134 Comments - Brendan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:17 am: I disagree. Heckling is free speech. It just isn’t productive speech. - Not It - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:20 am: I can’t tell which public debate I hate the most: (1) the pro-choice and pro-life people hating each other, or (2) the pro-gun and pro-safety people hating each other, or (3) pro-pension reform and the “show-me-my-money” people hating each other. - Adam Smith - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:24 am: I repectfully ask that you please be just as dilligent rooting out thuggish behavior by Move On, Occupy, SEIU and AFSCME. And condemn their frequent efforts to stymie free speech with which they do not agree. You are hitting at one of the roots of our problems…the disappearance of respectful discourse. At this point is matters little who is more to blame for this situation. It just matters that we try to get beyond it. And for people on the left, please understand that the definition of civility is not simply agreeing with everything YOU say. - MrJM - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:25 am: It’s almost like demonizing the other side is some kind of money-making racket. – MrJM - Stones - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:27 am: Like I said in an earlier thread…I haven’t seen a debate this spirited since the Abortion issue or the ERA. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:31 am: I just love it whenever they speak and step in it. (ie. Jennifer Bishop) http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/winnetka-murder-victims-sister-turns-gun-control-activist >>>>>“Disarming you — that’s not true,” she said. “We do not support bans. We only support three things — uniformed background checks, no military-style assault weapons in the hands of citizens and regulating the traffic of guns.” >>>>>“You cannot address the problem of guns with more guns,” she continued. “We have to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. It’s not a threat to their interpretation of the second amendment. … They’re paranoid.” Sorry, a ban is a ban. - walkinfool - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:33 am: The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect free political speech. To shout down a speaker is to prevent free political speech. Amazing that some people don’t get that. Heckling, booing, signs, etc. — usually ok, IMHO, but only if they don’t prevent the speaker from exercising his own rights. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:39 am: The location of this meeting was moved from the Wilmette Library to the Glenview Police station because these intimidation tactics by the NRA and ISRA posed a threat to the patrons of the library. Two Glenview officers who witnessed the meeting at first thought it was silly to move the meeting. Afterwards, they both said that more than a few of the gun rights supporters who shouted down speakers and were generally foaming at the mouth were just the kind of individuals that probably should not be allowed to possess firearms. When asked if those were the kind of people they wanted walking around on the streets carrying weapons as a method to reduce crime, they shuddered, but were smart enough not to answer the question. The NRA and the ISRA are doing everything in their power to prevent even broader knowledge of the effects of guns in our society. They’ve quashed any economic impact studies in Illinois for over two decades. The NRA and ISRA measure victory by the number of people they can shout down at a meeting like this. We, on the other hand, waited until after the meeting and made sure that the police department understood that these were the organizations that want 10mm rounds, the most easily hidden weapons as possible, and silencers as ’safety device’ to protect kids from hearing loss, as well as arming the borderline nut-jobs with the highest muzzle velocity weapons possible. I reminded them that these were the guys they had to thank for the pucker their sphincters felt every time they answer a domestic dispute call. The loud-mouths claimed victory Sunday. Personally, I want meetings like this in every local police department. They’re so ….. enlightening. - Just Observing - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:40 am: This was a silly forum to begin with… All the speakers were anti-gun…. No attempt to provide balanced discourse…. Not excusing the crowds behavior though. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:43 am: @Springfieldish, please take seriously the fact that holding up pictures of a Nazi rally and a chihuahua make your side look idiotic. if I had anything to do with working for your side of the issue, those people would be permanently sidelined. don’t fight crazy with crazy. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:43 am: @Just Observing: And NRA/ISRA rallies and forums let gun control advocates speak? I don’t think so. - OneMan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:49 am: Springfieldish Funny thing is, if my Facebook pals are to be believed (based off what they post), some of the strongest pro-gun folks I know are cops, one a cop in a not so nice town… Also finite sympathy for ‘they were rude’ when you do the dog thing, because the way to make your point is to provoke a response… - Young and Hopeful - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:50 am: I am pro-gun and pro-gun control. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. I don’t understand why both sides cannot just listen to one another. I agree that the pro-gun people had a first amendment right to say what ever they wanted how ever they wanted BUT I agree with walkinfool that your right to free speech should not infringe on another persons right. Just because you want to scream and shout doesn’t mean you should. When talking to my friends, mostly between the age of 21-23, they think all pro-gun people are crazy because of things like this. It all just gives me a headache. I thought we were taught in kindergarten how to play well with others. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:53 am: Personally, I had nothing to do with those that put this forum together. It was just a great opportunity for a little ‘guerrilla lobbying’. The image of the guy claiming that more guns make society safer while so upset at this little forum that his hands were shaking spoke volumes. Yeah, like we wanted THIS guy with a gun in Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or NIU! - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:54 am: Good for Lt Governor Simon. As a woman and a Democrat, demographics generally seen as gun control supporters, she has a real Nixon to China opportunity here. As a Southern Illinoisan she understands the gun owners’ point of view. She has taken on a huge task, but good for her. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 9:59 am: >3. If you have an I-GOLD t-shirt, hat, or badge, wear it! If you have an ISRA hat or an NRA hat, wear it! - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:03 am: Hey, where’s the rest of my post? I compared that to the time Homer Simpson got everyone to where a gravy boat on their heads. - siriusly - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:03 am: This is a great example of why some organizations need to have their credibility and their ability to influence research based public policy decisions questioned. How can ISRA make a statement like this and be considered credible? “These are the people who don’t care if you or your family members are raped, robbed and murdered by violent criminals. They only care about one thing - disarming you.” So people who support reasonable gun control measures are pro-rape and pro-murder? Nice. Thank you for your meaningful contributions to the discussion. - gator mcklusky - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:04 am: Here is a link to the video taken from this rally.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C44B55YYLQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player - siriusly - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:04 am: “Walsh is known for his, shall we say, understated manner.” - good one - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:04 am: Cheryl, I have it on good authority that ISRA and IGOLD clothing is currently available for purchase if you need to get yours soon. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:09 am: =Heckling is not free speech when it’s specifically orchestrated to drown out a speaker. .= And yet some continue to believe that such a tactic calls for a declaration of victory and hence, a pat on the back…their own back and hand, I suppose. - walkinfool - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:09 am: The smarter thing for the ISRA would have been to call the organizers, and ask that one of their suporters be added to the panel — if they really wanted a fair and open discussion. Knowing the organizers, that might have worked. Of course that wouldn’t play into the ISRA victimhood theme. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:09 am: One Man: Today, your police friends on facebook know that the man on the corner holding a gun is the presumptive bad guy. Have you ever asked them how they feel about two men on opposite corners with guns and having to presume they both are merely exercising their Constitutional Rights? I have a number of friends in the Las Vegas police department, and they all started out thinking that more guns in the hands of ‘responsible citizens’ was a good thing. But a few years on the street, answering calls and experiencing the pucker-factor have changed their tune. Why do you think even the Nevada legislature is starting to consider limitations on the right to carry? The NRA and ISRA’s tactics at this meeting clearly demonstrated that not everyone should be able to walk the streets with a gun, which is, of course, the most immediate legislative issue in Illinois. Just because a meeting has as its agenda one topic, doesn’t mean the reality of the forum can’t be used for another purpose. - Tiffany at Breakfast - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:10 am: The victims rights group has been coddled and treated with kid gloves for so long by legislators that they are completely out of touch about how to communicate with the public, much less people who oppose them. Legislators are so afraid of offending a victims group that they fear even expressing their concerns with them and if they disagree with a bill, have to kill it through the back door. The NRA doesn’t have that problem. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:16 am: @Springfieldish, well you seem to have lots of knowledge about what went on and are into it “personally” so if you care, weigh in and get those on your side to get it together. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:21 am: ==Good for Lt Governor Simon. As a woman and a Democrat, demographics generally seen as gun control supporters, she has a real Nixon to China opportunity here. As a Southern Illinoisan she understands the gun owners’ point of view. She has taken on a huge task, but good for her== Simon is an anti-gunner with no credibility with downstate pro-gun types. She is just another politician trying to figure out the speeding train heading towards the state. She will have ZERO impact on the passage or drafting of the bill. She has no position from which to negotiate from. Where was she during the last 2 years when HB148 was being disscussed? Her and the administration have choosen not to have any talks with the pro-gun side. Fine. Don’t expect us to accomidate them. And all of this at the time her boss is running around talking of banning gun shows from state property, banning a large class of firearms and such. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Everybody had a chance last session. I personally asked the Governor to sit down and disscuss the issue. We were rebuffed, ignored and laughed at. From the Governor, to the County to the City. They all stuck their noses in the air and walked away. And we went to Court, and we won. Now its our turn. WE will pass a shall issue, statewide carry bill. With preemption, commercailly available training and penalties for any municipality that attmpts to circumvent the law. Yet i await with baited breath for my invite from Ms. Simon so I can listen to her wisdom and depth of knowedge on the details of the subject. . . - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:21 am: Personal safety is an emotional issue. Some prefer to take personal responsibility for their personal safety, while others feel threatened when others exercise their right to do so and prefer a world where personal safety is handle by government employees, such as the sheriff or cop. This is an emotional issue. Being emotional shouldn’t be considered bad. Debating this issue without emotion doesn’t won’t solve the problem, and it can’t be done. Folks thinking they can transform society by banning guns are dreaming. It can’t be done. It would be easier to ban motor vehicles. Taking responsibility over our personal lives is a good thing. Insulting a perfectly safe way this is done regarding personal safety via guns, is just stupid, in my opinion. Both sides are emotional. Debates will be passionate when one side believes the other is getting the upper hand. A lot more listening from BOTH sides will be required. Gun advocates are not stupid. Let’s stop insulting them. If you have a respectful way of convincing them that a non gun approach may work, let’s hear it. Dragging children reading letter pleading for safety is neither informative, nor productive. You have a right to defend yourself from harm. How you do it will depend on the threat. Some feel those threats differently. My gun totting neighbors will be a defense for me before any law enforcement shows up, and I trust my gun totting neighbors to do their best under threatening conditions. We are all in this together. Let’s talk like it. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:29 am: @Todd: What would be the point of the two sides talking? What exactly would be accomplished with the attitudes on both sides. You have clearly indicated from your statement that you have no interest in anything but shoving your agenda down everybody’s throats. I’m sure it’s the same on both sides. And why would anybody want to speak to you with your militant attitude? That’s the problem I have with all of you and that includes the other side. Also, as I’ve said before, NOBODY elected you to anything. You can lobby all you want but you aren’t going to pass anything. Arrogant pretty much sums you up. - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:29 am: I can’t help but think that the current edition of the gun debate is a well orchestrated diversionary tactic to steer as much public debate as possible away from the truly critical issues such as jobs, currency depreciation, property taxes, state and local government debt, etc. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:31 am: Things got really heated, however, when [Jennifer –Bishop-Jenkins of the Million Moms March] displayed a photograph of a Nazi rally on a screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like”. Following that he displayed a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is”.– Dumb. The idea is persuade others, not just sing to the choir. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:32 am: ==Gun advocates are not stupid. Let’s stop insulting them.== Tell that to @Todd. He doesn’t seem to have a problem insulting anyone. You kind of prove my point that nobody from either side has any respect whatsoever of the other. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:33 am: While I personally thought the whole Nazi-Chihuaha thing was offensive, I don’t think that Amalia is getting the point. If we’re going to generalize about ’sides’, I’d say the pro-gun side at that meeting are the folks more taken to walking in lock-step. And, let’s be clear, the shouting started long before the images of the Nazi’s and the dog. It started in the parking lot, from guys piling out of cars with plate frames from dealerships and car lots in Marengo, and Plano and Orland Park, all singing the same tune at the same time. The Glenview Police noticed that as well. They didn’t attend the meeting, but they certainly saw and heard what transpired. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:37 am: ===WE will pass a shall issue, statewide carry bill. With preemption, commercailly available training and penalties for any municipality that attmpts to circumvent the law.=== Todd, I’ll bet you a box of your favorite ammunition that the bill you describe does not become law in Illinois. We’ll pass a conceal/carry law that meets the court’s requirements, but you’re not going to like it because it’s going to bring some additional strings with it. But you’re right, you won, so now we have to take you seriously. Be careful of what you wish for. You’ve just united a whole bunch of people and groups across the state who don’t think much of your vision for a sensible conceal/carry bill. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:38 am: They wonder why we show up as audience members to a PUBLIC event… We have to stand up for ourselves there when they do stuff like makes speeches about “babies” (as we if we killing babies) and as quoted above: ====Things got really heated, however, when [Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins of the Million Moms March] displayed a photograph of a Nazi rally on a screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like”. Following that he displayed a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is”. ==== If right wingers talk about collective bargaining changes its ok to storm a capital, burn in effigy a governor, say you are going do physical harm to a governor… But if you show pictures of nazis to a public forum and say that is what gun owners are you dont expect us to pack the venue? - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:38 am: @ Springfieldish, no, I do get that point. I just wish the other side could walk as well in lock step and NOT bring the crazy. see Wordslinger above for more of that sentiment. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:41 am: Demoralized… Did you not read his statement about who he tried to talk to? We negotiated over and over. Quin and most of the Chicago folks didnt even want to talk with the NRA or gun owners. end of story. So we are to try to go back on our knees to the same people who havent wanted to talk to us in several years? As todd said: ===It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Everybody had a chance last session. I personally asked the Governor to sit down and disscuss the issue. We were rebuffed, ignored and laughed at. From the Governor, to the County to the City. They all stuck their noses in the air and walked away. === - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:42 am: Rich, I can clearly understand the reference to a “token of politeness” and fully acknowledge V-Man’s observation that this is an emotional issue for both sides. Having said that, I’d suggest that reading the following within the context of one another, can be interpreted as a call for restraint–as they probably should be. 6. Be polite, but be assertive. Do not let the anti-gunners shout you down. Defend your 2nd Amendment with passion. If you have a smart phone, video as much of the proceedings as you can. 7. Remember, this is our Lexington, this is our Concord. Be prepared to teach the gun controllers a lesson in Liberty. There are ways to “teach lessons in Liberty” by committing to not heckling (which is ineffective), waiting for any heckling to subside, and then exhibiting your “passion” by calmly stating or restating your point–in a manner that is not intended to incite. - OneMan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:45 am: Springfieldish, The friend is a cop in a concealed carry state and has remarked that he thinks it’s a good idea… Also for what it is worth, he has been a cop long enough that he gets to take basically the entire month of December off using his leave… - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:56 am: –7. Remember, this is our Lexington, this is our Concord. Be prepared to teach the gun controllers a lesson in Liberty.– Some goof could interpret that in a very ominous way. The Minutemen were not heckling the British at Lexington and Concord. Everyone, tone it down, please. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:57 am: demoralized — If you find my statement of the facts insulting so be it. They had a chance to talk, we actuall y negotiated with the Chiefs and Sheriffs and state police. But others choose not to. So our efforts at talks were ignored. Now that we have the Court at our backs, we don’t have to talk as much. Your right I didn;t get elected. I got a majority who agree with me elected. 47 I’m game. what kinda bill do you think is gonna pass. I maintain it will be statewide, it will have preemption and no speciual treatment for Cook or Chicago. commercial training@ around the 8 hour mark with range qualification. it will not be New York, Maryland, Jersey California. Permits go to state police not issued by the sheriff. lets hear your prediction. - downhereforyears - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:58 am: Since when is heckling not free speech? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:05 am: ===Since when is heckling not free speech? === “Heckling is not free speech when it’s specifically orchestrated to drown out a speaker.” - Esquire - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:06 am: Interestingly, Lee Goodman used to be a Secretary of State’s Office and was once an active Republican. He left the office while George Ryan was the SOS and later ran for Congress in the 10th District unsuccessfully as a Democrat (before Dan Seals). - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:08 am: All this could go away if everyone followed wordslinger’s suggestion of carrying around unloaded firearms. I don’t like the shouting down of other folks in such a forum whether it is Code Pink or the NRA. Not because I don’t believe either has the right to do so but because as a strategy it is not very useful. Folks end up talking about how rude everyone was rather than discussing the issue at hand. The message is lost in the delivery. Besides, the issue will be determined in the GA followed by the veto pen wielded by the gov (snark). - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:09 am: Todd, I’m not in the prediction business. Prior to the Appellate Court ruling, the giant was still sleeping. It’s now awake and kind of upset about Newtown. HB148 was the high water mark for gun rights proponents. I’ll take your challenge though and predict a final bill will allow municipalities the ability to add restrictions on who/how/where to carry, or at a minimum, allows private property owners the right to ban firearms on their premises without penalty. If I was an entrepreneur, I’d start a business printing signs with a handgun in a red circle with a line through it. We’ll be seeing those on store doors all over Illinois once the conceal/carry law takes effect. Bet on it. - wishbone - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:19 am: I can’t condone interfering with the speech of others. On the other hand when the gun control crowd says they don’t want to ban guns, in their hearts they know they are lying. If only they would focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane there would be a lot of common ground, and some actual reduction in gun violence. All rifles are used in less than 2% of gun crime, and yet they focus on banning a subset of rifles that look scary to them. It will have no impact on gun crime (as it did not after the 1994 ban) and they will be back demanding more ineffectual measures. - PM31 - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:27 am: ===Since when is heckling not free speech? === ===Heckling is not free speech when it’s specifically orchestrated to drown out a speaker.=== Yeah, then it is called a “filibuster”…… - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:33 am: word, the key word is “assertive”–not “aggressive”. Those who believe they are in a position to aggress often understand the difference between the two terms. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:36 am: - If only they would focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane there would be a lot of common ground - Keeping guns out of certain hands means that yes, they will be banned from owning them. But “guns”, as a category, will not be banned, they will only be unavailable to those that everyone agrees shouldn’t have them. It seems to me that you’re talking about coming together around the idea of a partial ban, which is what I hear more from gun control advocates than I do from gun rights advocates, who seem to view anyone being prevented from buying a firearm equates to a ban on all firearms for all people. I think it would be helpful to hear from a gun rights advocate what phrasing of this issue would be acceptable to them, because both sides ARE talking about keeping guns out of some hands, but one side refuses to deal in good faith with the other because the other side wants to ban guns. Unless organized groups start talking to each other, directly and in good faith, there will spring up other groups to facilitate real communication instead of emotional or profit driven communication (and I direct that towards both sides, not just one or the other). - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:37 am: It would be nice if the people who are pro-gun would try being calm. It would give some of the confidence that they really can use guns safely. Screaming at speakers? That’s not rational. The whole “THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!” garbage? Not rational. Seriously people, name one person who wants to take all your guns. The more they talk, the more I move towards the other side. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:46 am: I’m pro gun, Skeeter. And while I’d like to think I have more v. fewer rational moments and appreciate, for example, the media’s role in our society, even I–occasionally, have to take a deep breath when reading some of the articles and comments regarding “complete gun control” that have come out over the past few weeks. When one side pulls too hard and too fast, the other responds by pulling just as hard. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:47 am: - I got a majority who agree with me elected. - Wait, you’re responsible for the super majorities of Democrats in both chambers? Man, I wouldn’t tell your supporters that. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:47 am: –word, the key word is “assertive”–not “aggressive”. Those who believe they are in a position to aggress often understand the difference between the two terms. – What are you talking about? I referred to: –7. Remember, this is our Lexington, this is our Concord. Be prepared to teach the gun controllers a lesson in Liberty.– What lessons were taught at Lexington and Concord? And what does it mean to “Be prepared to teach the gun controllers a lesson in Liberty?” I said that some goof could interpret that in a bad way, and I still believe that, particularly in the context that was established: –These are the people leading the charge to raid your gun safe and confiscate and destroy your guns. These are the people who want to prevent you from carrying defensive firearms. These are the people who don’t care if you or your family members are raped, robbed and murdered by violent criminals. They only care about one thing - disarming you.– - Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:51 am: Aside from the extreme rhetoric, I think it would be great to know what gun rights advocates and then the larger gun owner population actually believe. Does the 2nd Amendment - in their view - give citizens the right to own any firearm, including automatic weapons or assault weapons (e.g. 50 caliber sniper rifle)? No bans of any kind, no regulations to screen for mental illness/criminal history, no form of public record of who owns what to help law enforcement? If so, is the true reason for this view because they don’t trust/believe in our democratic process and must have guns that deter government overreach/tyranny? Is this view shared by the majority of gun-owners or are the majority of gun owners simply hunters, gun collectors, sports/recreation shooters, and home/business owners who own a single firearm for self-defense? How many in our society actually want conceal-carry in their communities? Let’s recognize the 2nd Amendment, but institute some logical safeguards on gun ownership. The pro-gun movement hurts itself a great deal by failing to acknowledge how the lack of regulation has negatively impacted the amount gun violence in our country. Heck, even Wyatt Earp cleaned up Dodge City by banning guns in certain areas…or so the movies tell me. - Leave a Light on George - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:53 am: =If only they would focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane there would be a lot of common ground, and some actual reduction in gun violence.= Isn’t this what pro-gun people mean when they say we have enough gun laws- just enforce the ones we have. - sam m - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:55 am: Sheila Simon is not a the best pick for this job. She has little connection to southern Illinoisans who overwhelming supportive of gun ownership.Her “leadership” will merely result in something that is acceptable to Rahm and friends. But she’s got to have something to do. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:55 am: =What are you talking about? I referred to:= I’m sorry, word. I must have been mistaken in believing that your response was in response to my comment regarding how the two points should be interpreted within the context of one another. If it wasn’t, I can clearly see why you’re confused–or perhaps, intentionally or unintentionally are trying to incite (in which case, I’ll take a pass on further discussing this point with you. For now. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 11:59 am: === Screaming at speakers? That’s not rational === If you read the memo, it is clearly a tactic. As such, it may be a poor one, but still rational. I would agree that it doesn’t appear rational which is why I would not recommend such a tactic. The distinction is important since it applies to a tactic used by either the left or the right in a variety of these types of settings. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:03 pm: Du Page, In civilized society, people do not scream at each other. The gun people need to start acting like they belong in civilized society. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:04 pm: Ditto Adam Smith - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:07 pm: As a gun owner, I have never felt an alignment with the NRA. They use tactics meant to stir up the passion of their supporters. With that being said, it would be hard to argue that they have not been successful in defending their cause. I’m not sure we will ever find middle ground on this issue. - MrJM - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:09 pm: The idea is persuade others, not just sing to the choir. Not when the idea is to raise money from the choir. – MrJM - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:12 pm: =I’m not sure we will ever find middle ground on this issue.= People might–if could just stop baiting one another, or being manipulated by those who might be trying to pit one side against the other. (And that applies to both sides.) - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:16 pm: The real problem with the approach of the pro gun people is that although it might be a way to get the base wound up, it will not expand the base. The gun lobby does best when calmly pointing out facts. The gun control people tend to lack facts. They tend not to realize that the definitions of assault weapons have nearly always been meaningless and as such, are ineffective. When the gun lobby tries the calm approach, the can expand the base. Instead of calm, they go with paranoid rants. “Here is how a gun works and why the assault ban cannot work” is effective. “THEY WANT TO GRAB ALL OUR GUNS” just makes gun control people think the other side is crazy. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:25 pm: =When the gun lobby tries the calm approach, the can expand the base.= You might be on to something, Skeeter. I wonder whether they’ve researched that approach. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:31 pm: Sheila Simon was a prosecutor, right? that would make her a very good pick to organize on the issue because she has worked with the police. - wishbone - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:32 pm: “I think it would be helpful to hear from a gun rights advocate what phrasing of this issue would be acceptable to them, because both sides ARE talking about keeping guns out of some hands, but one side refuses to deal in good faith with the other because the other side wants to ban guns.” I am a gun rights advocate. I believe there should be a national “no gun list” similar to the national no fly list. Anyone diagnosed by a competent mental health professional with any of a determined list of mental illnesses, anyone convicted of a violent felony, and anyone subject to a protective order would be placed on the no gun list subject to judicial review to prevent abuses. No one on the list would be permitted to buy, or posses a firearm. To make this possible medical privacy laws would have to be significantly modified, and the private sale “loophole” would have to be closed. This list would not have stopped Newtown, but it would prevent many mass shootings without interfering with responsible gun ownership. - champaign - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:41 pm: @Springfieldish: “10mm rounds” Seriously? Have you been watching too much Miami Vice? I thought 50 cal rounds were the bad bullets. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:54 pm: I don’t disagree with you on the screaming, Skeeter. As a former community organizer I can tell you these tactics are discussed and planned. That they appear crazed to you may be a problem to the NRA depending on your stance on the issue. Ginning up the base is part of the process. It may be helpful in the early going but can be counterproductive during the negotiation phase, if such a phase is even possible. All that is meaningless if the screamers have no plan other than to obstruct. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:55 pm: I love this concept that one must employ the ‘correct’ nomenclature of death, but, you’re correct, champaign, .50 cal rounds are very bad indeed. At least to police, educators, health care professionals, the clergy and most other advocates of a sane society. But not, however, to gangs, spur-of-the-moment killers, the deranged and murderous, those bent upon revenge, retaliation or retribution, or Todd. Since both the 10mm and .50 cal round manufacturers claim to be able to effectively incapacitate even those criminals who wear bullet-proof vests, I kind of lump them both together. My bad. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 12:58 pm: Wishbone, that’s perfectly sensible. But if you drop your first sentence and posted that in just about any forum, you’d have 20 replies about how you just want to ban guns, so why not just say it? It’s this fundamental disconnect that I’m baffled by. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:04 pm: @Springfieldish, Take a breath. BTW, when’s the last time a ‘gang banger’ in your words shot someone with a .50 cal? At about $8/round it’s not a very cost effective method. Considering 9mm or .45 run around $.25-$.45/round. And the 10mm round is even less available. I’m suprised you didn’t throw in flame throwers and claymore mines in your rant. - champaign - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:10 pm: @Springfieldish Nomenclature is important for both sides of the issue. Facts matter. If we can’t come to some common ground on nomenclature, we end up with arguments on both sides about “assault weapons bans” “thumb hole stocks” “bayonet mounts” without any basis in fact. These baseless concepts scare both the suburban soccer moms as well as the firearm collectors, competitive shooters, and the law abiding who choose self defense. See US Rep McCarthy and her infamous “shoulder thing that fires up” video. Surely you have some statistics on the frequency with which police, educators, health care professionals, the clergy, and “sane” society have come into contact with the two aforementioned calibers at the hands of gangs, spur-of-the-moment killers, the deranged and murderous, those bent on revenge, or Todd?. - champaign - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:12 pm: @ Springfieldish - PS, I’m not trying to start a flame war here, just want to understand where you are coming from. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:13 pm: >>>>> “THEY WANT TO GRAB ALL OUR GUNS” They actually do want to ban all the guns, and they are trying to do it incrementally. First they demonize handguns, then semi-automatic rifles. Next will be bolt-action rifles as being “too accurate”… - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:18 pm: =To make this possible medical privacy laws would have to be significantly modified, and the private sale “loophole” would have to be closed.= Your proposal is thoughtful and even shows “good faith” in that you raised some issues related to the proposal (even though they may be points of contention) so that everyone is aware of them and that they’re on the table as part of the discussion. Honor is due. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:19 pm: And JJJS proves my point. Thank you for providing that bit of tidying up. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:31 pm: John, who exactly are these people, and what information do you have about their otherwise secret plans? - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:32 pm: To those that want to talk Calibers.. Like .50 caliber or 10mm Would you like to point out which of these bullets are a .50 caliber? or probably a 10mm (or close to it)? Maybe point out to me which ones the “police” say are evil and armor piercing? http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j269/raystanford/ammo.jpg - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:35 pm: @Todd: Those are your facts from your biased view. Again you prove my point. None of you can talk to each other because neither party is willing to give on anything and you both think you are right. The whole thing is pointless. @USMCJanitor: And apparently you didn’t comprenhend my statement. You use the term “negotiate” loosly I’m assuming. There is no “negotiation” when neither side is going to give on anything. My entire point was the talking is pointless. You don’t go into a “negotiation” with the attitude that “you do what we want.” Your side isn’t going to tolerate ANY restrictions and the other side isn’t going to tolerate guns in general. End of story. - RMD - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:40 pm: All the ISRA needs to do is change their name to Illinois State Rifle Union. Then, their actions will be better understood and tolerated. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 1:58 pm: Here’s a good one for starters: Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995 - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:01 pm: JJ, What was the context of that quote? Was she talking about hand guns? Tell us more, JJ. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:08 pm: Thirty years ago, Morton Grove, Evanston, Chicago, Wilmette, Oak Park all banned handguns. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:12 pm: JJJS - the context of the quote involved the assault weapons ban. Not an outright ban on all firearms. I do believe that there are those who would wish for there to be no legal firearms in the hands of private citizens. I have not yet heard or read a quote from a prominent gun control advocate who says that outright. So many who post here are well versed in this information. It doesn’t do your side any good to post something that can so easily be debunked. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:14 pm: JJJS - sheesh, man, stick to the subject. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:18 pm: BTW, assuming that gangs don’t have the resources to acquire high-priced weaponry and ammo is as lethally incorrect as the US Navy’s assumption that the Japanese had poor night vision. - NoNameNick - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:27 pm: I’m amazed at how some groups like to anoint themselves the determiners of what is and who is and is not “patriots” or “patriotic”. Remoinds of the Viet Nam war era when those who opposed US involvement and the draft were deemed “unpatriotic”. I seems these groups want their constitutional rights upheld at all costs while hoping the opposing side will have there’s diminished. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:28 pm: @Springfieldish, Again, please provide some basis or links for information regarding gang shootings in recent memory (ever?) with a .50 cal. Or a 10mm. I imagine there are more killings with baseball bats than you could come up with. Not saying they can’t buy them…the fact is they don’t. So, please provide additional information. - nobody - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:57 pm: Archie Bunker on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 2:59 pm: “…the fact is they don’t.” Really? You know this how? What, are you the purchasing manager for a gang? Those that are calling upon me to cite my statistics regarding the gang use of 10mm/.50 cal weaponry need to read more carefully. I never said they did, but I would never say they don’t. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:04 pm: NELSON T. (PETE) SHIELDS III (Founder, Handgun Control, Inc./National Council to Control Handguns) “We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns - is going to take time…..The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.” (New Yorker Magazine, p.57-58, 26 Jul 76) MEL REYNOLDS (U.S. Congressman) “If it were up to me we’d ban them all [firearms].” (CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93) JOSH SUGARMANN (Executive Director, Violence Policy Center; former Communications Director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns): “To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.” Mother Jones Magazine, Jan/Feb 94, article titled “Reverse Fire” JOSH SUGARMANN (Executive Director, Violence Policy Center; former Communications Director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns): “…the semiautomatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion ..[that] anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons (1988 memo) - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:12 pm: JJ, Quotes from 1976? The only elected official you quote is Mel Reynolds? Are you secretly on the pro-control side? You are making your “They all want to take our guns” argument look absolutely ridiculous. - Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:13 pm: This is not anyone’s Lexington or Concord. And this has nothing to do with Nazis. You cannot have a Lexington or Concord without engaging battle with the army of your oppressors (in this case American soldiers). And Nazi comparisons should be reserved until concentration camps are built. I understand that the Nazi’s were about much more than concentration camps, but concentration camps happen to be the first thing most think of when they hear the word Nazi. Both sides sound petty, ignorant and should be ignored. - Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:16 pm: 20-year old memos and Mel Reynolds? The suggestion that JJJS use the front sight comes to mind. Intellectually speaking, of course. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:17 pm: The gun banners are not quite so outspoken these days. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:21 pm: Today’s gun banners are usually quick to state that they support the second amendment rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that they are not out to ban any guns… ..except of course the ones that they want to ban this time. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:22 pm: @JJJSchmidt, no, they have actually moderated their policy goals. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:26 pm: JJ, there are more privately owned guns in the United States than there are passenger cars or television sets. Do you really think someone is coming to get them all? Who would that be? Not only is confiscation politically impossible in our democracy, but I’d say it’s physically impossible as well. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:33 pm: Somewhat related, Sen. Kirk, R-Ill., is sponsoring legislation with Sen. Gillibrand, D-NY, to crack down on straw purchasers and gun trafficking across state lines. Bipartisanship. What do you know about that. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/01/gillibrand-kirk-unite-on-guns-155155.html?hp=r3 - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:34 pm: So JJ, you admit that you have no current quotes. You just know they are all out to get you. Remember what we were saying about paranoia? JJ, I think the gun grabbers might be hiding in your closet. Whatever you do, don’t go in the closet! - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:34 pm: >>>>> Not only is confiscation politically impossible in our democracy, but I’d say it’s physically impossible as well. Facts don’t stop the ideologues from fanning the flames. - wishbone - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:49 pm: “So JJ, you admit that you have no current quotes.” December 21, 2013 “In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons…” Current enough for you? - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:50 pm: “Facts don’t stop the ideologues from fanning the flames.” Spend much time looking in the mirror? Seriously dude. You made a claim that people were out to get you. You produced nothing to back the claim. And then you complain of fact-deficient ideologues? - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 3:56 pm: Wishbone, Try to follow. Yes, people want to take your assault weapon. And your nuclear submarine. And likely your IED and your flamethrower. But your handgun? Or the rifle that you use to shoot deer? Nobody is going to take seize that. And any suggestion that they do is truly paranoia. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:02 pm: I looked at all those quotes before, JJJS. Very old. Gun ownership has not been curtailed much since the ’70s. C’mon, man, you will be skewered by Skeeter and others with your poorly backed up data. And you deserve it. I know there are those out there who would like nothing better than to have a disarmed nation. Even elected officials are likely to have those private views. So what? To try to translate that into public policy is political lunacy. It just isn’t gonna happen. I would equate those folks with the ones on the right who advocate rounding up 12 million illegal aliens and deporting them. Lunacy. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:09 pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMsZsL9Umo end of the day. time to watch a piece from SNL season one….show us your guns! - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:14 pm: ==New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons…”– New York passed bi-partisan gun measures. Confiscation of assault weapons didn’t make the cut. “It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment,” said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. “And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered. “This is going to go after those who are bringing illegal guns into the state, who are slaughtering people in New York City,” Skelos said. “This is going to put people in jail and keep people in jail who shouldn’t be out on the street in the first place.” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/bill-called-toughest-gun-control-package-in-nation-passed-by-new-york-state/#ixzz2Ivx5CZfg - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:15 pm: >>>>>> C’mon, man, you will be skewered by Skeeter and others with your poorly backed up data. And you deserve it. I’m just lulling them into a false sense of security. I am not here lobbying them, just commenting. >>>>>> But your handgun? Or the rifle that you use to shoot deer? My handguns meet some of the definitions being bandied about as assault weapons. My scoped rifle capable of taking game animals in North America is tomorrow’s sniper rifle. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:17 pm: I posted yesterday about the technology that allows a person to “print” (3D printers) a working large capacity magazine. Technology, it appears, is outstripping legislative action. I believe any assault weapons ban would work as well as it did in the ’80s. IOW, not well. No matter how well the law is crafted there are ways around it. It is a futile effort. I would like to see a concerted effort to identify how the bad guys get the guns (straw man purchases, etc) and how deranged folks behavior leads up to the mass murders we have seen recently. It is those images that are so poignant and powerful - gang shootings where innocent children are victimized, children in school, etc. I would rather see a spirited debate about the real world examples and what we can do to interrupt the events. Instead, we have to slog thru the paranoid postings about imaginary confiscation schemes and postings comparing gun show disarming policies to the world at large. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:18 pm: JJJS, your quotes from 20-40 years ago should rest your mind. As far as I can tell, gun rights have expanded greatly during that time, despite those quotes. The courts are with you on several issues now. Heck, even Illinois is about to get concealed carry. Yet, you still wanna play the victim card. So tiring. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:32 pm: Rich, ssssshhhhhh, he’s lulling you into a false sense of security. Whatever that means. - wishbone - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:39 pm: ” Yes, people want to take your assault weapon.” Lets try it again with some facts. All rifles (of which so called assault rifles are just a subset) account for only 2% of the crimes committed with guns. So the centerpiece of your approach to reducing gun crime is to go after weapons that are less than 2% of the problem. Smart, real smart. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:54 pm: Maybe for you the centerpiece is the ban on assault weapons. You may really love your AR-15 so the threat of a ban may be very important to you. I admit that I don’t much care if you spend an evening with your gun. Whatever gets you through the night. I really don’t care if you have one. For me the centerpiece, it is registration of each weapon (similar to what we do for cars) and mandatory reporting of sales and theft. We all have our own centerpiece. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:54 pm: My guess is that JJJS is trying to lull us into a false sense of security by playing the extreme angle to getting folks worked up, while the sensible folks keep any action at all from happening while the “gun grabbers” are too busy worrying about the “gun nuts”. Apparently he doesn’t realize that his “comin’ fer muh gunz!” strawman is on par with the “I’m comin’ fer yer gunz!” strawman on the left, which is deployed to keep the gun rights activists off guard while more sensible and feasible legislation is pursued. tl;dr version: both sides are talking past each other to a caricature of their opponent. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:55 pm: It comes down to emotion, wishbone. The assault weapon is a mean looking weapon with the capacity to fire many rounds quickly. As such it makes for a powerful image when held up in front of the cameras. The facts are not the issue - it is the emotion and the image. Banning so-called assault weapons will not have a demonstrative impact on the type of violence we unfortunately see in this country. The idea of the ban may make some folk sleep better but it won’t stop the deranged person from causing mass mayhem. It is an easy target with much appeal to those focused on imagery as social policy. - reformer - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 4:58 pm: When Ann Coulter and other conservative speakers are shouted down on college campuses, conservatives rightfully protest the infringement on freedom of speech. Conservatives now apparently approve of shouting down gun safety speakers. They can’t have it both ways. Todd vs. 47th Ward: Based upon Todd’s track record in the legislature, I’d bet on his prediction. We’ll know who’s right by the end of May. JJJS Do you have any recent quotes from public figures who want to disarm Americans? - D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:00 pm: I love how Todd and the gunsters trumpet their “court victory” in Heller at the Supremes and the 7th, but still attack Roe v. Wade as illegitimate. - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:00 pm: reformer - The only entity that can infringe on the freedom of speech is the government. These are all examples of poor decisions if individuals want discourse, not in anyway a violation of free speech. Now, if we want to frame this in terms of hypocrisy, I’m totally on your side. - RetiredArmy MP - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:05 pm: Rich, earlier today, in response to Skeeter’s comment about naming one person who want sto take all guns, I posted several quotes, including their sources, from several politicians specifically saying they wanted to ban all guns. You have apparently deleted my post. May I know the reason why my post was unacceptable? - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:08 pm: === For me the centerpiece, it is registration of each weapon (similar to what we do for cars) and mandatory reporting of sales and theft === How can those suggestions work to prevent the types of recent events that are now being used to highlight the need for more gun control. I am not necessarily saying what you suggest should not be done. I have not seen any study that shows how registration and reporting prevents guns from ending up in the hands of criminals and the insane. My centerpiece would likely be focusing on straw man purchases since that seems to be a major factor in guns getting into the hands of criminals/gangs. I would also focus on the mental health issues - the recent events showed that there were people who knew that the perpetrator had shown severe disturbing behavior including statements that showed a severe problem but for a variety of reasons nothing was done. I wonder what happens when the State Police learn that a FOID card carrier has been hospitalized? Do they just void the FOID? Do they contact the individual? Do they/can they confiscate weapons if the FOID is voided? I want to put into place things that will work to keep the firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. Imagery is false security. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:11 pm: Gumby - I have never read a post where Todd had said anything about abortion. Does the straw itch where you stuffed it? - Colossus - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:16 pm: The comparison of Heller to Roe is sound, I think. Pro lifers keep trying and trying and trying to overturn the decision that they don’t like, despite most of the country moving on. I was bandying around my thoughts on Heller and how it should be simple to accomplish in the near future, and my friend said “Um, dude, you sound just like a fundie talking about Roe.” It really opened my eyes and made me reassess how I want to think how the future and particularly how to speak about it sensibly. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:20 pm: Dan, I’m realistic about some of these mass shooting. I do believe that a ban on magazines beyond a certain size would make sense, if only because every time a shooter needs to reload there is time for people to act and a chance the weapon will jam. But that’s marginal. Other than coordinating better with mental health providers, I don’t view the prevention of a mass shooting as a likely outcome of gun control. On the other hand, with registration and reporting of sales and thefts I do expect that fewer weapons would fall into the hands of the gang members and criminals. Way too often, guns are reported stolen only after they are found to be have used in a crime. Registration and reporting should have a real impact on keeping the guns out of improper hands. Of course, we also need judges willing to enforce the law. If somebody has an unregistered weapon, judges need to lock the people up. Assuming registration costs are reasonable, the registration information is treated like a tax return and not given out to the media, and it is enforced I think it would be a very good step at reducing gun crimes. So that’s my centerpiece. That, and in the middle of the night my friends in government are going to sneak into your home and seize all your handguns. And then my friends will force you to sip white wine, vote for a Kenyan, and marry somebody of your sex. You know liberals. That’s our secret agenda. Wait, I shouldn’t have typed that last part. Now JJJS will know my real plan! - Rod - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 5:58 pm: Aside from Rich’s correct observation about the expansion of gun rights, it is important to listen to John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt’s perspective because it is one shared by many gun owners. Rich is correct on the expansion of gun rights over the last 20 years, especially concealed carry. But let’s be clear here Rich a big part of the reason many union households (38%) voted for Scott Walker in Wisconsin against their own interests as unionized workers was because of his support for concealed carry. The NRA also poured over $646,000 into independent ads to help Walker defeat his Democratic opponent Tom Barrett. As JJJS expressed it: “They actually do want to ban all the guns, and they are trying to do it incrementally. First they demonize handguns, then semi-automatic rifles. ” Skeeter and others can call it paranoia, but many gun owners belief this. When one looks at the restrictive laws Chicago has passed many gun owners believe this is where we are heading as a state. Being a Chicago resident I have to live with the reality of these laws and as I have said these laws have driven some Chicago gun owners who are not gang members or criminals to take their weapons underground. It this reality that is driving the militant tactics of the NRA and it is resonating deeply with many gun owners. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 6:15 pm: Gumpy — I don’t recall stating I’m opposed to Roe. i question the hypocrcy of those on the left accepting Roe but not accepting Heller. Skeeter — you’re not going to get your center piece. No registration. Not now not ever. The state polcie know I own guns, what and how many is none of your or their business. I think the Illinois consitution might actually protect us in that reguard. - Skirmisher - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 6:38 pm: After wading through all 127 of the above comments, I reiterate my opinion that A) Neither side in this debate has the faintest idea of how absolutely passionate their opponents are on the gun issue, and B) Quinn has demonstrated his complete political ineptitude once again by ever getting involved in this issue. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will cause more political division along cultural and regional lines than this issue of restricting the right to own the weapon of choice, and rancorous political division is the last thing a bankrupt state needs when above all else it needs to put its fiscal house in order. Get off the gun issue! It is small potatos compared to the Illinois fiscal crisis. There are a good many homicides in Chicago, certainly, and more than we want to see here in Springfield. Frankly, however, the majority who get themselves shot locally seem to be involved in gangs and so sort of bring it on themselves. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 7:49 pm: Todd, I still say good for Sheila. If as part of what she intends to do she doesn’t reach out to you, her efforts will be unsuccessful (other than as was observes earlier, preaching to the choir)and I don’t see how that benefits her. - robert lincoln - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 7:50 pm: “- I got a majority who agree with me elected. - “Wait, you’re responsible for the super majorities of Democrats in both chambers? Man, I wouldn’t tell your supporters that.” STL, thanks, that was funny. Lil Squeezy gets the most astute observation of the day, “Both sides sound petty, ignorant and should be ignored.” - robert lincoln - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 7:58 pm: Civil discourse and intelligent, moderate rational thought is not possible. Just as in national discourse, the two extremes dominate the conversation and the moderate majority in the middle are ignored. As said better by Not It, “I can’t tell which public debate I hate the most: (1) the pro-choice and pro-life people hating each other, or (2) the pro-gun and pro-safety people hating each other, or (3) pro-pension reform and the “show-me-my-money” people hating each other” I own guns and like to target shoot. I hunt. I do not need a tec 9 or an AK47 to do either. I want a pension when I retire and I am willing to pay more and accept reasonable changes as long as the government pays its fair share - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:08 pm: >>>> When one looks at the restrictive laws Chicago has passed many gun owners believe this is where we are heading as a state. >>>> Do you have any recent quotes from public figures who want to disarm Americans? One need look no further than the IL GOV and the 97th GA. Re: The Gov’s amendatory veto of SB681, which would have demanded that I forfeit my semi-automatic firearms unless I can show a receipt for them and have them registered. Taking my firearms from me or demanding that I turn them in is disarmament. - Quizzical - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:27 pm: –These are the people who don’t care if you or your family members are raped, robbed and murdered by violent criminals. They only care about one thing - disarming you.– Walsh cares about the White Sox - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 24, 13 @ 10:27 pm: Quinn: Jan 19: “If we can get a federal law that would be the very best, but often times the states lead the way,” Quinn said.“The states are the laboratories of democracy and I think we can show Congress that the states across America, including Illinois, are serious about banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that go with them.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.