Apologetics in the Sun-Times

The Chicago Sun-Times put out an editorial that is so firmly planted in Rahm Emanual's behind, the tapeworms are jealous.

Given that backdrop — a jurisprudence that clearly backs the right to have a handgun at home — a full-scale retreat might be in order, an admission that Chicagoans have no choice but to resign ourselves to a city of armed camps.

Not a chance, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his top lawyer said this week.

So what was it when Chicago gained the honor of highest number of murders several years running? Or it's norm of 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the state?
Oh, but it gets better.

Citing gun laws as an “essential component” of the city’s overall crime strategy, Emanuel pledged to do everything possible to preserve the city’s gun ordinance.
 We’re cheering him on. While parts of the gun ordinance may fall or need retooling, the city is on firm ground, both legally and morally, in restricting handgun use.

Of course you are, because your sycophantic idiots w/ no clue about the issue.The city's 'overall crime strategy' is failing w/ a 50% increase in homicides so far this year.  No mention of the Ezell case where even the courts recognized the only purpose of the law was to snub the Supreme Court.

The law — which limits who can own a gun; requires a permit, registry of each gun and firearms training; limits the number of guns per owner, and prohibits guns outside the home — does not discourage gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It merely regulates that right in a way that helps protect Chicagoans.

Except for the outrageous, restrictive and expensive 'regulations' that have no bearing on 'protection' at all. You  know, kind of like a poll tax.

The ban on gun stores, for example, makes it that much harder to move guns into Chicago. Research from 2007 shows that relatively high transaction costs in Chicago’s underground market compared to other cities have acted as a limit on sales.

 Yeah. OK. Sure.
But this one, this one, is the clincher:

Two other provisions under attack are meant to protect innocent bystanders. One restricts handguns to the home, outlawing them on front porches and in backyards and garages in an attempt to protect passersby. Another provision says each home can have just one gun ready and operational. All other guns need to be secured.

Do they honestly believe that?  How many cases have their been of legal firearm owners just randomly going outside and popping off rounds in the neighborhood?  'protect passerby's'.  Seriously?  This is what they call journalism?

One important 1998 study found that guns in the home were four times more likely to be used in accidents than in self-defense.

Oh lord. Kellerman.  One of the most debunked pieces of 'research' in firearm debate history.

And they wonder why their media is dying.