Will Gun Rights side speak as a group?

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

I look forward with great expectations to John Erickson's formal proposal in next week's Wednesday Journal as to how we are going to keep guns out of the hands of "criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, children and the suicidal." It would be of enormous help if he could get the other members of his group to sign off on his position prior to publication. The Gun Responsibilities side presented our position as that of our group [Viewpoints, Dec. 4]. The Gun Rights side should do the same.

John Barrett

Oak Park

Reader Comments

19 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Pete from Downers Grove  

Posted: January 3rd, 2014 8:16 AM

My gun safety proposals: 1) Keep criminals in jail until they get with the program. 2) Keep "dangerously mentally ill" persons institutionalized and abandon this failed social experiment of forcing the rest of us to learn to live with the mentally ill on their terms. 3) Very few kids are killed or injured by accidental discharge because they are taught to stay away from firearms. Schools should offer training to the hard cases. 4) Suicide is a matter of choice -not gun control.

Bill Doogan  

Posted: January 1st, 2014 2:23 AM

Define "we all?" Is that you, Brandon Phelps, Todd Vandermyde & all the NRA crypto Klansmen who don't care if Otis McDonald gets blown away by police criminals like Jon Burge? Because you're white, you think Duty to Inform will never affect you? Since you're a cop supporter, do you approve of the torture & suffocation of suspects? "You have a deep-seated hatred.." Are you a mind reader & an amateur shrink also? Where did you go to Jr. college, the Academy for Self Righteous Baby Boomers?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 30th, 2013 7:14 AM

@ Doogan - we all get it - you have a deep-seated hatred for 1- the NRA 2- all NRA representatives 3- Duty to inform regulations 4- the police. OK give us a solution or two to these overwhelming problems. Or are you just one of those folks who complain about everything and resolve nothing.

Bill Doogan  

Posted: December 30th, 2013 3:23 AM

IL was the backwater of gun rights for 40 yrs. when the McDonald decision came down from the Supreme Court. NRA did not initially want to get involved in that case. With a Federal Court order, Todd Vandermyde betrayed Otis McDonald by giving the Chicago machine Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in the CC bill. DTI encourages police to profile & arrest blacks. NRA members don't care because most live in small towns. Then NRA makes money on lawsuits. NRA can't be trusted by either side.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 29th, 2013 2:41 PM

@ Jim - You jump all over me for using FOX news and then have the balls to use Mother Jones and Salon as fair and unbiased sources. Sorry no cigar!

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 29th, 2013 2:06 PM

Ray, I just finished reading articles that directly contradict your claims regarding NRA opposing the reporting of lost and stolen guns. If you have any interest check the online reports offered by Mother Jones and Salon.com.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 29th, 2013 9:14 AM

@ Jim - per your request I searched the NRA-ILA web site and found only one reference to a position on "lost or Stolen Reporting" Sunnyvale CA citizens , assisted by the NRA, are challenging a "Trainer et al" type of ordinance that includes Lost or stolen reporting as one small part of the ordinance. Also of interest is that AG Holder has issued an opinion that federal laws of this nature would be probably unconstitutional. The problem seems to be one of states protecting their rights and denying 'preemption' Illinois and Hawaii are the only two states that do not forbid preemption of local ordinances over state legal authority and I think that will end here with enactment of concealed carry. Please clarify your claim that gun manufacturers benefit from illegal sales to criminals, mentally deficient people and felons? I just see that as a PR problem for them that they wished would go away. They make great profits from legal sales and when their product is involved in weapons violence they are forced to spend millions in legal costs. When you hear legal positions about complex laws - look beyond the headline or sound bite - there is always more there.

Bian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: December 29th, 2013 9:07 AM

it is illegal to posses a firearm in Ill. w/defaced serial number. If the serial # is defaced how or to who does the weapon get traced back to.I owned a gunw/o a serial #. I stand w/u on the reporting of a lost or stolen firearm.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 29th, 2013 12:01 AM

Brian, are you saying that police should not be notified when a gun is lost or stolen? It seems likely that law enforcement needs that information for purposes of criminal investigations and tracking illegal sales. I'm not sure how many guns are lost or stolen annually but suspect the number is significant and those weapons often wind in the hands of persons with bad intentions. Would you be reluctant to purchase a gun that had the serial numbers obliterated?

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: December 28th, 2013 10:29 PM

Cant speak for Ray. I sat through a year of meetings and came away w/ the under standing that the GResp side has little knowledge of basic mechanics or computer operations. My handgun has two sets of numbers stamped into the frame of the weapon. If I report the weapon stolen, thief takes a drill to the numbers and obliterates the number so the weapon cant be traced, how does reporting the weapon stolen benefit anyone? If reporting is all you want so be it. what do u do w/ a gun w/o a serial #

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 28th, 2013 2:53 PM

Fair enough, Ray. I have previously detailed positions supported by people who identify themselves as NRA members. Let's take a look at one example where LaPierre and the manufacturers and wholesalers strongly disagree with the rank and file membership. A requirement to report a lost or stolen gun to police is supported by a majority of the American people and gun owners but opposed by NRA leadership. Where do you stand?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 28th, 2013 11:48 AM

@ Jim - I am not sure where you find me blindly defending the NRA. You have provided a laundry list of generalities that you find repugnant - without the specifics like you demand of me at every turn in the road! The NRA is a lobbying group - like all other lobbying groups they go to great lengths to defend and support their members. They do not have a vote in congress and only support the candidacy of friendly politicians - quite successfully. That is their job. I have been trying to address the problem of bad people doing bad things - you haul out this NRA hate screed to muddy the waters. Children settling disputes by killing each other is the problem. Thugs taking your stuff at gunpoint is the problem. Mentally deranged people shooting up schools is the problem. All of these acts are against the law now, yet we blame guns for the illegal activity. The problem is much more complex than that and your solutions have not and will not work no matter how many times you try or how much money you throw at the problem.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 28th, 2013 10:39 AM

Ray, you continue to disregard the powerful influence of the NRA . Gun manufacturers/wholesalers are adamant in their opposition to any measure that restrict sales or reduce profits. Surveys of NRA members show solid support for a number of sensible approaches that would help reduce the numbers of address the ways that guns wind up in the hands of criminals and disturbed individuals. There are also proposals designed to address safety issues. The NRA will not even allow debate. Until you come to grips with the fact that NRA is not focused on protecting the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens but rather the bottom line of the multi-national corporations who funnel millions into the lobbying group's coffers; there's little chance that any progress is possible. Your staunch defense of the NRA aka gun makers is exactly what Wayne LaPierre wants you to say and it is what Gabrielle Giffords is talking about.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 28th, 2013 7:40 AM

@ Jim My point, with the Selleck quote was, and is that we all want the same end result. Our problem is a total disagreement with what and who is the problem and how to solve it. The second amendment advocates believe that if you want to reduce violent crime and activities, go after the violent people and prevent them from doing violent acts. The "responsibilities" side believe that if we "Rights" gun nuts were restrained more the problem would go away. They believe, in their hearts, that buzz words like "universal background checks" are the answer we are too dense to see. When pressed they cannot define the term nor can they explain how it will work or who is going to pay for the program. Over the years, we have seen all of their "solutions" in one form or another and all have either failed or been altered to a more effective regulation. As presented here, you would believe that the legal gun owner is a completely unregulated gang of self serving crazies. In fact, we jump through more hoops than any activity I can think of. The shooting sports demand a high degree of physical and mental training and those who participate are good citizens who fear bad people just as much as everyone else. We just see them from a closer viewport.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 27th, 2013 11:41 PM

Ray, please direct your comments and/or complaints to Gabrielle Giffords. I posted in response to you offering that "Tom Selleck said it best...". Regarding OP Resident #545 strange claim, this was not an attempt to "play the sympathy card". That simply is not true and really unfair. Congresswoman Giffords' view needs to be heard.

OP Resident # 545 from Oak Park  

Posted: December 27th, 2013 9:27 AM

Ray is correct, as usual when it comes to this issue. It's very disingenuous to play the "sympathy" card by using Cong Giffords, while ignoring completely the "status quo" around mental health in this country (especially in the case of her perpetrator). The fact is that our society, with govt in the lead followed closely by the healthcare system continues to sweep the mentally ill under the rug. Fight the real problem, instead of taking the easy road by screaming louder about nonsense.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 27th, 2013 9:07 AM

@Jim Coughlin - There is no gun lobby that protects felons who use firearms or anyone who uses guns for illegal or violent purposes. If you are going to make a claim like that you should provide some real proof - not hand wringing suppositions. If you feel that the NRA is the boogie man here - state your case and let the law makers decide. The problem is gun violence NOT gun ownership.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 26th, 2013 10:32 PM

"We cannot allow the status quo - desperately protected by the gun lobby so they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation - to go on" -Gabrielle Giffords

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 18th, 2013 9:37 AM

Tom Selleck said it best " It's not that conservatives don't care. We do. We just have different answers than liberals do. It's a difference of the mind, not the heart."

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2017 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.

MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad