Standing up to the NRA bullies

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

Bob Haisman

I learned the essence of Christianity from my mother. Till I was a teenager, at bedtime she read the Sermon on the Mount out loud before we said the Lord's Prayer. A simple, unschooled woman, my mother always highlighted Jesus as a force for peace. She was the first person to point out to me Martin Luther King's dramatic embracing of non-violence as proof he was a man we should listen to — a follower of Jesus.

My father also taught me lessons in life. When I came home from the athletic field one day, crying, with a bloody nose and black eye, my father remained cool. He asked me two questions: "Who did this to you?" and "Did you hit him back?" I started to cry even louder (causing my mother major distress). I ratted out the neighborhood bully. I confessed to my father that Jimmy R. said I could never set foot on that ballfield again or I'd get another bloody nose.

Much to my mother's further distress, my father turned me around and, not raising his voice, said to me, as he pushed me out the door, "Stop crying and go find Jimmy R. and [in essence] stand your ground!" I did what my Father told me. I stood my ground in front of Jimmy R. I'm not proud of it, but I might have also given Jimmy R. a bloody nose. Jimmy R. left me alone after that day. I didn't know till much later in life that my father had sent my older brother to shadow me and make sure things did not "get out of hand." I never realized my big brother was behind me.

I learned something that day about standing up to bullies — calling their bluff.

We are in a historic place in this country. Progressive Democrats abandoned the political playing field to the NRA — after they got their noses bloodied with the repeal of the Assault Rifle Ban and the gutting of the Brady Bill in the 1990s. After allowing the NRA to have its way over the next 20 years with all sorts of outlandish pro-gun measures that undercut and savaged the most basic common-sense measures to curtail gun violence, things are changing! Four gun massacres in 2012 and the Sandy Hook tragedy have changed this country's mood about guns, the acceptance of gun violence and the NRA. People and politicians and police officials are standing up the 800-pound bully — the NRA.

I'm asking citizens who want to see gun violence curtailed to stand with our president. Please contact your representative and our Illinois senators and let them know you support President Obama's common-sense measures to curtail gun violence. We must help our legislators — both state and federal — to stand up to the bullies of the NRA.

Please know, I'm not for confiscation of legal firearms or an abrogation of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm for acting to curb gun violence and the slaughter of school children like at Sandy Hook.

No matter how daunting the opposition, I believe one person can make a difference and a whole bunch of folks — united — can change the world, and even stand up to the NRA.

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Volunteer Opportunities, www.ichv.org/get-involved.

Bob Haisman is an Oak Park resident.

Reader Comments

182 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 10:29 PM

Ray, it's simply not a matter of opinion but carefully study based upon factual research. That is the defined mission and not influenced by ideology. To my knowledge, no credible evidence exists to support a claim of bias or partisanship demonstrated by FactCheck.org towards any political party or individual. To do so would defeat the purpose and violate those principles. It is really unfortunate and a disservice to the foundation to offer unsubstantiated and baseless attacks. You and I will disagree about Fox News honoring their pledge to provide Fair and Balanced reporting.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 6:34 PM

@ Jim I choose not to depend on Factcheck.org because I question annenberg and Obama being a board member who squandered tens of millions of education dollars, by their own final report - without any measurable improvement. I choose not to depend on their opinions and understand that they try to be as fair as their ideology allows. If I quote FOX you jump all over me so I try to go for less slanted opinions, yours or mine.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 4:51 PM

@ MichaelO - I am in complete agreement with you. Question is how do you write laws to affect people who have no use for the law. One answer is to get real tough and get gangsters off the street. Everyone loves to point out what it costs per year for incarceration. I contend that locking a bad person up for ten years gets them off the street for a decade. Conservative estimates are 1 crime a month for ten years means we have prevented 120 bad events. more realistic estimates talk about 1.3 crimes a week. Tough love - you bet!

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 4:49 PM

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; but not to their own facts." That is exactly what Factcheck.org provides through its' non-partisan study,reporting and verification. The non-profit is funded by the Annenberg Foundation and was created by Walter Annenberg. A life long firend of Ronald Reagan and introduced the future president to his wife, Nancy. Annenberg served as U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. during the Nixon administration and actively supported G.O.P. candidates. FactCheck.org has received numerous awards and never been proven to be providing "half truths, propaganda defending O's lies at all costs". To claim otherwise is ridiculous and should be dismissed as such. Ray, I must say I was surprised to read that you seem to be questioning the accuracy and reliability of the service. You can take it to the bank when verifying the truth via Factcheck.org.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 4:30 PM

No, Ray, I didn't miss your post, I quoted it. If the report is valid it is essentially telling us that we have a real problem with the flow of guns. That is: 80% of the guns that the convicted felons had or used was gotten from unregulated sources. That's a problem. That's what needs to be addressed. Here's a little something from one of your favorite sources, the NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 3:41 PM

MichaelO - I guess you missed the April 19 post- I quoted the same survey to prove that gun shows were not the principal source for gang bangers getting guns. The 80% you tout are not a part of any new regulations and the 40% from friends and family are against existing law if the recipient has a felony conviction and the giver has knowledge.

rj  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 12:52 PM

There's your problem - factcheck.org - half truths, propaganda defending O lies at all costs - the favored leftists' go to.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 12:29 PM

Ray, your right. I apologize. The survey was referenced by Uncommon Sense. But lets try this: "...in 1997 of 19,000 inmates convicted of weapons felonies...40% [of the guns] came from friends and family and another 40% came from illegal street purchases". That 80%, Ray, do you think they are gun manufacturers, or legitimate retailers? Where do you think they got the guns?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 12:05 PM

Police one survey? Did I make any reference to that and do we take Factcheck.org as gospel? I never mentioned the survey you have questioned. The Justice dept gun background check prosecution information came from testimony before congress.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 11:32 AM

Ok, Ray. Your police one survey nonsense: http://factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 11:17 AM

There is always hope (to paraphrase NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre) that one can stop a false opinion with a fact-based one. But despite facts, some continue to cling to the opinion that they are Constitutionally entitled to own as many weapons of all kinds as they want, no matter what the cost to the health and happiness of their fellow Americans. An opinion curiously out of step with the religion they also usually profess to cling to. Fortunately, they are a dwindling minority.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 9:40 AM

@ MichaelO - Sophistry implies that I am lying - prove your point and give us some factual information that proves me wrong. I reject your debating technique of pointing out my funny bow tie and that my socks don't match. Prove your points.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 9:27 AM

@ OP Resident - please do your side of this discussion a favor and define a "sensible gun regulation" What is not enough regulation - what is just enough regulation and what is to much regulation? I believe that you don't have a clue and are only expressing your faith in government and their ability to solve problems. Their track record isn't something to brag about and undying faith in their promises makes one wonder about your sense of reality. If our government prosecutes less than 1% of background check criminal violations what makes you believe that the NRA is in any way responsible - for anything. The NRA stands up for your right to protect your house and family - if you choose. The government seems not to hive a damn about your rights - unless it will glean a vote or two

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 9:21 AM

Gibberish, Ray. Pure gibberish. You should look up the word: sophistry. I am not sure you are a deliberate practitioner or just a poor debater but most of your so called points are nonsense: gun control is not number one in a poll? So what? Poor enforcement of existing laws, so no more laws? Huh? How about better laws? I could go on but... geez.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: April 22nd, 2013 8:53 AM

OP Resident, address Ray's facts about lax enforcement of current laws, particularly as it pertains to failing background checks. Then tell us why adding more background check laws is going to stop crime when the current ones aren't being enforced.... crickets.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 11:53 PM

The NRA and their acolytes may for now be able to foil sensible gun laws. But it's a costly victory in a war they are losing. A huge and growing percentage of Americans support and will continue to organize and press for responsible gun legislation. Eventually, as when faced with growing public support for immigration and same-sex marriage reform, our political leaders will have to bow to the wishes not of the gun industry but of the Americans they took an oath to represent.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 11:44 PM

@ OP Resident - OK who determines what a 'sensible' gun law is? Given your choice a total ban would be OK because it doesn't affect you at all. The 90% or 100% efficiency that you speak of is a pipe dream. As stated before the Holder Justice department prosecuted less than 1% (4,700 ) of serious criminal background check cases that BATF investigated and refereed to Justice for prosecution. The 50 cases they took to court only resulted in 13 convictions. What in this yet to be written law makes you believe that any one will go to jail or a single gun will not get into bad guys hands. You parrot the administrations quick fix solutions that fail to address the real problems much less craft a solution.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 11:17 PM

It is bogus to claim that any restriction on the 2nd amendment is illegal. All the Constitution's amendments have restrictions. The 1st amendment, for example, does not allow libel, slander or obscenity. And it is nonsense to block a sensible gun law because it will not prevent all gun violence. No law is 100% effective. We have laws against murder, theft, fraud and speeding. None is 100% effective at preventing murder, theft, fraud and auto deaths. But, at least, they effectively reduce them.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 5:14 PM

The founders also recognized that the "RIGHTS" were not granted by the government but rather prohibiting government from infringing upon them. A lesson Washington needs to learn.

rj  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 4:15 PM

It is exactly times like these that the Founders foresaw the need for the 2nd and the need for people to understand the importance of our rights. Sad commentary when one finds the fight for liberty tiring.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 3:18 PM

@ Candida - EXCUSE ME! Lied?? look for your self - - - - http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx......... I just re read the piece and I don't amend anything I said!

Candida  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 2:24 PM

Mr. Simpson-you are lying. The poll question was quoted word for word from the Gallup site.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 2:05 PM

@ OP Resident - Please explain to me how a new law that is ignored by the criminals and is not prosecuted by the government accomplishes anything. No felon will ever go through a background check and they will load up with as many rounds as they please. In 2011 76,000 purchases were refused because of background checks. BATF turned 4700 of these over to Holder Justice Dept because they were serious criminal attempted purchases. Justice took less than .1% to trial and convicted about a dozen. That level of incompetence has nothing to do with the NRA or honest citizens who don't want their freedoms removed, but rather a bunch of legal decisions tempered by political ideology.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 12:38 PM

It's tiring listening to the NRA and their disciples push for unrestricted gun rights by using the 2nd amendment as cover. Or claiming sensible gun laws are an attempt to confiscate all their guns. Or attacking every reasonable gun law as not able to prevent all gun killings. Clearly sensible gun laws do not violate the 2nd amendment and requiring a law to be 100% effective is nonsense. Fortunately, 90% of Americans know better and will continue to press for responsible gun legislation.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 12:24 PM

@ Candida you are mis-quoting the background check survey. What Gallup asked was " Do you favor criminal background checks for all gun sales?" That is specific to 'criminal' and sales. Transfers were not included and adding criminal put the question in the "Who can object to that" category. Gallup stated that they worded the questions directly from the White House multi part plan. They would have preferred a more pointed question and would have rephrased it given a choice. Bottom line only 4% of Americans believe gun control is a pressing issue and jobs and the economy enjoy 10 times the support.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 12:09 PM

15,000 front line police officers were surveyed in the probably the most comprehensive gun control survey conducted. Survey Summary: "Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime: http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

Candida  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 9:49 AM

@OPRF--Gallop ran another telephone poll and 92% of respondents were in favor of "a law which would require background before people--including gun dealers--could buy guns at gun shows".

rj  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 9:45 AM

Let's demonize innocent gun owners so we don't have to deal with the radical elements that have been allowed to infiltrate this country as we've seen this week. This radicalization is happening in mosques & prisons throughout the US while lefties quake if political correctness isn't applied even under unthinkable, unacceptable circumstances. They're incapable of facing the reality that their beliefs & policies have created more problems than solutions.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 7:54 AM

Here is the entire survey - http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx Economy and jobs top the list yet guns get the attention.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 7:49 AM

@ OPRF Gallop ran a phone poll last week with 1,000 interviews. Gun control was in 9th place with only 4% listing it as "important"

OPRFDad  

Posted: April 21st, 2013 7:22 AM

Is this even a top 20 issue in terms of the country's well being? Seems that this is a convenient distractor.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 3:51 PM

@ Michael O You claim that my sources are skewed and yet you offer none of your own. You claim that the NRA is a malignant organization yet you cannot explain exactly what they have done to you or your security that is illegal. The question about how exactly registry and background checks will reduce illegal gun violence goes unanswered by you, because you cannot answer the question. The problem is not those who honor the law but those who break the law. That group don't give a tinkers damn about your beloved registry and have no intention of allowing any background check. If creating a national gun registry and a universal background check was as easy as you think Obama would have done it by executive order. He knows better because he knows that you are just flat out wrong. It is easy to fault others when you never have to contribute to the dialog and hide behind a screen name.

MichaelO from Oak Park  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 1:39 PM

Ray, there is nothing in the constitution that restricts the government from creating a national registry or mandatory background checks. Both of those programs would dramatically reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands. The only things preventing us from doing the right thing are cruddy politics, a malignant lobby (the NRA) and nutcakes who believe they are preserving our liberties. PS.Your studies and assumptions are skewed and disingenuous.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 10:34 AM

@Candida- In direct response to your screed - The primary problems we have with guns are bad people who have guns illegally, guns that are brought into this country illegally young adults who settle disputes by killing one another. None of these problems will be solved or even improved by expanded background checks or gun registration, since in every example someone is committing a crime that should send them to jail. Our justice department has failed in its prosecution of gun registration violations and show no interest in doing a better job in the future. We fear that registration will result in a situation like New York where names and addresses will wind up published in the paper. It has happened and will happen again.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 10:20 AM

@Candida - I have tried to present our side of the argument in a courteous direct way without questioning your intelligence or your heartfelt convictions. Please afford me the same consideration. The facts, supported by reams of data are not in support of your premise. I have referenced several of these studies that prove you are wrong! In response you call names and question anyones intelligence if they disagree with you. Try that in a formal debate.

Candida  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 9:49 AM

@Ray--as it turns out, no neighbors or relatives are insulted. So that really only leaves you apparently. The NRA, and the nuts that support it, like you, have no intelligent response to expanded background checks and registration.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 20th, 2013 8:18 AM

@ Murial - interesting that you apply due process to yourself while denying the same protection to me. The hypocrisy of the left I assume.

rj  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 11:32 PM

Muriel - You should move - Europe awaits you. Sounds like Cyprus could be the place for you. On the positive side not only do they confiscate all firearms, except shot guns, but when necessary for the common good they'll confiscate your fair share of savings. On the negative side, a select few may occasionally qualify for a license, if properly trained of course, for a government approved, registered slingshot and stone. With time I think you could learn to live with this.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 7:54 PM

@ Muriel there has not been any demand that you do anything! If you see no truth in the pro second amendment supporters argument, you obviously don't or won't see any other point of view. That is narrow minded and oblivious to the world as it is. None of us who support gun ownership want the carnage of the south side or the violence of the sort created by the mentally deranged. The problem you have is that you want someone else to look after your safety and well being. That might require someone to put their life on the line. Your european model has started to unravel and we are learning that they are rewriting the rules to make the numbers match the predicted outcome. Example - they now count multiple crimes by one person as a single event. Makes the numbers prove their point.

muriel schnierow from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 7:23 PM

to Dylan and Bob:thank you .142 comments on an issue that Europe solved.. There is not a word of common sense coming from the gun lovers. i will not carry a gun. i want the protection guaranteed me under the 14th amendment. this obsession with owning guns is a violation of my right NOT to own one or need to..

OP Resident  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 6:07 PM

rj, No need to get so upset. You can always buy more guns to protect you and the 2nd amemendment from those Constitution trashing "lefties" who want to (What was the phrase again? Oh, yes, now I remember.) pry them from your cold, dead hands. I can send you the links to some web sites where you can buy all the guns you want with no restrictions of any kind. Got to go. You remind me that I need to make another donation to Gabby Giffords' Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 2:59 PM

@ Jim - OK Jim we both scored a couple points 10-4

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 2:31 PM

I get it, Ray. There is an issue that guns are winding up in the hands of the wrong people. But if you are personally agreeable to undergoing a background check when you make a purchase at a licensed retailer; why so strident about requiring the same of every sale at a gun show or via the internet. It seems that would be a simple way to make sure that those individuals who have no business obtaining a gun would be stymied. Even if those type of sales only represent a small percentage of the total; it seems like a worthwhile effort. If it only prevents one troubled soul or person with bad intentions from being able to arm themselves; why isn't that worth it? The New York Times recently examined the issue of internet sales and the findings were quite startling. The lack of proper controls and adequate oversight are allowing some guns to get in to waht we both would agree are the wrong hands. And I think we both agree that is a problem. Strict enforcement of existing laws is a real solution but there should be no loopholes. i appreciate your input on the subject and have enjoyed our discussion. We can agree to end it here and let others have their say. Stay well.

rj  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 2:17 PM

OP Resident - Well look at you! Knock yourself out. So you turned my words upside down to fit YOUR perverse world view. Problem is my comments are factual and yours are unsubstantiated fantasy. Only proves that lefties are incapable of willing to be governed within the parameters of the Constitution.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 1:58 PM

@ Jim We seem to be beating a dead horse here. Background checks at gun shows are a tiny issue. The 40% sales by non licensed dealers is mostly un regulated product shoes, shirts back packs snow shoes etc. Only a very tiny number of firearms are sold this way. Do you suggest that I be required to run a background check on my son? My FOID card shows that I have gone through a check. I guess my problem is that the government has tossed out this red haring about gun show loopholes and you guys cannot understand that it won't make a bit of difference. Mental health, gang guns in the inner city, Drugs - all big issues - that is the forrest and we are focusing on the shrubs.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 1:06 PM

Name calling and attempts to dehumanize a person who disagrees with you does not strengthen your postion in a debate. More productive to engage in a civil discourse.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 12:53 PM

rj. Nicely put. Your post only needs 2 small corrections (one factual, one grammatical): "It's useless & a waste of time to offer facts, reality, logic, math, common sense & history to NRA sycophants. They"re so diluted (sic) in their own lies they can't see that they're the bullies & haters of anyone & anything that doesn't line up with their sick, delusional & misguided views. Clearly the result of 'garbage in, garbage out'.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 12:35 PM

I accept you have fears about a government confiscation of guns but don't understand why the rules that apply to licensed dealers should be not be required of sellers at gun shows or via the internet. Doesn't a background check take only a couple of minutes? Are there objections from law abiding citizens about having their background checked at WalMart or any of the licensed dealers who sell weapons? Is it anyone's position that there should be no restrictions on who is allowed to purchase a gun?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 12:05 PM

Jim, the issue is not really back ground checks. The issue is that the legislation gets written in a way that could conceivably lead to registration which ultimately leads to confiscation. This is the sticking point as gun rights advocates view it as a way to back door confiscation in the future. But as Ray points out, until the Govt enforces the EXISTING laws, why create others?

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 11:59 AM

My question pertains to the gun show and internet loopholes. What are the specific objections to requiring a background check, similiar to the process performed by license dealers, be applied to all purchases? Polls do indicate a significant majority do support such legislation.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 11:52 AM

@Candida - Do you have any idea what you are talking about?The NRA understands that background checks are necessary - they oppose a federal gun registry for all of the reasons stated below. They also have taken the position that there should be strict enforcement of the existing laws before we add any more. That puts the responsibility in your court since the Obama justice dept has prosecuted less than 50 serious background violations and got convictions in less than a dozen.Your contribution loses credibility when you preface it with "NRA nuts" since you are demeaning your neighbors and probably a relative or two.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 11:23 AM

Jim, plenty of prominent lefty politicians are on record advocating for confiscation or outright bans. Feinstein, Cuomo, Bloomberg, etc. Incrementalism is a real issue whether intentional or not. Today, it is assault weapons. Tomorrow it will be handguns. Then it will be shot guns. Next it will be all guns. The left is not very good at thinking about the unintended consequences of their actions. Sometimes you have to take a step back and look a the big picture.

Candida  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 8:36 AM

So the NRA nuts are against background checks? One can only imagine why that is.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 8:23 AM

@ Jim Coughlin - OK Jim, here is what I found. A survey, by Justice, in 1997 of 19,000 inmates convicted of weapons felonies found that 7/10 of 1 percent got their guns at gun shows and 1% at flea markets. 40% came from friends and family and another 40% came from illegal street purchases. If we assume a relatively small number of private, undocumented, sales at gun shows and then look at how few of those guns are used in crimes, gun shows represent a tiny percent of the weapons violence universe. The majority of street guns come into this country illegally and sold by the case to the street gangs and thugs. I understand that many guns are smuggled into this country through port cities in the south and carried north by men who make a living selling junk guns to inner city youth. If you consider that the average American made handgun sells for $500-up, the junk guns are selling on the street for under $100 they cannot be US made. Studying the guns that are used in crimes, who has them and where they come from is going to the heart of the problem and avoids all of this political hype and media fear-mongering. "Gun Show" strikes fear in the hearts of those with little knowledge and a willingness to apply their fears to every situation. I have never attended a gun show but know a couple of legitimate dealers who sell at shows. They are honest business people who are not interested in getting crosswise with the feds. Gun shows are not the problem, assault weapons are not the problem, magazine capacity is not the problem. Young men, armed to the teeth with illegal guns who settle disputes by killing one another is the problem and where we need to focus our effort.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 7:36 AM

@ rj - something about keeping friends close and enemies closer. I took the only open seat when I arrived.

rj  

Posted: April 19th, 2013 12:57 AM

Hi Ray - Thought you may have switched camps for a minute sitting way over there the other night!! Wanted to stop & say hi but needed to get back home. Later!

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:28 PM

Ray, I would prefer you focus on the gunshow and internet loopholes issues. I think the reasons for closing them are sound. There's currently no way of knowing just how many guns have been purchased via these routes by persons who would never be permitted to obtain a weapon from a licensed dealer. That's troubling and dangerous. Why allow it to continue?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:02 PM

@ rj wade in! sorry I didn't get to say hi at the last meeting.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 8:59 PM

@ Jim - Beg your pardon - SEIU represents government employees and then contributes huge sums of tax generated monies to the politicians who hire and fire and secure their jobs . The NRA's skirts are a whole lot cleaner than that gang of thugs. Selling guns to gangs and felons is illegal - enforce the laws and get them off the street. ATF sold automatic ( Machine guns in your lingo ) rifles to Mexican gang lords and hundreds of innocents have died. You guys find an easy target in blaming everything on the NRA because they are good at what we hire them to do. Now Obama has branded an organization ( NRA) and its members ( Me) liars and cheats. This from a man who can look into the camera and lie through his teeth while shipping machine guns across international borders .

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 6:15 PM

Ray,That's not how I understand the loophole issue. Purchasers are easily able to get around the laws that apply to licensed dealers. A private seller offering guns for sale from a personal collection is not required to perform any background check on someone purchasing from that inventory. Why should that practice continue to be exempt from reasonable regulations and oversight? Regarding internet sales, the anonymity of buyers and sellers does not guarantee that weapons are not winding up in the hands of people with bad intentions. The website, ArmsList offers more than 20,000 classified ads each month posted by private sellers that are not subject to any regulation. I would also disagree with your attempt to compare the lobbying activities of the NRA with SEIU and AFL-CIO. Those union organizations only represent the interests of their members and not the employers. The NRA does work on behalf of its' membership but also seeks to protect the corporate bottom lines of gun manufacturers and wholesalers. The NRA acknowledges the financial support provided by those companies by placing their names in organization's "Golden Ring of Freedom". One company even promoted a "Million Gun Challenge" which tied its' corporate donation to the NRA to a year long sales campaign.

rj  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 5:56 PM

It's useless & a waste of time to offer facts, reality, logic, math, common sense & history to liberal sycophants. They"re so diluted in their own lies they can't see that they're the bullies & haters of anyone & anything that doesn't line up with their sick, delusional & misguided views. Clearly the result of 'garbage in, garbage out'.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 5:20 PM

@ Jim Coughlin - The largest percent of gun sales at gun shows are by licensed firearms dealers and that check is done. They have to much invested to risk breaking the rules. My understanding of internet sales is that they will only ship to a FFL dealer who is obligated to obey the law. We all hear that 40% figure parroted and the actual source of that number has admitted that it is overstated and has been misstated to prove a point. I do not know what the loophole everyone talks about actually is and have not heard anyone define it.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 5:12 PM

@ OP Resident why do you believe that the NRA opposes gun safety and reasonable rules of behavior? Attend any NRA sanctioned match and you will experience gun regulation like you couldn't imagine. No one moves until they are told to and there are range officials there to enforce the rules. The gold standard for gun safety instructors is NRA certification. If you demonize the NRA because you fear their commitment to our freedom, we will never agree. The NRA is a lobbying group just like SEIU, AFL Cio and they represent the interests of their members with little regard for the "FEELINGS" of their detractors. When the NRA opposes some legislation they often see legal trickery that will be exploited later. It is not the responsibility of the NRA to forfeit freedoms to make you feel better or more secure. That is your responsibility

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 5:09 PM

Where does the notion come from that there is a secret plan involving the federal government that seeks to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens? How could something like that be accomplished? Is there any factual evidence to support that claim?

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 5:04 PM

Ray, are background checks currently being performed at gun shows or for internet purchases? How can we be sure that felons are not using the loopholes to arms themselves illegally?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 4:55 PM

OP Resident, those us against further gun control understand that the real end game of the political left is total confiscation. The left is using incrementalism to advance their agenda. Sure it is framed as reasonable background checks, but the legislation gets written in a way that eventually leads to confiscation. It is the details that matter. I think the Vietcong, Afghans, and even our own founding fathers have proven the underdog can in fact withstand superior armed govt forces.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 3:42 PM

We still have the problem of thousands of pages of gun regulations, laws and ordinances that are not being enforced. No one has yet explained to me how adding another hand full will change anything. The existing background check resulted in 74,000 refused purchases of which 4,700 were referred to justice for prosecution. 44 cases went to court and about a dozen were convicted. A new law might result in one additional conviction - don't bet on it!

OP Resident  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 3:03 PM

Ninety percent of Americans, and even a majority of NRA members, think that reasonable gun laws are good and necessary. It's time the pro-gun, NRA-funded lobby and their adherents get real and accept their responsibility to protect the lives and rights of their fellow Americans.

OP Resident  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 2:57 PM

Seat belts and air bags do not prevent all auto deaths, but they sure as heck reduced them. And, no, a universal gun registry will not result in our government entering our homes, taking away our guns and and robbing us of our freedoms. Does anyone really think that gun owners (even if possessed of the most lethal assault rifles and unlimited high capacity magazines) could withstand government forces? They got even bigger guns.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 2:53 PM

How would closing the gun show loophole and requiring a background check prior to purchase infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

OP Resident  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 2:49 PM

To quote our President, most of the arguments by the pro-gun, NRA-funded lobby and their adherants are lies. Sensible anti assault-rifle laws and universal background checks will not restrict our 2nd amendment rights, any more than anti-libel laws restrict our 1st amendment rights of free speech. True, sensible anti assault-rifle and universal background checks will not end all gun related killings. No law will. But it will sure help. Seat belts and air bags do not prevent all auto deaths,

Violet Aura  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 2:39 PM

Dude, I have a better name for you: Michael Savage's parrot. You have not shared any original thoughts--you are parroting your squawking points from the savage Weiner. LMAO

Michael Savage from Oak Park & the World  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 1:24 PM

Wrong, Mr. Abbott.2 words...Saul Alinsky. You are describing the behavior of the left, Democrats, and their abortion-loving acolytes on this issue & others. Forget the message & destroy the messenger. Did you know that Michael Bloomberg spent more $$ in 2012 lobbying for gun control than the entire NRA?? The NRA is simply a group of community activists, & your fellow citizens. This piece, while of good intentions, remains wrong.

Jackie  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 12:25 PM

Amen, brother Abbott.

John Abbott from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 11:29 AM

only just now saw this, but thanks Bob Haisman for an eloquent and persuasive piece. Seems that your diagnosis -- that the NRA and its gun-worshiping acolytes have become habituated to a politics of personal attack and bullying -- has been well substantiated by much of the juvenile commentary below.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 11:17 AM

@ Do the math - I do not know where you get your MRI facts, but if there was even the slightest truth to that BS the White House would have it plastered all over the media. I don't even think that they have found any MRI evidence in known mass murderers. We are a bit smarter than that. As for the anger issue, yes, we stand up for our rights and resist the dishonest hand wringing factoids you seem to find, we know not where. You make things up, we shoot it down as dishonest and we have the anger problem?

Brian Slowiak from oak park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 10:37 AM

Michael Savage: yes, i think we said the same thing differently

Michael Savage from Oak Park & the World  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 10:24 AM

dothemath: you're wrong. Liberalism is the mental disorder...http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437. Brian & Cynthia: Conservatives are pro-liberty, pro-individual, pro-life & pro-Constitution.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:50 AM

Cynthia Hall; Republicans are pro gun, however Ed Burke,Donnie Trotter and Dorthory Tillman all carried firearms. Obama shoots skeets level to the ground. I will teach any woman to shoot.Abortion for rape is tolerable, abortion for birth control is death of an innocent..

brush yo teeth from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:40 AM

@do the math Generalize much?

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:40 AM

do the math: Please cite your source.

do the math  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 9:14 AM

Most gun owners have serious anger issues, born out of fear and paranoia and the inability to accurately assess risk. Their brains are drastically different under fMRI scans. This is well documented. Gun addiction is really a mental disease and should be treated as such,

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 8:48 AM

Excuse me - I was only pointing out that if you make those hateful, unsubstantiated charges you better have some factual proof. The post I was referring to was stated as FACT not OPINION and I challenged her claims. There is a level of hypocrisy here I believe.

Ray needs a hug from Realityland  

Posted: April 18th, 2013 7:53 AM

Ray has some incredible anger issues, someone needs to give him a hug, all that hate and almost Freudian fixation on his "gun" can't be good for him!

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 9:15 PM

@ CH Did you get this hate filled drivel from Rhams talking points? I defy you to provide proof of any of the garbage you spew here. Do you eat with that mouth? You are condemning your neighbors and perhaps a relative or two. My challenge to you is to provide something more substantive than the mindless, ignorant charges you have leveled.

Cyngthia Hall  

Posted: April 17th, 2013 8:28 PM

OK...what we know about Republicans: 1. They are pro gun, even pro assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill masses of people in a short amount of time, 2. They LOATHE women and ANYTHING that gives women power over their own lives, including controlling when/if they will bear a child, (read advocating denying insurance covered contraception for women, and denying a rape survivor the option of terminating a resulting pregnancy), 3. They believe the only Americans who should have full rights, i

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 21st, 2013 9:52 AM

@ Mr Larkin - any gun can be lethal as can my 10" kitchen knife or my skill saw. The M2 carbine is not available without federal licensing permits and I have never seen an ad offering one for sale. If I was in the market for a classic I would choose a M1 Garand any day of the week. Heavy - awkward to load and a bunch of fun driving tacks from 200 yards.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 20th, 2013 12:29 AM

@ Jim I met Nugent in Michigan several years ago. I think hie is a bit strange but he is very strong in his convictions as are many folks on your side of the controversy. You look at the successful retailers and their sporting goods department which reflect the interests of the local customers. The WalMart in central Michigan has a sporting goods department as big as the new food market at WalMart in Forest Park. Sportsmen don't check the ads in the Sunday Tribune and most have developed a relationship with the sporting goods department staff . The cable channels carry shooting sports programming that is sponsored by gun manufacturers and ammunition suppliers. Those programs are strong on hunting and competitive shooting with no self defense issues that I can remember.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 19th, 2013 9:56 PM

Hey, Ray. I was scanning the cable networks looking for the broadcast of tonight's Kentucky basketball game and saw an ad on the Outdoor Channel for Ted Nugent ammo. It touted the kill power of the bullets but assume that was in reference to hunters' needs. So, I guess there are ads on tv for guns and ammo; you just have to be at the right place at the right time. Still wondering why Walmart doesn't feature guns for sale in any of their folksy spots or what is stopping Smth & Wesson from hawking their products during football broadcasts or cable news shows. There must be a marketing study indicating that such ads might be viewed by consumers as offensive. Who knows?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 19th, 2013 8:29 AM

@ Jim - If you look at the link I sent you will notice that "concealed Carry" is the current subject of most of the ads. Size and ease of function are shown. Firepower and blow away potential is understood by those who have gone through the CCP process and is not mentioned. Citizens who conceal carry (not me) are in defensive mode and seem careful by nature.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 19th, 2013 12:00 AM

@ Jim I would assume that manufacturers need to be careful about image and 50 sets of state laws. They cannot put an ad in Popular Mechanics ( any more) accept Pay Pal and ship you the gun. All sales must go through a FFL dealer, like the guy on Roosevelt Road. I am not sure how many consumer periodicals would accept the ads anyway. There is a whole rack of magazines at the drug store that advertise all things that go bang. Most are of the solder of fortune ilk.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 11:21 PM

Ray, I wasn't sure about ads for weapons or even how the manfacturers marketed their products. It really just struck me that I'd never seen a gun ad on tv or placed in the Trib or Wednesday Journal. Same goes for radio. You'd think they would be all over the conservative talker shows like Limbaugh and Hannity. There has to be a reason that guns are not promoted on commercial broadcasts and am not sure why that is. We get bombarded with ads for diapers,beer,fungus cream,autos,insurance, retirement plans,movies, toothpaste, yogurt and a whole lot of medicines. But guns? Never. Showing someone using the product for hunting or target practice would not be offensive or controversial. From what you say, the ads that the weapon makers place in certain publications do not focus on the potential firepower or ammo capacity and that seems strange. You'd think those would be key components of their sales strategy and attractive features to potential buyers. Even wholesalers like WalMart don't promote gun sales in media ads. Maybe handguns and rifles just sell themselves.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 7:34 PM

@ Jim Take a look fro yourself http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/d4b9bf6e#/d4b9bf6e/170 You might be surprised how well done the ads are and how unthreatening they are

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 7:17 PM

Until Howard Larkin mentioned seeing an ad for a rifle, it hadn't occured to me that gun manufacturers do not promote their products on television, radio or in print media. It appears that the only advertisements they place are found in specialty publications devoted to guns and ammo enthusiasts. Having never seen such an ad, I wonder how weapons are presented to the public. Do the ads tout ease of use, firepower and accuracy? I don't recall ever reading that there are government restrictions like those that prohibit tobacco ads on tv. Is there a reason that gun makers avoid marketing their wares on tv,radio or in newspapers? Is the term "assault weapon" ever used to describe a product?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 5:38 PM

@ Mr Larkin - the M-2 is classified as a machine gun and is sold under the full automatic (Machine Gun) rules. The M-1 is what is available to the civilian market. I always thought it was a junk gun. Rattle it around in a shelter half and it will almost field strip itself. The M-2 was issued to medics because we had another job to do rather than fields of fire and we were supposed to use it for defense of ourselves and the wounded. Tankers cut the stocks down so they could get it in and out of that tiny hatch.

wilde  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 4:36 PM

from an ex-chicagoan that lives in europe.I can't believe the correspondence over guns.It goes on and on. can't you think of anything more positive to think and write about. the world is still a beautiful place and I wake up every morning to welcome it. do the same.

Howard Larkin from Oak Park  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 3:38 PM

Funny you should mention the M2 carbine Mr Simpson. I have recently seen many times an online ad with a picture of a .30 carbine and a caption along the lines of "should this collectible military weapon be banned." Lest anyone fail to understand that this "antique' is lethal, or the devastating tactical use that can be made of high-capacity magazines, I suggest this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-ycSkoYfc Be warned, it involves the murder of a police officer and is quite disturbing.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 2:18 PM

@ Dylan - I was a medic in the army and we were issued M-2 carbines. A small lever on the side made the thing go full automatic. I qualified Expert with every shot in the black. Flip that little switch and I might get 6 out of 30 rounds near the paper. I was a far greater threat with 8 rounds semi-automatic than spraying the field in full auto.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 2:07 PM

@ Dylan - Clip size is a meaningless argument. A top competitor can drop an empty clip and reload in less than one second. A bad person with 5 rounds or 15 rounds is out to hurt people and your beloved regulations don't make a bit of difference. The objective is to exert control and the only ones that will be hurt are the people who have never been a threat to you or anyone else. There are millions of hi-capacity magazines out there and you will never get all of them. Again what is the intelligence of making another law that will never be enforced? If the existing laws were enforced to the maximum we would see a change in gun violence and a lot more illegal guns removed from circulation. You will never see that because it would remove the political, fear mongering, woe is me issue.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 1:58 PM

Dylan, I agree, I doubt there is a reason I personally would need 30 rounds or some kind of extended clip. However, who are we to say otherwise? That is the real issue. Restricting the rights of the vast majority for the crimes of a few. Just because I would never drive Porsche 200 mph, doesn't mean I think govt should ban fast cars. I rather have too many bullets than not enough...

Dylan  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 12:41 PM

Uncommon Sense, I get your analogy, but I don't think its a fair comparison. Not having a large clip is not an inconvenience like being required to drive at 30 mph. I have not heard of any real life situation in which someone needed a larger clip to protect themselves. I think a clip of 10 or 12 is sufficient. I hardly expect that a law abiding citizen would need anything larger. If you do then you probably did something wrong to be needed such a large clip to take out more than one or two

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: March 18th, 2013 12:08 PM

Jim, it is tragic. However, when you consider that there are some 4 million AR-15 style rifles owned, it just shows the hysteria. Do you believe that all cars should be limited to 30 mph? Doing so would save many thousands of lives each year. Of course, no one would agree to this as it makes no sense to inconvenience millions of people despite that thousands of people die each year in auto accidents that could have been prevented if cars didn't go faster than 30 mph.

Dylan  

Posted: March 17th, 2013 6:42 PM

Ray, Okay but you said my arguments about shootouts but I never said that. And I am talking about concealed carry because you said that it decreases violence. But there's no scientific evidence of it. I bring up at Illinois and Indiana to show you that concealed carry did not help Indiana.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 17th, 2013 12:01 AM

@ Dylan My street fight reference was to the general opinion here in Oak Park that Open/Concealed carry will result in a OK Corral atmosphere. I am not sure what Indiana vs Illinois from 30 years ago proves and my comment about the assault weapons ban was just a general reference to gun violence statistics and how they are dismissed if they fail to prove a point..

Dylan  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 10:46 PM

When did I ever say that concealed carry would cause Street gun fights? Please provide the Date an time I posted that on here

Dylan  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 10:44 PM

Ray, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Look up the stats. Indiana saw a larger percent increase in violent crimes compared to Illinois in the early ninety's. Indiana have a concealed carry since 1980. I've already told you that I do not care about assaul r weapons. Let's stay on topic

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 9:03 PM

@ Dylan - If what you say is true then your argument about concealed carry resulting in shootouts in the street is unfounded. What we want to prevent is the situation that kid reported to us last week that 70% of the kids in Maywood carry illegal handguns. We should all be worried that that situation could come to our town. The interesting graph was the violent crime rate vs last 20 years. The line was on a steady downward slope and if you check the assault weapons ban years you will see no plus or minus in that slope. When the law sunsetted there was still no change so why are we chewing this food again.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 6:34 PM

Ray, you said..... "We can study DOJ tables and see crime rates in concealed carry states before and after the permits. Those statistics are not friendly to your argument and bolster our belief." Actually thats not true. There is no scientific proof that concealed carry affects violent crime rates. Actually interestingly Indiana saw a higher increase in violent crime during the violent years of the early 90s compared to Illinois which did not have concealed carry at the time. There is no evidence that Concealed Carry drives Violent crime up or down..... yet...

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 6:27 PM

Ray, Did you read the bill? Its not on suspicion of gang membership, it is a known gang member, there would be evidence. It would strengthen the penalties for the straw purchase for a gang member. Why has the ISRA been opposed to that every year until this year, and they are currently silent? Regardless you have IL Conceal Carry that views it as a "Bad Bill" meaning they oppose it. Why would you oppose strengthening penalties to those who do straw purchases to gang members?? That is what IL Concealed Carry is doing. That is what ISRA has year before. The year is young they could still come out against.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 6:03 PM

Mr. Simpson... I don't care if I make you angry and I'm sure you don't care if You made me angry -- in fact that is what your NRA programers have probably taught you "make them angry". ( You do seem to project a lot Mr. Simpson ). I was not angry but you seemed to be, I checked my posts I did not name call but your posts dripped with invective and projection and name calling. Either it's projection or a tactic the NRA disruptors taught you -- attack the person you are in "discussion" with for the very tactics you are using. That one has been used by propagandists since Goebbels. Hear is just one thing you right wing Republicans don't seem to get .... I did not like George Bush -- I'm sure he and Karl Rove stole two elections, lied about our need to go to war with Iraq, turned America into a nation that tortured, conducted an immoral even criminal war, spent us into oblivion, put two wars on a Chinese credit card -- but (perhaps this was a terrible mistake) I always respected the office if not the man. If I or other critics of George Bush would have used half invective, demonstrated half the hate, thrown a quarter of the mud, acted to halt the government like the Republicans have (not to mention the ring wing tea baggers) -- FOX news and Mitch McConnel would have called it treason. The few short lines you have written about our President has revealed who and what you are. OHHHH and the stuff about limiting your second amendment rights -- COME ON! None of the amendments are absolute. All have had some limits and clarifications added over the last two hundred years -- just like freedom of assembly, speech, religion, states rights, etc. etc. are not unlimited -- the 2nd amendment should have limits -- even your Hero Anthony Scalia agrees with that! Weapon technology has advanced since the musket. The second amendment talks about a well REGULATED Militia. America is a much different place now than in 1789.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 5:49 PM

The post by Uncommon Sense cites 2011 FBI statistics and the fact that there were "only" 323 homicides in which a rifle, including an assualt weapon, was used. Sad to realize that the 2012 stats for homicides involving a rifle will have to include the 20 first graders and 6 adults who were massacred at Sandy Hook school. The Bushmaster assault rifle used by the killer is able to fire 45 bullets in less than minute and was reloaded several times during the attack. Obviously, the victims never had a chance. I hope that this information is not dismissed by "Uncommon Sense" as "liberal hysteria".

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 3:55 PM

@ Mr Haisman - Sorry, I guess I got under your skin. Valium works or you might try a hot bubble bath. We sure don't agree on much - I suppose that will not change. I have lived in this community for 45+ years and have not proved to be a threat to anyone. I do not intend to change that nor do I feel a need to forfeit my constitutionally guaranteed rights so you won't get angry.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 2:49 PM

Mr Simpson. Name calling...and how did you treat our President? I got it - now! You must be the communications officer for the local Tea Party Republicans! Boy I bet you were really proud of your Party -- when they all voted against national back ground checks! Great policy - any one can buy -- any weapon they want -- hide it and carry it anywhere! You want more -REALLY? MORE? I got to ask you -- what more do you want? What weapon do you need? SERIOUSLY -- what weapon can't you own?

Bo Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 2:37 PM

Mr. Simpson. Give up? What will we give up? Soon you will have your way - You will be able to carry guns EVERYWHERE! We won't know where your concealed weapon is or how big your barrel is! You can have own "cop killer" bullets. You can purchase body armor. 100 round magazines. Assault rifles.... What else do you want!?? OK...OK ....You can own a grenade launcher! Ok...OK ...you can purchase a bazooka over the internet! You can have stinger missiles to knock down those black helicopters....

bob haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 2:27 PM

Mr Simpson. Congratulations You can use the NRA template on how to write a disingenuous "lead the discussion off track" letter perfectly? Whose letter are you answering? Name calling? really you called me five names before issuing the charge I was name calling. What are we going to give up? Are you Kidding? You NRA Types have won the day ( as I sated before) -- citizens who favor gun safety have been stymied and defeated over the last 30 years! We have nothing to give up...you won it all!

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 7:25 AM

@ Mr Haisman - you argument is hollow, insulting and avoids the question I have asked. Again in a short sentence and small words " What are you willing to give up to get some agreement? If insulting - name calling is the best you can do , then, the WJ has wasted a bunch of paper and ink in reproducing your opinion almost as irrefutable fact, that you seem unable to back up with any proof. The NRA is a lobbying group that 1. represents the interests of its members and sponsors 2. understands the "Camels nose under the tent" process of chipping away at peoples freedom, to accomplish a desired goal 3. Sponsors and supports firearms safety, competitive shooting events and marksmanship skills. Finally - I do not own a Glock, have never considered conceal carry and gave up hanging around in bars 50 years ago. You speak with pompous, self declared authority about a subject of which you are blindly ignorant. You have declared your dedication to our president and defend his every act - you were lied to in 08 and again in 12 and you bought into the endless litany of self serving dishonesty. The four families of the victims of Benghazi deserve the truth and will never get it from the man who stood by and watched them succumb to murderers. Failed effort would have been understandable, failure to take any action is cowardice.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 16th, 2013 12:18 AM

Mr. Simpson ..."denied you your constitutional rights for 30 years" ...Ohhhh come on -- The NRA has run the table for the last 30 years....You got every thing you wanted (except possibly stinger missiles) ....Your organization has been very skilled at wining you the right to have Military Weapons designed to kill human beings, super sized magazines, "cop killer" bullets and soon the right to carry a gun - concealed - any where you dam well please! What are you crying about ? You have won the day......By the way --" cower behind my sofa" where do you get this stuff? I'll cower only if see you waving your Glock nine around in a bar -- I will cower than ...or should I draw and fire? Gheez you people...

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 6:17 PM

@ Mr Haisman - We have two fundamentally opposing views and neither side is willing to surrender. Your side denied me my constitutional rights for thirty years and you refuse to face the fact that you were wrong! My side denies you nothing! You are free to cower behind your sofa and blame your fellow citizens for the troubled world we have created. We have never denied you the right to believe as you do. You on the other hand, have decided that the pro second amendment advocates, who have broken no laws, MUST give in and submit to your regulation, registration and eventual confiscation. What do you bring to the table? What are you willing to forgo to solve the problems that are still undefined? We can spend hours trading opposing statistical poop sheets, all written to serve a purpose. We can study DOJ tables and see crime rates in concealed carry states before and after the permits. Those statistics are not friendly to your argument and bolster our belief. No one I know would even think of insisting that you carry a gun - open or concealed. But, you choose to mandate that I not have that right. I do read the American Rifleman every month and I do vote for our board of directors. I fail to see the propaganda that you claim in our monthly publication - you have made a serious charge! Prove your point and show us anything that will support your myopic contention.

Nelson Mundt from South OP  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 5:54 PM

To Mr. Haisman and Forest Park Dylan, I say "Scoreboard! Ha! Ha!"

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 5:46 PM

Mr Simpson.... get your nose out of the NRA magazine and get some other view points! This is no news flash! Anyone who has followed the Gun Violence debate over the last 20 years knows about the NRA's blocking of research and collecting real data.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illnois  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 5:41 PM

OPRF Dad!! Are you a Psychotherapist? I have plenty of psychological theories about men who "need" their guns but I'm not going there! You are right I think Barack Obama is a great man. I meet him when he was a freshman Illinois State Senator and he is a moral, ethical man person. A great husband, Father, friend. He has a first rate mind, he is a thinker. So if in your limited world admiring Obama is some kind of crime I'm guilty -- I respect him. Dad where did you get your Psy degree?...

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 2:32 PM

@Dylan - Remaining silent is neither supporting or denying a position. If the ISRA is silent on an issue, they have chosen to stay out of the fight. No matter what they say or what they support your side will interpret it as pro weapons violence. The scenario you have painted is two adults with no record of felony convictions exchange ownership of a gun. Sorry, no crime has been committed and the suspicion of gang membership is sort of irrelevant. You are convicting a person without evidence, isn't that a liberal No - No? I will agree that if you are describing a "Straw Purchase" that is BAD - and illegal! Lets just enforce the existing law and get that guy off the street.

Dylan  

Posted: March 15th, 2013 9:05 AM

Ray, there is a difference between being FOR the gathering of statistics, and being AGAINST research on gun violence. Which the NRA traditionally has been. Furthermore, explain the ISRA past opposition to stiffer penalties for individuals who knowingly sell to gang members, and their current silent on it? Lastly, I still challenge not having a director for ATF. Without a competent leader you will not have an effective agency. And is bad policy.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 13th, 2013 9:10 PM

ISRA = Illinois State Rifle Association.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 13th, 2013 9:08 PM

@ Dylan - I just received an e-mail from Richard Pearson at the ISRA " Gathering statistics is ok with us. They prove our position. Richard A Pearson Executive Director Illinois State Rifle Association" The problem with faulting an organization for not supporting your agenda is usually because of some onerous little gem tucked away where no one will ever notice. The IRA and the NRA have become pretty good at finding the "HOOK" that is planted to burn us later.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 12th, 2013 8:58 PM

Ray, Perhaps Bob is referring to the lobbying the NRA has done to prevent comprehensive research on gun violence. Which DOES have plenty of evidence. And as I presented to you before below the IL State Rifle Association has for some years lobbied against a bill that would strengthen penalties for those who knowingly purchase a firearm for a gang member. Currently, the ILSRA's site has them just watching the bill. If they were against gun trafficking wouldn't they be supporting such a bill?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 11th, 2013 8:26 AM

@ BH Please provide factual proof that the NRA has taken an official position on restricting collecting gun violence data and exactly which members of congress have they corrupted? You have made a sweeping generality that supports your opinion without regard to the possibility you might be wrong. Or is that not possible?

OPRFDad  

Posted: March 11th, 2013 8:14 AM

... and you spent the rest of your life looking for a way to not feel weak and small. And now you've found it: Barack Obama. Through him, you can trample on the rights of others so that you'll never be "bullied" again. The bullied has become the bully. Sir, you are exactly what is wrong with this country.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: March 10th, 2013 7:36 PM

Here is the data if you want to see it for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: March 10th, 2013 7:31 PM

Bob, facts are facts even if they don't support your liberal hysteria about guns. In 2011, there were 12,644 homicides according to FBI. 8563 were with guns. However, only 323 were with RIFLES of any kind including so called assault rifes. Vast majority commited by handguns. 1694 people were killed with KNIVES. 496 were killed with blunt objects. 728 were killed with hands and feet.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2013 3:17 PM

Mr Uncommon.... You know it is difficult to collect accurate Gun Violence statistics because the NRA had its dupes in the US Congress squash the collection gun violence numbers, prohibits the CDC from doing analysis on what numbers they can collect! What a great stance for the NRA to take -- "No No don't study gun violence statistic you may find out an automatic weapon are more dangerous than a hammer!" Wonder if the NRA would be opposed to banning of hammers from Home Depot????

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2013 3:04 PM

Mr Uncommon ....Bats and hammers and bottles more dangerous than a 9MM Glock...Really? 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and car crashes. Really? Mr. Uncommon? Bats? Bottles? Hammers? Really?

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 9th, 2013 2:59 PM

Mr. Uncommon ....You don't really want to talk Gun Death Statics do you? REALLY? Really Baseball bats are more dangerous than an assault rifle with "Cop Killer" ammo and an expanded magazine? really? A hammer is more dangerous? Really Mr Uncommon? I'm sorry I don't think so! In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 9th, 2013 1:30 PM

Lastly, The 2nd amendment was proposed and passed for many reasons. The major reason is that the States did not want the Federal government to have the power to disarm their militias. It was about state sovereignty. Furthermore, for the south militias were important to regulating slavery. The only "Natural Right" we have is the right to defend ourselves. Our right to keep and bear arms is not a Natural Right because arms are not natural in the environment. For example you have a natural right to being safe in your person. That doesn't mean you have a right to a fortress. You have a natural right to movement. That doesn't mean you have a natural right to an airplane. You have a natural right to food. That doesn't mean you have a natural right to all the food and any food you want. So yes, you have a natural right to protection, however you do not have a natural right to a gun because guns are not created by God or any other higher power. If you have a natural right to something it means that under NO circumstances can that right be taken away, if it is that is a human rights violation. Example being the government cannot bar you from purchasing any type of food. The Government cannot bar you from having a house or home. The Government CAN imprison you, but cannot indefinitely strap you to a bed. So we can see that owning a gun is NOT a natural right, because most if not all of us believe that certain people do not have that right ?" dangerous people, young children, etc. So? if you continue to use the "Natural right" argument I do not hear you because there is no basis for it. I won't listen to that argument unless you can prove to me that God or some other higher power guarenteed our right to a firearm. It would be like saying you have a natural right to a car, but you don't.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 9th, 2013 1:19 PM

rj stated... That the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a given at birth. Exactly. We have a right to life, therefore a right to not be killed by either a person with a gun or with anything else. Firstly, its absurd to claim that any form of regulation is "against the constitution" the highest court in the land has already told us certain regulations are certainly within the government and PEOPLE'S right to create safe communities. Regulation of guns (who has them, how many, where they can have them, etc) has existed since the FOUNDING of our nation. This is nothing new. Actually, I argue that many of founders were LESS respectful to the 2nd Am. In modern terms. Those who did not officially swear loyalty to the new government were barred ownership. Not simply stating that you would be peaceable, but you would swear loyalty. That would be like Pres. Obama requiring all those who want a gun to swear loyalty to his administration and government. The question is what forms of regulation are both constitutional and acceptable to legal gun owners, as well as help to curb gun violence. To Ray, so because an agency does something wrong or bad we should leave it without a director? I am sorry, but thats not logical. That's like saying that because Nixon messed up we should not fill the office of President. Could the absence of a competitent Director of the ATF lead to the failures in FF? I wouldn't doubt it, without a competitent leader you will have people doing things in ways that don't make sense or can cause harm. Furthermore, the proof that the NRA has been complacent to gun violence is evident in the IL State Rifle Association's opposition for year after year to stiffer penalties to those who knowingly sell or give a gun to a member of a gang. This year, they have yet to determine whether they are in support or opposition. If they are against gun violence, why wouldn't they be FOR this? This is but one example. http://www.isra.or

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: March 4th, 2013 1:24 PM

Bob, around 350 people are killed each year by rifles of any kind, much less so called "assault weapons" which is purely a cosmetic description, not functional description. There are several MILLION AR-15s and other assault style rifles owned by the public. Please explain why we need to ban assault rifles when according to the FBI, twice as many people were killed in fist fights/bats/bottles/hammers than by rifles of any kind, assault style or not.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 4th, 2013 8:02 AM

@ Bob - The ATF is without a leader because they have proven to be incompetent and unable to follow the rules. 20 years ago they pulled off the Branch Devidians raid in Waco. More recently they chalked up "Fast and Furious" Why do we need to trust that bunch of cowboys? More authority in the hands of groups who have proven a disregard for the rights of citizens is foolish.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 4th, 2013 7:37 AM

@ Bob - yes, the NRA supports elected officials who defend the second amendment. The Unions do the same toward their stated aims . The environmentalists do the same, often with violence and open defiance of the law. I would like to see real proof that the NRA is friendly toward weapons felony or any gun violence for that matter. I have been a member for 12 years and have yet to see them promote any of the awful things you claim, They advocate for a group of citizens who you disagree with and legitimate businesses you abhor. Sorry, thats life! Their objection to a national gun registry is their suspicion that that information in the hands of politicians will be abused. The Bill of Rights specifically prevents government from interfering with our natural rights.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 11:15 PM

Ray .....Yes what we need is enforcement of the laws we have....Check out how the NRA using it's allies in congress have undermined, de-funded, rendered ineffective law enforcement to enforce the existing laws. Defenders of 2nd amendment rights explain to me how refusing to confirm a head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives supports the 2nd amendment? Why have the NRA lobbying made it more difficult to collect data about gun violence in the US? Certainly not to obfuscate the facts....do ya' Think?

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 11:00 PM

MR RJ..... what is it you are worried about again? Obama's drones rigged with 500 pound bombs to reign down on your cell phone ping or the UN's Black helicopters filled with jackbooted Nato Thugs?? I can never get it right? Sorry I don't have your swept of "understanding"..........

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 8:35 PM

We seem to be missing one factor in this discussion. This whole gun control issue is actually just one group of well meaning citizens imposing their will on another group of law abiding citizens. Albeit well intentioned, the result is people being denied their constitutional rights. Sadly, both sides agree that the bad characters and mentally deranged should be denied weapons of any kind, but it is just easier to dump on the NRA and it's members. The tough law enforcement and legal justice system are the key to armed violence - target the problem even if it is a harder path to follow.

Mary Unbehauen Rodrigo from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 7:56 PM

@Sheepdog - I agree with your last statement. I totally disagree that the police want you to take matters in your own hands to protect your family. I have never heard a police officer say this and I know many. It is preferred that we call 911.

SHEEP DOG  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 7:02 PM

I keep a gun on me not just in case I need to defend myself or my family but also anyone else defenseless around me. Some of you talk about how we can stop violence as if you've seen us stop other things..drug addiction, child pornography, domestic abuse..I'm not saying don't try but you'll never eradicate the practices of wicked men. As long as we look at eradicating these crimes as a measure of effectiveness, these same debates will continue. As long as humans exist...crime will he here

SHEEP DOG  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 6:54 PM

You Oak Parkers.The sad part is that if you ever find yourself in a position where firearms need to be used you will have to call the cops who not only legally carry firearms OFF DUTY but really wish you'd exercise your adulthood and detemine you'll protect your own home in a time of trouble. God forbid anyone intrude into my house where my family sleeps safely at night...I assure you I won't call the police until after my barrage of gunfire. Not because I enjoy violence, I love my family.

rj  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 6:15 PM

OakParkBob - The 2nd was established by the Founders because they understood & experienced the wrath of tyrannical Britain & knew that G's throughout the world through the ages & into the future will always over reach their power if allowed, which we have big time. As in O drones that are equipped w/domestic surveillance that can track cell phones & ID armed citizens while carrying a pay load of 500 lbs. If you have a problem with AK47's where's the outrage w/drones? Crickets!!

crossover  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 4:51 PM

rj -- You are using the Declaration of Independence to argue a Constitutional point. The preamble spells out the purpose of the Constitution. To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Check it out in your copy of the Constitution or on Schoolhouse Rocks!

Oakparkbob  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 4:13 PM

The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago by people living in a rural society. The Founding Fathers were writing about people having muskets - not AK-47 assault weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. It just seems sensible to not allow any idiot to own these powerful weapons. There should be some control of them. I don't get the love of firearms but many people get off on them. Fine. I agree people have the right to have handguns for defence & rifles for hunting.

rj  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 4:07 PM

Mr H-Give up what you were forced to pay into? Really? The Bill of Rights was outlined by men to remind men, like you, that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a given at birth, despite a government that should challenge them, as they are now. It's you who's confused by the very thought that government has no right to determine how & when these rights apply. They're inalienable. If one is a godless socialist one would have no purpose to want to understand any of this.

Bullied by OP voters  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 1:12 PM

Weren't the OP voters the bullies when they denied their neighbors their Constitutional rights? Where was this guy then? Nowhere to be found. Save Jesus for someone else, dude, I'll take my gun. Given the chance you and you comrades completely ignored my rights. You know what they say about payback....

rj  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 12:08 PM

Mr. Haisman- You sure make a lot of assumptions to make your baseless points. Hate government, no, just the beast it has become because you liberals have replaced God & common sense with all things government. You libs are the ultimate bullies- character assassinate everyone & change every policy you don't agree with, whatever it takes to get your way - lies, corruption, cronyism. Fortunately you've met your match. Long live the NRA & their support of our Rights!

Bob Haisman from Oak Park  

Posted: March 3rd, 2013 9:00 AM

Mr. RJ...."Rant?" Rant...Really? Hate the government Mr RJ it is the system that the second amendment is hung on? Social Security and medicare rammed down your throat...Really?? Why don't you turn in your Medicare card? Give your social security checks back? Your rant Mr. RJ is confusing...2nd amendment is god given? It was devised by men...wasn't it? Are you saying Jesus gave us the second amendment? Jesus want you to have a AK-47? or was it Mars? Thor? Can not be infringed by mam? really?

rj  

Posted: March 2nd, 2013 8:36 PM

Mr Haisman - Oh please! The only thing progressive about liberalism is the downward destruction of our culture & economy. Social Security, Medicare & soon to be Obamascare aren't rights -they're mandatory disasters. These laws, rammed down our throats leave us no choice, which is why we use them. The 2nd Amendment is a real right & it won't be infringed by man. Rant all you want-you have no choice in this matter.

Bob Haisman from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 2nd, 2013 5:29 PM

Dear Mr. 545. No!!! NO!!! NO!!!!Mr. 545 -- the NRA uses bully tactics. I have witnessed NEA Thugs shout down the parents of a child killed by gun violence who were trying to tell their story -- not once but again and again. I have witnessed NRA intimidation -- the defenders of the 2ND amendment -- circling a meeting room and disrupting a public meeting- therefore depriving me of my First Amendment right! When I was President of my Union and wrote editorials in favor of gun control - the NRA had my own brother call me up and warn me of the retaliation he could face -- if I kept up "my crusade". And I'm sorry Mr. 545 Liberalism is progress -- progressives and liberals have brought you many of the basic rights and benefits and safety net programs -- you take for granted and use! Like -- "Government Health Care" -- Medicare!

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: March 2nd, 2013 5:16 PM

Dylan: "Not sure what you mean by elitist" Your question, i answered. If the question asked has nothing to do about gun violence, why did you ask it? The 11,000 dead might be off set by the 100,000 people who used a firearm to protect themselves and their property. presently, state gun offenses are being tried in Federal Court.Charge straw buyers w/ felony murder if their criminal acts (reselling a firearm) result in a death.Show up at Dole lLibrary, 730 pm Thur 7 Mar.

OP Resident #545 from Oak Park  

Posted: March 2nd, 2013 3:13 PM

Mr Haisman, an interesting story but completely irrelevant to the discussion of gun violence. 1st, we must address mental health in this nation. It was the root cause of Sandy Hook & other mass killings, & we get nowhere until it's addressed. The NRA isn't a bully. It's a Community Organizer, and it's comprised of millions of your neighbors. That they disagree vehemently with your position simply makes them Americans, not bullies. And stop using the term "Progressive". Liberaliam isn't progress.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: March 2nd, 2013 12:06 PM

Brian, What does that have to do with addressing the issue of gun violence? Stop focusing on the politicians, and lets start talking with each other. What we are for and against and why. I don't care what Ed Burke, Donnie Trotter, or even Pres. Obama do in their private lives. What they own or don't own, do or don't do. What I do care about is that over 500 people were killed in Chicago. Over 11,000 die each year from homicide by a gun. I want to talk and work with people that want to do something constructive about it. If you want to bash and and criticize politicians, political parties, think-tanks, advocacy groups, then go ahead and do it, but I will not be part of it because its a waste of time and energy. And in my opinion is the reason why our Governments, mostly Federal, are paralyzed to do anything about anything. If you are complacent with 11,000 being killed by others with guns, thats your prerogative. But I am not. And I am willing to talk with anyone ranging from members of the NRA to the Brady Campaign if they honestly want to do something about it, and are able to put aside talking points that are just a waste of time and get us nowhere.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: March 1st, 2013 6:40 AM

Dylan: I cant speak for Mitchell, however in my opinion elitist to me would be Ald.Ed Burke and Sen. Donnie Trotter carrying concealed hand guns posing as securiy officers.Also, the recent photo of Obama shooting ground level at skeets with a shotgun(huh?) brings me to ask where and when he was shooting and if he has the the proper certification for possessing firearms .

Dylan  

Posted: February 28th, 2013 11:29 PM

Uncommon sense, And there are some "righties" who believe only property owners should Be able to vote. Let's focus on the mainstream. If the government wanted to get your guns it would get them. Let's get past that irrational fear That has no basis fact or history of this country. But I believe calling someone a "gun grabber if they advocate for registration is juvenile. You can disagree with the policy that is okay, But we don't need to name call.

Dylan  

Posted: February 28th, 2013 11:21 PM

Mitchell. , Not sure what you mean by elitist. They are talking about Confiscation of " assault weapons". Not all firearms. Let's stop talking about Assaultweapons. I do know some of the history of gun control in the US. A great starting point to learn about this is to read the book Gunfight.

Bruce Samuels from Oak Park  

Posted: February 28th, 2013 8:32 PM

"President Obama's common-sense measures to curtail gun violence." ? I think that this president has very little moral authority when our drones kill thousands of innocent people and the guilty ones that are killed do not get a trial, including American citizens.

Oak Parker  

Posted: February 28th, 2013 12:31 PM

The NRA is no bully. It is necessarily to protect our rights granted under the 2nd amendment from those who wish to rip apart (or at least a piece from) the constitution. If you don't like having that right you do not have to exercise it.

Edwin Garcia from Oak Park  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 10:54 PM

I agree, laws like mandatory background checks are a good idea and just make sense. We have to register vehicles, why not guns? On the other hand, any bans on assault weapons will change absolutely NOTHING. The bad guys are bad because they don't follow rules, so all you do is handcuff law abiding citizens. Illinois and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and look at the murder rate. Enough said!!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 5:42 PM

Why would any gun owner need 50 rounds to protect themselves unless they are lazy to learn how to shoot and hit their intended target. Assault weapons are used for fire fights in battle. What type of common sense people think they need to get into a fire fight when one someone enters their home or tries to attack them on the street. Only a person who doesn't work on common sense would think they need an assault weapon because they are cowards to stand up and shoot straight.

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 3:22 PM

Dylan you appear to me more moderate on the issue, but as common sense has said, Cuomo and Feinstein have talked about confiscation. Dylan, I would advise that you look up the history of gun control in the US (i'm not talking about Hitler) and you might be surprised at what you find.

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 3:17 PM

Dylan, please dont be a hypocritical sanctimonious elitist. The reason why gridlock happens with gun control is because of people like Dianne feinstein back in the 90's said if she could, she would confiscate all firearms "Mr and Mrs. America, turn em' in",

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 2:47 PM

registration is just a first step in eventual confiscation. The NRA and other gun rights advocates know eventually that is what will come with registration. My issue is that none of the so called "common sense" laws that are being proposed will do anything to prevent inner city gun violence or mass shootings so it makes me wonder what the real agenda is of the left on this issue.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 2:43 PM

Dylan, there have been several prominent lefties advocating the confiscation of firearms. Several states are trying to pass bills which all but confiscate legally owned guns. Just because the One doesn't outright say lets confiscate guns, doesn't mean that isn't the intention. Sometimes you have to read in between the lines. Cuomo is on record. Feinstein is on record. Just try other sources beyond HuffPo and MSNBC. The info is out there. This is why many are against registration as it

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 1:44 PM

Mitchell, I don't see us getting anywhere, because firstly it seems you do not have an understanding of criminology and why and how laws are crafted to deter crime. And instead resort of talking points with no sort of evidence. I am not sure how you could make an argument that deterrence doesn't work with criminals, that is simply not true. Secondly, you allude background checks to "taking away guns from law abiding citizens" which is un-factual. We can debate about what an "assault-weapons ban" would do, but NO ONE in Congress nor the President is calling for an all our ban of all firearms. If you believe that then you have been sadly very misguided. And lastly, continue to use incriminating characterization like "gun grabbers" I have not characterized you, the NRA or anyone else as a gun-nut, and if you want to have an intellectual and mature conversation its advantageous to avoid terms that serve only to demonize and polarize.

Mitchell3720@gmail.com  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 1:24 PM

Dylan, I don't wanna log in and I'm getting sick of the 500 word limit. Obama, Fienstein, and all the other gun grabbers come across as inciteful and condescending. Within minutes of the tragedy, some politicians wont to capitalize on the deaths of others (in response to people saying the NRA makes money off tragedies, as if gun grabber don't). Personally, I would be pissed if someone used my child's death as political fodder.

Mitchell3720@gmail.com  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 1:17 PM

Dylan, the means of deterrence doesn't work with criminals. people have done crazier things without guns. All Obama and Biden have talked about is how they are going to take away guns from law abiding citizens, and not criminals. I mean if you really want to engage in ad absurd um, then by all means do it.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 1:09 PM

Mitchell, Again, I think thats a dead conversation. The argument that "criminals won't follow laws" would then mean that we shouldn't have any laws at all. Lets throw out the book. No traffic laws, no public health laws, no building laws, lets not license people to drive. Because in the end "bad people will just break the law." That argument doesn't hold water, because its simply not how laws and a nation of laws works. Will there be folks who find ways around laws? Of course! But it makes it harder. Background checks have already prevented hundreds of thousands of people from getting a firearm who shouldn't have them. Guns on the illegal market are more expensive and harder to get... If we said something like"Lets forget background checks, because criminals won't follow it anyways" then you would be putting one less barrier between the criminal and the gun. They could then purchase guns easier and cheaper. Thats bad policy, and franklin doesn't make sense to me...

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 1:03 PM

Mitchell, I am not sure what the "typical liberal ideology" you are referring to. For all we know Bob could be anti-abortion, and truly dedicated to the preservation of life from conception to natural death. Lets put aside terms like "liberal ideology" and such, because it gets us no where. I think a true patriot of the law of the land understands that both Roe v Wade and DC v. Heller were opinions on the Constitution. Both are interpretations of the Constitution and law. I don't think its a good comparison because it gets us nowhere. The law of the land in America is that a woman can have an abortion, and that individuals can own and bare arms. Historically this has not always been the case, and in the future there could be changes. Having philosophical discussions will not get us anywhere because personally I am not a Supreme Court Justice, and I don't think you are either. We cannot change those laws. What will get us somewhere is having conversations about what we can do within what is legal, and what different sides are okay with. Pro-gun regulation (many of which I would term anti-gun violence) folks have put forth what they would like. Pro-Gun Rights folks have reacted, but largely without any substance. As I said, the mantra of the NRA has been "Enforce the laws on the books" however they have lobbied for years to take the teeth out of those laws and make it impossible to enforce them in the first place. Is the NRA stating that it will now support enforcing anti-gun trafficking laws, allow for a Director of the BATF, and allow for adequate funding to enforce the laws? I have not seen such statements. Proposals like guards in schools is okay, but that should be left up to the local school districts. That isn't going to address the wide-spread gun violence that happens in the streets anyways....

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 12:55 PM

All gun control is is "feel good legislation" because it wont do anything. Even biden said that even draconian gun control laws wont do anything. I mean there are criminal who wont follow llaws, there are 3d printers, there people who know how make and fabricate guns out of scrap with machining tools (which have no serial number-cant be tracked etc).

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 12:52 PM

Some of the most heinous/craziest plots have been committed without guns. many people use Timothy Mcveigh for example. Back in 2004 a man in Granby Colorado had a huge grudge against the city council, so he armoured up his 50 ton Komatsu bulldozer (Car D9 size) and went on a rampage. Denver had to helicopter their own SWAT team in to stop him. He didnt kill anyone but he sure made the SWAT look like a bunch of panzies. Not a single gun was used.

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 12:47 PM

Mr Dylan, I don't know the author, and while I agree that the abortion issue and gun control are two completely different things, it does make for a good comparison. As I said, typical liberal ideology. let me put it this way. Woe vs Wade is an untouchable document that isnt open to interpretation, set in stone while the constitution (specifically 2A) is allowed to interpreted and perverted.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 12:35 PM

Wow. I am astonished at the many folks who personally know Bob took to this site to bash him on the issue of abortion. How else would they know where he stands on the issue of abortion? The truth is that you can support Pres. Obama on somethings, think Gov. Chris Christie, and not on other things. its a bit of a strawman argument to assume Bob's stance on abortion. Even with that, I direct Michell, BeeKaay, and others to the fact that abortion is a Woman's Constitutional right. If you claim to be "For the Constitution" then you would be for a woman's right to an abortion. I know you will most likely not admit that, however its the law of the land, therefore any conversation on abortion is moot. Stick to the issue at hand. Many have had enough of the gun violence in this country, and in Chicago. The question is what will we do as a community and society to address it. President Obama is pushing for Universal Background checks. I am unsure how that seeks to "grab my guns", and its noted that the NRA has supported Background checks in the past. Furthermore, from the polls I have seen over 90% of Americans support it. Why is there opposition to this specific policy? Or what about having an full time acting Director for the BATF? Why is that a "gun grabbing" policy? How can any pro-gun rights group or individual argue that its good policy to not have a director of the agency tasked with enforcing the CURRENT laws? Many argue "ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS!" Then why has the NRA lobbied so hard to make sure there was no Director for the BATF?

Indigo from Chicago  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 8:20 AM

Allowing the Assault Weapons Ban to sunset was bullying? As I recall, it was pushed down out throats by the Clinton Administration, another "feel good" measure that had absolutely no effect on crime. It seems to me that the American people expressed their displeasure at the next elections, ending the Democrat's 40 year hegemony over the House. Bullies? Not the NRA. Look in the mirror.

Chad  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 8:15 AM

Apparently you're still getting walked on by others, that being the progressive Democrats. One of these days you'll wish you stood up for yourself and not did what someone else told you to do but did something for yourself. So your dad pushed you out to fight and now the Dems are. Why don't you sit down and stop being a puppet for those around you. I'm not trying to take away your rights so don't try to take mine.

BeeKaaay  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 7:19 AM

So what I see here is a typical bloodthirsty leftwingwacko who hates gun violence against children in schools but is utterly silent on violence against children in the womb. The lesson is clear: bullets which don't hurt as much are bad but ripping children from limb to limb in a most painful procedure is good. And on top of that he supports President Moloch's pro-death agenda Can't fight against violence against children in one area while approving of it in another. What a fake Christian

C0untZer0  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 6:35 AM

Bloomberg is a bully for spending millions of dollars to interfere with Illinois politics to forward his anti-gun agenda. I don't hear you talking about that bully. The bullying that Mike Madigan and the Chicago Democratic Machine does is A-OK with you right? As long as it aligns with your myopic world view.

Mitchell  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 3:59 AM

Yeah the NRA are a bunch of bullies, how cowardly of them to defend the second amendment. If your a Christian, why are you supporting Obama? Typical liberal ideology,turning a blind eye, allowing 55 million abortions to happen but quick,we need to disarm law abiding citizens! Hey, would ypou be so kind and explain why the murder rate is so high in Chicago? I'm personally sick of the gun grabbing bullies!

Jackie Devera  

Posted: February 27th, 2013 12:04 AM

Wow, you're a panzy! Sounds like you choose to be a victim all your life...!

Find a garage sale near you!

In search of local garage sales? Find out what sales are happening near you on our map and listing page.

Quick Links

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


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments