come after us Southern Illinois residents who are law-abiding and tell us our guns are the problem.

  17. avatar Djm says:

    The suburbs that are stuck in Cook county also have some nice areas. politicians are working at destroying those areas with expanded public transportation and section 8 housing.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Cook County gangsters are killing each other so granny in Wayne County has to give up her gun. That’s liberal logic at its best right there.

  19. avatar NORDNEG says:

    And they say crime doesn’t pay…, HA.!
    If you’re a thug with a gun, your good to go,,, but if your a law abiding citizen ,who has property, their turning you into a criminal. Sounds like something a Democrat could sign on too…,
    Meanwhile, the politicians probably all have armed security,,, probably the same thugs they refuse to prosecute.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Sigh…I live in southern Cook. In a somewhat nice town. Chicago was,is and always will be the evil entity wrecking ILLinois. I want to go east but until I do I WILL NOT comply!

  21. avatar HP says:

    Same story in New York, California, and an increasing number of states. Good Americans who mind their own business are being victimized by deranged liberal urbanites.

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Somehow, the solution is always telling other people “over there” what to do.

    It’s like that’s tbe point, a d tbe rest is pretense.

  23. avatar Grumpster says:

    In Crook County repeat violent felons often get no or little jail time and the prisons are already over flowing. TTAG did an excellent article about this and Crook Countys SJW prosecutor Kim Foxx.

    However if some of these gun bans pass Illinois is going to need scores of new prisons for those previous law abiding citizens caught with a 15 round magazine or a spare forearm for their registered AR-15 which is insanity.

  24. avatar Matt Vine says:

    Title is WRONG! ALL of IL will pay for Chicago Violence and Gun problem.

  25. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Support the DNC, do not comply…

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email