Do residents living in high crime areas have less Constitutional Rights than other less crime areas?
The Chicago Tribune article titled, Lightfoot should end her attack on bail reform, reported:
“if the mayor is serious about ending the cycle of violence, she needs to stop her endless fearmongering. There is no chance that we will solve the heartbreaking problem of Chicago’s gun violence by trampling on civil rights”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to relate an ancient wisdom to question if the writer understands that when a person is shot and killed, someone trampled on their civil rights?
This begs the question, why do the red areas on the Chicago Tribune data map experience more fears of gun violence than the other areas of Chicago and the USA, if both areas have the same civil rights including the right to own a gun?
King Solomon,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (King Solomon Proverb 9:10)
For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Ecclesiastes 9:4)
Rich and poor live side by side, Yahweh makes them all. (Proverb 22:2)
What’s My Point?
There is a direct correlation of a higher prevalence of poverty in the red areas on the map.
There is also a direct correlation of less private religious schools in the red areas.
The Constitution does not differentiate rights are to differ based on income. Most religious order members make vows of poverty when they join a religious order. That is a proof that there is an element of choice in choice of cultures of life about poverty that everyone may make in life.
My point is that if a person cannot afford to move out of a red area as the Chicago Tribune reported about the reverse migration taking place in the USA, their have two choices.
- Live by the “street smarts” explained in previous Post One.
- Take the following advice.
“We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary. “I repeat, because to me this is the most important thing you need to know. I already know it. “We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary.” (Source Below)
In My Opinion
King Solomon’s verse that once a person is dead, they have no choice or hope options.
In the short term, the only hope for Chicago residents living in high crime areas who cannot afford to move is to choose to temporary forfeit rights and allow police to stop and search anyone they believe or know to be a risk in red area communities.
In the long term, school vouchers to allow them the choice where to send their children their religious values.
If Interested
Read the Source Links Below.
In My Next Post
I will summarize these posts by relating proven informational advice other USA sectors have adjusted to use to survive threats in their communities.
You Decide
Is Mayor Lightfoot wise or foolish to use “fearmongering” to attempt to tell the truth to residents in Chicago their choice.
If you live in a red line district, what choices of rights would you be willing to forfeit in order “that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary,” to allow hope for your future and future of your family and community?
Is having rights and being a” living dog” with hope better than being a “dead lion” shot by a someone with a gun?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune
Mayor Lightfoot
Treja Kelley
What Others Are Saying September 12, 2019, by Timothy Noah, Politico Derek Thompson, The Atlantic
Previous Post One
“within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary.”
Rich and Poor Live Side by Side
Wisdom of Fear
Rich and Poor Live Side by Side
No comments:
Post a Comment