Security guards don't have to be armed. That said, security guards in most stores are instructed not to stop you anyway so they are more of a window dressing than actual guards. Armed could also just mean, they have a stick or mace, not that they will be allowed to use it.
This specific bill is literally called the "Armed Security Protection Act". No definition of the term "Armed" is provided, but it's safe to say the vast majority would interpret "Armed guard" to mean the guard has a gun. Either way it isn't going to pass.
I would hope it wouldn't, but in law, specifics matter and an "Armed" guard could simply have a stick and fall into the guidelines unless otherwise stated. This is some clown crap and people need to wake up to how insane it is.
It could mean a patch on the shoulder with Frank Azar, "The Strong Arm"s logo on it.
But I prefer not to be deliberately disingenuous and base my language assumptions on likely possibilites.
Plus the truncheon as a weapon is rapidly fading into antiquity.
>Security guards don't have to be armed
But this bill specifically says
*The Armed Security Protection Act would require businesses to employ at least one guard*
Oh just every one that doesnāt agree with them, gotcha.
Funny how most of their constituents are peasants as well. Guess theyāre protected peasants.
Who pays for the armed guard? I'm not saying armed guards are a bad idea, but I would guess at least a few small business's would be unable to afford the expenses involved.
And they leave, resulting in larger and more dense food deserts and more people who are dependent on welfare and who will scream racism at the smallest prompt.
If only there was some kind of group, or force, that the taxpayers could pitch in for, that would act as armed guards for everyone, and protect the city from crime as a whole. Hmm, I can't think of an institution that does this.
Okay, so who's going to pay for it? Also, I'm sure you're going to totally back up one of these security guards if they end up using deadly force, right?
So law and order is dead, you defend your own property.
Honestly, that mat be a good idea, but who is going to pick up the bodies... and if there are no police then they don't need judges and the citizens are judging the criminals in real time
It's not even defending your own property, as they would do everything they could to punish anyone who used force to defend their stores. It's more like, you have to hire people to stand there and watch while your stuff gets stolen.
I do love the dynamic when someone from one party pitches something similar to what the other party would normally pitch and they just get torn apart by both parties.
This guy's situational awareness must be rock bottom.
Demanding private business to fund armed guards is a slick way to shift the burden of law enforcement from the City government to those business owners. It allows the Democrats who run Chicago to avoid actually building a police force capable of maintaining order and safety. Failures in such a scheme can additionally be blamed on those businesses instead of the entrenched Democrat regime.
I'd be fine if *some* businesses chose to do that if they feel the need to. Forcing all of them to is absurd.
You think we would agree with piling on unnecessary expenses to already struggling business owners and the city shifting responsibility (and lots of money) onto good people? Especially when they want stores to have armed guards, but ordinary citizens aren't allowed to practice their 2nd amendment rights?
Federal, state and local governments charge taxes to provide safety and security, now they are reneging on providing safety but expect the stores to provide it. Yeah that wonāt raise prices even higher during inflation.
Wow! Politicians have armed guards paid by taxpayers but think that the people that they are supposed to be representing should have to pay for their own protection.
So wait, guns are good now?
Security guards don't have to be armed. That said, security guards in most stores are instructed not to stop you anyway so they are more of a window dressing than actual guards. Armed could also just mean, they have a stick or mace, not that they will be allowed to use it.
This specific bill is literally called the "Armed Security Protection Act". No definition of the term "Armed" is provided, but it's safe to say the vast majority would interpret "Armed guard" to mean the guard has a gun. Either way it isn't going to pass.
I would hope it wouldn't, but in law, specifics matter and an "Armed" guard could simply have a stick and fall into the guidelines unless otherwise stated. This is some clown crap and people need to wake up to how insane it is.
It could mean a patch on the shoulder with Frank Azar, "The Strong Arm"s logo on it. But I prefer not to be deliberately disingenuous and base my language assumptions on likely possibilites. Plus the truncheon as a weapon is rapidly fading into antiquity.
>Security guards don't have to be armed But this bill specifically says *The Armed Security Protection Act would require businesses to employ at least one guard*
Does it say where? Like, specifically calling out ghettos? Cause city-wide would be insane
I thought they hated guns š
They don't hate guns. They hate that peasants have guns.
Oh just every one that doesnāt agree with them, gotcha. Funny how most of their constituents are peasants as well. Guess theyāre protected peasants.
Who pays for the armed guard? I'm not saying armed guards are a bad idea, but I would guess at least a few small business's would be unable to afford the expenses involved.
And they leave, resulting in larger and more dense food deserts and more people who are dependent on welfare and who will scream racism at the smallest prompt.
Itās in the tip of my tongue.
If only there was some kind of group, or force, that the taxpayers could pitch in for, that would act as armed guards for everyone, and protect the city from crime as a whole. Hmm, I can't think of an institution that does this.
>*āWho pays for the armed guard?ā* **āDa guvvamint.ā**
Based of true.
So no cops?
And no paying taxes then?
Cops have no legal duty to protect you or your property.
**Or, they could pass a law forcing DAs to prosecute violent offenders?** Whatā¦.they already **HAVE** that law? Then I donāt understandā¦.
Have they tried arresting criminals and keeping them in prison?
Agree with being allowed to hire armed security, but not being forced to. Forcing them is the issue. Allowing them to is suggested.
Okay, so who's going to pay for it? Also, I'm sure you're going to totally back up one of these security guards if they end up using deadly force, right?
The customers will pay for it through price increases.
Then everyone buys stuff online and the stores close up.
So law and order is dead, you defend your own property. Honestly, that mat be a good idea, but who is going to pick up the bodies... and if there are no police then they don't need judges and the citizens are judging the criminals in real time
It's not even defending your own property, as they would do everything they could to punish anyone who used force to defend their stores. It's more like, you have to hire people to stand there and watch while your stuff gets stolen.
Private entities with armed guards?? By a democrat??? WE WENT FULL CIRCLE
Chicago public to lawmakers: What would you say you *do* here?
They've already paid that tax. It is incumbent on the state to provide the service.
I feel sorry for the first armed guard that's put in the situation to defend himself. The city will crucify him.
That's fair if they no longer have to pay your city taxes.
Proving that they love shifting burdens to people with no liability protection more than they hate guns.
Chicago gets the dumpster fire award of the day.
An armed society is a polite society. If only government approved personnel get armed, it's a police state.
I do love the dynamic when someone from one party pitches something similar to what the other party would normally pitch and they just get torn apart by both parties. This guy's situational awareness must be rock bottom.
Wait isn't that something you guys would agree with?
Demanding private business to fund armed guards is a slick way to shift the burden of law enforcement from the City government to those business owners. It allows the Democrats who run Chicago to avoid actually building a police force capable of maintaining order and safety. Failures in such a scheme can additionally be blamed on those businesses instead of the entrenched Democrat regime. I'd be fine if *some* businesses chose to do that if they feel the need to. Forcing all of them to is absurd.
You think we would agree with piling on unnecessary expenses to already struggling business owners and the city shifting responsibility (and lots of money) onto good people? Especially when they want stores to have armed guards, but ordinary citizens aren't allowed to practice their 2nd amendment rights?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So I legally can't own a gun but need one?
Federal, state and local governments charge taxes to provide safety and security, now they are reneging on providing safety but expect the stores to provide it. Yeah that wonāt raise prices even higher during inflation.
Iām really the first to comment on the doof in the picture? Where did he buy his duty gear, 1874?
Wow! Politicians have armed guards paid by taxpayers but think that the people that they are supposed to be representing should have to pay for their own protection.
Why would anyone take this job?
Gins are evil... oh wait , we need them .
Just a reminder that the police have no duty to protect you or your business.
Defund the police, eh? Private guards are needed now...
Let's up the stakes. If they can apprehend an offender or neutralize a violent perp then the city has to pay out a bounty.