Brilliant
Spend $27 million in taxpayer dollars on a shooting facility and then ban the rifles used on it.
It took an entire Soviet bureaucracy to come up with centralized schemes that led to this kind of thing. In Illinois it only takes one politician... That's efficiency ... the Chicago way.
79 comments:
Good god....that's absolutely.....I don't even have the word for it. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention, Greg.
What kinds of weapons are covered in this new legislation?
It seems to me that it would not be too hard to find a compromise between the weapons that people use to shoot skeet and traps and the weapons used to shoot people.
At which point this is a pretty misleading post. But not as bad as the Tribune article which gives zero details or analysis other than a scorecard:
Topika says it is bad
Blago says it is good
Meeks says it is good
Brady doesn't like it but is willing to listen.
So is this a flame war of politics or is there a real disagreement here?
Your post was typical of the intellectual dishonesty of the right wing extremists.
The Gov. is not seeking to ban all weapons. He just wants to ban assault weapons.
Are you really telling me that assault weapons are necessary for time at a gun range?
You are telling me that the shooting complex is useless unless you have a semi-automatic weapon in your hands?
I am all for hunting and I have no problem with skeet or competitive shooting, but I don't have the slighest clue why people think it necessary to have assault weapons.
You NRA nuts have no common sense. Thanks to people like you, kids on Chicago streets are dying. Nice work. The blood is on your hands.
greg, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one
skeeter, please explain to me exactly how this new ban would make a lick of difference. Assault weapons and handguns are already illegal in Chicago!!!
My father has been a policeman on the South Side of Chicago for 30 years. Gang crimes, homicide, and special operations. NOT ONE of the guns he has ever recovered from the person or home of a drug dealer, gang member, or violent criminal has been legally purchased or registered.
Simply enforcing the laws we already have on the books is all that is necessary to prevent these sorts of unspeakable tragedies.
Like I said on Rich's post on the subject: If you want to argue for a ban like this, fine. But using these incidents - which would NOT have been prevented with such a ban - is reprehensible.
So what you are saying is
1) there is no way to distinguish between a WWII rifle and an AK-47. Basically they are using the same technology.
2) Sparta was sold to the public in at least one way as a place to hold national competitions that will build revenue
3) National competitions require the use of Assualt Rifles.
So this is not a flame war, We cannot have national gun competitions and ban assualt weapons on our streets. If I was in charge, I would say that if one wanted to own an assualt weapon they would have to be kept at a place such as Sparta and used only there or if they were to be used at a different location (say for a competition, there would be a check out process with some oversight).
Many sports require serious paper work in order to play them.
I do not know the subject matter that well, but it upsets me that this is such a big issue. There ought to be a workable compromise.
Would competitions such as
this no longer be allowed?
Ok Agreed...
Naming this bill after the people who have died is not correct. Then write the initial post about that. Not in the form a Daily Show rant.
I would be much happier if this site was used for posts that stated facts, sources and some analyis, and then the comments were filled with any and all kinds of attacks ranging from dumb personal, to inflammatory, to well thought out critiques.
GOP,
Your father has been a cop for 30 years? Wow. After 30 years, crime must be zero, if he is doing his job. Right?
Are you telling me that he has been completely wasting his time?
I didn't think so. I also think that sometimes a small step forward is significant. I think that getting some assault weapons off the streets is a good thing, even if you can't get all of them. Unlike you, I don't believe that you should cave in to the bad guys just because they do bad things repeatedly. I think you should stand up and do something, even if you can't do everything.
But we differ on that issue. You just want to give up the fight.
Skeeter, GOP did not even say he was against this. GOP wanted to know how this helps, as do i.
I'm going to say it helps because Blago says so, or it does nothing because the NRA says so.
If the argument is that it will make suppliers stop producing as many because of all the paper work it requires to sell them, lets have that discussion.
If they are all already illegal than why does greg care about the range at Sparta? Now I assume they are illegal in Chicago but not statewide, so will making the ban statewide make it easier to enforce the current laws and harder for people in chicago to get them? at what cost to our culture?
People-
I'll hazard a guess Skeeter doesn't shoot, competitively or recreationally. Skeeter can correct me if I am wrong. Parties who don't shoot see no problem with banning something they do not use and see no use for. What you have to do is re-frame the argument into something analogous to something they are interested in.
I say we ban all aggressive dogs, especially non-neutered or spayed ones. Now, certain breeds of dogs are utilized by the military and police forces and have been perceived as aggressive animals. Among these chiefly are the German Shepherd and Belgian Malamois. We should also of course ban the 'Pit Bull', Doberman Pinschers and any other scary looking dog which really has no practical application in today's society.
Dogs have been implicated in all sorts of attacks on humans resulting in severe injury and/or death. Military-style dogs serve (German Shepherds, Belgian Malamois) no practical application in the home but we should not infringe on hunting dogs allowed by the law (Labrador Retrievers, American Beagles, etc.)
I say it is one small step for society to eliminate these heinous attacks on people by the military-style dogs.
Ban German Shepherds Today! I'll keep my beagles though since they are common hunting dogs.
Skeeter some of the best competition is done with the so called assult weapons
Gish,
Have a lot of dogs been used to put 27 bullets into a row of houses, penetrating the houses and killing innocent victims inside?
When a GSD wipes out a row of houses, I will reluctantly give up my sport of choice.
Anon 12:24:
If you want to see real competition, head down to Ft. Sill and see what they do in the artillery school. Those guys sure can shoot. That being said, I don't think we need artillery on our streets.
Anon 12:06
In other posts, GOP has made the comments that he believes assault weapons should not be banned, for reasons he stated (i.e. criminals could still get guns).
I have posted this once today and I will do it again.Fact these were convicted felons that should of not been on the sreet.Fact these people were dealing drugs.Fact it is against federal and state law for a felon to have any gun.Fact it is against federal law to have drugs and guns at the same time.Fact Englewood is in a cease-fire zone A WHAT thats right a cease-fire zone.More gun laws are not going to help.This bunch does not care so Englewood needs more arrest and convictions.We have been stuck with a governor that is out of touch with the real world.Gun control is waining toughter penalities ,more police on the streets and more neighborhood watch programs.It has cleaned up other neighborhoods and it can do this one.Now to get to the real truth Blago don't care those children and gun law is just another stone for him to step on th get re-elected.
Good plan anon 1:15
Since people keep dealing drugs, let's just give up, right? Legal drugs.
Since drug dealers keep killing people, let's just pass a law allowing them to do so, since they are going to do it whether or not we have laws, right?
Since people keep robbing people, let's just give up, right?
That's a fine plan that you have there.
Skeeter, I don’t understand what you are saying.
Allow me to restate my point more clearly, since you obviously don’t get it:
The guns used in these incidents – and in the VAST majority of gun-related crimes – are not purchased legally. They are not possessed legally by the offenders. Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own these weapons - regardless of whether there are other merits to justify such a policy – will not have any impact on the availability to violent criminals who already possess them illegally right now.
I’m not saying that the ban won’t have a big enough impact to justify it’s passage. I am saying that it will have NO impact. I could be wrong, but the experiences of my father suggest otherwise. If you want to debate whether or not the ban is a good idea, that’s fine. But stop implying that if such a ban were already in place, Starkesia Reed and Siretha White would still be alive today. It simply isn’t true. All your rhetoric about the “blood on the hands” of NRA members is just a red herring. Find another argument, because this one doesn’t hold water. Get it?
And it’s not about giving up. I think the police should have more resources and powers to enforce current gun laws, so that people who should not have them don’t. But this ban won’t help them do that, will it? It won’t do anything except take away the rights (whether you think it’s a legitimate right or not, it is a right) of law abiding citizens that will never use them in this way. And now the police will be responsible for trying to arrest everyone in the state who owns these guns, instead of concentrating their already scarce manpower and resources only on those who are ineligible for FOID cards, like the people who killed Reed and White.
BTW, I’ll assume that you aren’t ignorant enough for your opening comments to have been an insult against a man who has spent his entire life serving and protecting the citizens of Chicago in some of the most dangerous neighborhood in Illinois. Truth be told - if you want to know the reason why crime isn’t lower in Chicago, the answer is this: field supervisors like my father have to spend most of their day investigating BS complaints from gang members and thugs who feel they were “insulted” by the police. They have to deal with a hierarchy that is plagued by cronyism and incompetence. If the blood of these children belong on anyone’s hands (other than the shooters themselves), it belongs on the corrupt Democratic politicians of Chicago who feel it’s more important to make their nephew or girlfriend a commander, or worry more about what racial groups need to be better represented at different levels of the department instead of considering who is the most qualified. I’d like to know where the Governor stands on that!
Assault rifles and handguns are already illegal within the boundaries of Chicago. A statewide ban will not save the children of Englewood. If you don’t already understand that, you need to learn more about what is really going on before shooting your mouth off. If you do understand that and continue to exploit the grief of these families for your own partisan purposes, then you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. We both want to end the cycle of violence in these areas. The difference is, I’d like to see the governor propose some measures that will actually help, not just look good in the headlines.
Skeeter-
I'll agree that one German Shepherd has not put 27 bullets into a row of houses and killed one innocent victim. However dogs have shown quite well enough their capacity to maim and kill. Dogs have also shown the ability to track/hunt down an innocent victim without the presence of their owner. Bullets of today do not have that capability.
My point to you is that you may not see any point to having 'assault weapons' in the hands of law-abiding citizens. However law-abiding citizens do enjoy using these 'assault weapons' to competitively and recreationally shoot. Some own them for home defense.
You choose to own German Shepherd/s (I don't know how many). Some people may erroneously decide to view them as too dangerous for any civilian to own. I imagine that would be of interest to you since you own and operate (silly term I know) these dogs. You may know the truth that in trained hands there are very safe. You may be a responsible owner who will not have mistreated your dog/s and you may be conscientious enough to make sure they are never in any position to harm human.
The simple fact is that these firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are very safe. The real issue is criminals who have not and will not turn in their illegal weapons. This law will not do anything significant to stem the tide of assault weapons in Illinois. If I wanted to obtain those weapons and sell them I could simply travel to Missouri, Kentucky or many other states and bring them back into Illinois. This law will not change that. At best, the small percentage of stolen 'assault weapons' will diminish but 'assault weapons' are a small percentage of the total of weapons stolen each year anyway.
I don't expect to sway your opinion just to re-frame your argument to something you care about. You may say you will hypothetically give up your 'sport' but once again that is a hypothetical. Why don't you give them up now since it has widley been shown that dogs possess a very credible ability to maim and kill, especially small children, even with the best of owners.
Skeeter it is your governor that is trying to get elected using these little girls dead bodies.We all want an answers that will create long and lasting safe streets.Emil Jones has already told the Gov. it will not pass so why does he keep talking.HEADLINES FOR HIS CAMPAGIN.Also I did not say give them the right to do this I was qouting facts something the anti-gun nuts won't due.
It will not pass because the NRA refuses to support reasonable gun restrictions. And they have a lot of money to spread around.
The blood of those girls in on the NRA. With all the NRA's money, I sure hope they at least paid for the funerals for those poor girls.
With regard to GOP:
Your post was long, but it still boils down the same thing. Because bad guys can get guns sometimes, you believe that we should allow all guns.
We differ on that issue. I believe that a partial solution -- a step along the way -- can be useful. Even if you can't get rid of all assault weapons and all cop killer bullets, I think you should get rid of some.
We differ on that issue though. It looks like we are at an impasse. GOP would prefer to do nothing and to allow the bad guys to continue spraying bullets all over. I think we should try and limit those weapons, because saving even one life is good.
burdening the police with the enforcement of a statewide ban that will NOT stop the proliferation of these weapons in gang infested neighborhoods anyway, instead of allowing them to focus on the criminals who are getting them illegally to begin with right now is bad public policy. That is the point of my post. Respond to that and stop it with your ignorant red herrings!
Please correct me then.
You are claiming that we should not ban assault weapons, for the reason that some bad guys already have assault weapons.
IS THAT CORRECT?
no, that is an over-simplified spin of my contention.
Sorry you can't understand the complexity of the issue.
I want the police to get the assault weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them - ie, people who don't have FOID cards (ie, gang members and drug dealers). Making them responsible for investigating and arresting EVERYONE who has them will take away resources and manpower from that goal.
Get it?
I don't understand your post. If assault weapons are legal, as you propose, then why should the police be taking them away from anybody?
In the alternative, why not:
1. Ban assault weapons, and
2. Hire more police?
Isn't that better than just giving up?
Ah, shoot, I think I'll weigh by saying disarming victims is a dumb way to fight crime.
They are legal only for those who has a FOID card. The people who are commiting violent crimes in the inner city do not have those, and - more often than not - not eligible for one. Perhaps you don't understand the gun laws as they currently exist. That could be why you don't understand.
Why hire more police to enforce a ban on non-violent gun owners downstate who's posession of such rifles is not a threat to pubic safety just so that you can get a feel-good headline....meanwhile, the goal at hand (and end to gun violence in the inner city) is nowhere closer to being met? Hire more police....by all means! But use them to enforce the gun laws we already have....a strategy that would have helped save these young girls' lives.
Skeeter-
You misunderstand the facts. Assault weapons are legal to qualified owners as identified by Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification Card.
Your career criminal/street thug does not have a FOID meaning they cannot legally possess/own a firearm of any sort. They also cannot buy ammunition in the state of Illinois.
Police should be taking away firearms from those legally prohibited from owning them Felons, Domestic Violators, Mental Ill etc. Sotres which sell guns and ammunition should also be regularly inspected to ensure they are followin federal and state laws.
Your alternative of banning assault weapons from law-abiding gun owners will not solve the 'pervasive' problem created by anti-gun advocates. All it will do is remove the guns from people who were not using them in criminal activities. That won't actually make you significantly safer.
The argument is similar to banning the usage of medical marijuana by the terminally ill because there are so many illicit users of the drug. Medical marijuana users aren't the 'baddies' yet they are the only ones who will be affected by the law.
Charlie,
Are you claiming that if those two girls had guns, they would still be alive?
27 bullets, Charlie. The bullets went through the sides of houses.
You really think that MORE GUNS is a solution?
Gish,
If I have FOIA card, should I be allowed to own a flame thrower? How about a tank?
Or in the alternative, do you think that there are certain weapons that nobody outside of police and military should be allowed to own?
skeeter, stop talking about tanks and flame throwers. It's a red herring. The shooters in these incidents were already in possession of these guns illegally. Why would you expect that it would have mattered if their possession was somehow even MORE illegal?
Enforcement of the current gun laws would have prevented the murders of Starkesia Reed and Siretha White. Why won't you recognize that fact?
How will banning the sale and possession of these guns to and by FOID holders prevent such crimes? Why won't you answer that question?
These murderers should not have been in possession of these guns. They did not have a right to own them. This ban wouldn't have changed that fact, and would not have inhibited their ability to possess these guns and use them.
The governor needs to stop grandstanding and exploiting the grief of these families and start actually fixing the problem. Demand that the Chicago Police only promote QUALIFIED people into ranking positions. Why won't you address that?
Skeeter-
If you were adjudged to be , had the required training and a safe place to use such an item then yes, I have no problem with you owning such a thing.
By the way, tanks are owned by private citizens in the United States. They even possess working cannons. We aren't just talking World War 2 issue here either but one collector in Oregon (I believe) or Washington owns a fully functional M60 Main Battle Tank from the Vietnam Era.
Did you not know that tanks were in the hands of private citizens? These people are responsible and conscientious collectors with areas to use their items. So essentially except that Illinois will likely not allow it yes you could own a tank and possibly a flame thrower.
Gish,
Nothing more to argue here, is there? You believe in zero weapons control.
I blame you for the deaths of those girls. People like you allowed those weapons to be marketed and sold, knowing full well that they would likely find their way into the hands of criminals.
Skeeter-
Feel free to blame whomever you want.
I will feel the same knowing that your solution won't solve anything and that at least my work allows me to significantly improve the safety of all citizens in Illinois.
skeeter, if you vote for members of the Democratic machine in Chicago, then I blame you for these girls deaths. As I have clearly pointed out, the ban proposed by the governor would not have prevented their murders from possessing weapons that they already had illegally. But, a police department with the proper leadership, tools, and resouces could have prevented it, simply by enforcing the laws we have on the books right now. You won't address that fact. You seem more interested in taking guns away from people that are not a threat than in actually solving the systemic, administrative problems in Chicago's government, political culture, and police department that have lead to such uncontrolable violence in these areas.
Can we move active discussion to the other thread?
I am too busy being to blame for various murders and accidental deaths to try and follow two threads.
good point, gish
Gish,
What do you expect?
You advocate people having assault weapons.
You know they will end up in the hands of criminals. Do you really think that if we allow the sale of the weapons we can keep them out of the hands of criminals?
Don't blame me for that. Take responsiblity for it. Glory in the fact that you have protected the Second Amendment and that in Gishland, those two girls were martyrs to your cause.
Take responsibility for what you have caused.
Skeeter-
I do take responsibility. I also take responsibility for unrest in the Middle East since I drive a gasoline using vehicle. I fart, therefore my methane releases also make me responsible for global warming.
Ultimately I find my life full of my responsibilities. It is a wonder I find time to enjoy life at all, even at the expense of dead little girls.
Gish,
Thanks for the little joke. The girls' mothers think you are absolutely hilarious.
I own a shotgun and pistol and don't care if the sale of "assault" weapons is banned. As a hunter, what boils my blood is the Governor's continued attack on DNR and its programs to protect natural habitat and biodiversity.
Skeeter-
I doubt the girl's mothers know I exist and even if they did I doubt they would blame me for their deaths as you have.
In my work, I see that people die all the time, many in very horrible ways. Maybe seeing all of that has made me cold. Maybe seeing all of that has made me better able to see where blame should lie.
You placed blame on me and I logically extended out some other things I should be blamed for. Of course if you drive a gasoline powered vehicle and pass gas you are to blame for some things too.
I hope you sleep well at night with the blood of thousands of Arabs on your hands.
Skeeter --
your ignorant. First off the guns i the bill are NOT assualt weapons. Assault weapons are select fire. meaning they are capable of firing both semi-auto and full-auto.
What the governor and others have attemtped to do is ban as many guns as possible by drafting a borad definition and then using the buzzword of so called assault weapons. what he should be calling it is the scary looking gun ban or how about the semi-automatic gun ban.
disarming law abiding citizens to cover for the failures of the Mayor and gov to control crime is just like this gov to pass the buck.
What this shows is that no amount of background checks will ever be enough. no length of waiting periods will be enough. blago won't be happy until we are left with muskets.
this and a $500 FOID to boot.
I own all kinds of guns that you and others wnat to ban, just remember, Ted Kenedy killed more people with his car, then I have with my guns.
Can't wait for you all to call my hunting rifle a sniper rifle becuase it has a scope on it.
and BTW how does it feel to know that Kansas just became the 47th state to pass right to carry?
Dozer said...
"Skeeter --
your ignorant."
Well said.
Incidently, Laura Bush also killed more people with her car then you have with firearms. Somehow I don't think that bothers you.
Dozer-
Technically 'Assault Weapons' are the topic of the bill. They are part of a term defined primarily in the Federal ban of 1994.
I believe you mean 'Assault Rifles' which are select fire weapons commonly found in the military.
The actual military usage of 'Assault Weapons' refers to man-portable rockets.
However I agree with you that 'Assault Weapons' are arbitray term.
My Dear Friend Skeeter,
After reading the tripe that has spewed from your computer keyboard, I can only think that you are too emotionally involved to have a clear and reasonable discussion about firearm ownership. Your arguments seem to be illogical and emotional based.
Everybody Else:
This thread started out as a discussion about the Sparta Shooting Complex and the oddness of the proposed gun ban.
I for one think that since our governor has promoted this complex as one of his own accomplishments, think that it is VERY strange that he is promoting a ban on some of the firearms that may be used at shooting events. Don't you think so?
Everybody, please try to set aside our emotions for a few minutes, take a deep breath and calm down.
The issue of gun control is such an emotional one that no matter how we try to have a reasonable discussion that the real issue gets lost and it ends up a flame war. (Speaking of flames, Skeeter - if you want a flame thrower, go ahead and buy or build one. All I ask is that you use it in a safe and responsible manner that does not harm other people or property. I don't know if one is illegal, you may want to ask your local law enforcement before you use one.)
GOP - Please thank you father for the service that he has done as a policeman in the City of Chicago. It takes an exceptional person to serve in such a position with little acknowledgement.
As I wrote on the CapitalFaxBlog - What is the comparison between the number of people killed or injured by a firearm versus the number of people killed or injured by automobiles? I was recently at a class where a statistic was used - something over 40,000 people are KILLED in automobile crashes ever year. Why aren't people upset about that number?
Signed,
Property Protected by Bennelli Super Black Eagle
Gish --
you are correct that the term "assault weapons" was hijacted and put into the american vocabulary by the 1994 crime bill. Might I remind a few dems here, a lesser gun ban than what is proposed now that cost the dems the house in congress.
Just like the anti-gunners have invented terms such as sniper rifles, pocket rockets, saturday night specials. but I digress.
The sparta complex has cost $30 mill. they have plans to expand it and have highpower rifle competition. For those who do not understand, the largest rifle competition, and most popular uses military clones, such as AR-15 to shoot out to distances of 1,000 yards. It is the service rifle competition.
They have talked about trying to bring the Camp Perry matches to Illinois. However with the current Governor, and climate, I doubt they would even open the letter making such a request.
The continued rants by the Gov will put into jepardy, the future of Sparta. It will also chill any investment that firearms companies want to make at the facility.
The industry is talking about this as you can see by the press conferance they held at the capitol.
the gov is attmpting to buy his way into the shooting community, and play a game of divide and conquer. sportsmen good. NRA bad.
It won't work. The fact that he tried banning shotguns used for deer hunting has not been lost on a lot of people in this state. there are some 400,000 deer permits issued in this state.
do the math.
When you get done banning guns what's next.How about cars. WE have not had a gun death in my area in years. The drunks on the other hand kill and maim on regular basis.
Criminals will get guns whether the ban is in place or not! Instead of punishing good people that have these, let's punish our criminals... crazy idea isn't it?!?!
Interested in winning a Vulcan Arms V50SS 200 .50 cal BMG rifle? Check out www.molonlabeblago.com
If you are interested in purchasing a raffle ticket ($5 each) please email me at jisbe2@uis.edu.
Get yours before the governors takes them all!
Nieva,
A lot of cars put 27 bullets through the walls of houses, killing innocent people inside? When the do, we can ban cars.
To my anon 6:42 friend:
You accuse me of being emotional.
27 bullets.
27 randomly fired bullets, from a gun that was legally manufactured and was once legally sold.
27 bullets that took the life of an innocent little girl.
She is dead because the right wing extremists refuse to allow any reasonable limitations on gun ownership.
You are damn right I'm emotional.
That gun was on the street because right wing extremists care more about fondling some long hard thing than about the safety of our kids.
However, one thing does make me happy in all of this. The people most likely to be the victims of guns are not the innocent people in their homes. The people most likely to be gun victims are the owners themselves, who are far more likely to use that weapon in a rage against a family member, or because they panic when that door opens at night and they end up shooting their own child, or when in a drunken blunder, they shoot their own foot.
Play with your gun, my anon friend. And know that when you use it to shoot yourself in the foot, like a lot of you right wing extremists do, I will be laughing AT you.
i'm not laughing at you now though. Now I am pissed off that a an innocent girl is dead because people like you have no sense.
Skeeter-
Nieva presented a point and one which is a logical extension. You chose not to answer him in kind with a logical retort.
Dogs kill people. Cars kill people. Knives kill people. Pools kill people. When these points have been brought up you answer with the when x shoots 27 bullets then you will have them banned. What a load, death is death regardless of the means. It is impossible for x to shoot bullets when it is not a firearm however the end result is the same. Do you have any idea of the number of people killed by DUI vs. the number killed by random sprays of bullets? More people die by DUI so which do we ban the car or tha alcohol. Dogs are thinking creatures which may kill entirely independent of intent by owner or accident by victim. Let's ban them.
You have yet to present any compelling argument as to why Dogs, Cars, Swimming Pools, Knives etc should not be banned when they are the sources of so much death themselves.
Sketter -
You have missed the entire point that people like gop have been making. The existing ogun control laws didn't save the two young ladies who were recently killed in Englewood. Enacting new gon control laws would not have saved the girls either. The weapons used in the murders were already illegal in Chicago. The weapons were used by people who could not legally own or possess the weapons.
You do not know me. Therefore you can not say whether or not I am a sensable person.
You have picked a position and use emotion to argue it without even considering the arguments of others. In your eyes, you are right and I am wrong no matter what I say, just because I have a view point that is different than yours.
My firearms have never killed or hurt another person. They are owned lagally. They were purchased legally. I am legally entitled to own and use these weapons within the limits of the law.
As far as shooting my foot off - 35 years ago I had a shotgun go off and miss my foot by about 6 inches. I learned my lesson - keep the finger off the trigger and the safety on until ready to shoot. Keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction.
If you are so up in arms about senseless death, why aren't you decrying fatal automobile crashes? The CDC has labeled fatal automobile crashes a disease. Over 40,000 people died last year in fatal car crashes.
Protection by Bennelli Super Black Eagle
With regard to autos:
We have speed limits, despite the fact that some of us are very capable of going over 100 in a safe manner.
We have that restriction because it is reasonable restriction on an item that can be dangerous.
I would love to drive a Formula One car to my office (athough it would be difficult because of ground clearance, etc.). The State of Illinois will not allow me to do that. They claim that is a reasonable restriction.
A lot of people (me not among them) are perfectly capable of living comfortable and safe lives while at times consuming marijuana. However, Illinois has chosen to ban marijuana although other drugs, notably alcohol, are readily available.
German Sheps are not regulated, mainly because GSD people are the finest people in the world, but that is another matter completely.
The point is that for all the items that people mentioned, Illinois does provide reasonable restrictions on ownership and use to prevent abuse.
When you refuse to impose reasonable restrictions on the manufacture and sale of certain weapons you are deviating from the general rule. You are also contributing to the deaths of those two girls in Englewood.
Wat makes a good point. why can't they remain legal but restricted to a location when not in use.
So, how long are you willing to wait for this to have an effect?
10 years?
20 years?
50? 100?
Your solution will have little impact on crime as it currently exists. We turn in our guns but the criminals who already have them don't.
These guns will persist for quite some time in criminal circles. Being traded or sold to other criminals when no longer needed. Law enforcement will reduce this number over time.
However, guns will still be smuggled into the US through the Mexican border or through container vessels and distributed anyway.
Your proposal has also created a massive target for burglary: the newly created citizen's armory. Unless of course your plan requires these hunting/gun clubs to have vaults which are unbreakable/uncrackable and to ensure that no employee member etc will not divulge the method to gain access to these arms.
So there is your plan. Criminals still have guns. Law-abiding citizens store them in clubs and crime is not significantly impacted. Little girls still get shot in Englewood. Domestic Abusers still murder their wives/girlfriends/spouses.
What changed Wat? What changed?
See Britain for an example of your plan. The criminal elements still have guns and innocent people still get killed.
Skeeter-
Illinois has reasonable restrictions on guns. Gun owners have to go through a process of being approved to own guns/ammunition and get renewed every 5 years, much like having a license to drive.
Gun owners are not allowed to carry their weapons on them or in a state accessible while outside the home/ranges/clubs/hunting grounds, much like different speed limits on various roads.
Illinois maintains firearm serial numbers tagged to the FOID cards purchasing them much like the Secretary of State manages vehicle registrations.
We have accepted reasonable restrictions similar to all the things you have listed.
Illinois does not limit consumer vehicles which can attain speeds in excess of the speed limit such as sports cars/motorcycles. Why should they limit firearms based on their qualities? Isn't that the double standard?
Formula 1 cars aren't street legal just as automatic firearms (machineguns)aren't legal in Illinois.
Blame all you want. It is meaningless. You have yet to provide any meaningful reason firearms should be more restricted than vehicles/dogs/knives/pools.
Gish,
People will also probably also have meth and marijuana.
Some people can use those safely.
Should we just legalize them?
Heck, women will find ways to perform late third term abortions on themselves. Why not just give in and make them all legal?
Is that really the argument that you want to make? The criminals have won already, so let's get rid of the law? You sound like a coward and a loser to me, if that is your best argument.
I am not like you. I don't think we should give up.
Skeeter -
The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly.
"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."
Gun control is an emotional issue. And it is the very nature of emotional arguments, such as those passionately put forth by well-meaning gun control advocates, that they bypass reason. Strangely, this same emotionalism somehow blocks the believers in such arguments from seeing their own contradictions and lack of logic.
Americans are in grave danger of losing their rights to keep and bear arms. If it comes to pass that law-abiding, armed citizens are considered criminals, while real crime continues to grow uncontrollably guess which "criminal" will be pursued by law enforcement. Police will go after citizens in violation of the law, because they are easier to catch than real criminals.
We are told that rights have to be balanced with responsibilities. An armed citizen is the very symbol of the acceptance of individual responsibility--a responsibility which many people today do not accept, and who feel very threatened when you do accept it. To see just how much attitudes have changed, consider the words of President George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Truly, the issue is not guns. It is your freedom. Remove the linchpin from the bill of rights--the Second Amendment--and the next rights to fall will be those guaranteed by the first amendment.
Like it or not Skeeter - Your right to harangue and accuse owners of LEGAL firearm owners of complicity in the deaths of the two girls in Englewood, is kept in check by those very people.
Please pay your speeding fines with a smile. And, when you decide to kill yourself by your reckless driving, don't take anybody else with you.
With regard to the First Amendment:
Do I have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government? How about slander? The First Amendment acknowledges reasonable restraints.
With regard to Jefferson: Do you really think that Jefferson would advocate each person getting their own nuke? If not, then certainly you must acknowledge that there should be some reasonable restraints on weapons.
With regard to your "slippery slope" argument. We have managed to outlaw crack but not beer. America has done pretty well with reasonable restrictions. In any case, nobody really cares if you want to wander in the woods and shoot animals. We don't care. n Wander and blast away.
Moreover, your comments are not about "freedom." If it was about freedom, then you would be writing angry comments about our drug laws and our restraints on free speech. You are not. You are simply incapable of acknowledging reasonable restraints should apply to you also. You argument boils down to nothing more than the whine of a spoiled child, who wants the bigger toy.
Your big toy put 27 bullets rapidly through a row of houses in Englewood, killing an innocent girl inside a house. You don't need a toy that can do that.
He who trades safety for freedom, deserves neither.
Give up a nuke for the safety of everyone? Give up the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded builing?
I think I can give up the personal right to nuclear arms but still claim to be free. I can give up the right to cause a dangerous stampede and still consider myself to be free.
Or do you acknowledge, my nameless friend, that SOME restrictions on the right to arms can be reasonable?
I have to ask you, Skeeter, do you live in Englewood? Is that why you keep bring these children back into the discussion?
What is your vested interest in the deaths of these children?
Are you doing anything to help reduce the crime rate in Englewood?
Early in the 20th century, the Federal Government banned the manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of alcohol.
It was given an immortal place in history as an amendment to the US Constitution banning booze.
A few years later the Constitution was amended again to repealing prohibition.
Was a Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol an effective way to control the manufacture, sale, possession and use of alcohol?
No what happened was the previously legal substance went underground. People still wanted their nightly drink. They found ways around the federal ban by making it in their basements or buying it from a boot legger.
Making firearms illegal - banning firearms - will not effectively stop people from owning them.
I am all for reasonable legislation for firearm use. What you can reasonable is completely different from what I call reasonable. And there we will differ.
Enacting meaningless laws are ways for politicians to "look good" during re-election campaigns. "See what I did - You are safe to walk the streets at night - I made "assault weapons" illegal."
Before enacting more laws, why not enact the ones that are already on the books?
There is no discussion without setting aside emotion. Name-calling and making accusations hinder an argument and do not encourage people to rethink their position.
Skeeter should read the WSJ & watch all those paid legal announcements of Federal gun forfeitures issued by the different Federal Districts.
1. A convicted felon who has served 1 year or more as a result of a conviction cannot possess a firearm and/or ammunition (Federal)
2. If said firearm is not manufactured in IL and is used in any criminal act by said felon, it's Federal - "Do not pass GO, instead appear before the Federal Grand Jury".
3. If you have possession of a weapon with an obscured/otherwise removed serial number and you are a felon, you are going to be in serious trouble.
Also, what 1:15 PM said in their post is completely valid - from experience.
You want to deal with the gun issue - well, if you REALLY want to make a difference, first deal with the hard drug dealers at all the different drug spots.
Reason: It's real simple. "When they say it's not about the money, it's always about the money". In this case, the "drugs" = "money". That's why all the artillery is out there on the streets. You really attack the "money" source and make an actual reduction, you automatically cut back on the number of guns out there. Which cuts back in gun violence. Just passing more laws does NOTHING - enforcement is what counts.
Also, 1 little point that people like Blago don't really want to hear, which is that the great bulk of all gun seizures are not assault rifles. Most of the time, it's pistols and semi-auto pistols. Last thing most drug spots want are for their "security" to be lugging around 12+ Lb. AR-15's or import versions of AK-47's, because they're kind of hard for the bangers to conceal.
If you don't understand the problem, you can't possibly develop valid solutions. Course, that's never stopped Gov. Blagojevich so far.
My anon 12:55 friend:
First, you make the classic mistatement of all right wing extremists. Nobody wants to ban all guns. They want to ban certain guns. Why isn't that clear? Do you not understand that, or is it a deliberate mistatement on your part?
Second, thanks for bringing up Prohibition. I assume from your statement that you believe that all attempts to get people to give up what they want will end in failure. I assume further that you are going to join the fight to legalize crack and meth? Right? Under your logic, we may just as well give up. We couldn't ban alcohol. Why bother.
Finally, let's just sell all our nuclear weapons. People have the right to defend themselves against the government. Do you think that the government is going to attack me if I bear REAL arms?
Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons will take some off the streets. That is a partial step, even if it will not solve all problems. If it means that some right wing extremist will not have a long hard thing to fondle, this O.K. by me.
Anonymous said...
"I have to ask you, Skeeter, do you live in Englewood? Is that why you keep bring these children back into the discussion?
What is your vested interest in the deaths of these children?
Are you doing anything to help reduce the crime rate in Englewood?
12:53 PM "
1. I live in Illinois.
2. Unlike you, I care about the deaths of innocent children. Right wing extremists are great at talking about "pro-life" positions, but when it comes down to it, they could not possibly care les.
3. I spend a bit of time each day working against right wing extremists. My efforts were pretty successful last Tuesday, when Illinois rejected the far right in nearly every race. The far right was disgraced on Tuesday, as it should be.
What is your deefination of reasonable?
What constitutes an assault weabon?
I too voted for blogo but for different reason.
From the Center for Disease Control:
Heart disease: 696,947
Cancer: 557,271
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,672
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742
Diabetes: 73,249
Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681
Alzheimer's disease: 58,866
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974
Septicemia: 33,865
Firearm homicides: 11,829
Deaths involving cars: 41,000
We get excited about children getting killed in drive by shootings because of the sensationalism.
We don't care about children getting killed in car crashes.
Actually there is not as much excitement because cars are pretty heavily regulated already.
What do you think the NRA would do if we had similar laws for guns? Do you want to go through a written test and a proficiency test before you operate one? Do you think the NRA would support or oppose laws requiring mandatory insurance for gun owners?
Skeeter --
"First, you make the classic mistatement of all right wing extremists. Nobody wants to ban all guns. They want to ban certain guns. Why isn't that clear? Do you not understand that, or is it a deliberate mistatement on your part?"
"If it were up to me, no one would own a gun" Mayor Daley, house Judicary Committee hearing.
"I want you to think twice about owning a gun" Blago, Judicary committee
They will ban anything they think they can get away with and people will let them. anything they can hang a buzzword on and demogaue.
The federal ban went away because it was a failure. The illinois ban will not pass becuase it is much more radical. look at the fact that it would have outlawed deer hunting.
I will surrender to testing for my rights, when the Tibune and bloggers are required to have a BA in journilism before they can publish.
The fact is it bugs you to trust people. That is the basic tenant. I trust my neighboors. them having guns doesn't bother me. I don't worry that a rampage will break out. And i don't blame Jack Daniles for drunk drivers. Nor do I blame bars. And if you had been paying attention to the news this past week, you would have seen black columnists and anchors saying banning guns will not solve the problem. The problems run deeper than that.
BTW it must really riun your day to kow that another state passed right to carry this week. Indiana changed their self defense laws to say you need not retreat when confronted by a threat (Illinois already has such a law) and Indiana just passed life time carry permits.
on the whole, the country is moving right on guns. And when the hunters, sportsmen and gun owners that bought the blago lie last time trow him under the bus, it will be a wonderfull day.
Dozer,
So now you are admitting that the car analogy doesn't make sense?
At least I will not have to listen to that idiotic "argument" from right wing extremists.
Actually, Dozer, seeing you right wing nut cases go down in flames last week was more than enough good news for me. We had a huge party as we mocked every one of you folks, from Obie to Brady to Salvi. Right wing nut cases all. All rejected by the voters.
It was a fine week for me.
Incidentally, it is spelled Jack DANIELS. You may want to hit the blogs before you hit the bottle.
Skeeter --
I don't make the arguement about cars. some others mighttry, but I believe I have better ones.
Second I don't drink very often, so you can lay a personal attack on my spelling all you want, I will be the first to say my typing is not perfect, but hey, this ain't MS Word. so flail away.
But you still haven't addressed the other issues in my post. The country is moving right on guns across the country. National dems are trying to get elected by running away from gun control or hiding their veiws on it.
remeber that the 1994 gun ban was atributed by Clinton as causing the loss of 30 seats inthe House including the Chairman of the Judiciary committee.
there are now only 3 states with out any carry law, Illinois, Wisconsin and Nebraska. WI was two votes shy of an override. nebraska is on the verge and has the votes, but must overcome a parlimentary moves.
only six states have semi-auto bans. and only one of those is close to the one being proposed here.
You can mock Salvi, Obie and others all you like. It was a primary. I'll watch what happens in the fall.
I'll watch as the house and senate stay the same, and with a little luck we retire blago.
you can't even deal witht he daley and balgo quotes. Becuase they under cut every arguement anti0gun dems try to sell to gun owners.
By the way, I think that sine it gets your BVDs in such a knot about guns, I will call up and order another one of those evil black so called assault weapons you despise so much. It'll help the economy and those gun makers in Illinois.
Good plan. Buy another gun.
Like most gun owners, you will use it to shoot a family member or yourself.
It is clear that where there are guns in the house, domestic violence (even non-gun related) goes up. I bet your wife is very proud of your decision.
Stock up on those assault weapons. Thin the herd.
"I want you to think twice about owning a gun" Blago, Judicary committee."
Dozer considers that a questionable statement.
Personally, I think twice about buying a cup of coffee, and I think about 20 times before purchasing a car.
It is clear from Dozer's comments that he is offended that people should think at all.
Skeeter --
Taken incontext, Blago wants to stop anyone from buying a gun. The quote was from his $500 FOID card bill.
I think about buy a gun more than twice, heavy barrel, or light weight? Wood, or composite stocks? Flashlight or no flashlight?
223, 308, 338 45, 9mm, 40 cal ....decisions decisons.
oh hell just give me one of each
I like people thinking about the issue. cause then they see how off your rocker you really are.
Dozer,
The "off the rocker" comment really did some damage, coming from a person who thinks it is reasonable to have people tested to drive a car, but not to operate a device that will put lead through the side of a house.
Just remember: Your wife is NOT a burglar. Do NOT shoot her when she comes into the house at night. Too many of you right wing extremists have problems with that simple concept.
Skeeter --
I know my my wife, and my kids. When the little one comes boucing into bed, I don't reach for a gun. When the wife wakes me up on the couch, I don't reach for a gun.
You must be way more skitish and jumpy.
If you want restrictions, I would suggest impose those same restrictions on the Trib editorial board and those seeking abortions and see how they like it. Then come talk to me about my rights.
now should that new rifle be a 20 inch or 24 inch barrel? what's your opinion?
And should I build the other one in .223 or 9mm? Any thoughts?
D
Doesn't anyone here have any idea how to debate civilly?
With regard to firearms, they are already reasonably restricted in Illinois and the US.
You can't drive a race car on the streets of Illinois. You own a machine gun.
You have to have a license to drive a car in Illinois. You have to have a license to own a gun in Illinois.
On your own property or at a licensed facility, you have the right to drive at excessive speeds which are not allowed on government roads. On your own property or at a licensed facility, you are allowed to fire your gun/s which is not allowed in the general public.
Your vehicles VIN is registered with the State of Illinois and tracked throughout its life. Your firearms serial number is registered with the State of Illinois and tracked when sold.
All of these reasonable restrctions placed on cars (bigger killer in the US) are also placed on firearms. Gunowners accept them. Gun owners accept reasonable restrctions.
Oh a Reddbyrd. You're pathetic. I don't even find any of my first cousins purty enough to marry.
Gish --
firearms are not registered in Illinois by make model and serial number. The NRA has fought that all along.
When you buy a gun, the dealer keeps all the info. When you sell a gun, you must keep a record of it. It will never come into play unless the gun is used in a crime.
otherwise the state has little to do with it.
The state has tried keeping a list of purchases via the FTIp/background check. As a gun owner, it is funny that Lisa Madigan wants to keep all your phone records private, but let the government snoop around your purchses of guns all they want.
Dozer:
Have a lot of people gone on phone sprees, sending waves of calls all over the place and killing innocent people in their own homes?
Dozer-
I stand corrected. I knew that the information was retained but I see it is at the dealer level and not centralized.
I still stand by my statement that firearms are as reasonably regulated as motor vehicles.
I find it odd that there is no push to ban cars that are often implicated in drag racing, etc. Honda Civics specifically come to mind let alone the vast array of others. I mean they should be banned since the laws regulating drivers, imposed training of drivers and laws regulating usage and speeds on the road aren't doing enough to prevent deaths.
There are so many factors that contributed to the needless death of these girls. To blame the type of weapon is merely a political stunt to put heat on an opponent and deflect criticism from far more obvious factors.
Failure to control gangs.
Failure to control drugs.
Failure to enforce existing gun laws.
Failure to control poverty in this community.
Failure of this community to report criminals and gang bangers in these areas.
Glorification of thug life role models.
Unhealthy family values.
Promulgation of gang life and indoctrination of youth by close kin.
Fear of gang reprisal.
Lack of enforcement of housing laws.
Failure to provide rehabilitation of released criminals.
Reliance on government aid programs.
Unstable educational environment causing an inability to learn.
To blame the type of weapon is analogous to blaming the shark’s teeth for attacking the diver. Although the teeth do the damage, there are many more important factors which caused the attack
Post a Comment