76 Comments - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:05 am: Well, other than that … Wow, when I heard Rep. Jim Sacia and I thought “That’s a great way to be less divisive.” Making the case, specifically, dividing people to …bring people to your side of an arguement, no matter who or what the arguement is … makes us all in Illinois look bad. Here is the question; Would Rep. Jim Sacia change is choice of words, looking back, or would Rep. Jim Sacia keep the words becasue a) he believes it 100%, b) It plays downstate, so I will take the hit, c) Both That would be telling, so I doubt an answer coud be got, but I could be wrong. - Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:07 am: ===Sometimes, I really despise the Internet.=== Word. - so... - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:09 am: Sacia could have chosen a better analogy, but seems to me there’s been quite a bit of deliberate misconstruing of what he said to avoid addressing his point - that it is Chicago that has a gun problem, and it’s taking its gun problem out on the rest of the state. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:11 am: ===quite a bit of deliberate misconstruing of what he said=== By whom? - Yossarian Lives - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:13 am: so… Yes, I get his point. But it wasn’t just an offensive analogy; it was an inaccurate analogy. Chicagoans aren’t having too many babies; Chicago is actually losing population. Rep. Sacia was needlessly offensive. - Anon - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:14 am: The anger is of course disgusting, but people are angry… All this rhetoric, and they were involved in what, 3% of murders in Chicago… AND THEY ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL THERE! It is no exaggeration to say that 99.9% (or higher) of assault weapons in this state will never be used to commit a crime. But a couple people misuse it (in an area where it’s illegal to own them) and those who have abided by the law throughout the state have to pay the price? It doesn’t help that those who are demanding the ban seem to lack basic knowledge of the weapons (claims they are automatic, calling them goofy names like AK-15, etc.) Racism and disgusting comments are not acceptable, but anger over this certainly is. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:16 am: - so… -, Agreed, so maybe, Rep. Sacia should either speak to the bill, its merits or problems, and think a bit more about adding analogies. This is another instance that the Internet is just a firepit, waiting for logs to fuel whatever someone hates. The language is sickening, and what is even more ugly is the language to COUNTER the BAD language! Instead of this Sacia story being a, maybe, 2 day story, now its on YouTube, and being commmented on, for goodness knows how long. Along with it being up there for …ever, people will continue this hateful dialog for a period far longer than the subject deserves to be given. What a shame. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:16 am: Quite a fan club Rep. Sacia has there. Still, he has a long way to go before he catches Rep. Bost on You Tube. His karate-chopping, let-my-people-go rant is close to 400,000. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:21 am: ===It is no exaggeration to say that 99.9% (or higher) of assault weapons in this state will never be used to commit a crime. === “..99.9% or higher…” Higher than that? You think? I can’t see any wiggle room … higher. Careful there … “…never …” Careful, ‘never’ is a tough word, only takes one, and Heaven Forbid(!) someone proves you wrong. NO Snark. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:26 am: === “These weapons are designed for war, and these weapons are making their way underground to gangbangers and urban terrorists,” said Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat sponsoring anti-assault-gun legislation. “Every one of us knows this isn’t going to happen any time soon” === Is that a misquote? The world is coming to an end!!!!!!!!!!! But……not too soon. Then, he says we have to do something NOW since DC won’t. Of course, there is no thinking that doing something in isolation will do nothing about preventing criminals from bringing the war weapons into Chicago from some other place where they are legal since DC didn’t do anything. This is like the guy who rotates his tires when the transmission in his car is on the blink. “Hey, I HAD to do SOMETHING! - so... - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:30 am: ==By whom?== Most people getting worked up over this. I don’t read Sacia’s comment as him making the claim that people in Chicago were having too many kids. Because, like he said, it was an analogy. I wouldn’t think I was calling someone fat if I was arguing with them over gun control and said “this gun ban is like if you were eating too much, so you wanted me to go on a diet.” He picked a bad, bad, bad analogy, as those youtube comments show. But people are using his bad analogy to ignore his very valid point that Chicago is trying to punish the rest of the state for its gun violence. - Fred's Mustache - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:33 am: What was Sacia trying to accomplish with those comments? What kind of consensus was he trying to build with those comments? Heres a news flash Jimmy boy, you can’t pass a concealed carry bill without some Chicago/suburban votes. You think you are going to help your cause by ticking off people who you need to vote your way? If I was a Chicago-based legislator who leaned toward gun-control, why would I give this guy the time of day? I will vote for the most gun control legally possible. Its too bad that people will lose some of their hunting weapons, but ya know, I don’t really care. ESPECIALLY since guys like Sacia think so little of me anyway. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:35 am: - so… -, I think the point is that no one is putting words in Rep. Sacia’a mouth, they are what they are. and you posting … ===quite a bit of deliberate misconstruing of what he said=== …is not true. A video of what exactly what was said is out there. He said it, nothing to misunderstand. Sometimes, you just have to “Own it” Rep. Sacia needs to “Own it”, or ya just have to understand when people take it and run, its’ not misconstruing. It was waht it was, and is seen. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:35 am: ===Because, like he said, it was an analogy. === Well, it’s fallacious if the basic facts of the analogy are untrue. - Fred's Mustache - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:35 am: To clarify, Sacia’s comments would make me MORE likely to vote for MORE gun control. I don’t think I got that point across effectively. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:37 am: FM - some form of conceal carry MUST pass or there will be NO law against it. The clock is ticking. As for some folks may “lose some of their hunting weapons” - just how is that going to happen? Someone might think you are for confiscation. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:38 am: So I can see what you are trying to say. However Sacia’s choice of analogy did him or the cause he supports no favor’s. When Acevedo and his compatriots are using emotion as their key arguement using an analogy that instinctively offends plays directly into their hand and makes you look like a buffoon. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:42 am: Sacia’s a grown man who’s been around the block a few times and has been in the GA for a while. He could have devised countless of other analogies to make his point. He consciously chose the one that he did for reasons of his own. Give the man credit for knowing his own mind. - Sir Reel - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:43 am: I wonder where Rep Sacks is hunting with his assault rifle because it’s not in Illinois. Perhaps he could leave his rifle in that state. - morrocco_mole - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:43 am: Another comments section on the “Gun Violence Problem”. The problem is actually a symptom of the real, government-created problem of Drug Prohibition. The War on (Some) Drugs CREATES the black market that Fuels the gun violence *symptom*. Why don’t we come up with a solution to the real problem. Gun control is a red herring. Its the black market, stupid! - the Patriot - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:46 am: We should not use the conceal and carry issue to argue assualt weapons should be banned. If you can figure out how to conceal an AR 15 let me know. Assult riffles are not legal to deer hunt in IL so I am curious where he is hunting. By definition you cannot legally deer hunt with any rifle in IL. Bans won’t keep the guns out of criminals hands. When you refuse to seal your borders and allow drugs and guns to come in by the boatload, you can’t stop illegal guns from coming in. We have seen this with the Meth manufacturers. They made us registur to buy cold medicine and the meth folks just went to Mexico to buy the drugs in bulk. All it did was make it harder for people who have a cold to get their medicine. Lets face it, Mike Madigan and his dictatorship created this problem. He could have allowed a conceal and carry debate at any time in the past 10 years, but he does not believe in free and open debate on the issue. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:54 am: Just FYI You can easily hunt in IL with a so called “Assault rifle”. It is called Coyotes and other vermin. I have killed skunks with mine around the farm. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:56 am: word is right Sacia picked that so he can get the internet play. Could have done the same thing by saying you are getting fat so you want to take away my spoon. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:58 am: –Lets face it, Mike Madigan and his dictatorship created this problem. He could have allowed a conceal and carry debate at any time in the past 10 years, but he does not believe in free and open debate on the issue.– Phelps conceal-carry bill received 66 votes last session in the House. They don’t make dictators like they used to. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:58 am: ===. It is called Coyotes and other vermin.=== Yep. I’ve seen it done. But he said deer hunting. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:03 am: Very well. I blame Madigan too. Now I feel better. Nothing has changed, but blaming Madigan always helps. - PM31 - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:04 am: - the Patriot Please check your facts… You said, “By definition you cannot legally deer hunt with any rifle in IL. ” The Illinois hunting code says, “Single or double barreled muzzleloading rifles of at least .45 caliber shooting a single projectile through a barrel of at least sixteen inches in length” When is a “rifle” not a “rifle”???? - bored now - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:05 am: the blatant racism has always been there, rich, as much as we’d like to think otherwise. the Internet just makes it more “accessible”… - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:06 am: Rich Thanks for the correction then he is an Idiot or hunting in any other state surrounding us. (I missed the Deer part) but i did want all to know an Ar-15 is legal to hunt (deffinately NOT DEER) with here in IL. - hisgirlfriday - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:08 am: If I didn’t remember Sacia accusing his colleagues of voting to rape grandchildren during a debate on a pension holiday some years ago maybe Id be more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt but dude should really learn to keep analogies involving sex organs out of floor debate. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:09 am: - When is a “rifle” not a “rifle”? - You might opt not to show your gun ignorance by arguing gun semantics with these folks. What you described are not rifles by common definition. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:09 am: As for the Internet Commenters it is amazing how many people cannot handle the thought of being able to voice their opinion Anonymously with responsibility. - mongo - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:09 am: Wow, give Patriot the Grand Slam for, in one post, mentioning: 1) Gun Issues 2)Meth! (that one really got me) 3) Immigration and border control and 4) health care systems. But…he failed to suggest a solution to the concealed carry issue or the assault weapon issue. Thanks for the opinion(s) Patriot. - Anon - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:12 am: I guess I am just a product of another era, but I really don’t get what is going on with people in recent years. Everyone thinks compromise is a dirty word. What happened to respecting other people? If our friends in Chicago say, “someone has got to help us get rid of some of these guns that people are using to kill our babies,” why wouldn’t we want to help? Who are we to not believe they are really suffering and need help with this? I think they can understand that on a farm a gun is just another tool you have to have and that shooting means as much as to sportsmen as baseball does to others, but that is going to take a little faith on their part, too. No one can have everything his or her own way. No one is the center of the universe. Didn’t we learn that by 1st grade? What happened to trying to find a win/win solution? Let’s quit letting the people at the extremes of every issue control the conversation. I believe the people in the middle really are still the majority. (And, while we are at it, can we also please stop being so needlessly crass? Mr. Sacia could have used one hundred other analogies to make his point that weren’t nearly so offensive.) - Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:16 am: ===What you described are not rifles by common definition. === O RLY? Per the ISP website: “In Illinois, muzzleloaders and blackpowder guns are considered firearms.” Sounds like a rifle to me. - Jaded - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:22 am: Sacia lives near (very near) the Wisconsin border. They allow rifle hunting for deer (not just muzzle loaders), and I am almost positive you can use any rifle that is not fully automatic (which I believe are illegal everywhere in the US). - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:23 am: Ken - Take it up with the Patriot. He’s the one that pointed out it’s not legal to hunt deer with a rifle in Illinois. I was only pointing out that, as I understand it, he’s correct. Last time I stick up for you gun guys, sheesh. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:24 am: On the Muzzleloader thing they are a gray issue. You don’t need a background check or have to be a FFL dealer to sell them. Do need a FOID. That is why they are for sale in farm stores that don’t sell other firearms. However all other laws on firearms apply it really is kind of bizarre. - Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:26 am: STL, not jumping on you at all - IL is not typical in classifying muzzleloaders as firearms unless things have changed at the national level or in other states since I last looked. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:30 pm: What a strange argument devolution. == “I deer hunt with an assault weapon,” Sacia added.== Has become an argument of whether muzzleloaders are rifles. LOL The point is, Sacia cannot legally hunt deer with an assault rifle in Illinois. He can hunt deer with a muzzleloading rifle; however, just trying to imagine a muzzleloading assault rifle makes me laugh. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:32 pm: ==some form of conceal carry MUST pass or there will be NO law against it. The clock is ticking.== It is my understanding that the state must allow citizens to carry firearms, I do not think it needs to allow concealed carry. - 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:37 pm: Ugh. So much misinformation, so little time. I believe “rifle” refers to a long gun with a rifled barrel. Most muzzle loaded weapons are smooth bored and thus do not have the lethal range common in long guns with rifled barrels. The reason you can’t hunt deer with rifles in Illinois? The terrain is too flat. A bullet fired from a 30-06 rifle can travel as far as seven miles. Obviously that would pose some problems in Illinois where we lack the rolling, hilly terrain to stop a bullet. An AR-15 is a fancy looking .22, but has a rifled barrel. .22s don’t have the range of more powerful rifles, but I’d be careful where I was aiming it just the same. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:37 pm: Pot You are correct but somehow i doubt the GA will accept no concealed but open. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:38 pm: –It is my understanding that the state must allow citizens to carry firearms, I do not think it needs to allow concealed carry.– It’s iffy at best to predict what a court will do in the future. There could be an extension granted. The Supremes could decide they want to take up the split circuits. And I’m pretty sure the court of appeals didn’t outlaw Illinois home rule. - Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:40 pm: ===Most muzzle loaded weapons are smooth bored and thus do not have the lethal range common in long guns with rifled barrels.=== The vast majority of modern muzzeloaders used for sport or hunting are rifled. But I agree with Pot, this is w-a-y off topic at this point. - Leave a Light on George - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:43 pm: Ken, Ken, Ken… =O RLY? Per the ISP website: “In Illinois, muzzleloaders and blackpowder guns are considered firearms.” Sounds like a rifle to me.= My handgun is not a rifle, My shotguns are not rifles. They are firearms. Words mean something. However, I am sorry to say that my handgun which I carried for years as a law enforcement officer is being called an assault weapon because of magazine capacity. Just ignorance on the part of anti gun legislators. - thechampaignlife - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:45 pm: I totally agree with more focus needed on the human side of things with mental disorder assistance being a prime example. On the tracking of dangerous objects side of things, I think a reasonable gun registry solution could be found. For instance, why not make a law saying that all guns must be registered either with the State Police or the NRA (or similar private organization) and that, if the NRA accepts such a registration, they must provide police with serial number lookup access to the data. That would allow those fearful of the government knowing who has all the guns to maintain a reasonable level of privacy while still allowing police to perform on-the-spot checks when they encounter a gun. Don’t allow lookups by anything other than serial for guns that have serials (you’d need a name/DOB lookup for non-serialed guns, I’m guessing, but that wouldn’t list serialed guns in the results). That would allow for relative easy determination of legal ownership of guns, would be minimally burdensome to owners, and would be minimally invasive. - Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:46 pm: ===My handgun is not a rifle, My shotguns are not rifles. They are firearms. Words mean something.=== Read it in the context of what we were discussing… and I agree with you re: the AW classification silliness. Almost as bad as McCarthy’s classic “shoulder thing that goes up” comment. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:01 pm: Enough with the semantics argument. Move along. Thanks. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:05 pm: Word I have a question for you. Assuming you are right and the state passes a CCW without preempting Home Rule. What is to keep the city of chicago or anywhere else from not being dragged in front of the same court 7th circuit to argue the mess all over again? I guess that is what i don’t get why fight a losing case all over again just to write another check from city coffers to NRA. - Irish - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:17 pm: Actually, apologies to Rich for bringing this up, many, many, deer are being shot in Illinois using high powered rifles. The folks that sharpshoot deer to reduce the population to prevent widespread CWD use them. Legally - jake - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:23 pm: Relevant Factoid–the teen pregnancy rate in rural counties is higher than in urban areas (see http://www.healthfinder.gov/News/Article.aspx?id=673792 ) So perpetuating the stereotype of urban women as indiscriminate baby producers is not only inflammatory but also inaccurate. Totally irresponsible thing for Sacia to say on so many levels. Depressing that there is even an argument about that. - Jeeper - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:24 pm: With the current rush to ban “Assault Weapons” (those “military looking” semi-automatic-only rifles), it may be worth while to look at the only case decided decided by SCOTUS using reasoning based on the Second Amendment (2A) during the entire Twentieth Century: US v Miller (1939). Only the Goverment presented any case in US v Miller. Miller was destitute and could not pay his attorney. Consequently, his attorney presented only a rushed brief (the case had been “fast tracked” by the DOJ) and he could not afford to travel to Washington, DC for oral arguments because his client had not paid him. The Department of Justice attorneys had oral argument all their own way. The Roosevelt administration should have gotten their “dream decision” as a result. The decision in US v Miller says that the weapons regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) are not suited to military use. That makes them unsuitable for militia use, so they can be regulated without infringement on 2A. What are those weapons “not suitable for militia use?” The “sawed off” shotgun at issue in the case is included in the licensed weapons class along with short barreled rifles, “silencers” (actually suppressors), and fully automatic weapons (such as the Thompson SMG, a favorite of Al Capone, among other gangsters) along with “destructive devices” and a few other things. Shortly after this decision was published, the US military establishment began buying every type of weapon the NFA regulated FOR MILITARY USE during WWII and after. Especially popular with the military were sub-machineguns, including the “Tommy Gun” and the “Grease Gun”. These were so popular with the military (and so profligate with ammunition) that in the 1950s the military developed (or caused to be developed) the “selective fire” type of weapons currently in use as the M16 rifle and the M4 carbine. Under the reasoning of the Miller decision, you CAN regulate the AR15; you can even take it away as it is not truly suitable for military use. What you CANNOT do is prevent me from buying a military rifle of the currently used type, M16 or M4. Do you really want to pursue this? - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:27 pm: Mason, I’ve been saying for a long time that Heller and McDonald are just the beginning of court cases regarding the 2nd Amendment. It had been a pretty sleepy area of Constitutional law for most of the country’s history. They were 5-4 rulings. The court’s makeup will change. And whatever rulings the Supremes make will be tested by legislation. Just look at Roe vs. Wade. That came down 40 years ago, but it’s tested all the times in the courts (Scalia thought he had a majority to overturn Roe in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, but Justice O’Connor picked off Justice Kennedy). Some states are always testing Roe with new legislation. Mississippi has written such strict rules on abortion clinics that it’s put all but one out of business — and the state has served notice that it intends to revoke its license. Think there will be a court case? Look at capital punishment. First, it was accepted, then it was cruel and unusual punishment, then it was accepted again (for now). With divisive, hot-button issues, things are never, totally, settled. - Irish - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:36 pm: The problem I have with the assault weapons discussion is pretty much pointed out by dupage dan @ 10:26. The tendency for our legislators at the state and federal level and many other officials to do anything just to be able to say they did something and then move on without really solving anything. If they want to have a debate on assault weapons, then exactly describe what constitutes an assault weapon and use that definition. ie: We want a ban on the following weapons, then list them; or, we want a ban on any weapon that fires X number of rounds per second or higher and has a magazine clip of x number and an overall length of X” with a muzzxle length of x”. Until you define what it is you are wanting to ban the arguments are all over intangibles. I like and respect the job the Police Superintendent is doing in Chicago but even he goes into the fear mongering a little in his discussions of the assault weapons. He stated this morning on the news that a significant percentage of the guns seized in recent months were “assault weapons” He did not specify what those weapons were and then he likened them to people carrying bazookas and hand grenades. He admits that those are illegal guns to own in Chicago, so there is already laws against having them there. When questioned about what laws he would like to see he mentioned longer sentences for illegal gun possession. Okay I can agree with that. I also would like to see laws against the straw purchases we discussed last week. But then he went back to wanting an assault weapons ban. So a ban would make a difference where a law already exists against owning such a weapon????? - Skeeter - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:36 pm: I can imagine the discussions leading up to this one: “Hey Eddie, what do you want to do?” “I don’t know, but I don’t feel like working. Why don’t we spend the day grandstanding about banning something that we can’t effectively define and that, no matter how you define it, has no significant impact on crime or any other important issue?” “Cool, beats doing our real jobs” - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:41 pm: Word I agree there are more cases to be argued. My point on this one is unless something changes chicago would be right back to where they are right now but instead of State of IL paying costs for the case Chicago would bear the cost by themselves. This is probably one of the worst cases for the Anti-gun people to argue since no where has the restrictions IL and Chicago do. I would think be better to argue for as strict as the city can get and then blame the state for losing. - Jeeper - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:41 pm: I hate to say it (oh HOW I hate to say it…) but… I agree with Skeeter (13:36)… - Skeeter - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:44 pm: “Lets face it, Mike Madigan and his dictatorship created this problem. He could have allowed a conceal and carry debate at any time in the past 10 years, but he does not believe in free and open debate on the issue. ” Really? What happened a few nights ago? That sure seemed like free and open debate to me. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:45 pm: ===That sure seemed like free and open debate=== It may have “seemed” that way, but it wasn’t. - Skeeter - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:49 pm: Want to flesh that one out? What I read they had a bunch of amendments and did thumbs up or thumbs down on each of them. What am I missing? - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:52 pm: Skeeter I think what Rich means is that was quite orchestrated. Notice how many amendments were just skipped over all of a sudden. think that had more to do with Posturing. - Skeeter - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:01 pm: Now I’m just waiting for them to tell us that mandatory insurance will solve all of our gun problems. - Anyone Remember? - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:08 pm: Mason born Farmers are allowed to do things on their land, with and without guns, we mere mortals can’t. Guns / concealed carry is a public policy issue. The vehemence with which people make their points far surpasses logic and intellect. Sacia’s comment, as perceived, proves that point about the presentation of those points. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:11 pm: –Sacia’s comment, as perceived, proves that point about the presentation of those points.– You don’t think his comments were perceived as he meant them to be? Why do you underestimate him? - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:15 pm: Anyone I am missing the farmer reference. But i whole heartedly agree with Word. Sacia knew exactly what he was doing and if he didn’t he should probably resign. He was grabbing headlines for himself. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Rich and Skeeter, it looked like an open-and-free debate to me. I understand that the motivation was to make some folks commit to positions they might not want to, but I’m more than happy with that as well. Over the years, too much time has been spent protecting legislators from committing and making tough votes. I have no use for it. The GA should not be some Legislator Protection Program. More of the same, I say, and let the chips fall where they may. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:19 pm: If it was open and free, then members would’ve been able to have their own amendments heard. It was stagecraft. Good stagecraft, but stagecraft nonetheless. - Leave a Light on George - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:43 pm: =Enough with the semantics argument. Move along. Thanks.= Semantics will be all that is left to argue once it is decided what firearms are going to be banned. - Anyone Remember? - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:06 pm: Word and mason - My point, poorly worded on a Friday afternoon, was that there is an “enthusiasm” (to quote Robert DeNiro in The Untouchables) to arguments made for concealed carry that isn’t usually present in public policy debates. Here in Springfield, not even the smoking ban promoted the level of vehemence in presentation one hears about concealed carry. Saica’s analogy aside, the vehemence of his words was what I was addressing. - Anyone Remember? - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:07 pm: Mason - The farm comment was based upon this comment by you. ==I have killed skunks with mine around the farm. == - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:37 pm: any R Okay on the skunk thing but you could shoot the skunks anywhere you wanted to hunt. A lot of times those without experience think the AR or whatever is a cannon i was trying to demonstrate that they do have uses in the “hunting and sporting” area. As for vehemence i think it all comes down to both sides see it as theirs and their families safety. Your right cooler heads could probably iron out the problem (i wouldn’t call Sacia a cooler head). I have to restrain myself at time and remember the people i am arguing with aren’t being disingenous they actually believe what they say. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:43 pm: I am wondering what type of semantics ban Rich wants to put into place, the semi-automatic or fully-automatic semantics? (snark) - Just The Way It Is One - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:48 pm: Gee how the Internet has changed EVerything, even heretofore heated debates in Legislatures that no one would barely even hear about, let alone something going viral! It’s going to likely make Legislators think twice quite a bit more often from now on before they bark out something which thousands may find offensive… - Anyone Remember? - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:56 pm: Mason - This may be unique to Springfield, but unlike any other topic, concealed carry alone has advocates that fly off the handle, turn red in the face, etc., when you try to discuss the issue with them and don’t agree with them 100%. Personally, I’d rather discuss the topic with retired cops. They may disagree, but they don’t get red in the face, shout, gesticulate, etc. Civilian concealed carry advocates, at least in Springfield, do, and make the extreme anti-abortion advocates look tame by comparison. - Mason born - Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 4:05 pm: Any R Believe me it isn’t limited to Springfield or only those of us that are for it. Got into an arguement with some Chicago folks a few weeks back on CCW and i thought they were going to have an anuerism. Like i said just try to remember both sides believe their safety and the safety of their families. For example i have been the victim of crime and it angers me that i cannot have the means to protect myself and my family. Where as the folks i was arguing with believed that it wasn’t possible for anyone not LEO to carry a gun in public without shooting an innocent person. By the way retired LEO can be calmer about it since they already have the right to carry and nothing the state says can do anything about it. It is easier to remain calm when you aren’t directly affected. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.