Community conversation on guns needed

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

Sara G. Bode

I'd like to take this opportunity to join your conversation about guns. In 1984 our village board passed a law banning the sale and possession of guns in Oak Park. At that time, the key concern was "Saturday night specials," popular handguns used in urban neighborhoods and a big problem in Chicago. That positive vote was reaffirmed by a majority of citizens in a referendum held in 1985 by a subsequent board, and that held until the Supreme Court decided to overturn it a couple of years ago. Our ordinance was one of which I was extremely proud, and the action of the court was one of its blackest, in my opinion.

It was not an easy vote in 1984. People came to my office during open hours when we were considering the issue, and a few came to my home, one young man at 11:15 at night clutching his 5-year-old son's hand. All of them said they had to have a gun "to protect their family." An elderly man who walked with difficulty was most anxious about protecting his wife.

I listened to them carefully and pointed out, among other things, how unlikely it would be that they could get to their gun if and when an intruder should enter their house or apartment. If they went searching for their gun (upstairs in the bedroom, at the other end of the apartment, or in the kitchen), by the time they got to it, it would either be too late or they would likely be flustered, even panicky, and the chance for a successful encounter would be greater for the intruder than the owner.

Some time ago, I drove for a teenager who had been shot by her 4-year-old cousin. Doctors were trying to save her leg. Why was there a gun in the house in the first place? Why was it available to the little child? Why wasn't it locked? And if it was locked, how could the child unlock it so easily? The mother of the recent Newtown murderer would certainly have trouble justifying the guns she kept in her house — if she were still alive.

Unfortunately the rapid proliferation of these weapons — meant for war — has been swift and devastating. Where our concern in the 1980s was handguns, "Saturday night specials," today aka-47s, assault rifles, military weapons, are reported in school and church and mall massacres. But the gun lobby reminds us: "Guns don't kill people, people do."

It is not my intent to present hard evidence citing the need for gun regulation. That kind of statement brings forth all sorts of statistical backlash and, like the "guns don't kill people" response, throws the discussion off course and cleverly puts one on the defensive.

This isn't a statistical war; it's a societal war. It doesn't need any more numbers to make its case. We see those every day in the news.

My request is that readers wait before they solidify their decision about guns and possible legislation. The fear element constantly hyped by the gun industry leads people to feel vulnerable and jump to what seems to be an obvious solution, without weighing unintended consequences.

The subject is clearly a hot issue. For those who live in rural areas and have had guns "since the land was settled" the romance of that image utterly obscures what's at stake today. There are very young children who are getting in line-of-fire gun fights, and teenagers who are being killed by other kids in suburbs as well as cities.

Contrary to the Health Department's decision that this issue is not timely, it is exactly the right time to take it up — when it's fresh in our minds. This isn't a time to be concerned about legal battles; the law isn't in place just for non-confrontational issues. It develops as people with wisdom and courage and a sense of the "common good" come together to discuss problems of their society, and then have the gumption to approve legislation or regulation to clarify and resolve the issue — in this case to remove weapons never meant for casual use from the streets and homes and gathering places of our general public.

The anguish of parents and communities whose children are gone, and the courage of several elected officials across the nation, including governors and mayors who have decided to take on the issue, is to be applauded. With his appointment of Vice President Biden, President Obama himself has spoken openly and with determination about his intent to bring about regulation of firearms.

I urge zealous gun supporters to leave the NRA hyperbole behind and work with the rest of us to put together reasonable legislation that people can agree on whose aim is the well-being of our society.

Please do speak up, readers. This subject is about your own safety and your child's and your neighbor's.

Sara G. Bode, Oak Park village president, 1981-85, lives in Oak Park and Sawyer, Mich.

Reader Comments

302 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 5:21 PM

OK I have said all I have to say anyway

mediator  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 3:15 PM

Geez - 300 comments - Ray and John, perhaps you should just agree to not agree or take this offline over the beverage of your choosing.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 2:56 PM

@ John - the sheer fact is fine but it isn't even close to solving the problem. Preventing a purchase doesn't address punishing a crime.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 1:17 PM

Ray, The sheer fact that background checks have prevented individuals from obtaining firearms when they were not suppose to have them proves that putting a barrier between the person and the arm is important. The issue with "Universal Background checks", though I support, is that its much harder to track guns through private deals. However, if they were registered like cars, it would make that process much easier to follow.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 1:14 PM

Ray, I would advocate for similar laws of Switzerland. They have a right to bear arms, and gun ownership is rather high for a european country, though still about half that of the United States. Their homicide rate due to guns is substantially lower, and gun registration is required. Granted they do not have the poverty, gang, and drug issues we have, but for me, a Social Policy Advocate, all these are intertwined. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 1:10 PM

Ray, And I think there could be investigation as to why this is. Why isn't the NRA bringing this up, and specifically doing research as to what is happening, and what can change? There is always a reason. One reason I can think of is that our Courts are already overburdened. Would you be in favor for doubling or tripling our funding to courts? Furthermore, perhaps there were plead bargains? Would those show up in prosecutions?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 25th, 2013 7:47 AM

@ John - We know that there were 76,000 refusals we also know that there were 4500+ that were serious enough to refer for prosecution. If we assume that the investigations were shoddy I figure 25% would be thrown out. That is still 3400 that should have been prosecuted - not 65. It is hard believe that out of that 76,000 those 3400 didn't know that they were breaking the law. Those are the bad people we should be giving attention to and keep guns away from evil people. It is logical to assume that every one of those 3400 obtained a gun or ammunition by other means. You state as fact that a national gun registry will work- How do you know that - what independent study proves your statement? You push me to back up my opinions with statistical proof now, I am asking you to do the same.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 7:55 PM

Ray, I am not saying you are wrong, I just wanna know more. What we DO know is all those people who turned up as illegible, they didn't get a gun, and that is a good thing. So why not expand that to all gun sales and transfers? Even more people will not have easy access to a gun.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 7:53 PM

Ray, I don't think a gun registry MIGHT help, I know it will help. Based on the fact that somewhere around 40% of all gun purchases happen WITHOUT a background check, something you advocate for. AND the fact that most all other countries have gun registries. An example is the article i shared of the man buying guns in Indiana, because there are very loose restriction there, and then selling them illegal here. If there was a national registry that couldn't happen, even universal background check

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 5:08 PM

@ John Hummmm - you would advocate for a national gun registry because you think it might help - a bit hypocritical I think. I have provided some troubling statistics about our governments lack of effort in combatting gun violence and all you can do is make excuses for people you don't know . If I am wrong you prove it!. The background check is there for a reason and if we ignore who wants to get guns and why they were denied then it is all a waste and anything you propose is just more waste.If I agree that your woe is me scenario is 75% correct we still have 2,000 people with bad intentions and only 65 go to trial. That is a fact you cannot just wish away.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 3:51 PM

Ray, Good and effective policy comes from understand WHY something is happening, and what can change to make it more effective. We don't know why these people were not referred for Prosecution. If you are so concerned write to your congressperson, and ask. Call the Fed, find out. There is always some sort of issue and solution. So lets find it. I for one see a problem of illegal guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I want to do something to stop that.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 3:48 PM

Ray, You would BET. I don't advocate for policy on a guess. Why don't you go research WHY they were not referred for prosecution. If you find there is a failure in the system, and these are indeed dangerous people that we should go after, I am with you. But you haven't provided that. Here is an example. It would be like me applying for a Driver's license, but not being eligible. Perhaps I didn't know I wasn't eligible. Are you saying that everyone we find that applies should be prosecuted?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 3:45 PM

Ray, This is why concentrated wealth or more simply a high amount of savings do not help the economy as other things. The economy benefits from money being spent, not saved. I am not going to debate this on and on, when they facts are there. Prove me wrong, but I would rather believe an economist than you. Just saying...

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 3:42 PM

Ray, you may want to do some research on it if you are so in opposition to it. Firstly, stop littering your comments with things like "White House Talking point" Food Stamps existed before Obama became president, and had the same return. You don't seem to understand the basic tenants of it. The reason for the benefit is that because it forces direct spending on something that may not have happened before.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 8:59 AM

@ John - On weapons purchase violations - If 4,500+ incidences were referred to the Justice Dept for prosecution and less than 2 % go to court how can we say that we have a problem? Instead of creating havoc for 100% of shooting sports enthusiasts why not take a harder look at the small pool of people who are most likely to do harm. Are you worried that we are creating a new form of profiling? I would suggest that that isn't profiling but just smart use os assets - not a strong suit for any government. It would be a good bet that a large percentage of the crimes were committed by people in that 76,000 member pool who were denied purchases of guns and ammunition.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 24th, 2013 12:04 AM

@ John - You seem to forget that the first dollar of your White House talking points example was confiscated from some guy who is working and paying taxes. So you take the buck out of the economy and then put it back - double counting in my book. If the $ 1.84 is honest why not put 100% on food stamps and wallow in the proceeds.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 7:35 PM

Ray, both comments below are from me.... Thats what you get when you use someone else's computer....

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 7:33 PM

Ray, For the same reason. Perhaps they investigated and found no reason to pursue because there was no threat. Regardless this is nothing new. Why is there a new conservative push for it? There was no push under Bush. If you are so passionate about it, find out why they were prosecuted and support your argument. How do you waste tax dollars if you didn't pay for prosecution? That doesn't make sense. You do realize that our Federal Courts are backlogged right?

Dylan from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 7:30 PM

Ray, I would rather full employment, but you are wrong that Food Stamps are not good for the economy. The facts are there. For every dollar spent it benefits to $1.73. Find a study that proves otherwise. But if we are going to have a conversation lets have a conversation about facts please. Actually, since there will be billions in defense spending jobs are being threatened there. Honestly sequestration is a joke. I am not following because its a joke. Period.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 3:43 PM

@ John - OK lets take just the denied cases that were turned over to Justice for prosecution - give me a reason why so few were actually taken to court? There must have been pretty good evidence to recommend prosecution. Did you know that here in the murder capitol of the world the federal prosecutor brought 25 cases to trial in 2012 . More tax dollars wasted.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 3:25 PM

@ John - Food stamps are WELFARE - a safety net for starving people. We now have twice as many on FS as 4 years ago. There is something screwy about that! Welfare is NEVER good for the economy. We need 5-6% unemployment instead of the 8% ( 15% is closer to the real number) we see now. Police and fire are local taxing issues and should never be paraded out in front of the cameras to prove that the rich SOB's don't pay their fair share. It is a phony argument as is everything we are hearing from the White House. Explain to me how we can spend 15 billion more in 2013 than in 2012 and 700,000 jobs will be lost. Could it be that government planned to hire 1 million new employees and because of sequestration they only get 300,000 thus 700,000 people lost their jobs. I am sorry but I just fail to see anything that is run by Dick Durbin being good for anyone but Dick Durbin.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 12:49 PM

Ray, There is ignorance of the public in terms of who is eligible to purchase a firearm, and get a FOID. You seem to think that EVERYONE who attempted to get one did so in intent to break the law, and not without awareness that they were illegible. Intent is part of prosecution. Magazine capacity, which the only sort of ban I would entertain, would ban manufacture and sale, so there is no need for "follow through" if they are not available to purchase in the first place.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 12:44 PM

Ray, Food stamps have a great economic benefit. You can debate philosophically on it, but there have been many studies to prove this. 1.73 for every dollar. Gov. does plenty of things. Fire and police. Building of roads and infrastructure like water, electricity. If you want to look at waste look at the pentagon. We have not had an audit of the pentagon for years. Do you see that as a problem? http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 9:58 AM

A group of house members has sent a letter to Pres Obama and AG Holder requesting full implementation of existing firearms laws before any new ones are passed. Interesting statistics from that letter - "The letter also points out that of the 76,142 gun permit requests that were denied following background checks by federally-licensed firearms dealers, only 4,732 were referred for prosecution. Of that total, only 62 prosecutions resulted" With this kind of follow through what is a new assault weapons ban, magazine capacity etc. etc going to accomplish. BTW that kid in Connecticut was one of those 76,142 that was denied.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 8:14 AM

@ John - A-ha! someone else gets screwy results now and again! Been there - done that!

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 23rd, 2013 8:00 AM

My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that they do not grant anything to the US citizens. They tell the government what are "Natural Rights" and defines the protections citizens are afforded. We have become a nanny state, of late, and believe that Washington can solve all of our problems. Other than the military, name one thing that government does better than the private sector. The reason for this is that non-government spending uses private monies that must be accounted for..Washington has no such restrictions and wastes capitol without any shame. If the Salvation Army gets 90 cents of every donated dollar to the needy, why do we stand still for welfare departments efficiency at about 7 cents with 93 cents going for management.

H McIntosh from n/a  

Posted: February 22nd, 2013 10:04 PM

The discussion here seems to be arguing that if there is no practical use for owning a firearm then there is no right to a firearm. But this is clearly nonsensical. Surely, there is no use for my life ( outside of my personal desire to cling to it) and yet its widely held that I have a right to it. Further, the sort of thing that we are calling a right as a constitutional right, is not a matter of providing essential products and services for a minimum standard for existence.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 22nd, 2013 7:24 PM

Ray, the below message was from me. That is strange. I don't know why the name came out as such...

bum from Oak Park  

Posted: February 22nd, 2013 7:01 PM

Ray, They may, but that was just not a thoughtful person. The sad truth is that many times depending on your color and where you are, people, mostly men, are stopped a frisked with no cause. If we are going to find illegal guns we will need to do more than just hope they will show up in regular interactions... I do care why someone was stopped if their rights were not respected. Regardless if they have an illegal gun or not.

Ray Simpson from ?Oak Park  

Posted: February 22nd, 2013 3:53 PM

@ John - the point - poorly made was that illegal guns are discovered as a result of arrest searches. I assume that the police do not stop citizens with the intent of finding illegal guns. I am glad they are finding them and I don't care why the bad guy was stopped.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 22nd, 2013 1:44 PM

Ray, I am confused as to the point you are attempting to make.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 11:53 PM

@ John - the weapons felony parole violation jury I was on - the guy saw the police approaching him so he threw the 44 magnum in the bushes. That is a big hunk of shinny steel to try to stash. No frisk no search - the police saw him with the gun and his action to get rid of it. One woman on the jury was holding out because she felt the police lie about this sort of thing. We held up the gun and asked where did this come from? She had to admit that the defendant had it and when we pointed out that was what this case was all about she agreed that he was guilty on all counts. Later we found out that she was worried that this guys gang would come after us. The judge assured her that the only one who should lose sleep is this poor mopes lawyer.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 6:00 PM

Uncommon, I get it. You are a "tough on crime" person. But for me, I see the ineffectiveness of being tough on crime with the disaster of the "War on Drugs." It has not been effective from my perspective. Further hardline criminalization of people does not make things better. Simply look at the fact that we imprison more than any other developed nation. Seems those "Socialist liberal" nations like Germany, Switzerland, etc. don't have that problem...

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:56 PM

Uncommon, Well I am not sure how "liberal" stop and frisk is because I don't know anyone who thinks its a good policy. I think its a bad policy, and I challenge its legality. Again, I am not sure how you would find an illegal gun if you were stopped for speeding, unless it was in plain view, because majority of folks SHOULD NOT be searched if stopped for speeding. Lastly, I don't think its an effective policy. Locking up more people because of illegal gun possession will not help.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:49 PM

John. Stop and Frisk is a liberal tactic. The midget king Bloomberg in NYC seems to think it is effective though. I'm not advocating stop and frisk, but when you find an illegal gun on someone you throw the book at them to get them off the street. Pulled over for speeding and find an illegal gun, they need to go to jail. PERIOD. Point a gun at a police officer (see no talent rapper Chief Keef), you go to jail. Stop coddling thugs. Make it known that possession of a firearm is hard time

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:10 PM

Uncommon, Um... dense about what? Again, the question is. Fine. HOW DO YOU FIND PEOPLE WITH ILLEGAL GUNS? Are you proposing that we frisk everyone in Austin? So folks can have their Constitutional rights, but folks in Austin cannot?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:07 PM

Ray, I saw your article... Sorry. It doesn't tell you anything though. thats 90-95% of ALL cases, ranging from petty theft to terrorism. I promise you there are many more petty theft cases than there are murders or assaults with a gun. Furthermore, what you didn't disclose that your report says that whites are more likely than blacks to receive a plea bargain. So... your point was? You still have not presented evidence that those that are committing violent crimes are getting pleas

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:05 PM

John, odds are a 20 year old "yute" with a illegal Glock in Austin is not attempting to earn a Boy Scout shooting badge. Might as well throw the book at 'em BEFORE the get chance to let off a few hot ones with the illegal firearm. You can't possibly be this dense. It is a broken window approach.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:01 PM

Ray, I am glad you looked it up. What did you find? Can you share? Of course we can disagree on opinions. That is fine. But we cannot make up facts, and not expect to be challenged on it. I will continue to challenge you, and I encourage you to challenge me.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 5:00 PM

Ray, I am presuming you are an adult. Maybe I am wrong. But why do you need to resort to demonization, character-assassination and terms like "liberal claptrap". Do I call your opinions conversative hogwash? no. Do I call out talking points that seem to have little evidence. Yes. Will I call them out if they harken to a particular organization, the NRA, yes. I encourage you to question me, ask for reference. Because I am seeking for truth, not just a validation of my beliefs.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 4:56 PM

Ray do you have difficulties reading or are you purposely not reading what I have to say correctly? I am referring to VIOLENT CRIME, for the third time. Being in the possession of an illegal gun is not a violent crime. Regardless, how do you suggest we put people in jail for owning an illegal gun? Frisk every person on the street? come on...

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 4:54 PM

Uncommon sense, yes exactly. This is why "liberal city havens" of London, Toronto and countries like Switzerland are overrun by criminals. Lets get by the talking points of liberalism and start talking about policies. If you are not interested in that, then I am not interested in talking with you.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 4:00 PM

@ John - How come we are forced to verify every word we contribute and you guys can throw out unsubstantiated liberal claptrap and we cannot question your source? I commented on plea bargaining and you doubted me. I looked it up and guess what - it was 3 times worse than I thought. We should all play by the same rules and agree that opinions differ.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 12:25 PM

John, look at any major urban city to see 50 years of liberalism - crime, poverty, corruption. We have the failing of public schools, disintegration of the family unit, etc. All extensions of liberal policies born out of the war on poverty, yet all we have gotten is more poverty and crime as a result. Five decades of hard data that lefties choose to ignore. Black community damn near obliterated in two generations of govt help. Yet people want more of the same.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 9:52 AM

@ John - What you seem not to understand is that just possessing an illegal gun is a crime! The crime has been committed before anyone is injured. Stop it there and put the perp away.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 9:09 AM

Also i do note that i do not present evidence for my argument. I am not saying whay i said is true. I will research it. Again i am simply challenging an assumption with another explanation to show there are other possibilities

John from Oka park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 9:07 AM

Ray, did you read my post? That is not at all that i am saying. I am challenging your assumption that all people who have an illegal gun intend to commit a violent crime on someone innocent. Abortion is the law of the land but that doesnt stop GOP controlled statws and the national GOP in passing laws restricting it. Thats what politicians do. I will not do that because an element of argument is to present proof. If you have no prood you have no argument.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 9:06 AM

@ John will you accept US Dept Justice study? I had no idea that 90 -95% plea bargain. https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 9:01 AM

@John - you seem to be saying that bad people need guns to protect themselves from other bad people with guns. Eureka - you may have put your finger on the problem! The law prohibits felons from even handling a firearm - that is the law and it should be enforced until you can prove it is unjust. You keep demanding proof that we are correct in our assumptions - why don't you come up with verifiable proof that we are wrong.

John  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 8:52 AM

Ray, Furthermore i agreed with the reommendation of a trial by jury. But i challenge if so many are getting off on plea bargains. If you have stats then share. But i am not willing i accept a statement without statistical proof. So find it amd lets talk.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 8:48 AM

Ray, No. I did not say that. I challenge your assumption that all people who have guns illegally are then going to commit violent crimes. When perhaps the reason they have them is to have protection. Am i saying they should have access? Some might. As i said felony convictions for marijuana possession perhaps. But many are not looking to mug an innocent person .

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 21st, 2013 8:22 AM

@ John - You argue that some bad people deserve guns - Why? I have given you my opinion and a couple of ideas that might reduce gun violence, yet, you constantly veer off course. Is your purpose to discuss the issue or to prove that you are smarter than everyone else? There seems to be a real disconnect in your logic and it is being muddied by ideology.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 10:53 PM

Rj, I think what i tjhink because you havnt told me anything. You made broad statements that without clarification dont make sense to anyone who doesnt know you. But the fact remains that for the past 50 years we have had 28years of republican presidents. So i am not sure how we have 50to years of liberal policies

rj  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 9:05 PM

John, you can think whatever you want. I've been articulating this well over a year. It gets old trying to have a discussion with someone who acts like they have no idea what I'm talking about.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 7:54 PM

rj, I don't think its that, I think its that you do not know how to articulate the opinion you have because you haven't spent the time looking at hard evidence. I am confused how we have had "50 years of liberalism" while over the past 50 years half the time a Republican has held the office of President, about 28 years...

rj  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 5:41 PM

John, No offense, but this is a waste of time. We're speaking two different languages in two different worlds. I don't have the time nor patience to review the last 50 years of liberalism and explain why some of the problems we have today is the direct result of same. Maybe, one day, this will all make sense to you.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 3:59 PM

RJ, But if you wanna have the discussion go ahead. "O has designated & rewarded his selected elite" WHO are you referring to? "policies sticking it to the middle class" WHAT policies? "incrementalism of socialism" WHAT Socialism are you speaking of?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 3:56 PM

rj, Provide evidence that "more gun control laws that don't solve anything ultimately."? Where is your evidence? Look at NYC. Their levels of violent crime have been decreasing, and part of that reason is that they have a better handle on gun trafficking. We don't have that handle here, especially with Indiana not too far way, with very permissive laws. I see problems, and I want to address them (its my work), but I am not here to discuss opinions on Obama. What was your answer I did not see

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 3:52 PM

Ray, This just provides to me more evidence that you have little knowledge of those who "commit crimes." Are there some bad people who don't deserve guns? Of course. However, it is my opinion that there are some felonies (namely possession of marijuana) that then prevent honest people from getting a FOID. Even those who have other felonies, do you honestly believe that every waking moment the only reason they have a gun is to do a crime? Or maybe its protect themselves from a rival gang?

rj  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 3:30 PM

John, Thank you - if crime & violence is lower since the 80's what's the point of more gun control laws that don't solve anything ultimately? You refuse to see that we have problems you don't want to address - that's the reality. I already answered your question - you just don't agree with it.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 2:42 PM

John - You know I meant carrying an illegal weapon by someone who is not legally allowed that right. I figured you guys would pick that statement apart but undoing statements here is impossible. I pushed post before a re read the comment

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 1:47 PM

Ray, Wait... so you are against concealed carry? You stated "Why else would any thinking person carry a loaded gun?" I thought that was the gun right's lobby for concealed carry, to protect one's self..

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 1:45 PM

rj, Your the one not living in reality, because you simply do not have facts. The FACT is that crime and violence is LOWER now than in the 80s. Regardless, i am dont conversing with you, because you persistently refuse to answer a basic question.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 12:35 PM

@ John - simple possession of an illegal weapon is a felony and is a crime waiting to happen. Why else would any thinking person carry a loaded gun? Better to get that person off the street and save a life or two. Having been to traffic court, civil court and 26th and California I will tell you we need to process cases with the same dispatch they do in traffic court. There is a whole lot of wasted time in courts and if loser pays was the case dockets would be much shorter making courtrooms, and personnel available.

rj  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 12:12 PM

John, you can find fault with a quote, yet you're blind to current dangerous policies? My 'rant' about O was because you insist more money thrown at failed policies will 'fix' things. We've been doing that war on poverty thing for 50 years and the culture & violence is worse than ever. It's not about 'fixing' things, it's about keeping the status quo for the D's. Those O policies continue the gun violence, while law abiding citizens get the wrath. John, learn how to connect the dots.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:47 AM

@ Ray,you are onto something, but what we would need is more funding for our courts.They are backed up and very slow. Would you support additional funding for our courts? Lastly,I am not totally with you in terms of no plea bargain.It depends on the violation. If its simply being in possession of an illegal firearm,then no I do not agree.If its committing a violent crime,then maybe.I think there is value to allow a certain amount of Judge discretion.I think having a Jury involved has value

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:44 AM

@ Ray, And my point is that the NRA and the gun lobby has made sure to make the ATF the most ineffective agency in the Federal Government. It doesn't even have a full acting director. There are only a handful of agents tasked with the whole state of Illinois. The Fed is failing, so as when conservatives want the state to step in when the Fed doesn't do its job, I am asking for the State to step in.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:41 AM

John, the gun running across the border is just a symptom of the gang/thug issue. Until we are willing to address the elephant in the room which is black on black crime (with a nice heaping of hispanics thrown in), this gun debate is completely worthless. Vast majority of gun crime is within minority communities involving males with known criminal histories under 35 years of age. Gun control doesn't do diddly squat to address that reality which is why it wont work.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:38 AM

@ John - I am not arguing that we have a conservative court - we do- and from my perspective thats fine. You feel differently and I will change as the court does. My point is that if we cannot enforce the current laws why just add more to the list that get ignored. I would like to see a law that says anyone coming into court for a weapons violation cannot plea bargain and is not eligible for a bench trial. Let a jury decide. My jury duty experience has been that inner city black ladies make hanging judges look like pussy cats. They are a tough bunch who have experienced the terror of gang rule.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:12 AM

Ray, If you claim that Kagan and others are judicial activists , then you must also admit that there are conservative judicial activists. Scalia is an obvious activist, and he is open about it. Furthermore, the Citizen's United Case is a great example of how a fairly recent Supreme Court case was overturned. That is activism to see a court case overturned within a span on 20 odd years due to a change in the courts structure.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:09 AM

Ray, Here is further discussion on what I am talking about. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-guns-gangs-20130217,0,980710.story The permissive laws of Indiana are hurting us here in Illinois. I understand what is illegal, but the issue is that we have only a handful of Federal Agents enforcing the federal laws. Just like how Conservatives believe that the State needs to step in when the Feds are not doing their job on immigration, I feel the same in terms of gun trafficking

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 11:05 AM

rj, Another thought that I find funny is that you accuse me of "not paying attention" While you are attributing false quotes to our First President. Perhaps you need to examine yourself, your sources, and the places you get information and news...

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 8:58 AM

@ FYI - as I remember 12 years ago they said you cannot change the rules of the game to affect an outcome.

FYI  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 8:46 AM

Typical neo-con, Ray. You're against "judicial activism" except when it furthers your agenda. As in Bush v Gore, a stunning piece of judicial activism if there ever was one.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 8:33 AM

Judge Bauer - Abortion is "off topic" and I made no comment about Justice Kagan's intelligence! I commented on her judicial philosophy and her liberal activist beliefs and your statement about the conservative court. Being 'smart' and 'wise' do not go hand in hand. Our government is loaded with smart people with not a shred of the wisdom of Solomon.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 7:49 AM

@ John - I don't know if the NRA has "Talking Points" and if they do I am not on their distribution list. There are strict laws for sellers. The former owner of Bells went to jail for bad sales. Straw man sales are illegal. Sales to known felons is illegal. FOID verification, orders of protection and waiting period abuses are all illegal. These are just my opinions and I am sure that many of you disagree - fine I let you argue your opinion and you afford me the same courtesy.

Judge Bauer from Chicago  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 7:41 AM

Ray, I am sure you feel the same way about abortion rights. And Justice Kagen happens to be one of the smartest members of the high court.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 20th, 2013 7:35 AM

@ Judge Bauer - I am troubled by your reasoning. You believe that a SCOUS ruling is wrong because it negated one of your rulings and everything will be better when we have a court packed with Justice Kagans. If you know that I am pro second amendment and I am before your court, can I be assured you will give me a fair hearing based upon law not opinion? As I understand the second amendment, It gives me nothing. It prevents government (you) from interfering with my fundamental right. If I have a fundamental right under the US Constitution as a citizen, how is it permissible for a state to deny me that right? I will agree that the state has the right to regulate but not to ban. The meaning of "regulate" at the time of our founding was to " Make regular or normalize" not to control or ban anything.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 11:37 PM

Judge Bauer: Thank you. So a legal gun ban was over turned.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 10:13 PM

Rj, I am not following you. Regardless i am not replying because you have yet again neglected to answer my basic question. Stay on topic. I am not interested in your rants on Pres. Obama and such. I am here to talk about guns. Period.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 9:49 PM

Ray, that is a great talking point i have heard from the NRA but where are the stats? Do you have statistical evidence for your point? Furthermore, i am talking about strengthening the penalities for sellers, not the buyers.

Chris Walsh from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 8:08 PM

OPRF Dad, "If I want to own a gun, that is my business, not anyone elses?." This is the very heart of the issue and precisely WHY community conversation is necessary. Does your wife get a vote? Do your children? Why not? What about your neighbors whose children and grandchildren are exposed to the handguns in your home? Will you agree to indemnify anyone injured by the handguns stolen from your home by people we can count on to put them to no good use? Aren't you being a tad SELFISH?

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 8:00 PM

Don't forget the need to get serious about punishing straw purchasers. The recent Tribune report and new information provided by Chicago PD shows that an alarming number of weapons used by and seized from criminals were purchased in Indiana.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 2:55 PM

@John - the penalties we have now are not being enforced. Going after the judges that slap thugs on the wrist should be our first priority. Throw them out and get some no nonsense judges who have the safety of the community in mind. Why make new laws until we have given the old ones a fair trial.

rj  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 2:36 PM

What Uncommon Sense has described is the slow incrementalism of socialism. O has designated & rewarded his selected elite. And then there are those who are quelled with entitlements & promises of more. While O is bashing the elites all his policies are sticking it to the middle class. Gun confiscation is the one element standing in the way for further loss of freedoms. Your long list of 'better & more' of the same old is no longer relevant. John, you're just not paying attention.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:52 PM

Lastly, you are partly correct, but your language is wrong. This is an issue of violence in terms of poverty, drugs, and gangs. As I have said numerous times, we need to address the joblessness issue and lack of local economic development in poor neighborhoods. The schools need to be excellent, with great resources. We need to increase the financial availability of higher education for low income people, and provide tax breaks for business that locate in poor neighborhoods and who hire local.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:52 PM

John, the way assault weapon is defined, it could be virtually any gun which is the problem with all these psuedo catch phrases used by the left. Affordable Care Act, yet cost are going up. Millionaires and Billionaires means people making $250k. Assault weapon means a gun that is black and has a folding stock or gasp, a flashlight holder! read between the lines. No one is going to spell it out for you.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:49 PM

The policies that I am looking at are strengthening the penalities on those who traffic illegal arms. A consideration of a firearm registry so all guns will need to be accountable so folks who claim "I had my 20 guns stolen" will still be accountable for reporting such guns stolen, and investigation can initiate to see if indeed they are stolen. If you don't like registration then perhaps just a requirement on reporting arms stolen, and stiff penalties for not reporting them.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:45 PM

"Armed guards at schools is silly, but they still send their kids to schools with armed guards." Where did I hear that before? The smear campaign by the NRA. I don't think you are researching the right places, because what you will find that those who are truly concerned about gun violence (like myself) have no interest in an assault weapons ban, and am not advocating for that. I agree, its a largely ineffective policy, and a waste of time if we want to address the majority of violence.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:42 PM

Uncommon sense, The Missouri bill is HB 545 Firstly,they are not seeking to confiscate all firearms,but "assault weapons". We had a ban of 10 years on assault weapons @ the Federal Level, and wow look what happened... NOTHING. It expired and the GOV didn't come for your guns. Lastly, the Republicans, who control the House, say it will not even be introduced to committee. How is it different than when GOP introduces Bills to make abortion illegal?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:38 PM

John, based on the facts I have researched about gun violence, assault weapons, etc I can only come up with two conclusions. Gun control advocates are incapable of being logical, stupid or both. Or there is some other motive for pushing more gun control. You can't debate the facts about gun violence (it is a relative non issue statistically - more die from fist fights than assault weapons. Gun violence is down. Most of it is thugs killing thugs. So what is the real agenda for the new laws?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:32 PM

John, I watch what people DO, not what they say. The left is real good about talking out of both sides of their mouths on issues - gun control for the public, but they get to keep their guards. Armed guards at schools is silly, but they still send their kids to schools with armed guards. ACA is great, but we are going to pass out exemptions. Public schools are fine, but we will send our kids to private schools. You need a hybrid car, but I get to use a private jet.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:19 PM

John, again try reading other news sources. You'd be surprised what you can learn. I regularly read HuffPo and other lib propoganda to make sure I am really getting all the facts before making up my mind on a position. I am an independent. See the bottom of the bill. #4) All previously owned "assault weapons" need to be turned in. http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:08 PM

Uncommon Sense Since you have so much knowledge of this, please provide me with the Bill numbers of these confiscation bills.If you can't, then frankly I think you are full of it,spitting back talking points Are there radicals? Of course, there are radical Republicans who think that over property owners should be able to vote (yes they still exist) But I don't presume this is the position of the GOP Outliers don't speak for the nation So do you want to have a convo on facts or fear&fiction?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:03 PM

rj, I am watching, from many different areas. And I am also educating myself on the HISTORY of gun control, gun safety, and perspectives on the second amendment, of which it does not seem you do. It seems to me, and correct me, that you are of the group that the NRA scares into thinking "The Government is coming for your guns." That is an organizational strategy by the NRA to gin up fear and get people active. Just like all over advocacy groups.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 1:00 PM

Rj, why do you keep avoiding the question? WHAT FORMS OF REGULATION OF GUNS ARE YOU OKAY WITH? It seems that you may be the one who is "low information" otherwise you would KNOW that since the founding of this nation legal opinions have flip flopped. Laws that were at once overturned, were later upheld. Laws that were once upheld were overturned. Since you seem to be a conservative, does this mean you think any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade is wrong?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:58 PM

John, why propose confiscation if that is not what is intended? It doesn't matter if it has no chance of passing right now. At some point, it may very well pass. It is clear what the ultimate goal is - total ban of all firearms. It may not happen in one swoop, but it will incrementally. Holder, Cuomo, Feinstein, et al have made no secret about their true intentions.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:57 PM

Judge, thanks for the correction. I thought too quickly.

rj  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:57 PM

What's always amusing is when someone complains about Fox. Both sides of an issue is always presented and debated. Yet libs refuse to even consider that there is another side, since it doesn't fit into their narrow minded ideology. As a result low information is their hallowed ground.

rj  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:30 PM

Obviously the law was unconstitutional otherwise it would have stood. There are still some great minds that understand that the Bill of Rights are not to be infringed despite the inconvenience to 'progressives'. Confiscation is in the works. Don't kid yourself John. Stop reading what you want to hear and watch what's happening.

Judge Bauer from Chicago  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:26 PM

In the interest of legal accuracy, I should point out that Brown v. Board of Ed did not overturn the Dred Scott decision. It was the 13th amendment that did that. Brown overturned the holding of Plessy v. Ferguson that legal separation of the races did not necessarily violate the equal protection clause.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:13 PM

Ray, Two court cases - Dread Scott v. Sanford and Brown v. Board of Education. Based on your logic, you would believe in Reparations. All descendants of slaves should be compensated for wage theft. Furthermore, in current history - Lilly Ledbetter would was not compensated for receiving less pay for equal work. Plenty of other examples of something being found illegal and the offended party not be compensated.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 12:06 PM

Uncommon sense, All those provisions have no chance in passing. Its a political move to gain support, to show "look how tough I am on guns." Furthermore, my understanding of the Feinstein bill is that it would ban future sales, not institute confiscation. But please correct me if I am wrong. Lastly, the debate is on what firearms are constitutionally protected. There is NO proposal to confiscate ALL firearms. Period. Back at you, try getting your news from somewhere other than Fox News.

Chris Walsh from Oak Park, IL  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 11:52 AM

Ray, Law evolves, and the interpretation of constitutional provisions by our courts changes over time. At the time of its enactment--and UNTIL it was overturned by the Supreme Court--the Oak Park handgun ban was clearly constitutional and consistent with prior precedent interpreting the Second Amendment. Judge Bauer's decision upholding the Morton Grove handgun ban was "the law" until the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald changed it. So Oak Park's confiscation of guns was lawful

Judge Bauer from Chicago  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 10:12 AM

Ray, the easiest answer to your question is that Heller v. DC is wrongly decided. Read Justice Stevens dissent. Heller was an exercise of raw voting power on the Supreme Court and hopefully it will be overturned once the current conservative majority goes away. The short answer is that when I wrote Quicilli, the law of the land held that the 2d amendment was not applicable to the states. Thus it did not serve to proscribe local handgun laws.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 9:57 AM

@ Judge Bauer I am confused! If the Oak Park ordinance was found to be unconstitutional last year, why would it not have been unconstitutional 30 years ago. I am not a lawyer, but I see a leap in logic that seems wrong. If property was seised under an unconstitutional law or ordinance shouldn't the injured party be compensated for their loss?

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 9:50 AM

John, apparently Missouri and Washington state didn't get the liberal memo that they don't really want to take guns. Both states have proposed legislation that essentially woudl result in confiscation of firearms from legal gun owners. Both Cuomo and Feinstein have already been quoted being in favor of confiscation. With the left, you have to watch what people do, not what they say... try getting your news somewhere other than HuffPo.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 9:49 AM

@ Jim OK I was referring to a discussion between Dana Parino and Bob Beckel where she stated that policy differences were infrequent occurrences, at the prayer breakfast, but they did happen. I was probably looking for more relevance than was warranted. Sorry for the misstep!

Judge William Bauer from chicago  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 9:26 AM

Um Brian, I do believe that the Oak Park handgun ban was legal given the opinion that I authored in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.1982).

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 19th, 2013 7:23 AM

John from Oak Park: The Village of Oak Park has illegally confiscated and destroyed hundreds of weapons improperly and has yet to compensate the owners. Sen. Diane Finestien has proposed a list of 200 banned weapons.I as a gun owner am all for a gun show sales ban

FYI  

Posted: February 18th, 2013 5:41 PM

John, do you really think a frothing 2nd Amendment absolutist like rj can make a case using the TRUTH? ......... 2,200 different weapons allowed under the proposed ban, and they still want more.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 18th, 2013 5:27 PM

rj, For the 20th time, WHO IS THREATENING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?! I am not, far from it. What I am asking you, Ray, and others. What form of regulation, if any, are you okay with? Furthermore, I would do your research about quotes. You would find that that is NOT a real quote. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington Scroll about have way down, you will find that the first part was true, the second not.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 18th, 2013 5:18 PM

Ray - We have had the conversation, and what I have asked is for you to tell me what forms of regulation would you accept? Universal background checks? Registration of firearms with the police? Restrictions on ammo? No, I am certainly not in the "Obama position." I am specifically talking with rj, who has yet to concede ANY form of regulation. I want to hear what you think is reasonable, but you are not providing that.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 10:42 PM

Ray, were you able to come up with any examples of President G.W. Bush being criticized at the National Prayer breakfast? I did a search and could not find any mention of such an incident. I know you support Dr. Carson's and agree with the comments he directed at President Obama but that was not the appropriate forum. It should be noted that the event organizers specifically asked all speakers to not mention policies and politics during their remarks. I had a feeling you were wrong about GWB being subjected to "a ton of crap" at the prayer breakfasts he attended and assume that is what you discovered. Case closed. I hope.

rj  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 6:33 PM

John - This is really getting old - we have a 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights which is inalienable. We have laws for cars, products, etc as needed. I'm going w/George Washington- "A free people ought not only to be armed & disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms & ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 6:16 PM

@ John - We NEVER suggested no regulation. We did demand that our second amendment rights not be violated. You seem to take the Obama position that if we don't agree 100% with you - we are bad people. I have no problem with background checks and no problem with forbidding felons and mentally ill people access to guns. I do draw the line at trampling on my constitutional rights because you live in terror of the real problem.

rj  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 5:39 PM

Ray - Thanks for the warm welcome. I think our next step should be to contact Bill Ayers to see how we can continue in his footsteps and figure out what and where we should occupy.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 5:08 PM

Ray, A spade is a spade. If you do not believe in ANY regulation, then you are not a conservative, you are an anarchist. And as I said there is no sane legal mind that agrees with "there is no reasonable gun regulation."

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 4:54 PM

@rj - welcome to the anarchist club! John has just declared you a new member. I was starting to get lonesome here alone.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 4:36 PM

rj, Lastly, there is NO Supreme Court Justice, even Scalia, that would agree with you that ANY regulation is against your right to bare arms. Therefore you are in the fringe, extreme fringe, because no reasonable mainstream sane legal mind agrees with you.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 4:34 PM

rj, Again, it seems to me you are not interested in dialogue, discussion. You are interested in saying others are wrong, and you are wrong, though you don't give specifics. You paint in a broad brush, with no evidence of something like "lack of jobs, violence, etc is all the result of liberal policies" Which policies? Furthermore, you are saying all the regulations on guns since the founding of our nation were unconstitutional? How does that even make sense?

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 4:31 PM

rj, Great. So since you do not believe in any regulation of guns then lets get rid of all of them. Criminals regardless of crime should have access. Furthermore, since you think that any right enshrined in the Constitution, that means that we should have no regulation of cars, water, air, products. Again, you are not a conservative, you are an anarchist, because you believe in no government. So that means if I protest ANYONE, you cannot remove me, because its my freedom of speech.

rj  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 1:27 PM

Here's a real ton of crap- Rule by executive fiat, BenghaziGate, BinLaden leaks, Election fraud, Threats to 2nd A protections, Fast & Furious, Ongoing G bailouts, Green energy boondoggles, Illegal immigration, Nat'l security, Obama czars, Obamacare, Unprecedented w/holding of public records. Man love? If the zombie media weren't so busy having full blown Obama-gasims on public air waves we'd get to the truth.

rj  

Posted: February 17th, 2013 1:06 PM

John - I don't believe in gun control & I'm not going to endlessly try & justify my stance. It's my 2nd Amendment right despite others' interpretations. There's been enough debate here. The economy, lack of jobs, violence & cultural dysfunction is all the result of liberal policies for the last 50 yrs. as it's being played out today. Dependence on these policies vs independence of these policies. There's no middle ground to solve anything when there's such vast areas of disagreement.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 8:24 PM

I wonder if the subject of war profiteering involving the former VP will be broached?

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 5:15 PM

Anyone wanting to see what "a ton of crap" looks like, tune into Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on Monday at either 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.- not sure EST or our time. She and David Korn will dissect the run up to the Iraq War. As far as I can tell from the teasers, all the "crap" has been collected from Bush and Cheney.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 4:34 PM

Ray, I will concede your point if you are able to provide a single example of any person laying "a ton of crap on GWB" at any national prayer breakfast he attended. It never happened! I do recall that many years ago, Senator Mark Hatfield blasted Nixon and Kissinger at the gathering. He was angry about the war in Vietnam. I consider both the former president and secretary of state to be war criminals for their secret and unlawful invasion of Cambodia. But as to your claim about Bush being subjected to the type of criticism Dr. Carson directed at President Obama; your memory appears to be faulty. It is was true, why hasn't the right wing media mentioned that in their defense of Carson? Ball is in your court,Ray and trust you will offer some factual evidence to back up the charge you posted. Thanks.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 3:32 PM

@ Jim - it seems to me that I remember a ton of crap laid on GWB about Iraq at those events. I guess that was OK because it was Bush.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 1:41 PM

Ray, the National Prayer Breakfast is an apolitical event. It is inappropriate to use the venue to either praise or criticize the President. Better for Dr. Carson to express his views on the Affordable Care Act, our nation's debt and tax policies at a forum designed to examine those issues. I'm sure you are applauding him for speaking out but that was simply the wrong place and the wrong time.

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 1:38 PM

Headline in today's Sun-Times: Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms WASHINGTON ?" Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history............... My question is, what if you ever need that 2,201st weapon that the Godless liberal banned? WHAT THEN? (Now you don't have to post, rj.)

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 1:24 PM

You had no info to begin with, rj, you pathetic, lying paranoid.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 1:22 PM

@ Tom - I have mentioned Dr Carson only twice - could it be that he exposed a nerve that was not covered in your talking points. I was excited that someone with his standing would , face to face,challenge Obama in a way that the average viewer could understand and agree with.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:12 PM

FYI, the myth regarding the federal government's purchase of a massive quantity of ammo has been circulating on the internet for a quite a while. It's fueled a paranoid delusion that President Obama, the UN and China are plotting to disarm America. Even the amount of ammo has been misreported and seems to increase every time this false and misleading rumor is retold. The fact is Homeland Security approved a 5 year contract for a supply of bullets through a competitive bidding process designed to save taxpayers' money. The ammo is intended for use by all federal law enforcement personnel employed by the numerous federal agencies aligned with Homeland Security, including TSA, Secret Service, Customs and Border protection and Immigration enforcement. The department is responsible for 135,000 armed officers. It's ridiculous to view this as some type of evil plot or secret operation but that does not deter those who ignore facts and only want to feed their frenzy. Best to take the crackpot's claims with a grain of salt and always consider the source.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:11 PM

rj, But I think I know where you are going. Armed conflict against one's government is treason. The Constitution states this. There is little evidence that the Second Amendment was adopted to allow the people to organize against its own government. It had to deal with State security, regulation of slavery, and sovereignty. Why would any government put in place the protect of the people to overthrow the government? Thats counter-intuitive.

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:07 PM

John - I'll get back later this eve. Family event all day.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:06 PM

rj, No I don't know why the government is stockpiling, because I am not there when the decisions are made, neither are you. It troubles me, don't doubt that. The Fed is increasingly selling these arms to local and state police. The militarization of our police is troubling. Part of the issue is that the weapons and arms lobby is so powerful in making sure we keep buying arms, even though we don't need them. That is an issue we need to address.

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:04 PM

FYI I answer questions all day long & never have my questions answered. Just name calling, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Education, Social Security Administration, IRS, US Fish & Wildlife, FBI, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. You'll have to contact them - I have no further info.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:03 PM

rj, The difference in terms of the NRA and many Unions is that the NRA advocates for policies that most people do not agree with, even an overwhelming majority of their membership, over 70%, support background checks, and other reasonable regulations. Many Union advocate for policies that many Americans agree with - raising the minimum wage, Jobs program, immigration reform, healthcare reform, financial tax. You can disagree with those policies, but majorities agree with them.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:00 PM

rj - Please specify what you mean by "Government dependence" From my understanding this doesn't exist how it used to. You cannot remain on TANF forever, nor can you collect unemployment forever. So how does one remain dependent on government? What I am speaking about is reforms to create economic opportunity in low-income neighborhoods, and better schools. To create opportunity. This hasn't happened, so until them a dependency argument has little evidence.

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 11:33 AM

Yeah. I didn't think you could provide any specifics, rj....... Your question contained a statement- that DHS was "stockpiling weapons." I may mis-read a sentence once in a while, but I know the difference between a statement and speculation. To paraphrase you, rj, "You conservatives cannot address the message," or answer a simple question. Don't even have the guts to stand by your own contentions, do you?

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 11:04 AM

Tom is a big time socialist - no need to question government, unless run by R's. I asked a question about the ammo. You libs cannot address the message just the messenger. I made no speculation, just a question. My point, such concern over guns, why is G stockpiling. You'd be right on this if we had a R president.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:44 AM

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If you want to remove the power of the gun lobby, change this ridiculous anachronism. The world has changed, and this amendment makes absolutely no sense today. Does anyone truly believe that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society with our level of gun violence?

Nick Nack  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:33 AM

@ tom you can not be serious? To each their own - you need to hang out with those like you - one track mind and name calling. Me, I lean a bit left, but the ideas I heard from Dr. Carson - are eye opening - and not different than bill cosby. About time folks talk about Personal responsibility. No, some ideas do not agree with - but I could meet them half way.

Tom from River Forest 708 334-3476  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:33 AM

FYI - I am honestly surprised that he is not maintaining that Homeland Security is purchasing that ammo for use by the UN in its pursuit of its One World masterplan.

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:22 AM

Yeah, I know, TfRF. I'm just curious to hear from rj if that huge cache of ammo is stored next to some of the black helicopters the government storm troopers plan to use against us. :)

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:08 AM

FYI - I guess you haven't noticed yet but rj resides in a fact-free, logic-free world. No doubt he saw this on some website somewhere and believes it to be true but he never went beyond that first level of comprehension to really analyze it.

FYI  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 10:03 AM

So, rj, if "Homeland Security and other quasi governmental agencies have been stockpiling, in the past year, over 1.6 billion bullets, mainly 40 caliber & 9mm. Do you know why they're doing this? Napolitano has redacted all info pertaining to this when questioned," the question is, how do you know this? Where did you get your 1.6 billion figure? And since I'm reading your posts more carefully, I'm curious about your definition of a "quasi governmental agenc(y)." Be specific for us liberals.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 8:31 AM

Ray, the gun nut's paranoia is idiotic. And please explain how your man crush on Dr. Ben Carson contributes to the contribution? Your constant pointless promotion of him is no different than a child's argument that his dad can beat up some other boy's dad. Suffice it to say that you were enthralled by his rant. I was bored by his recycling of every tea party talking point. To each his own.

Ray Simpson from null  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 8:22 AM

Conversation!

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 8:21 AM

@ Tom - has it ever occurred to you that childish name calling contributes nothing to add to the contribution. It just lowers you to the level of GUNZ and Jackie - enjoy your kindred spirits!

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 8:12 AM

Ray, My guess would be because gun nuts are idiots. The NRA is a front for the gun manufacturers.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 7:58 AM

@ John - If the NRA is such a marginal - fringe group please explain why their membership swells every time Obama mentions assault weapons.He is their best membership drive incentive. What a terrible thing to have to say about an American president.

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 2:00 AM

John before I go any further can you explain why Homeland Security and other quasi governmental agencies have been stockpiling, in the past year, over 1.6 billion bullets, mainly 40 caliber & 9mm. Do you know why they're doing this? Napolitano has redacted all info pertaining to this when questioned.

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:28 AM

John - I likened the public unions to your bizarre statement that the NRA was radical, on the wane, fringe & soon to be obscure. Thought it logical that if you could somehow see that in the NRA how could not see that in the public unions. More dangerous than the NRA. The NRA is not on the verge of bankrupting us,

rj  

Posted: February 16th, 2013 12:01 AM

John- Can you explain that National Guard/militia statement you made?

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:54 PM

FYI Thanks for re reading it. Many of us admitted Bush spent too much money & acted like a liberal. But can you explain why it's ok for O to double outspend in half the time. If it was the war mongering that hasn't changed either. Drones have replaced rendition & more innocent people have been killed. I'm not trying to be facetious. Can you explain the double standard?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:46 PM

@Jim - My college roommate worked for NASA and then spent decades at Las Alamos labs. At a reunion I asked about belief and he said "I still go to church and it is more important than ever" The more we know the more we realize how little we know.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:38 PM

John - Let me start here then I'll continue to read. Agree with OPRF Dad. The problem is not guns in law abiding hands. Culture of dysfunction is the problem. The current economic policies or lack of are only contributing to increase the dysfunction. You can't change dependency when the G is providing & encouraging dependence over independence. Can you tell me why this is. And what form of economic opportunities are you suggesting when many feel they're secure with the G taking care of them?

FYI  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:16 PM

You're right, rj. I misread that post. Anyone wondering now knows I'm definitely not a conservative, since I can admit an error. Hope the GOP catches on sometime soon.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 9:56 PM

The best and the brightest minds have offered an answer to that question, Ray. Who knows? I'm a big fan of the teachings of Jesus and wish more would follow his message. He may have been the first bleeding heart liberal. Organized religions do not do justice to him. Too much focus on fundraising and monument building and not enough devoted to helping those less fortunate. The schemers and the scammers who promise life beyond the grave for a $20 monthly fee (see 700 Club) are a disgrace.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 9:40 PM

I am, John, I'm going through your earlier posts and will acknowledge them this evening. Also going back to the beginning before I got involved.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 9:28 PM

@ Jim - Yes I do believe in evolution, but, I also believe that there was and is some force that laid out the plan. Just seems logical to me! Explain to me what was there one second before the BIG BANG. Explain infinity to me.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 9:09 PM

rj, Are you here to have a conversation about Gun violence, gun safety and gun rights, or did you come to simply insult people and gin up argument not associated with the topic? I directed quite a few posts to you, and you neglected them. Instead you have gone on rants about liberal hate groups. You state "liberals can never explain how or why they believe their "bs" Well I wouldn't concern myself liberal, but I explained and you neglected to comment. You are not here for discussion.

OPRF Dissent  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 7:07 PM

@Jim - not upset in the least. Elections are done for reasons. I was pointing out your lack of tolerance in your words. If I am wrong - sorry. You go out of your way to name people on the far right - but I see no one point out the ones on the far left -- and there are plenty. But...as long as you are talking about R moderates gone away, could say the same. What happdned to level headed D Moderates such as John Kennedyor Bill Clinton? Oh, and try not to be so bitter - as life is too short

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 6:20 PM

It's really quite amazing how the left hang on our every word so they can pounce & yet they never explain how or why they continue to believe in their lock step bs. No common sense.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 6:04 PM

@ Jim - inappropriate perhaps! He was not afraid to force the President to see that there is another side to his ideology. I am not sure what brilliance you see in a community organizer who proves the peter principal.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:43 PM

Ray, don't tell me that like Dr. Ben Carson. you do not believe in evolution. And what exactly is to be the topic for debate between the neurosurgeon and the President? Both are obviously highly intelligent men but have expertise and experience in widely different fields. If you are simply focusing on Dr. Carson's comments at the prayer breakfast, please note that conservative columnist Cal Thomas called them "inappropriate".

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:33 PM

Tom - there was a time when both parties could agree on basic principles & could compromise. Your party no longer has standards or principles. You"re so far left you're the 'wing nuts' that you project on others. But then you're a socialist, aren't you. No need for natural laws, no higher being, no conscience.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:18 PM

If President Obama were to debate Doctor Carson is there any doubt, in anyones mind, who would wipe the floor with who?

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:08 PM

FYI - Wow, maybe if you could read properly you'd understand I was referring to some conservatives today as rhinos, I didn't name names, you did. That's the problem with you libs- at every turn you have to make up things to prove yourselves 'right'. Very amusing!

Tom from River Forest   

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:07 PM

FYI, if he believes that, rj must also believe that St. Ronny is a RINO too.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 5:06 PM

"The voice of OP reason"? I highly doubt I ever tagged myself as that, OPRF Dissent. My comment was not intended to be intolerant and or an attempt to disrupt a civil discourse. Regarding conservatives, I see less today of the likes of Everett Dirksen. Charles Percy, Ronald Reagan,Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon. I consider the views of Michele Bachmann, Sarak Palin, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Louie Gohmert, Virginia Fox, Allen West, Todd Akins, Richard Murdoch and others just too extreme and out of the mainstream. Perhaps the recent election results have upset you but even a leader of the GOP has called for it to stop being "the party of stupid" You are wrong about me. Life's not easy and perfection is unattainable. Like "The Dude", I just abide.

FYI  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:53 PM

Buckley and Kristol were RHINOs?! Oh dear, God. You're kidding, right? No. You're not. That is, with no doubt, the dumbest, most clueless post I've ever seen on this board. Keep ranting. You'll get no more response from me. You goof.

Tom from River Forest   

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:49 PM

If he were a better writer, rj would be an incredible polemicist. He's like the Trotsky of the wingnuts.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:46 PM

FYI the only hate group we have to deal with are libs and their propagandist media that have you believing all their lies propping up this sorry administration. You are deaf dumb and blind to what is really happening. Those you mentioned wouldn't recognize the party - too many rhinos trying to act & be admired by democrats. All the amendments are important what are you talking about. You're the ones who can't handle the 2nd & want to micro-manage every aspect of everyone's lives. Get a life.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:38 PM

Wrong Ray, I lumped Keyes and Thomas together because they both believe in natural law. It was that antiquated and out of the mainstream belief that I belittled. I made no reference at all to their race. You, however,are the one who only saw their race. And now you blame me. Project much there Ray?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:29 PM

@ all - My reference to tom was in answer to his holding two conservative blacks up as "Mental midgets" then accuses me of racism for not agreeing. I pointed out that there are several blacks on your side who do qualify as less than brain surgeons. It seems to me that Tom played the race card - not me.

FYI  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 4:06 PM

rj and his faux-intellectualism is a sterling local example of why the GOP is becoming a marginalized, pathetically obstructionist shell of its former great and admirable self. It sold it's soul nearly 50 years ago on race, and continues to whore itself to every new hate group that comes along. At the same time, it holds the 2nd Amendment in higher esteem than the 1st Amendment. Wm. F. Buckley, Irving Kristol and other seminal conservatives wouldn't recognize their party today.

OPRF Dissent  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 3:23 PM

@Jim C, I have followed comments on this subject - all 123 of them. I find your statements to be offensive as someone who lives in OP. You call yourself the voice of OP reason and someone who is open to tolerance and opinions. Yet, you cannot debate an issue without saying people are wrong (i.e. you are right). For instance your most recent comment about what is being a conservative. Are you one? If not, how do you know who is, can be or was? I guess it is easy to live and be perfect - SA

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 3:15 PM

rj, wow, you are like a modern day Lincoln when it comes to debating skills. I am now vanquished.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 3:10 PM

Tom, people who identify themselves as conservatives have very little in common with true conservatism. Those principles have been tossed aside these days by radical extremists who although claim devotion to Ronald Reagan would not be on their Gipper's side regarding most of today's issues. Our former Senator Peter Fizgerald was one of the last of the conservative members of the modern republican party.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 3:05 PM

Yeah Tom, but you said it not me. You deal with the perv.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:59 PM

To be fair John, most of today's conservatives really do want to be left alone. They just don't want the other guy to get the same treatment.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:53 PM

The Democratic and Republican parties of the Civil war are totally different than today. If you want to cling to Lincoln as a Rep. then you accept that he was the first Pres. to institute a personal income tax. How do conservatives feel about that? rj, Conservatives don't want to be "left the hell alone." If they did they wouldn't be against Marriage Equality, Wouldn't support tax payer subsidies, be against the Patriot Act, and wouldn't care who got an abortion.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:47 PM

rj. "Many sources" also still hold that the 2nd Amendment is only regarding a militia, and that it was the State and Local government's task to decide on individual arm ownership. The militia theory was the law of the land until 2008. Are you telling me that from the Founders all the way until 2008 everyone had no idea what the 2nd amendment had to deal with?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:45 PM

rj, Um, who is talking about taking away the right to a gun? I am not. I am talking about regulation. You speak of God given rights. You have a God given right to movement, therefore you could say you have a God given right to a car. However, we regulate that are you proposing we get rid of that regulation? Furthermore, your statement about the "Founders" neglects the truth of history in this nation of plenty of regulation and rules in regards to guns.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:42 PM

rj - The Bill of Rights is Natural law? If it is natural law why were they Amendments and not in the Constitution itself? Why was their a debate about whether or not to have them? Why were there originally MORE than 10 Amendments proposed? Also, please tell me how God came to the conclusion that any person could and should be able to have a gun? On what day did God create guns? I am being somewhat sarcastic, but to state a right to a gun is God given has no evidence.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:12 PM

rj, Pee Wee Herman has a copyright on the "I know you are, but what am I" retort. You owe him a royalty payment.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 1:58 PM

Tom, Sounds like you've lost your binky again and your besides yourself.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 12:49 PM

rj, your meds are in the medicine cabinet. You have apparently forgotten where you left them.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 12:47 PM

Hate to break this to you Tom, but the demise of any great nation has been the result of leftists. Never fails, usually a shelf life of around 300 years - you're right on target. If you wanted to stop and listen you can hear that death knell already. Your party owns that Tom. You know what they say about repeating the same things over & over & expecting a different result Tom. You are that socialist, pretty happy with one iron fist rule, right? You really wouldn't like that Tom.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 12:31 PM

Mr. Coughlin. I have to disagree. The northern dems sought a middle ground between the southern dems and the abolitionists. They favored allowing slavery to die of its own weight. Stephen Douglas is the best example. His Freeport Doctrine would allow territories to ban slavery but would leave slavery lawful where it currently existed.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 12:18 PM

Tom, just for the record it should be noted that northern democrats supported President Lincoln's efforts to abolish slavery.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:46 AM

I have to say that the best thing about the inevitable death of the GOP as a major party is that it will be ruled a suicide.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:41 AM

Ray, your comment about Clarence Thomas is stunningly inaccurate. The record indicates that JusticeThomas offers the sole dissent opinion on many court decisions and has not asked a question or made a comment in more than 5 years. Among the most outrageous views Thomas has expressed include that states have a right to establish an official religion, prisoners are not protected from beatings by guards, teenagers and students do not have free speech rights,and the strip search of 13 year old girl thought to hidden two ibuprofen pills in her underwear was in Thomas' own words "reasonable and justifiable. Why you would hold him in such high regard is baffling.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:38 AM

Tom- to this date you 'progressives' (joke) have done nothing to right that wrong. You've made it worse - you still own it. Just can't shake that white guilt so you toss the blame elsewhere. But in the end it's only about votes despite the altruism you think it is. The result is Chicago/state of Illinois. It's not working. Do you really care?

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:25 AM

FYI - and that time line you bring up only goes to show how long it takes to get the dems to do the right thing & then only for a short time.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:11 AM

You are right rj. For the period between 1800 and about 1964, the democratic party was wrong. Thankfully, the party itself evolved and all of the reprobates became today's GOP.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 11:03 AM

FYI It was you democrats who who all for slavery and didn't want it to come to an end. Most members of the KKK were democrats. The not so great society policies was your answer to slavery You still insist on policies that continue to foster a dependency on certain segments of society. Don't try to re write history. The founders were always in dispute about slavery. But I'd wager it was again the dems who favored it.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:46 AM

Jeez Ray, how exactly was I comparing Thomas to Danny Davis? Oh that right, they are both African American. Man your racism is right at skin level isn't it Ray. Anyway, Ray, name one well reasoned opinion from Thomas.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:44 AM

FYI - Of course I get derisive when liberals want yet another layer of government to tell me how to live so you'll vote for them again. Most of us conservatives just want to be left the hell alone. So stop the pejoratives & realize we have a right to our opinions & they will be voiced here, just as you will & have when the shoe is on the other foot. That can't happen soon enough.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:34 AM

@ Tom - You have the balls to complain about Justice Thomas and Mr Keys while parading out the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Eleanor Norton Holmes, and on and on and on. It is said that Justice Thomas writes the most insightful, well crafted opinions on the court while Rep Lee demands to know why NASA won't send the Mars rover over to check out where the astronauts left the flag. Careful who you demean when you classify Supreme Court Justices as mental midgets.If that level of intellect is "Mental Midgets" the rest of us should not be able to tie our own shoes.

FYI  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:30 AM

Tsk-tsk, rj. Being derisive.............. The Age of Enlightenment started in the late 1600's, when America was busyily importing enslaved humans by the thousands. That practice continued through the establishment of the US Constitution. The US did nothing about human slavery until 89 years later, after a long and bloody civil war. The man most responsible for ending slavery, btw, then got a bullet in the head. And slavery still exists in numerous parts of the world.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:28 AM

rj, natural law is a long discredited legal theory whose only continuing adherents are kooks and nutjobs. It is to modern legal thought as alchemy is to chemistry and creationism is to evolution. But if you were right, if the US const was divinely inspired, how would an omnibeneficent and omniscient being not only permit the institution of slavery but also the continued importation of slaves until 1807?

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:16 AM

Tom, the slave trade was world wide at the time-Africa, Egypt, China. It was the west who put an end to it.. The Age of Enlightenment allowed man to come to the conclusion that our rights don't come from man or government but from a higher being. Even if you don't believe in a God, Tom, this 'mumbo jumbo' is a good thing. It tries to allow us to be more civilized despite our human tendencies. So what's the problem, Tom? Are you that democratic socialist Tom we hear from occasionally?

FYI  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 10:07 AM

YOU'RE complaining about being derisive, rj?

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 6:56 AM

I guess is no surprise that rj would believe that natural law mumbo jumbo that is peddled by the intellectual giants like Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes. Suffice it to say rj, that if our constitution is divinely inspired, it is an interesting god that you believe in that he would have tacitly endorsed the institution of slavery. The constitution is a political document written by men. It was not cleaved from rock at the top of a mountain.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 3:00 AM

John - Many sources say that 'we'll regulated' is not the same interpretation then as you would mean it today. Founders never meant the Government to regulate what is in the Bill of Rights which is why it was written, to guarantee the limit of the powers of government. Well regulated then meant that the militia had direction for the battle at hand. Obviously they needed to be well regulated & informed of the strategy to carry it out.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 2:36 AM

John - Obviously I believe it was a given that individuals (militias) had their right to bear arms. There was no standing army. The left wants to interpret it in their favor for the purpose of gun control. The Founders wouldn't imagine that individuals hundreds of years later would want to give up their natural rights. Consider the tyrannical government they were fighting at the time. We were warned of history repeating itself, even here. The Bill of Rights was to guard us against this.

rj  

Posted: February 15th, 2013 1:57 AM

FYI - the Bill of Rights is derived from natural law, God given, not G & limits its powers, though just last month O signed the NDAA into law making him judge, jury and executioner - pretty much nullifying the Bill of Rights if he wishes. This is the psychotic act of a president you should worry about, not the NRA that guards your rights. It's difficult having a conversation with people who have no respect for opposing views and only offer derision. You should be concerned but not about the NRA.

FYI  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:35 PM

No, John f OP. rj didn't say the 2nd amendment was absolute, he said the Bill of Rights was absolute BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. Which really, when you think about it, is even scarier than the psychotic NRA rhetoric he embraces.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:33 PM

OP Transplant, I don't care what the NRA and gun advocates think. I care what the Constitution says, what case law says, what history says, and what the Current Supreme Court says. They can view themselves however they want, but they are wrong. As I previously said the 2nd Amendment itself says "Well-regulated" and up until Dc v. Heller the nation had embraced the Militia theory, meaning the Amendment was only dealing with militias. Heller changed that, and embraced an individual right.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:30 PM

rj, You are speaking past me and not attempting to have a conversation. You have a right to bear arms, but that right is not absolute. Just like you do not have an absolute right to speech. Again, I personally am not talking about banning guns, I am talking about regulating them. The Second Amendment DOES say "well-regulated" you know. And regardless the current Supreme Court was clear in DC v Heller that reasonable regulation is legal. Go read it.

FYI  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 11:34 AM

rj- apples and oranges, pal. Try sticking with the original point.

rj  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 10:57 AM

FYI - You're wrong - the public sector unions, better known as the perpetual political interest group of the Democratic Party machine will run out of grease, as it already has in CA.and IL.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:48 AM

Cont. - I'm not guessing about this. I've been a soldier. I've been to gun shows. I've hunted. I know these people, I've been one of these people. The 2nd amendment is their ideological center. The amendment is short and clear, and it appears to support their beliefs. They overlook, of course, that fact that it's ridiculously anachronistic.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:43 AM

John - What I'm getting at is that advocates of gun ownership see existing laws (and court decisions) as being already in violation of the amendment. They see the Founders as having meant exactly what the amendment says, and believe that the courts have "interpreted" their original intent away. They view themselves as attempting to right a wrong. This is the source of their energy, even more than the NRA's money. They get their traction from the 2nd amendment.

FYI  

Posted: February 14th, 2013 8:32 AM

I'll make this simple for you, rj- your statement "at 11% (union) membership they're bordering on fringe and obscure," doesn't hold water.

rj  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 10:56 PM

FYI- Even FDR, patron saint of the American labor movement, was adamantly against public sector unions. He said it had no place in the functions of G employees. With more right to work states & financial un-sustainability public unions will be obscure. In 2011 40% of reporting Americans owned guns - probably higher now. Not every owner belongs to the NRA and people who don't own guns belong to the NRA in support of the Second Amendment. What about union corruption & coercion - not interested?

FYI  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 10:16 PM

So, "rj," if 11 percent union membership in a country of around 315 million people is "bordering on fringe," what does that say about the mere 4 million NRA members, which constitute approx. 1.3 percent of Americans, or around 1/8 of union membership?

rj  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 9:36 PM

You must be talking about the public unions. Their power comes from their big bucks recycled back & forth thru the O administration. At 11% membership they're bordering on fringe and obscure and they certainly don't allow members to politically allocate their dues. What is absolute is the Bill of Rights, thanks to the Second Amendment. It"s not going anywhere. Dream on, John.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 7:42 PM

OP, There power comes from their $. However, they are increasingly seen as fringe and obscure, so their importance will continue to wane. No Right is absolute. Remember that.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 7:41 PM

OP, I still don't quite get what you are getting at. In the 2008 Supreme Court Case D.C. v. Heller, it was specifically outlined that regulations on ownership are perfectly Constitutional. This was the First Supreme Court case EVER to rule there was an individual right to bare arms. The NRA just tries to scare its membership. I frankly don't care what the NRA thinks, they are a radical organization that doesn't advocate for what its members want.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 6:05 PM

John - The power of the NRA and other advocacy groups opposed to reasonable gun control comes from the 2nd amendment. I do not believe that modern Americans need the right to form an armed militia. I'd kinda rather they didn't. An amendment that guarantees them the right to no longer makes sense, especially if it also serves as the backbone of the pro-gun lobby.

John from Oak park  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 5:37 PM

Firstly, i havnt been talking about assault weapons. Secondly we had an assault weapon ban for what? 10 years? And it never got struck down. If it was so unconatitutional then it would have been struck down. However, personally i am.not putting my energy behind an assault weapon ban. Assault weapons are not our problem.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 3:09 PM

Regarding the idea that assault weapons are no different from other long guns...it's very easy to put a lot of rounds on target fast with an M-16 with a 30-round magazine, even on "semi". Much easier than with a traditionally configured rifle. That's why M-16s are designed the way they are.

OP Trasnplant  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 2:59 PM

Cont. - Every effort to create laws that regulate the ownership of firearms faces an uphill political battle because the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Lawmakers are afraid to propose and vote for these laws, because the NRA walks into battle with the 2nd amendment affixed to its shield. The world has changed. The idea of armed citizens forming a militia, even a well-regulated one, is anachronistic. It needs to change.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 2:46 PM

John - I wish I were as wrong as you suggest (overlooking your assertion of what the long-dead Founders "think"). The 2nd amendment clearly hampers efforts to prohibit ownership of military-style weapons, which is why either of us could go buy one right now. Hence, a mentally-ill young man can shoot the owner of a legally purchased Bushmaster with high-capacity magazines, and use them to go on a killing spree. Hence, our current conversation.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 2:18 PM

@ John - You are correct I want the incorrigibles put away. I do not want to ruin lives that are salvageable. Basic problem is that there are few of the latter that can be highlighted. If the community we are talking about sees a zero tolerance for gun violence - the salvageable individuals you fret over might see the light. Bad people need to be isolated from the citizens they pray upon. Second chances are fine if you KNOW you are not putting innocents at risk.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 11:51 AM

We already have plenty of laws on the books. If the courts would just enforce the ones we have and focus like a laser, vast majority of gun violence would be curtailed. Here is who is mostly getting killed - black males in urban areas under 26 years of age. Almost always with handguns by other black males. That is the elephant in the room no one wants to bring up. Mass murders like Newton barely even register in the stats. A complete non factor despite being tragic.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 11:47 AM

John, that is the problem. We don't get common sense regulation. We get futile assault weapons bans designed around cosmetic features completing ignoring the fact that "assault weapons" don't even really exist and are no more powerful or shoot any faster than any other guns available. Plus the fact less than 350 people were killed with rifles of any kind last year. Twice as many people were killed with hammers and fists.

John from oak Park  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 11:04 AM

OP Transplant, Respectfully you couldn't be more wrong. The Founders think you wrong, and the current supreme court thinks you wrong too. The Current Supreme Court stated that common sense regulation is perfectly permissible under the Second Amendment. Hence why we banned machine guns and rocket launchers. Hence why we require gun dealers to have a federal license. Hence why we require background checks of all guns purchased at said stores Furthermore,we have a history of regulation on guns

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 13th, 2013 10:08 AM

Read the 2nd amendment. It says that, because it's necessary to have militia, you can't pass laws against the ownership of weapons. That's the language. We can't wish it away. Passing laws against gun ownership anyway simply violates the amendment. I want better gun control, but we can't reasonably ask our politicians to ignore the Bill of Rights, because that's career ending. The authors were talking about private ownership, not the National Guard.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 11:22 PM

Again, the fact remains that if you go to the neglected neighborhoods in Chicago and talk with people for awhile you will start getting a sense of why some get involved in gangs and drug dealing - because it provides income and protection. Something that many are not getting. Majority would be willing, believe me I know them, I talk with them. But their communities lack opportunities, their schools are inadequate, they get frisked on the street regularly and feel unsafe.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 11:18 PM

Jim, You understood about 90% of what I had to say. What we have in our nation is a break down in justice. If you are a National Bank (HSBC) you can launder money for drug cartels and get a slap on the wrist, but if you are the drug dealers on the street you get tough jail time, and slapped with felony convictions. You seem to think that ALL people who commit crimes do not want to be productive members of Society. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 9:50 PM

John, we're on the same page about volunteering your time and energy to help at-risk kids. There are children living Oak Park who need to have positive influences in their lives. You are also spot on with the need to level the playing field and making sure everyone is provided with an opportunity to succeed. There's no excuse for engaging in unlawful activities and exhibiting anti-social behavior but I do support giving deserving people a second chance. My concern is that small percentage of people bring great misery and havoc to our streets. The callous disregard for others is being perpetrated by those who are unwilling to be productive members of society. They must be isolated. Addressing substance abuse as a treatable disease and decriminalization are solid alternatives to incarceration. Prisons need to utilized to protect us from dangerous elements of society not to be a hopeless end for folks in desperate straits. Congrats to you on posing some interesting opinions and suggestions.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 9:15 PM

Illinois National Guard? Which is and can be called to respond to state domestic issues and security.

Violet Aura  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 9:00 PM

@John: How, pray tell, is the NATIONAL Guard a STATE militia?

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 8:02 PM

Its interesting we do not learn from our history. An overwhelming majority of our violence is a directly tied to drug-trafficking. We saw what the Alcohol Prohibition did. We saw what organized crime was able to do. We are seeing it happen again, but no one is willing to be honest about it nor do anything about it. Marijuana needs to be decriminalized in this nation. We need to change our strategies on the other dangerous drugs. That is what we need if we want to be honest about it.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:56 PM

If you want more people to not commit crimes, then help create an economy that is inclusive of all people. All people need to survive, they need to get food on the table, a roof over their head, etc. With African American unemployment more than twice that of the general population, its no surprise that many African-Americans in these communities, particularly men who are the most discriminated against in our society, choose to go into alternative illegal economies.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:50 PM

Ray and Jim, I will be the first to admit that there are some bad apples. However, I think both of you have a lack of experience of the reality. The smallest thing you can do is watch "The Interrupters". The next thing you could do is volunteer at a school, clinic, or community organization on the Westside, and get some perspective. I personally know folks who are really good people. However, because of mistakes they now have a very hard time getting employed.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:44 PM

OPRFdad, You mentioned deadbeats. Sure lets have a conversation about Joe Walsh a deadbeat dad.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:39 PM

Ray, "If we lock up a convicted felon for 10 years" And what do you propose to do with these folks when they are released? "Tough love" as you put it doesn't work, its creating a whole class of people who have great difficulties in integrating back into society, therefore they go back to crime. Firstly, we need to treat more folks for substance addiction instead of locking them up, and we need to be better about economic development in low income neighborhoods.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:36 PM

Brian, Sure you can. If you are part of the state militia, aka the National Guard.

OPRFDad  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:22 PM

No, a conversation isn't needed. If I want to own a gun, that is my business, not anyone elses. Now, let's have a discussion about real problems: politicians, government, government spending and the deadbeats who want the rest of society to take care of them and their families.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 7:18 PM

Ray, what has really held to be true is that chaos in the home brings chaos to the classroom and causes in chaos on our streets. A strong foundation that teaches children to respect themselves and others is the best way to combat the antisocial behavior that plagues our communities. Greater emphasis on personal responsibility rather personal gratification would produce a better society. The thugs who killed Hadiya Pendleton were reportedly protecting their turf and mistook her for a rival gang member. Both young men own long criminal histories and have now reached their inevitable fate. Confined to a cage for the rest of their natural lives. What a tragic waste.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 6:55 PM

@ Jim - Being realistic about some of our fellow human beings antisocial behavior is our greatest hurdle. When we identify the bad seeds we can craft a path of action. We have seen hip shooting without proper thought.

FYI  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 5:52 PM

Well, one of the cops shot in the latest incident today with Dorner has died. Django must be so please inside in his pus-filled brain.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 5:26 PM

FYI: I seem to recall Confederate Officers were allowed to keep side arms and sword. Regardless, to me, if allowing citizen soldiers to retain military weapons is past precedent, I am all for it, will turn out,and register my M16.Most Confederate weaponry in my opinion were hunting rifles, non bayoneted,like the rifles of the militia during the Revolutionary war against the bayoneted English Brown Bess.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 3:48 PM

Ray, I once read a report on crime statistics and the impact on society. It detailed how an overwhelming majority of US citizens are law-abiding individuals who have no personal experience or interaction with the criminal justice system. However, there are a relatively small percentage of people who continually engage in unlawful activites or conduct themselves in an anti-social manner. The recidivism rate in this country in a chronic problem. We need to come to grips with the notion that there are bad actors who intend to do us harm and have no interest in contributing to a civilized society. They need to be isolated and prevented from doing us harm. I'm not a "throw away the key" advocate and do believe that our prisons need to provide rehabilitation services to those who understand and accept they have to change. It's really a failing of our criminal justice systems that so few are responsible for so much chaos and misery. I would suggest that the courts order people with substance abuse issues to treatment thereby reducing costs and prison populations. Put behind bars those who have engaged in violent and destructive crimes. Address the economic and social issues that hinder productive behavior in neighborhoods and families but do not allow those who reject our nation of laws to live among us in a free society.

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 3:10 PM

Cont. - What you cannot do is pass laws at the local or state level that appear to directly conflict with the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment says that the people cannot be legally prevented from owning weapons suitable for a militia. You and I may disagree with this, but it's what the amendment says. You can't pick and choose what you like from the Constitution,

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 3:00 PM

The second amendment specifically references militia, so there's little doubt that its authors sought to protect the private ownership of the types of weapons used by the military. You can sure argue that this is an anachronism, and that it should be changed now, but the authors' intent seems pretty clear. I can't see how you can change gun control laws in any meaningful way without also changing the Constitution. It's a tough sell, but I think it's the only way.

FYI  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 2:38 PM

Yes, but they allowed returning Civil War vets to retain their fire arms.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 1:48 PM

FYI: Missed you post. Of course the Founding Fathers took the guns away from the soldiers after the Revolutionary War.Few soldiers get to take issued firearms home with them after duty.Military weapons are owned by the country not the soldiers.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 1:10 PM

remember the troll feeds on attention.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 12:55 PM

Jim, thugs are the major issue in this whole gun control debate. The vast majority of gun crime are thugs killing thugs. Yes, "innocents" are occassionally shot, but that is not the norm despite press coverage of situations like Haidiya. If we are serious about gun crime, we first have to address the root causes - dysfunctional culture, single parenthood, lack of low skill job opportunities, education, etc. Gun violence is merely a symptom of much larger issues.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 12:34 PM

@ Jim - I think we have found common ground! All of the excuses you have listed are just that - excuses. No one will honor our laws if they never get enforced. We put the bad guy away and reduce future crime by 250 + incidents. That should impact total costs in very short order. Oak Park could have a very loud voice in court proceedings if we demanded maximum sentences and worked against judges who put criminals back on our streets.

Django from Oakkk,Parkkk  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 12:31 PM

(Drop the act) What act who's acting ? and "kkk" stays, there you go think you can tell people what to do. and how im i playing the Wednesday Journal for fools.... how am i being deceitful about your background and experiences. I never said anything about them... One other Thing Jim Coughlin.. if you cant stand the heat as you call it.... Get out the Kitchen... you heard me

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 11:45 AM

Ray, one of the thugs arrested in connection with the murder of young Hadiya Pendleton was free to roam the streets and bring havoc and misery to a community while on probation for a weapons conviction. The failure of Cook County officials to alert prosecutors that he had violated probation cannot be tolerated. People deserve to know that the Cook County system failed to protect the public and this slain 15 year old girl. The director is quoted as saying that the violation may have been too minor to require actual jail time. That's unacceptable. A judge originally sentenced the thug to 2 years probation and though he continued to violate the terms only served 3 days in jail. An overburdened and underfunded court system and overcrowded prison system all contributed to the tragedy in that South Side park. An innocent girl would still have a whole life ahead of her if the people we trust to protect us from the criminal element had simply done the right thing. Time to end plea deals and reduced sentences for violent criminals. Take back the streets!

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 11:27 AM

Drop the act and the "kkk" you've added to Oak Park. Still think you're playing the Wednesday Journal for fools as evidenced by the racially charged and inflammatory rhetoric you choose to post. I suspect you are also being deceitful about your background and experiences and are only interested in serving as a distraction and a heatseeker. You've yet to demonstrate a reasoned thought process. A responsible forum moderator would have seen though your nonsense and deleted the offensive postings. I'll leave you to your thoughts. The End.

Django from Oakkk Parkkk  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 11:15 AM

I find it interesting when a black voice his/her view about a subject matter that differs from white people that black person is being a heetseeker, or not civil.Cant you see white people you are not Gods,You don't run everything.these are my views Jim Coughlin and you cant shut me up,i know it may be uncomfortable, but that's how you know we'er making progress as a people, but most whites don't want that, they would prefer blacks to be shucking,jiving, and not engaged in conversation

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 10:46 AM

FYI, I think the moderator and readers of this forum are beng punked by the posts from Django. There's something about the views being expressed that doesn't ring true. The attack style of the writing indicates someone who is more of a heatseeker than interested in participating in a civil discourse. The use of the triple "kkk" at attached to Oak Park is especially insulted and should not be tolerated or considered acceptable by the Wednesday Journal. Someone in the offices on Oak Park Avenue has really dropped the ball on this by continuing to allow such questionable and offensive comments to be posted. If staff doesn't see any problem, I'm sure advertisers would and should object.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 8:36 AM

I vote for mandatory jail time for weapons felony conviction without any chance for parole. If we lock up a convicted felon for 10 years, he is off the street and will not do any harm to anyone for a decade. If we assume a minimum of 2 crimes a month for 10 years that is 240 events that didn't happen. Calculate the monies not stolen, police investigation costs not expended and court costs never needed and the incarceration costs are a good bargain.If they are not scared straight - do it again! Tough love that works.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 12th, 2013 6:56 AM

John: If that is the registry you refer to, where and when can I as a citizen show up to register my military style weapon to the authorities. If that is your registry, I am all for it. When can I purchase my M16. I called for the town fathers to turn out @ Lake and Ridgeland on the 4TH of July to prevent violence. No one showed.If this is your type of gun control,I am all for it,and look forward to standing w/you at the registry.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 10:21 PM

ian, Actually, I think you are wrong. There are a number of things that can be done to prevent guns getting into the hands of folks who plan on committing crimes. Universal Background checks on all transfers of working firearms can begin to fill the gap of how many crime guns are obtained either through "theft" or straw purchasing. Gun Registration would track the gun's existence and hold the owner responsible to report it stolen, and track its sale.

ian from oak park  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 9:28 PM

What is the point of pursuing legislation restricting the rights of law-abiding, responsible citizens? That strategy seems to be working wonders in Chicago. Referring to we "zealous gun supporters" as espousing NRA "hyperbole" is quite condescending. Ms. Bode's position of passing more legislation against the already-law-abiding in the vain hopes it will prevent violence makes her naďveté hard to miss.

FYI  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 8:33 PM

Django(KKK), just how many different chemicals you got swirling about in your brain at the moment, son? You've gone from being annoying but coherent to rather addled.

Django from Oakkk, Parkkk  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 8:16 PM

John Coughlin, hopefully your (Lost Fharthers) is screening this form because they gave me my rights... what the matter you cant handle the truth..The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to Freedom of Speech,

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 8:00 PM

Who is screening the comments on the forum? The posting by Django is not contributing to the public discourse and should be deleted.

Django from Oakkk, Parkkk  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 7:16 PM

The (Lost Fharthers) were all homosexuals.... from lincoln, jefferson, adams, all thwe way up to g.w bush..... all secretly gay....

FYI  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 7:06 PM

Brian, the founding fathers also expressed some pretty unmistakeable "original intent," as conservatives like to call it, regarding guns when they took back all the weapons they'd passed out to soldiers during the Revolutionary War.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 3:54 PM

Brian, Here is an article that makes reference to it. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters?"where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

Bruce Samuels from Oak Park  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 2:45 PM

I agree with everything that Sara Bode has said here. I'd like to add that I don't think that the administration is setting a good example for gun control when its drones kill hundreds of innocent people, and those that are not innocent are denied rights. The effect of all this is to cause more violence in a world that should be reducing violence. The City Counsel of Charlottesville VA just past a resolution re drones.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: February 11th, 2013 8:31 AM

John from Oak Park:"We had a registry at the founding of our nation" Could you cite the example?

joe from south oak park  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:10 PM

bob, I'll take it you are talking about the "eddie eagle" program. it's been going on for quite a while. I don't think that anyone would argue that it's a bad idea to tell kids that if you see a firearm to stop, don't touch it and tell and adult.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 10:49 PM

Bob, I think there can be a medium. Guns are a necessary evil that we will never get rid of in our society. I am not at all excited with new marketing campaign's to target children (think the tobacco companies) however perhaps we can take lessons from those campaigns. If we are ever want to get serious about gun in the US, we need to get serious about how much we spend on the military. Our nation runs on weapons.

Bob Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 5:51 PM

The NRA is doing a major push into grade schools and youth organizations to change the image of guns into something benign and fun. We need a major pushback. Guns are deadly maiming machines that should inspire horror and revulsion. Laws can only do so much. We need to change the whole culture surrounding guns.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 7:06 PM

Ray, I am taken aback that you are so passionate about this issue, but are not familiar with what Universal Background checks are. So how can you say that the NRA is the only entity that is putting forward reasonable proposals, when you don't even know what the other proposals are? Universal background checks would mean that all transfers of working firearms would go through a background check, just like you do at a gun shop or walmart.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 7:01 PM

Ray, Why is a gun registry not reasonable? We had a registry at the founding of our nation. So with that in mind I think if our founders had no issue with it, I am sure we don't have you worry about its Constitutionality. I already answered your question in terms of the gun registry on the other article.

natural extension  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:30 PM

A natural extension of the argument that criminals won't obey new gun laws is that we shouldn't have laws at all. We have laws against stealing, killing, etc. but they continue to be broken by criminals. This line of reasoning seems to indicate that we shouldn't bother passing laws as all since we can't prevent people from breaking them. And, the 2nd amendment begins "A well regulated militia...". If you are going to call on the Constitution, please reference what it actually says.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:06 PM

@ John can you explain your differentiation between a background check and a universal background check? Can they ask harder questions on one than the other?

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:03 PM

@John - Why is gun registry "reasonable"? What part of "the people you want to control don't care what laws you pass" so you give the people who are not the problem a hard time and shrug your shoulders at the actions of the others. Another thing you choose to ignore is a small thing called the Constitution and it's second amendment. You cannot mess with that!

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:17 PM

Ray, " However it seems that the NRA is the only organization that is putting any reasonable" Reasonable is subjective. What do you think of Universal background checks? You already shot down gun registry, though it is indeed reasonable. Also, sure there is a lot of ammunition in circulation, but that doesn't mean we can prevent it for the future. If you ban the sale, then only the people who currently own them can keep them.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:12 PM

Uncommon, I think the reference to the gun manufacturers donating so much to the NRA is that gun manufacturers benefit from more guns sale. They advocate for laws that allow for more sales. They don't care about HOW those guns get sold, as long as they are. Which is why the NRA, which used to be a strong advocate for background checks, is not advocating strongly against universal background checks. So frankly, they don't care about public safety.

John from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:08 PM

Ray, Can you please cite what you mean by "comprehensive background checks". We know that the NRA does not support universal background checks, so what are comprehensive background checks? Also, you stated "violence stems from drugs, gangs, and sick minds, and we don't address them at all." We don't? Seriously? Is that why over 50% of our prison population is made up of people with drug offenses? Please qualify what you mean by "we don't address them at all."

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:07 PM

You are also lying about the NRA supporting governmental cooperation. They still advocate a rule that prevents the ATF from creating electronic records of gun purchases to permit easier tracing.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:01 PM

You are lying Ray. The NRA remains opposed to universal background checks. Ray,. did you know that some NRA toadie in congress prevented the CDC from looking into the causes of gun violence? That nutbjob LaPierre objects because the "use of a weapon is not a disease." Finally, please specifically identify which executive order you disagree with.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:56 PM

The conversation started in response to Ms Bode referring to one side of the conversation as zealous gun supporters and the NRA Hyperbole. Nothing like trying to get to common ground with an condescending insult up front. The point I was making was that the ideas of more comprehensive background checks, Mental health issues and government agency cooperation were put on the table by the NRA. You may believe that the organization is evil incarnate, but they did put forth 3 valid ideas. Which are far more effective than the 23 executive orders we got from the White House. To identify the real cause of gun violence is much more important than going after law abiding good citizens. All of the real weapons violence stems from drugs gangs and sick minds, and we don't address them at all.

Attorney Generalist  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:40 PM

Here's a right wing comment on Holder for you: " the Justice Department believes it is legal for an American citizen to be killed "on the president's say-so." - Rachal Maddow 2-5-13

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:34 PM

Hey Generalist, the 1990's called. It wants its crazed right wing tin foil conspiracy theories back. Oh and its flannel shirts.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:31 PM

Ray, regarding Blackwater, there is plenty of information regarding that company engaging in illegal activities, including gun smuggling. They've paid millions in fines. Whether they would have been helpful in Benghazi is unknown but we remember the recklessness they displayed in Fallujah in 2004. I don't want to divert the discussion to an examination of the Blackwater record. Rather, I'd hoped that Sara Bode, you and others interested would read the report by Tim Dickinson. I would certainly like to hear your opinions about the information he presents. As a longtime NRA member, you might be surprised to learn about the organization's activities.

Attorney Generalist  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:31 PM

I know Janet Reno believed in guns - who can forget Elián González and Waco child killings. That being said, I would rather have her than Holder right now, what a mess.

definition  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:24 PM

Webster's defines mercenary in the following way: one that serves merely for wages; especially: a soldier hired into foreign service. By that definition, and most others, Blackwater supplies a mercenary army.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:06 PM

Ray, why did you express no concern about the 8 US embassy attacks that took place from 2001 to 2009? Do you think if we had better security at the consultate in Karachi Pakistan, maybe the 10 US citizens who died there wouldn't have. Why do you only care about the 4 in Benghazi. Hmm, what is different between 2012 and 2002? I just can't put my finger on what would cause your change in attitude about the importance of embassy security.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 1:08 PM

@ Jim - can you prove that Blackwater is a mercenary group? Mercenary defined = Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics. Blackwater contracts with the CIA and Dept of State for security services. Had they been at Benghazi we might have a few more live Americans.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 12:50 PM

@ Jim - you read and quote "Rolling Stone" and question FOX news? The obscene numbers you quote do not include any tax dollars. Almost all of the vendors, I know of, feature prominently their NRA support and none of us object! We support the single most effective organization for the second amendment and its survival. Why do you find the NRA so repugnant, yet you stand mute when organized labor is in bed with Democrats and get advantages from their political contributions.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 12:48 PM

Jim, unions gave some 40 or 50 million in last years presidential election. If you have a problem with lobbying, then fine. But at least be consistent with your outrage. Blackwater uses guns as part of their operations, so again, why would they not support the main organization that is lobbying to protect gun rights? Unless your point is there is some wacky conspiracy theory in regards to blackwater and guns on the streets.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 12:44 PM

Will you explain or justify the $50,000,000 donation from a mercenary group like Blackwater? Please read the Rolling Stone report.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 12:31 PM

Jim, it only makes sense that gun manufacturers would donate money to the NRA. I know you are trying to spin this as scandalous, but it seems to be common sense to me. The organization is lobbying to protect gun owners rights to own guns which by extension affects the manufacturers of said firearms. Makes sense they would donate to the NRA. No different from any other business/industry donating money to other organizations. By the way, I am not an NRA member.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 12:22 PM

Sara, I hope you will read Tim Dickinson's report on the NRA and it's links to gun manufacturers in the current issue of Rolling Stone. It is clear that the organization's mission is not focused solely on protecting rights believed to be granted under the 2nd amendment but rather corporate profits. Interesting to note, that in addition to the millions the NRA receives from industry donors it also collects funding from the sales of weapons and ammo. The company that makes the Glock gun pledged to donate one dollar to the NRA for every one of it's products sold at the 2011 and 2012 NRA annual meetings. After breaking company sales records, Glock presented the NRA with a check for more than $1,000,000. The infamous Blackwater security company has made donations in excess of $50,000,000 to the NRA. Dark money is currently the primary source of funding for NRA political activities.

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 11:17 AM

Sara-Perhaps the zealous statists need to leave behind their hyperbole & recognize that their policies since the 50's are a total farce & failure. The dysfunctional society you see today a direct result of same & that is never included in these conversation. The blame for these failures do not lie at the feet of those who 'cling to their guns & religion'. And what's even more pathetic is your failure to cite that we have a 2nd A. There can be no serious conversation w/o these two acknowledgments

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 8:09 AM

Please define "NRA Hyperbole" IN the WJ NRA is always painted as a green eyed monster who delivers truck loads of machine guns and rocket launchers to the thugs in our inner city. However it seems that the NRA is the only organization that is putting any reasonable, factual plan on the table. Improved background checks, mental health requirements and inter agency communications are a start. For all of the screeching we hear from the anti-gun folks I fail to see any reasonable ideas on the table. Magazine size is a meaningless issue - there are millions of magazines out there that will never go away. Assault rifle ban has proved to be a waste of time and money. Ten years of a ban and ten years since and the statistical trend line didn't change at all. If local communities would make sure that their lawyer was in court for every weapons felony trial and demand maximum jail time for every gun related crime we would be aiming our effort at the problem and the bad people who create the havoc. For every bad guy you lock up for one crime, you have prevented all of the additional mayhem he would have created while free to roam. We refuse to admit that there are bad people out there who don't give a damn about magazine capacity, assault weapons, local ordinances or any of the feel good effort we see being promoted recently. We know that gang crime and mental health are at the heart of our gun violence problem - yet they seem not to be the focus since it is easier to blame a 2 pound hunk of steel than some poor misguided person who was a victim of the "Gap"

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