73 Comments - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:32 am: What does he/she want to be forgiven from? Being as big a wing nut/whack job as his subscribers? The whole 2A was all about convincing the colonies they could have their own armies (whacks that is what the word militia means)in case the new G got out of control. There was little or no thought of this being a grant to allow folks to pack Not surprised the whacks are confused. Most still think SB10 amended the Bible. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:33 am: If he felt the need to apologize he must think that his magazine caters exclusively to the lunatic fringe of the gun movement. It’s blasphemy, I say, to suggest that any regulation of guns doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. Blasphemy! - Connor - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:34 am: I am absolutely sick of the liberal agenda promoted on this blog. For one that is supposedly nonpartisan, you could have fooled me. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:36 am: Connor, the law in question was supported by both parties, by both sides. It was vetoed by a Democratic governor and overridden in a bipartisan manner with votes from pro and anti gun legislators. You’re the one who is being “partisan” here. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:41 am: Also, if you think that being appalled at a vicious over-reaction to a centrist op-ed column by a known gun rights supporter is promoting a “liberal agenda” then you’re right, you’re “absolutely sick.” - walkinfool - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:41 am: “an act of cowardice” Well said. Perhaps it is equal “cowardice” to believe that a free society can only be secured when every member carries their own lethal weapon. Most gun owners do not hold that belief, but many political activists do. - Old Shepherd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:47 am: To paraphrase Connor, he’s sick over views he doesn’t agree with on a privately-owned, free blog that he reads at his own choosing. Appalling. - Connor - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:47 am: @Rich I myself supported the bill, as I thought it was the best we could get in Illinois. But blowing up on people who believe strongly and unquestionably in the Second Amendment and feel that the phrase “shall not be infringed” takes precedence, that I feel is a promotion of an agenda. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:48 am: === The editor’s “mistake” was believing that the bizarrely rabid “It’s my God-given right!” gun owners would willingly engage in any sort of “healthy exchange” of ideas. === Is it not true that the extremes on both sides are unwilling to to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas? - Connor - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:52 am: @Old Shepherd Walking back on my statement a little, while I do obviously have a problem with this post, I cannot control what is posted and nor should I be able to. I can however take issue with it and voice my opinion. As for reading the blog, its the only place I can find to get up-to-the-minute news on Illinois politics, which I follow very closely. Rich may continue to post as he pleases, and I will continue to hold my opinions and occasionally voice them. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:52 am: Clearly, “Guns and Ammo” is a publication where the commitment to the First Amendment isn’t “unflinching,” lol. To some, threatened subscription cancellations can be quite persuasive when it comes to principle. –When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.”– That’s a complete and dishonest representation of history. In the 1970s, leadership of groups like the NRA were maintaining their decades-long emphasis on sportsmanship and gun safety. They were pushed aside, most famously in the the “Cincinatti Revolution of 1977″ by those who had a radical, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t that gun groups were going soft, they were taken over by hard-liners. - Lil Squeezy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:54 am: Conner, I think you would find huge majorities of citizens thinking 16 hours of training is either reasonable or lacking. - Shark Sandwich - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:54 am: Cowardice is right, ‘Stand your ground’ shouldn’t just be a phrase associated with the 2nd A, but also the first. - vise77 - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:54 am: ” …who believe strongly and unquestionably in the Second Amendment” No, you don’t get to define the terms. No way. I grew up among hunters and target shooters and a few collectors, have hunted, have no problem with or fear of responsible gun ownership, and understand that reasonable regulation can and should be part of my strong support for the 2nd Amd. - Connor - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 11:59 am: @vuse77 So I’m defining the terms? Apparently not or the reaction would not have been “swift to develop and fierce to behold.” - A guy... - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:01 pm: This is like a football game where neither side will step from beyond their own end zones. The hundred yards in the middle represent failure rather than compromise; even the fifty yard line. So, legislators, don’t pick a side, pick an end zone. Any place in between and you’ll be caught in the cross fire as a sworn enemy of both. Ugh. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:10 pm: – So, legislators, don’t pick a side, pick an end zone. Any place in between and you’ll be caught in the cross fire as a sworn enemy of both. Ugh.– That’s just nonsense. As was pointed out, C-C was passed by bipartisan veto-proof majorities in Illinois. The absolutism of the NRA and ISRA is a calculated political tactic that has proven highly effective in mobilizing a small but highly dedicated group of voters and funders. That’s why, in a country with more private firearms than TV sets or cars, they continue to preach about a dystopian, gun-grabbing government. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:13 pm: Rich, in my opinion has done an excellent job over the firearm issues, and others. I have read and participated in many places, and found the posts here quite tame compared to others. For those rabid people on both sides of the firearms issue, neither will agree to common sense, nor will they work to find common ground. They will never be pleased, because if they could find a point that satisfied both sides, they would not have anything to argue about. - Bird Dog - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:24 pm: He probably should have avoided the “fire in a crowded theater” regarding regulation of a constitutional right. It has been used way too much, and it implies right up front that regulation is good. The same would apply to the reference to driving a car. Since that argument is trotted out all the time by persons wanting more regulation, you are again sounding like you promote more regulation. A better way may have been to discuss the new CCW training requirements here in IL and do a benefit-burden discussion on the merits of that. Having said that, I do agree with you that the way the magazine handled the response was pretty spineless and has done nothing to further responsible debate. In full disclosure, I am a subscriber to the magazine. - titan - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:35 pm: My understanding of what a “well regulated militia” would have meant in the vernacular of the time that the Constitution was written would equate to “a compentent and efficient fighting force” and the militia was comprised of every able bodied male (from teen to near dottage aged). The paraphrase of the line would have been that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that all the men will be competent to be pressed into military duty when the need arises. - FoxValleyPride1 - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:35 pm: The trick is, and always has been to regulate arms (required by the first half of the sentence) while avoiding infringement (prohibited by the second half of the sentence.) The problem, of course, is that each of us draws that line at a different place. But until we can all agree on that much, this debate will never get anywhere. - Ghost - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:40 pm: Just to make sure I am fiollowing the bouncing ball…. Guns and ammo thinks they can have guns becuase it is a right created by the constitution and we must follow the constitution… but they dont believe we should follow the consitution if it has something in it they dont like, such as a reference to regualtion… and they also seem to really hate that free speech concept; only approved speech should be put forth…. persky free speech…. I dont see this as leiberal v conservative, it looks more like anarchist v those who follow laws. I have never understiood the desire for an anrachist structure without law or regualtion, it doesnt make us free; its a devolution of social structure to move away from law… As Shakespeare famously said, if you want to destory a society and its freedom, start by killing all the lawyers…. - JG - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:55 pm: I recently spoke to the owner of a center which offers classes to fulfill these concealed carry requirements. He explicitly said 16 hours was not enough in his opinion, but it was at least better than many states that require only 4 hours. So, Connor, to paint anyone or anything that is in favor of gun regulations, or even just not rabidly opposed to it, as evidence of some sort of liberal conspiracy, is just plain wrong. A man lost his job because of the paranoid delusions of his readership, and the kneejerk reaction of his boss. - Huh? - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 12:59 pm: “This is like a football game where neither side will step from beyond their own end zones. The hundred yards in the middle represent failure rather than compromise; even the fifty yard line. So, legislators, don’t pick a side, pick an end zone. Any place in between and you’ll be caught in the cross fire as a sworn enemy of both. Ugh. ” This is a insightful comment that is true for many of the volatile political issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, obamacare, etc. - Lycurgus - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:03 pm: Using the words “well regulated” in connection with limitations on gun rights is a dog whistle to the 2A crowd. Take out that phrase, and he would still have been criticized, but it wouldn’t have nearly as virulent. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:09 pm: Ghost I am not really seeing this as a violation of his 1st amendment. No one is saying he should be fined, penalized, or imprisoned for what he said. The publication has the authority to choose the words it publishes and the writers it publishes. The publication has made the choice not to deal with the consequences of his free speech. Please tell me who has said he should be banned from speaking? Have you never cancelled your subscription because you disagreed with the content of the publication? Were you trying to stop their right to speak or just choosing what you would pay for? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:12 pm: –But until we can all agree on that much, this debate will never get anywhere.– There are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. The debate is largely over. - Ghost - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:18 pm: Mason I didnt say it was a violation of the first ammendement (which primarily limits govt not private speech), I stated that they seem opposed to the concept… since instead of just posting a counter argument they can’ed the guy… imagine if those who wrote in complaining about the article had their bosses called by somone else complaining about their complaint letters and all got fired for complaining… If you want to argue rights, it seems chilling speech is not the way to make your case for freedom…. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:20 pm: ==Please tell me who has said he should be banned from speaking?== Um, the magazine did - at least within their pages. I agree with those that find it ironic that the magazine apparently doesn’t hold all of the amendments in the Constitution to the same high standard as they hold the 2nd Amendment. The irony is obvious here. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:23 pm: == feel that the phrase “shall not be infringed” takes precedence== We should “blow up” on people who take this to mean that absolutely no regulations on gun ownership should exist. They are just as guilty of radicalism as those that believe guns should be banned altogether. What happened at this magazine does absolutely nothing to advance any discussion on guns. It emboldens the crazies on both sides of the debate. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:26 pm: Demoralized, they don’t even like 2A. At least the parts about being well-regulated and in a militia. - RMW Stanford - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:27 pm: I am a gun owner and I dont see anything wrong with his article. 16 hours of traning is not a paricular high burden to place on someone who want to carry a concealed firearm in public ( I do plan on getting a concealed carry permit.)I have read Guns& Ammo in the past, but it is to bad that the loudest voice on both sides of the debate tend to be the extremes. - Todd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:27 pm: I’ve known Dick for a number of years. But I disagree with a lot of his column. First he forgot who is target market is. And when the people he is trying to sell to and those advertisers revolted that was not much for the magazine to do. I would suggest you google RECOIL magazine and see that interesting little incident. The gun magazine business is a lot like newspapers today. They are in a fierce competition for readers and subscribers. And my bet is they find themselves on a loosing proposition much like newspapers are. Consider this, one of the largest gun blogs has a readership that is larger than the Tribune and Sun-Times subscriptions combined. And Metcalf just peed in their cornflakes – the vary same people he is trying to sell to. Not a smart thing. If Dick’s point was that not every regulation is an infringement, there is a way to articulate that point, both from a personal point of view as well as what the Court’s are likely to find as well. But he didn’t do that. Instead he acted as if he was reading from an anti-gunners playbook and used some of their very own tactics or language. And that has a way of making the people of the gun very angry. When one of their own is perceived to be a turn coat, there is nothing worse. In looking at the comments here today, I already see the same tired arguments being played out. 1. This was not about free speech. 2. The well regulated clause was dealt with in Heller, and it is not what Dick and others claim it says. But what do I know. On the free speech issue, G&A is free to publish anything they want. Gun owners just don’t have to buy the magazine off the rack or subscribe to it. And many of them choose to vote with their wallets and voice their displeasure. It’s been said that a few very large advertisers said the same thing. They did not want to be advertising in a magazine that was perceived in supporting restricting people’s 2A rights. Again their choice not to participate. Not a silencing of free speech as G&A would be free to carry on without those advertisers if they wished to. My bet is they could not afford to. This isn’t really new in the world of 2A supporters. I would suggest that while RECIOL magazine is a recent incident, take a look back to the Smith and Wesson deal with the Clinton administration. S&W tanked after that. Very few people wanted one of their guns and people canceled firearms they had on order. It took S&W the better part of a decade to make a comeback. Something similar happened to an outdoor writer by the name of Jim Zumbo in 2007. What I think seems to have many on the left upset, is that boycotts and uprisings by the people of the gun within their sandbox are very effective. The consumers can have a sway or corporate policy and have been doing that for some time. And if the industry is that sensitive to their consumers, what do you think they are like as voters? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:35 pm: ==from an anti-gunners playbook== Here we go again with that garbage. Newsflash - you can agree with gun regulations and not be “anti-gunner.” It’s this all or nothing stuff that drive me nuts. Both sides need to stop it with this kind of language. Just because somebody doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time, Todd, doesn’t make them “anti-gunner.” - Annie Oakley - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:40 pm: I don’t think it’s an act of cowardice to ask for forgiveness after a miscalculation. Quite opposite. It is refreshing to see someone take responsibility for an oversight or mistake and be willing to take action. Even if that action will leave you without a job. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:41 pm: C’mon, Todd. Any self-respecting publication that operates under the blessings of the 1st Amendment routinely seeks out and publishes opinions that are not in lockstep with their own editorial stances or those of their advertisers. For crying out loud, Fox News brings on liberals every day, if for no other reason than to pound lumps on their head, lol. By the way, did the NRA support the Illinois c-c law that includes the 16 hours of training? Or did you see it as an “infringement?” If so, are you actively campaigning against those who supported the law? - Todd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Demoralized – Dude, hyping the first part of the amendment, “well regulated” is what the antis use. As are analogies to cars and such. I don’t think Dick is anti-gun. He just choose to use some very poor words and ways to articulate them. No where did I say it was an all or nothing type of thing. You ascribe things to me I did not say. I think most would say that I get the playing field “we” on here in Illinois. And I think it has been far from an all or nothing type of thing. Word — I get it. But Dick could have put it differently, when is a regulation an infringement? When does it cross that line? And the 16 hours of training, to a great many is an infringement, both in time, costs and application. He could have explored all of that. But he didn’t. He took a highbrowed tone with people who disagreed with what he was about to put down on paper. And to many it was a condescending tone that smacked of elitism. To bad for people who can’t afford the $200 – 300 bucks for training, no carry for you. This wasn’t a point counter point. It was a comparison of ideas. It was a pro-gun writer in a pro-gun magazine telling its readers that if you disagree with them you’re an ignorant redneck. - John Boch - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Good riddance to Mr. Metcalf. He might be better off looking for work alongside Gabby Giffords after his ill-considered missive. Well stated, Mr. Vandermyde. John - Pelon - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:00 pm: “2. The well regulated clause was dealt with in Heller, and it is not what Dick and others claim it says.” Exactly. I’m not a radical gun rights guy, but I can see why they would be upset by a writer basing his argument on a position that was often claimed by the other side but ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:04 pm: Todd Just wanted to tell you i’m quite happy with the job you’ve been doing. As for you being an all or nothing guy didn’t you just reach a consensus on mandatory minimums for Gun possession?? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:04 pm: ==He just choose to use some very poor words and ways to articulate them. == Possibly. Especially from the perspective of those that would vehemently disagree with him. Even so, you don’t find it a bit over-the-top to get rid of the guy and publish an apology? I understand it’s their magazine and they can do what they want. But from my perspective - at least on the outside looking in - it makes it seem that the magazine has no interest in any opinions that might conflict with an absolute reading of “shall not infringe.” Most of us are in the middle on this issue and think both sides go a little batty sometimes. To me this is an instance of some on the “pro-gun” side going batty. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:06 pm: @John: Way to keep it classy with the Gabby Giffords comment. @Todd and Mason: I never said Todd was an all or nothing guy. But this incident, at least to me, is an example of that kind of thinking. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:24 pm: Todd, I re-read the column and I can’t see a “condescending tone that smacked of elitism” or anything that remotely suggests those who disagreed with him are “ignorant rednecks.” But that’s just me. “Guns and Ammo” can do whatever it wants, I have no dog it that fight. But, from a publishing and 1st Amendment point of view, they demonstrated a profound lack of testicular virility by soliciting/accepting someone’s opinion piece, and then tossing him under the bus when they got a little blowback. Like the man said, “I disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” If you’re strong and confident in your convictions, you should be able to handle a minor dissent. If all you can handle is the echo chamber, well, that’s revealing. Did the NRA support the law, with the sixteen hours of training? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:26 pm: ==Did the NRA support the law== I thought they went neutral. I could be wrong. - Amalia - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:38 pm: The Chicago Tribune has a great sarcastic column about this matter today. incredibly, the man who brought us McClure Volkmer is out for a rational column. And, yes, Todd, if you have problems with his views on the training, then I guess you should be raising hell in Illinois. or is this just rhetoric when you want to turn up the membership dial? for those of us who are not liberal anti gunners, we are getting mighty sick of the extreme views on the other end. I come from a family of gun owners who feel absolutely nothing like the Guns and Ammo ban the columnist crowd. they just want to get their gear and shoot, not shoot off their mouths. - A guy... - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:47 pm: W Slinger, I couldn’t hear you. I was caught ducking in the cross fire between the end zones. lol. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:50 pm: Demo You are correct the NRA was “neutral”. As for the 16 hrs part i took the back 8 a few weeks ago. Only training i needed (Vet). As for amount of training i think it is something that is almost impossible to codify. A lot is going to depend on the willingness of the individual to pursue competancy. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 2:54 pm: - He might be better off looking for work alongside Gabby Giffords after his ill-considered missive. - Is anyone else starting to figure out that there’s something deeply wrong with Boch? Anyone? - D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:06 pm: The column and Todd’s post demonstrate once again that it is not 2A that is really at issue, but the totalitarian, absolutist position that is demanded by the NRA clan. Like other fundamentalists, the only interpretation that matters is ours and any hint of contrary discussion is heresy–even if it comes from someone who has supported 99% of the interpretation. Sad…so sad. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:07 pm: ==Did the NRA support the law== I thought they went neutral. I could be wrong.== C’mon, man. The only time they ever went “neutral” on a gun bill was the one that legalized C-C, their biggest priority? Were they out of town that day? Did they oversleep? Did the car not start? The way I saw it is they went silent on the bill so Madigan could push it over the goal line, giving a big win to his Downstate members while providing cover to some members up north where the NRA ain’t so popular. Just as importantly, going silent allowed the NRA, in some apparently easily-fooled circles, plausible deniability for supporting a c-c bill that had some distasteful, “infringement” components. They got their cake, and they ate it, too. Don’t cry for them. Big win. They’ll be back for more. That’s the way it works. The problem is, they’re piling on a dude who’s on their side because he sincerely expressed support for a small component of a bill that they pushed and was their biggest Illinois win, ever. In my world, not cool. With friends like that…. - Todd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:08 pm: Amilia – Yes I have a problem with the 16 hours of training. But that was dictated to us during session by the Speaker. Will we introduce bills to undo this, yes. Will they go anywhere, I doubt it. My bet is the leaders will keep a tight reign on carry bills of all types as to give the law a chance to work and see what changes are needed. I think the 16 hours is way to much of a restriction. We have had FOID carry in many parts of the state for 6 months or more and I have only heard of a single incident. I think the fees are to high and a tax on the right to pay for other things the state wants. I can find a lot of flaws with the law. But it was a first step. And we will deal with it over time. History has shown that carry laws get looser on regulations as time goes on. We will see if Illinois follows the trend. My bet is it will. Yea I too would like to just get out and do more shooting, but others feel the need to tend to my job security. If your family likes to get out and shoot, then a simply thank you would suffice. As over the last 20 years we have stopped all kinds of crazy attempts to prevent them from doing just that. And despite two US Supreme Court rulings, 4 ½ IL Supreme Court rulings I don’t see it slowing down much in the future. But as my 13 year old has taken up practical rifle shooting with me, I get to spend more time shooting with him. As a matter of fact I just built him his own AR-15. And this Saturday is the monthly shoot/competition and they are even going to do a low light/night shoot. So out come the flash lights, lasers and night vision sights – yippee. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:10 pm: ===A lot is going to depend on the willingness of the individual to pursue competancy.=== Yes, we’ve given them the right to carry a loaded firearm and now it’s up to them to be competant. - Birdseed - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:16 pm: === Yes, we’ve given them the right to carry a loaded firearm and now it’s up to them to be competant. === Which really has nothing to do with an arbitrary 16 hour minimum. Some will be competent in 4 hours and others may never be competent. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:31 pm: STL, you’re right. From John Boch: –Good riddance to Mr. Metcalf. He might be better off looking for work alongside Gabby Giffords after his ill-considered missive. Well stated, Mr. Vandermyde.– Boch, you are a sick, disgusting creature. I can’t conceive of what you think you represent or are defending, but it has nothing to do with individual rights, home, family,faith, America or humanity. Nice friends you have there, Todd. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:33 pm: 47th You misunderstand what i was attempting to say. If you’ve never held a gun 16 hours are not going to make you competent. Especially when the majority of 8 of them are understanding Illinois Law. Likewise if you have used a firearm regularly for a large part of your life most of the 16 hours are useless to you. Hence why i said it is difficult to codify. As an aside my instructor told us of several first time gun owners who flatly refused to apply for a permit when confronted with the reality of carrying a firearm for defense. Finally no one was given the right to carry in public. The 7th circuit and the IL Supreme said the right existed, what we are discussing is what is a reasonable requirement prior to issuing a permit. Since this isn’t a decree to be made by you or me, 16 hrs is what the politicians came up with. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:42 pm: Mason, I understand exactly what you were saying. Some people are going to apply for a CC permit, pass the minimal amount of training required to get said permit, and still be woefully unprepared to carry a loaded firearm. Some incompetent gun owners will be carrying loaded firearms, and all of the training courses in the world won’t guarantee they’ll ever be properly trained. I heard you loud and clear and I agree 100%. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:47 pm: 47th The real question than for both of us is how many of those are out there and what do you do about it? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:50 pm: –Finally no one was given the right to carry in public. The 7th circuit and the IL Supreme said the right existed,– A right based on interpretation of the Constitution, which differs among circuits. And which can change. The Constitution was written by “We the People” in control at the time, not God. And it can be changed by interpretation and amendment. The point I’m making is that gun laws are the work of the consent of the governed, not “natural” law, as some would leave you to believe. The Constitution and its interpretation used to allow for a lot of things, and bar a lot of things, that are not acceptable today. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:52 pm: ==The real question than for both of us is how many of those are out there and what do you do about it? == Try not to think about it? An analogy I think about it driving. You know there are idiots out there and there’s not a lot you can do about it except be vigilant when driving and hope to be able to avoid them should they decide to be an idiot as there car passes yours. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:55 pm: Demo –You know there are idiots out there and there’s not a lot you can do about it except be vigilant when driving and hope to be able to avoid them should they decide to be an idiot as there car passes yours. – Pretty much best take on it so far. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 3:57 pm: Word –And it can be changed by interpretation and amendment.– You are absolutely correct all you need is 3/5ths of the states and you can rewrite anything. This is one of the true beauties of the Constitution. - Amalia - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:06 pm: Todd, no you have not stopped all sorts of things that would stop my family from shooting. you just push extreme things. the average hunter and shooter is supremely unaffected by the reasonable restrictions proposed. my family ended an NRA membership because things got way out of hand with your side. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:29 pm: Amalia No offense but can i ask what your family hunts and shoots? - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:32 pm: I’ve taken the training and plan to apply; but the 16 hours and the cost are both unduly burdensome in my opinion. As someone who has held a permit for years from another state and has used firearms for decades, the 16 hour training was excessive. My main issue though is that I know many people for whom the cost (training, fingerprints, permit) is an absolute barrier. Should the most effective means to exercise the fundamental right of self defense be limited to those who are more financially affluent? That is what the current system does. Maybe there should be subsidies for those of limited financial means… Just model it after the affordable care act where people who choose not to get a permit pay a fine which helps cover the cost of permits for those with more limited financial means… - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:36 pm: Mason, for what it’s worth, I’ve always valued your reasoned insight and opinion on this subject. This issue is about done in Illinois, so I wanted to let you know that before it is. As you know, I would have been content with the former status quo. But I understood many were not. Within that democratic framework, I was amendable to changes. What I objected to most were unreasonable and dishonest claims of natural and Constitutional law regarding concealed carry. As we both know, Heller notwithstanding, the Supremes have never said anything about conceal-carry. Plus, Heller is a weak reed, a 5-4 ruling that disrespected stare decisis, and should not expect a different fate in the future. And as anyone who’s ever seen a John Ford, John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie knows, there has never been a historic or Constitutional understanding that you could carry a gun in the public square. But Illinois has passed a law, as it always could have, and the law is the law. In the future, I’ll be supportive of home-rule exemptions, I imagine you might be supportive of other changes. So until then, happy trails, my friend. - Mason born - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:47 pm: Word We may disagree on what changes need to be made. I disagree wit ha lot of your read on this but what I do appreciate is that you disagree without being disagreeable. - Amalia - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:53 pm: deer, turkey, occasionally bigger things in other states. also range practice. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 4:54 pm: I probably own more guns than any 20 persons on this site and I passionately enjoy shooting and generally expect the government to leave me alone. However, Mr. Metcalf was absolutely correct in his observation that no “right” is completely unregulated, including the right to keep and bear arms. Guns & Ammo lost all credibility with me by caving into the loonie-tunes fringe of the gun world. I am not at all ashamed of my guns and my love of shooting, but I get pretty enbarrassed over many of my fellow shooters these days. - Todd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 5:26 pm: Skirmisher — I probably own more guns than any 20 persons on this site I bet I got you beat. . . - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 5:32 pm: –Skirmisher — I probably own more guns than any 20 persons on this site I bet I got you beat. . .– Todd, you brought it up. The numbers show the percentage of gun owners is declining, while the number of guns is rising. Care to share? - Todd - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 6:12 pm: Word — Sure I’ll share a bit. I was the first in my family to own a gun. now that has turned into my wife and at least one son. While the narative is gun ownership is declining, it does not apear that way. Look at FOIDs, up from 1.2 million to 1.5 and still going. that is not a reversing trend. and I see new shooters all the time. at the range and such. So just on FOID numbers, I reject the concept that gun ownership is shrinking. Next look at the NICS numbers and the steady sales for the last 5 years. its not just me that’s buying guns. guys like me could not have sustained 5 years of month over month growth. As far as I go, my ARs nearly match my age. . . - Bill Wick - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 8:16 pm: Grabber’s gonna grab. - Jorge - Tuesday, Nov 12, 13 @ 10:54 pm: “and I see new shooters all the time. at the range and such. So just on FOID numbers, I reject the concept that gun ownership is shrinking.” That doesn’t sound statistically significant Todd. “Next look at the NICS numbers and the steady sales for the last 5 years. its not just me that’s buying guns. guys like me could not have sustained 5 years of month over month growth.” Wanna bet? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.