Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Budget News
Next Post: Sickness
Posted in:
From an ISRA Political Victory Fund press release:
A proposal to ban hundreds of models of popular sporting rifles and shotguns is raising the ire of gun owners across Illinois.
Sponsored by Senate President Emil Jones, SB16 prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of a host of rifles and shotguns widely used for hunting and target shooting. Owners of affected firearms would have 90-days to surrender their property to the Illinois State Police or risk felony prosecution.
Besides the debate on the merits of the bill, the move calls into question the political tightrope that must always be walked with gun legislation in this state.
The press release continues, quoting ISRA-PVF spokeman Richard Pearson:
“If SB16 passes, many of those relationships will come to a screeching halt. Southern Illinois politics are in a state of change, with senate races getting closer all the time. If the senate Democrats who elected Emil Jones to the presidency cannot control him, then we’ll do what we can to take his majority away from him. No friend of Emil Jones is a friend of ours.”
Question(s): Is there any credibility to Pearson’s claims? How dangerous is the gun-control issue to downstate Democrats? How would you play this politically?
posted by Paul Richardson
Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Budget News
Next Post: Sickness
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I find both the legislation and the threat of retaliation ridiculous. I’m not a hunter, and I oppose the widespread availability of handguns and automatic weapons, but banning hunting rifles and shotguns is definitely over the top. However, for the ISRA to openly threaten people with their political demise, that smacks of “shotgun politics” to me. So to defend my right to bear arms, I should publicly challenge the other side to a political gunfight? Dumb, real dumb.
Comment by Suburbanon Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:35 am
Molon Labe.
Comment by C$ Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:50 am
Shotguns used for hunting illegal? Without a doubt downstate democrats would be in HUGE trouble.
Comment by Leigh Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:52 am
C$-
Impressive use of Greek, fitting and timely. I may borrow that one from you.
Comment by Paul Richardson Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:54 am
The problem with the gun lobby is that they are so combative. That is why they never win anything. They NEVER compromise. Their lobbyists are avoided like the plague at the capitol. They are too far-right to matter. Maybe it matters to the few downstate dems, but they cant oversome Chicago or Emil Jones.
For hating Emil and Rod so much they sure didnt have much impact on their elections. Lotta talk from these crazies.
Comment by Cassie Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:55 am
Which is a bigger opening to urban gangs and organized crime?
Regulated sales of hunting long barreled weapons?
Urban politicians playing footsie with gangs and organized crime and actively protecting individuals from being prosecuted?
Let me know when Emil Jones starts running primary challenges against South Side pols with connections to gangs and organized crime.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:56 am
This just shows how far behind some of these Democrats are with reality and also drunk on their own power.The handgun ban in D.C. was just struck down because their is a move to get back to the basic Bill Of Rights.Only in Illinois and San Francisco will you find left over liberal socialist democrats.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:57 am
Of course the gun rights movement does not want to compromise. One only needs to look at the many examples of groups that compromise eventually loose all of their rights. Look at the smokers (I do not smoke), first there was a movement to ban smoking in eating establishments. For the most part that worked perfectly with just some minor fall out. Then the politicians decided to ban smoking in all public places including bars, and now look where the ban is headed. In your car? how about your home if you have children? On the street? The problem with politics is that the hunger for control never ends. In such a political world it very dangerous to compromise.
This isn’t the question but in reality there are no gang bangers tough enough to carry a 40lb 50 cal. rifle around the streets of Chicago.
Comment by Logical Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:13 am
Downstate,
You are so far out of the mainstream with your right-wing rantings. It is really hard to believe that people like you still exist in Illinois. Green Acrse and Andy of Mayberry live on in the mind of Downstate.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:14 am
I hate to agree with the ISRA but it is wrong to deny honest citezens the use of these recreational weapons. The problem with the ISRA is they oppose all attempts to rid our state of guns that have no other purpose than to be used in crimes. Is Senate President Jones conducting political payback for this inflexibility ?
Comment by oldie opah Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:16 am
There should be NO compromise when it comes to defending your rights, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. Oh, and the second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.
Comment by Rusty Shackelford Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:21 am
There is no way this would stand up in the Supreme Court. I have guns that would probably meet the criteria, they will have a very hard time getting them from me.
BY THE WAY….Isn’t this why we left England in the first place…between Right to bare arms and taxes?
This will kill any legislator that votes for it downstate. I don’t care how popular they are the will be thrown out of office
Comment by He Makes Ryan look like a saint Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:24 am
SB16 is the assault weapons bill. the
ISRA should stop pretending that bambi is
hunted down by big and rapid fire weapons.
and if you aren’t scared of these weapons,
especially the 50 cal, you should be. these
are the weapons of terrorists and gangbangers.
Comment by Amy Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:30 am
Please site an article that states that a 50 caliber rifle has been used by a gang. I’m interested in this since these guns usually run in the $5,000 and most gangbangers are caught with cheapie handguns.
Or are you just making that up?
Comment by C$ Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:38 am
C$,
What type of animal do you hunt with a .50, buffalo or elephants maybe?
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:46 am
It is becoming more and more obvious that Emil Jones is not a representative of the people. What does Emil really want?
Comment by Shadoobie Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:49 am
Bunny wabbits…
Come on. Hunters aren’t the only gun owners. Perfectly safe and normal people own guns, I know that may come as a surprise to many people here. They actually make a decent investment for some people, others target shoot. In most of the country it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon. At your average mall in Indiana, you’d probably wet yourself if you knew how many people were carrying guns.
Comment by C$ Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:56 am
A regular 12 guage shotgun can be labeled a 50 cal with the generic language of this bill. Anyone that owns a 50 cal rifle (a significant number are actually single shot) have the range facities to shoot it. They are extremely heavy and the recoil feels like someone hit your shoulder with a sledge hammer. The typical criminal cannot carry the weight or handle the recoil (sorry Rich, I know that was off the question).
Comment by Logical Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:56 am
When Democrats start going after guns, it is an admission that their social programs in Chicagoland and East St. Louis are a failure and a fraud. After forty years of pumping our money into their fantasy social programs, we should be seeing a lessening of urban warfare, not an increase. And if they claim there isn’t an increase, then why the need for the legislation?
Which is it? There is a threat against society that requires more gun laws, or is there a threat against society that requires we cough up more cash to feed urban government leaders? In the old Soviet Union they had both, is that what you want too?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:01 am
Is there a web site that lists all weapon related crimes that have occurred in Illinois, and what type of weapon was involved?
If there is no such website, or no such public statistics, why not?
Comment by Leroy Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:06 am
One other point. This can’t be a surprised.
When the entire Democratic state leadership comes from 1 out of 102 Illinois counties, you can’t expect that government to represent anyone living in the other 101 counties.
When Chicagoans are in control, their world view is in control. There is no diversity of opinion in this administration. So they completely miss having presentations that refect non-urban views.
But hey, you voted them in - have a great day!
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:07 am
Just so you know Bill, .50 caliber muzzleloader rifles are used for deer hunting in Illinois and , but THEY are EXEMPT from the ban under this bill due to last years negotiations with downstaters. My only point in mentioning this is that just because it says .50 caliber, does not mean it can take down an airplane.
Back to the actual QOTD. I don’t think this will play, because every one of the Senate downstaters can vote NO, and the bill will still pass. Then the IRA and the NRA will have to convince voters that just voting NO was not enough, and that they could have pressured Sen. Jones to hold the bill. That is a much tougher sell especially since the downstate D’s will argue that they used all their juice with the Senator President to solve the Ameren problem (assuming it gets solved because it is an issue that could defeat a few of them).
I think the IRA/NRA will have to win this fight in the House, again.
Comment by Jaded Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:21 am
Keep in mind that the old tube-fed 22 cal. that a lot of us learned to hunt rabbits and squirrels with would be considered an assault rifle because it holds more than 10 bullets. This is the same type of rifle used at carnival tents.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:21 am
Are they going to pay the people for their guns that Emil deems is illegal and has to turn in? Or just take them from us?
I agree with Shadoobie he is totally out of touch with the rest of Illinois.
Comment by He Makes Ryan look like a saint Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:26 am
Jones and Blagojevich have to be in bed on this one!! Maybe Jones is asking his bodyguards advice, they both have the same mentality!! Jones has definetely lost his marbles on this. It amazes me how many people in this state can’t define the difference between auto and semi automatic.
Comment by WARDOG Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:44 am
Good question, Paul.
The Ameren issue is going to be what med-mal was in 2007, and unless the GA does something, downstate Dems won’t be able to crow like they did after med-mal reform was passed. That said, how can someone like Gary Forby or Bill Haine or John Sullivan support something this measure? The NRA is huge in areas south of I-80 and the threat of having your guns taken away is enough to scare any elected official who support ownership rights and receives $$$ from the NRA and its supporters. Such a threat, combined with high energy prices, could spell doom.
Bill, there are many people in Illinois who support the 2nd Amendment. There are also many citizens of this fine state who support handgun ownership. Just because Mayor Daley is spooked by guns and wants to “clean up the streets” doesn’t mean the rest of the state should bow to his desires. But I agree that you don’t need a 50-caliber rifle to kill a deer or other wild game.
I also agree with VanillaMan. The strip of Illinois 3 that runs by the Mississippi River and includes towns such as Cahokia, Madison, Venice and Sauget is dangerous and very impoverished. Handgun violence is very prevalent in that area. A lot of good anti-gun laws have done, eh?
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:55 am
Isn’t the academic research on gun control inconclusive about whether it reduces crime? Why would Democrats push for new gun control if past gun control hasn’t reduced crime?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 9:59 am
AFTER the federal courts overturn the ban and the 7th Circuit finds it unconstitutional, any downstate Democrat who supports it will be in very, very deep doo-doo. I’ve seen the numbers. Gun control bills of any kind poll about a 60-70 percent negative in Southern Illinois.
Hunting is really not the issue. Read the DC Circuit case that DOWNSTATE was talking about. Not only is DOWNSTATE right legally, but those views are quite the mainstream in our part of Illinois, Bill. Maybe you need to get out more.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 10:09 am
“It is really hard to believe that people like you still exist in Illinois.”
Nothing says how little you understand Democracy like that statement Bill. How do you think we got where we are if “people like you” existed before? Your statement is so bigoted and elitist, it clearly shows your distorted frame of mind towards others whose opinion you disagree with.
And that is, in a nutshell, the arrogant mindset we deal with from the current Democratic leadership in this state. It believes we are lemmings, incapable of functioning, incapable of solving our own problems, believing that only they can solve our social ills by mandating government to rule over us.
You might think this is progress, but it really isn’t. Being ruled by government is actually the old way of doing things. Believing in an enlightened group of rulers like you do is great as long as they agree with your warped view of reality.
I believe in diversity. We need one another. Just as we need elitist arrogant know it alls like you, we also need people that understand and appreciate the past. Together, and only together can we craft the laws of the land.
Get off you high horse - your opinions stink just like the rest of us.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 10:35 am
Oy, things are getting a little heated.
I know Rich is not a fan of “gratuitous insults,” so lets try to stop the name calling. Pretty please.
Comment by Paul Richardson Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 10:40 am
He Makes Ryan look like a saint - I don’t think BARE arms or COVERED legs had anything to do with why we left England.
Comment by Way Northsider Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 10:42 am
I don’t think this threat carries much weight for a number reasons.
1) The only Dems the ISRA endorsed were incumbents who will probably win anyway. (For the record, Jacobs, Wilhemi, Demuzio, and Clayborne.)
and
2) the ISRA has lost a lot of credibility by fighting previous assault weapons bans, claiming that certain weapons have a legitimate sporting purpose. Gun enthusiasts will follow whatever the ISRA says. The real fight here is over framing; is this an assault weapon ban that doesn’t interfere with “legitimate” sporting and self-defense? Many people can’t imagine a legitimate use for large caliber and semi-automatic weapons, particularly in these days of school shooting and terrorist threats.
and
3) the bigger issue downstate will be Ameren. If Jones loses downstate Dems, it will be because he’s in bed with the utilities not because of guns.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 11:14 am
The other anonymous is absolutely right. THe ISRA/NRA in Illinois has a bark that is much bigger than their bite. Nearly all the competitive senate suburban races in 06 were won by people opposed by the ISRA. (Bond, Noland, Kotowski, Holmes). Murphy was only exception and people in his district still supported a referendum to ban AW and 50’s by a 5-1 margin. The gun lobby simply can’t sway general elections in Cook and the collar counties regardless of their threats and chest thumping.
Comment by Downtown Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 12:00 pm
For those people who understand civil rights, freedom, and the personal responsibility that come with that, no explanation about why we should keep our guns is needed. For those people who don’t or won’t understand, no explanation is possible.
Comment by Mike Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 12:22 pm
Sheesh. To listen to some of you, my so-called “assault weapons” will jump out of my safe and attack passing cars full of nuns.
Cassie: Law abiding gun owners in this state have done nothing *but* compromise. It seems as if the gun control advocates equate compromise with no privately held guns at all.
Bill: Yawn. I don’t think like you so I must be primitive/stupid/ignorant. Ho hum.
Amy: Huh? Do you have any idea of how few of these weapons are used in crimes compared to other types of weapon? Also - rapid fire? Please – learn a little bit about the weapons in question.
Don’t automatically assume that a pro-gun person is also a conservative Republican. Many of us are actually quite liberal – I know I am.
And in response to the question of the day: I think this bill is poison for Downstate Dems. Beside, look at the sponsors of many of the more recent pieces of pro-gun legislation – Downstate Dems.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 12:30 pm
Will you quit the whining about the 2nd amendment and read it. Are any of you in a militia? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 12:55 pm
Pearson’s original premise is what should be questioned. I find it amazing that those who post here aren’t a little more skeptical of the accuracy of his information. SB 16 only bans weapons with features used to kill large numbers of human beings. It protects hunting guns, and it even grandfathers in all currently owned guns, and protects law enforcement and military to be able to get these weapons. But why should anyone else be able to get a weapon freely on the streets with semi-automatic features that holds a magazine that carries a 50 or a 60 round clip, that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds? A folding stock so that it can be hidden under the clothes? A silencer?! A flash suppressor so that a criminal using it cannot be seen or heard? Those are the features that this bill would ban for the general public and anyone with a lick of common sense would see that this bill is not about anyone’s hunting or gun rights, its about reasonable public safety in a day and age where 20% of all law enforcement officers are killed by these military style assault type weapons.
Pearson and his folks are so extreme in their lack of common sense that they are becoming less and less politically relevant, which is why they are making these desperate threats.
This is not an upstate downstate Dem or Republican issue. Most Illinoisans don’t want criminals this heavily armed. Most Americans don’t.
Common sense, friends.
Comment by common sense Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 12:57 pm
VM,
Read your own comments about the governor and elected legislators of this state and then your comments about democracy. Quite the contradiction wouldn’t you say? For someone who constantly rants about how stupid the voters of our state are, your comment that I am an elitist is ludicrous.
You gun nuts and right wingers can sure dish it out but you really have a hard time taking it. If you can’t stand the heat go out and shoot some squirels with your AR-15s, which , of course, are no more of an assault weapon than a rolling pin.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 1:05 pm
Bill sounds like like most of the citizens of Mayberry showed up here today or are they just down home common sense folks resisting the liberal commies that are pushing this law.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 1:06 pm
Bill please take a look at the Illinois State Constitution, Bill your comments about the militia are not true, we are all members. See article 12
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 2. SUBORDINATION OF MILITARY POWER
The military shall be in strict subordination to the
civil power.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND DISCIPLINE
The General Assembly shall provide by law for the
organization, equipment and discipline of the militia in
conformity with the laws governing the armed forces of the
United States.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 4. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND OFFICERS
(a) The Governor is commander-in-chief of the organized
militia, except when they are in the service of the United
States. He may call them out to enforce the laws, suppress
insurrection or repel invasion.
(b) The Governor shall commission militia officers who
shall hold their commissions for such time as may be provided
by law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 5. PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST
Except in cases of treason, felony or breach of peace,
persons going to, returning from or on militia duty are
privileged from arrest.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Lastly this may not be an empty threat by the ISRA, if they are able to employ more $ from the larger national organization.
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 1:14 pm
(Lack of) common sense-
Have you ever shot a gun, because you know nothing about them. Silencers(suppressors) are legal in most states, a flash suppressor so a criminal can’t be seen or heard(does the flash make the bang?,idiot. Where do you get your figures from about 20% of all LEO being murdered by assault weapons? The Second Amendment makes no metion of your right to keep and bear sporting goods, It’s not about duck hunting.
Comment by Scott Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 2:16 pm
Oh, yes, Molon Labe, from my cold dead hands……………..
Comment by Scott Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 2:18 pm
Bill: Look up Parker v. District of Columbia online and read it, then come back and tell the rest of us lawyers how to read the Second Amendment. Most recent scholarship has supported that conclusion that the 2nd Amendment refers to a natural, individual right, and the DC Circuit adopted that view in Parker. I bet the Supremes uphold the DC Circuit’s opinion.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 2:42 pm
Anon, please look at US Supreme Court rulings about 2nd Amendment and “militias.” It’s not your interpretation that matters, it’s the Court’s.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 2:54 pm
Deleted “Earl,” this isn’t a forum to randomly promote some national show nobody ever heard of. Stop it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 2:57 pm
“HoosierDaddy” the DC Circuit ruling was the first time that a court accepted that reasoning after years of trying by the gun groups. I don’t know what the Supremes will do, but using Dred Scott as a partial basis for its decision was probably more than a little unwise.
====But writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Laurence Silberman, among the nation’s most influential judicial conservatives, acknowledged that “there is no unequivocal precedent that dictates the outcome of this case.†So he looked for guidance — and found it in Dred Scott.
In that case, the court found that the federal government lacked the authority to abolish a slaveowner’s property right in his slaves merely by outlawing slavery in new territories. No one contends “that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press… [n]or can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury,†Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for a 7-2 court, explained in the section Silberman cited.
“Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right,†Silberman observes, before moving on to other precedents.====
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 3:02 pm
Deleted “Earl,” I own this site. Goodbye.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 3:06 pm
Hmmm. Here I thought guns were legal to own. Is this Japan or the US?
Comment by Papa Legba Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 3:23 pm
The republicans must be jumping for joy. With their looney proposals Emil and Blago are setting the stage for another 25-year Republican run in the Governor’s mansion. Any downstate senator to vote with Emil on this one would get crucified at the polls.
Comment by Keyser Soze Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 3:54 pm
Downstate,
“liberal commies”?
How mature! No wonder you never get anything through the GA. Good Luck in Hooterville.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 4:00 pm
Rich, has the IL Constitution’s Militia provision ever been tested? I don’t think it has - would Federal cases apply?
Bill - where did I mention the second? Or were you blasting someone else?
Common Sense - please, if you’re going to take a position on firearms learn a little about them, OK? Most of the facts you presented about semi-automatic rifles are seriously out of whack - or are intended to deceive.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 4:00 pm
if you look at fbi statistice consistintly over the past 5 years there have been about 8,000 homicides, about 400 were commited with rifles, it did not specify single, bolt action, lever action, or semi-auto, it just says rifles. so why are they even after these rifles it makes no sense, more ppl are killed with ice picks or hammers than “ass ault wepons”
Comment by MARK Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 4:20 pm
To the QOTD, I think ISRA has a fight on its hands, and from its perspective is right to sound the alarm. But why the feigned mortification? I am shocked, shocked to find exaggeration going on here in Illinois politics. Like I’ve never seen it before, for example statements like “20% of all law enforcement officers are killed by these military style assault type weapons”.
Looks like we need some educating here today. Rich, you need a lawyer to advise you. The Militia Clause in the Illinois Constitution is interpreted exactly as written, that is, if you have two hands with fingers and two feet, you are in the militia, both male and female. The 1937 USSC Miller decision held that the Second Amendment right was limited to weapons that were related to militia service (the sawed off shotgun at issue was held to be unrelated to militia service, despite the use at the time of military riot shotguns and trench guns), but militia membership of all able-bodied persons was never questioned.
Also, Rich, this DC Circuit court case is not the first to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Google the subject. I can think of US v. Emerson, 5th Circuit, 1999 I believe.
But seriously, are “these …the weapons of terrorists and gangbangers[?]” I thought our servicemen and police officers use these weapons. Are they terrorists and gangbangers? I don’t think so.
Which brings me to my final point. Under modern government, there is no such thing as a gun ban. The Army, police, Chicago alderman, Mayor Daley’s bodyguards, lawbreakers, etc. will ALWAYS have these weapons.
Let’s be honest. This law, if passed, will disarm only the law abiding. The ruling class and criminals will still have them.
That seems to be alright with gun “banning” lawmakers.
Comment by Ma Duece Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 4:29 pm
What stopped the violence during the prohibition era? The repeal of prohibition.
Thinking along that line, Blago should make all illegal drugs legal, regulate and tax them. Think of the revenue.
Then there should be much less violence because drug users can go to the store (state owned of course) and get their fix. Just remove the gang bangers from the mix.
We can do that right after Blago’s fantasy budget passes.
Comment by Papa Legba Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 4:41 pm
Ken,
I was blasting someone else. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care if you own a gun. I just think that the over reaction by the nra, isra, and right wingers everywhere is pretty funny, especially the threats, veiled and otherwise, that lead me to believe that these people are exactly the ones who are not stable enough to own a gun.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 5:16 pm
HAving read the comments today, I must echo the second comment: Molon Labe and if I could continue in Greek I would add “from my cold dead hands because is the only way ANYBODY is going to get them.
Over the years, I have heard that the 2nd Amendment is the “linchpin” of the Bill of Rights. Doing a Google search, I found the following:
The second amendment, Constitutional scholars agree, was meant to be a linchpin which would “lock in” the rights guaranteed by the first. “The strongest reason,” said Thomas Jefferson, “for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Where will the tyranny in government begin? By chipping away at the one right that safeguards the rest - The Second Amendment. What is to stop a government from slowly eroding our civil rights of free speech, free assembly, the right to an attorney etc? There is nothing to stop it. The courts? Legislation?
Like a termite chewing away at the foundations of a house, legislation such as this will slowly collapse our way of life.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 5:36 pm
No law has ever been passed that stopped the aberrant behavior it was supposed to stop. I.E. we have a plethora of gun laws on the books now and has any crime stopped because of it? No, simply because criminals don’t obey the law - these laws will only affect the law-abiding citizen from enjoying a legal sport. It will turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals because they, like me will not turn in my expensive weapons because of ignorant laws being passed like the one Emil Jones has sponsored. I really thought the man had more intelligence than what he is showing by this.
According to statistics, gun crimes are committed mostly by handguns - 85% - leaving 15% to be committed by rifles, shotguns, “assault rifles” - but yet, these long guns are the ones targeted by the socialist left to remove from society to rid our streets of crime. If those fools really wanted to clear the streets of crime, handguns would be the items to target since they are used in 85% of the gun crimes. 10 times more people is killed by the medical profession across this country than is by guns, but we don’t see confiscation of stethoscopes mentioned… Why is that?
Everyone needs to write their politicians and get this Jones proposal tossed out - before it is too late and Hot Rod and his left-wing socialist agenda scores another blow to our freedoms.
Comment by Sahims2 Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 5:58 pm
Huh?
Okay. If you insist.
Comment by Bill Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 6:00 pm
What it comes down to is our local senators voted Emil in as president of their body. Now he is puting his liberal Chicago agenda on the rest of the state. So I will vote against my local senator and hope that someone with my values can be elected. I will give up my guns when the mayor gives up his bodyguards!!
Comment by NIEVA Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 6:43 pm
THE THING THAT ALWAYS GETS ME ON GUN DEBATE AND LEGISLATION IS NO ONE EVER ASKS STREET COPS WHAT THEY THINK?…SURE THE IACP SAYS THEY SUPPORT BANS BUT GET REAL, THIS ORGANIZATION IS MADE UP OF SUBURBAN CHIEFS WHO PROBABLY CANNOT EVEN QUALIFY ON THEIR DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY FIREARMS STANDARDS, OR EVEN SHOOT AT ALL… THE RANK AND FILE LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THIS STATE IS AGAINST GUN BAN LEGISLATION. THESE PEOPLE ARE EFFECTED BY GUNS MORE THAN ANYONE IN THIS STATE…MAYBE WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM..THERE ARE FAR BIGGER PROBLEMS IN THIS STATE THAN FIREARMS…PENSIONS, WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY, HEALTHCARE, ETC……
Comment by TATER Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 6:57 pm
“Tater,” using all caps makes you look like a strangoid. Please don’t.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 7:07 pm
They will not get mine. I will bury them in the yard before I let the government destroy them.
Between this and the GRT Missouri is looking better all the time.
Comment by State Worker w/ MBA Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:02 pm
To Huh?
Too bad we don’t have any Constitutional scholars leading the state. It might explain some of the goofiness coming out of Springfield.
Comment by Papa Legba Monday, Mar 12, 07 @ 8:05 pm
Fascinating that most of the posts here show that more people are reading the ISRA’s take on the bill rather than the bill itself. Read the bill already,if this is that important to you.
I read the bill, and read it with an open mind. I am also a gun owner. I really find nothing offensive in it. It clearly goes after the military style assault rifles and pistols that really have been a problem in civilian hands, especially for the police to deal with when being shot at. These are offensive weapons of war and, I’m sorry if you disagree with me, but have no constructive civilian use. Their mere availability causes problems, especially with the NRA pushing its “guns in every home” philosophy. Some people say they “like” or “prefer” using these guns for sport or other legitimate uses. Sorry, no matter how you read the 2A, it doesn’t protect anyone’s right to own a firearm that they may prefer over another, nor can it be used to protect the commercial interests of an entire industry. If the gun makers and owners have a problem with the bill’s language, then it’s their own fault for not coming to the table voluntarily and contributing their expertise. Nor do I see in the bill’s grandfathering of ownership the threat of confisctation that the ISRA is foaming at the mouth about. Face it, the only people who will be affected by this are the gang bangers who won’t be able to buy their arsenal within the state anymore. The fact that they can still go over the border and get them is merely a sad commentary on the lack of backbone in other legislatures. I’m a gun owner but I’m not NRA. I couldn’t for a minute condone the behavior of those fanatical ideologues who are out to protect the interests of criminals in the interest of lining the pockets of their corporate members. I don’t hold with protecting the bad guys as all these so called “rifle associations” seem to be making a habit of doing. They’re ruining the gun culture for the rest of us and no good will come from their “cold dead hands” approach. The ISRA is really going over the top on this one.
Comment by Guitar Man Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 11:05 am
GM says “These are offensive weapons of war and, I’m sorry if you disagree with me, but have no constructive civilian use.”
Then why this bill? It will allow plenty of civilians to keep and use these weapons.
Sorry pal, but peace officers, who are civilians, use these weapons, and will continue to use them, bought and paid for with public funds and with public approval.
And the list of exceptions is very interesting. Long enough to keep timid gun grabbers up at night, dreaming up another gun bill.
But like I said, this law, if passed, will disarm only the law abiding. The ruling class and criminals will still have them, which seems to be A-OK with gun “banning†lawmakers and their supporters.
Comment by Ma Duece Tuesday, Mar 13, 07 @ 3:47 pm