Actor and conservative James Woods has gained notoriety in recent years for his fiery social media posts and political commentary, which hilariously lambast prominent Democrats and media figures for the absurdly ridiculous or blatantly false things they often say.
According to The Daily Wire, the latest target of Woods’ conservative ire on social media was none other than Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who ludicrously seemed to suggest in a tweet on Saturday that rampant gun violence in Chicago was somehow the fault of congressional Republicans.
Linking to an ABC News report about an “anti-violence activist” in Chicago who’d been fatally gunned down, Durbin tweeted, “This is heartbreaking. Chicago has lost far too many aspiring young people to senseless gun violence. When will Republicans in Congress finally decide to act?”
This is heartbreaking. Chicago has lost far too many aspiring young people to senseless gun violence. When will Republicans in Congress finally decide to act? https://t.co/4dCk5YODwZ
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) September 8, 2018
If Durbin expected to receive loads of supportive messages from his constituents and followers, he was sorely mistaken. The vast majority of the respondents took issue with his shifting of the blame for Chicago’s violence to Republicans, who are virtually non-existent in the city, politically speaking, and have been for decades.
And that was pretty much the gist of Woods’ response to Durbin’s tweet on Monday, which referred to the senator as both a “nimrod” and an “embarrassment,” presumably to the city, the state of Illinois, the Senate and America as a whole.
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 10, 2018
Woods tweeted, “Dear Nimrod,
#Chicago has been ruled by #Democrats for 87 years. It has the strictest gun control laws in America. Stop talking. You are an embarrassment.”
According to the Encyclopedia of Chicago, the last Republican politician to serve as mayor of the Windy City was William Hale Thompson, who served three terms overall, the last being from 1927-1931.
Every single Chicago mayor since then has been a Democrat — or, laughably, “nonpartisan” — and Chicago’s city council over the years has also been predominately, and sometimes exclusively, made up of Democrats.
As for the gun violence that plagues the city, Woods was correct in that Chicago has been known for having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, though those laws appear to have done little to quell the gun violence, and ironically may have even made the problem worse by leaving innocent, non-criminal residents incapable of defending themselves … the mere prospect of which often compels criminals to commit crimes elsewhere, lest they be shot dead by a law-abiding armed resident.
Liberal anti-gun Chicagoans often like to blame the lax gun control laws in the neighboring state of Indiana as being responsible for their own scourge of gun violence. Their logic being that criminals from Chicago can easily obtain their weapons out of state prior to illegally transporting them back into Illinois and the city that has seen as many gun deaths as war zones like Afghanistan over the years.
But if lax gun control laws and a prevalence of easily obtainable firearms were a direct causation of gun violence, why isn’t Indiana a violent hellhole with insane levels of shootings and gun murders?
Furthermore, the gun violence in Chicago, as well as gun control laws aimed at curbing it, are not really in the realm of responsibility for Congressional Republicans, who have an entire nation and world to look at as they craft legislation, not a formerly great midwestern city that has been ruined by Democrats.
Chicago is a solely Democratic Party problem. It became a problem because of Democrat policies and will continue to be a problem so long as Democrats continue to run it
If Chicagoans want Republicans to bear some responsibility for the issue as well, maybe they ought to consider voting some of them into office and giving them a shot at fixing the problems they’re absurdly being blamed for.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.