Let's look on the bright side at guns

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Mary Kay O'Grady

AGING DISGRACEFULLY

Open carry — really open — and colorful!

Like many Chicagoans, when I wake up on Monday mornings, I dread getting "the count" on the morning news: the number of people shot and killed in Chicago over the weekend. It's not just the people who are killed that have their lives shattered. People shot in the abdomen or head or back can wind up needing constant care for the rest of their lives. People shot in the limbs may not ever get back to normal either. It's really crushing for a young person to wind up in a nursing home.

As of this writing, the year-to-date gun toll is 448 shot and killed and 2,161 wounded. (I love that the site I used for this info is called "Hey, Jackass").

After I get the count, I check Father Michael Pfleger's Facebook page to see how he's taking it. He never gives up hope although on some Mondays his mood is worse than others. (I think I've said this before, but can't the Church just canonize him now and skip all the voodoo when he's dead?)

I'm painfully aware of the Second Amendment and how concerned the Founding Fathers were about government tyranny. But really, they were thinking about muskets and bayonets; the pistols that were used then were too large to conceal. I'm also aware that this is a big country and there are many people in rural areas who need guns,

Forgive me for not remembering where I saw this program (I forget things, but so far I'm not delusional). Anyway, a lot more people are carrying guns than we think, even to weddings and funerals. The program described young men, particularly sports figures, getting dressed for a nice night out. Typically a guy puts on his pants, shirt and shoes, knots his tie, if he's wearing one, puts on his jacket, puts his wallet in one back pocket, and a gun in the other!

So what can the average person do to avoid people who are carrying guns? We may live in a bubble in Oak Park where our politics is concerned, but guys with guns are coming here and it's not for the schools.

My proposal about guns doesn't involve better schools, better housing or job training. Why not? Because I've lived long enough to know the political will is not there and the programs always wither away. Those in power have shown time and again that they just won't make the commitment to really take those steps. I've reached the conclusion that we, as a city and nation, truly don't care about the kids who are killing and being killed.

So here's an interim plan until we wake up and embrace a war on racism and put the money behind it:

1. Let's declare a state of emergency and call in the National Guard for a 3-day suspension of civil rights. They can do a street, alley and door-to-door gun check and confiscate all illegal arms. If a small country allied with the U.S. asked for help because of this kind of death toll, I think we'd do it.

2. Close local gun shops for being health hazards. By the time the whole thing gets to court, I expect we'll notice a drastic reduction in shootings and deaths.

3. Most importantly for the majority of us non-carrying mopes, let's get rid of concealed carry and enforce open carry. If someone is carrying a gun, I want to know about it, dammit. I want to see who has a gun when I'm at the movies, walking around town and the Loop, and riding the el. So no concealing. 

As a matter of fact, let's require guns be a bright color; no more black or slate. I'm thinking shocking pink, orange or lime green. And in a holster so the rest of us can head the other way.

Reader Comments

68 Comments - Add Your Comment

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

Comment Policy

James Hall  

Posted: October 10th, 2017 3:44 PM

Nothing profound to see here, but thanks you for your enlightening comments Billy Boy!

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 3:58 PM

I'm sure you think you're being profound, James. You keep thinking that, son.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 3:41 PM

@ James Hall We keep trying to relate laws, ordinances and rules to a bunch of people who don't give a tinkers damn about civil society. They are social outcasts who have their own play book and look upon law abiding citizens as suckers. Brute force is the language they understand and respect. If these thugs didn't have guns they would use knives, baseball bats, clubs or any other implement of terror. I heard Tray Gawdey comment today that before we pass any new laws lets' fully implement the existing legislation. It is folly to add one more law to the pile of thousands if the courts refuse to lock the bad people up and throw away the key.

James Hall  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 2:56 PM

It's also illegal to purchase firearms and sell them in another state. It's also illegal to sell firearms to known felons. It's already illegal. Hey Bill, try again. Know what you're talking about.

James Hall  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 2:53 PM

Here's a solution for you. Let's start with a ban on all printers that aren't manually loaded. That still gives people the ability to have printing presses but takes away printers that can be operated quickly. That won't stop all "journalists" but it sure makes it harder to inform a larger number of people. Let's try to remember that the 1st amendment was signed at a time when it took longer to load a printing press than it does to get a Starbucks coffee.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 2:29 PM

"stop blaming other states for our own state's problems"?Wow, that is classic head in the sand thinking, to put it politely. Indiana, as well as Mississippi and other southern states, make it far, far easier for Illinois criminals to obtain cheap hand guns, as the ATF, DEA and FBI will tell you. Try knowing what you're talking about.

Jason Cohen  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 12:28 PM

@Alice, here's a solution for you. Let's start with a ban on all weapons that aren't manually loaded. That still gives people the ability to have guns for hunting and even handguns for "protection" but takes away weapons that can be fired quickly. That won't stop all shootings but it sure makes it harder to kill a larger number of people. Let's try to remember that the 2nd amendment was signed at a time when it ltook onger to load a weapon than it does to get a Starbucks coffee.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 11:19 AM

Don't be disappointed, Alice. It was my mistake for assuming that you wanted to engage in a rational dialogue.

Alice Caputo  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 11:12 AM

@mike. I am so disappointed. I was expecting your national solution for gun crimes. I can't wait until Cook County blames Indiana, Will, Dupage, McHenry and every other county for diabetes because they have lax sugary beverage taxes.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 11:09 AM

Correction: "illegal" should obviously have been "legal."

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 11:07 AM

Alice: you made the argument that Chicago's strict gun laws don't work (which by the way, aren't the most restrictive in the nation and haven't been for several years now). My intent is not to start a debate as to whether gun control is effective, but merely to point out that using Chicago as an example to support your talking point is a logical fallacy. If heroin were made illegal in Indiana tomorrow, Chicago would predictably see a spike in heroin-related deaths and arrests. Would you then cite that as evidence that Chicago's restrictive drug laws don't work? Or suggest that Indiana had nothing to do with it? If the answer, sensible firearms regulation would need to be effected at the federal level in order to be effective.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 10:50 AM

@ Mike - if guns came across state lines it becomes a federal legal issue. I am told that sea containers full of junk guns arrive in Mississippi where they are sold in bulk to guys who bring them to Chicago and sell them out behind the liquor store. No federal firearms license, no records no background checks, no serial numbers just mayhem on our streets. These dealers don't know the law or care about the outcome. Perhaps a modern day "Lindbergh Law" would help.

Alice Caputo  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 10:46 AM

@Mike H - The lower 48 states allow free travel between them without border guards. Please share the panacea legislation that will stop murders in Chicago. Being willfully ignorant, I seek the highly intelligent guidance that only you may be able to share with us all.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:53 AM

The research is out there, Alice. A majority of the illegal guns in the city of Chicago come from Indiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. To suggest that lax gun regulations in neighboring states have no bearing on Chicago's violence is willful ignorance.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:53 AM

@ Alice - You are correct! The only people who are impacted by more gun legislation are those who are NOT the problem. We have more have enough laws on the books already. Force our courts to show tough love. I have heard the argument that it costs thousands of dollars per year to keep thugs in jail. Consider this, the DOJ statistics show that a thug with a gun commits a felony every 28 days. Put him away for ten years and that is 130 crimes that do not happen, 130 police investigations that are prevented countless court costs and financial loss by victims. Not to mention the possible injury and loss of life by the innocents. Jail costs may wind up a cheap solution. Our permissive society wants to believe that every person can be redeemed - - looks like a fools journey to me! The thug on the street is not worried about "comprehensive gun control", "Reasonable gun control" or any of the other silly words attached to a nebulous idea that provides political cover to the clueless. Any time a politician uses the words comprehensive or reasonable they do not understand the problem and have no real answers. Guard your wallet and expect nothing!

Alice Caputo  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:42 AM

Since the advent of train travel and the invention of the automobile, travel between states is relatively easy so stop blaming other states for our own state's problems. IMO, there are no present state, regional or national proposed gun control proposal that would decrease Chicago murders.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:34 AM

For those of you who keep pounding the drum that Chicago is proof that gun control doesn't work, might I remind you that the city of Chicago shares a border with Indiana, which has some of the more lax gun regulations in the nation. If we're going to have an honest discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of gun control, we can start by dropping this tired talking point.

Alice Caputo  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:17 AM

The CPD has historically blamed hot weather for increased murders but pats itself on the back for decreases during colder months. Recently the chief bragged about decreased shootings and brushed off the increased deaths during this same period - rambling on about victims general heath to survive wounds, etc. I don't believe there is a single gun control proposal that would decrease the murders in our nearby city to the east.

James Peters from Oak Park  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 9:00 AM

Here's the math: In Chicago, 499 people shot & killed, 2017 YTD, as of 3-Oct-17. (www.heyjackass.com) That's about 55 per month. Alice is right.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 8:57 AM

We seem to be using human life as a benchmark to judge mans inhumanity toward man! That said we need to understand why it is happening. Is any mothers grief in Vegas more than a mother in the Austin neighborhood? I suspect not. We should start to understand that there are sick people and bad people in the world and we need to deal with them so as to insure the security of the rest of us. ALL LIVES MATTER!.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 7:19 AM

That would be "suffering," of course.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 4th, 2017 7:05 AM

That's simply not true, Alice. Read a newspaper. The topic comes up regularly. As for your opening sentence, there's no "merely" here. The real horror lies in the fact that ONE man wrecked more carnage and human sugaring in less than 15 minutes than dozens of criminals inflicted on Chicago in more than a month.

Alice Caputo  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 9:53 PM

This horrific killing equals merely one month of Chicago's head count. I guessing most of the Chicago shootings are not from automatic assault weapons, proving Chicago's present and past strict gun laws don't work. Current and wannabe elected elected officials don't even acknowledge the violence, choosing only to focus on union pensions in their ads. I guess the shoot em and kill em folks don't donate to PACs. I don't have an answer but I can assure you very few people are even looking for one in Illinois.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 8:03 PM

@ Bill Dwyer - Good, if we want to resolve the violence problem we need to stop cherry picking little things that won't get us near the solution. My involvement in the second amendment has been strictly as a marksmanship participant. In my life I have fired close to a million rounds, all at paper targets and not one in fright or anger. I am no more a threat than your desktop paper punch. I am perplexed by the fact that we all want to eliminate gun violence, yet our paths to that end create hateful dialogue. Those of us who participate in shooting sports know the hoops we are required to jump through.We live our shooting by the rules and following the instructions from the range officer. The regulator side just seem to make lists of things they think will help. The regulators do not have a dog in the fight and will never be inconvenienced in the least. If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there!

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 5:03 PM

No Ray, not looking for a fight here. I apparently missed a sentence in your reply. My apologies. Got it.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 4:38 PM

@ Dwyer - you are not looking for answers, you are looking for a fight! I have answered your question as best I can and if you cannot understand what I said it is your problem, not mine.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 4:07 PM

I didn't ask you if you supported the 2nd Amendment. I KNOW you support the amendment. I'm asking how you feel out cheap technology that enables a semi automatic rifle to fires hundreds of rounds per minutes. Do you support that?

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 2:56 PM

@Dwyer Yes, I support the intent and spirit of the second amendment! Most firearms development happens for police and military reasons and that technology sometimes finds its' way into the private sector. Getting a handle on that should be the purview of our lawmakers. I see no reason for bump-stock in the hands of civilians, I am also sensitive to the "camel nose under the tent" way that politicians seek an inch and then take a mile. The guy in Vegas was sick. He had no criminal or mental health issues so any "Universal Background Check" would have come up OK. I am inquiring about why he was able to am mas the arsenal he did without dealers asking why, from a gun shop owner my daughter knows in Vegas.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 10:46 AM

So Ray, as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, how do you feel about $50 devices that allow you to legally turn a semi automatic into a 10-to-15 rounds per second street sweeper? I ask that respectfully and in all seriousness.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 10:44 AM

Bump-stocks, which I believe is what the shooter used to convert a semi-automatic into an automatic are widely available and legal. That is a problem.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 10:30 AM

@ Dwyer - "Machine Guns" are by definition fully automatic. My understanding is that the 1986 law was an amendment to the 1934 legislation that covered things like manufacturing components and retail sales to non government individuals. If you research what it takes to own a machine gun you will see that it is a difficult, time consuming and expensive proposition. Before the other day automatic weapons were NEVER an issue. There are too many issues that don't make sense here.

Jason Cohen  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 8:53 AM

How about we just start with sensible policies here? Nobody needs a gun that can be converted into a full auto machine gun. Can we start banning these? There's no reasonable argument for the need for these weapons. Some want to argue that converting them is illegal already and so we are good. When you can go to thousands of sites and convert your gun to full auto in an afternoon I don't think the law is going to protect anyone. Let's also remember that the police have a lot to do and they are almost never going to find people that do this. Let's be reasonable and remove this threat as a start.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 8:13 AM

Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed in 1986.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 3rd, 2017 7:47 AM

Now I will correct my own argument - the Federal Firearms Act was signed in 1934 not 1924 and while the FBI instant background check disqualifies those with mental disorders, it is nearly impossible to get the medical communicate those problems. Additional information: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 8:44 PM

@ Dwyer - we really need to get a few facts in order before we start solving problems. First, a "Maniac" could not get past the FBI instant background check (4473) if medical facilities were able to report mental illness (HIPPA) Second it is a federal crime , since 1924) to own a full automatic weapon much less "Multiple" Third you speak of 100 round clips rather than the correct magazines and the only ones I know of were for the Thompson sub machine gun and one for a 22 plinking gun. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with "why" this guy did what he did. That question might get you closer to a solution to violence in general.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 4:22 PM

No Ray, I suggested that maybe Las Vegas and the State of Nevada taking a significant hit on their tax revenue and reputation due to the justifiable fear many people feel about maniacs with multiple automatic weapons with 100 round clips engender, just might persuade them were common sense and human decency previously haven't. I didn't say anything about ATF affidavits. That said, when people go to the Las Vegas gun show this weekend- dontcha just love the irony?- they'll be free to cary their purchases anywhere in the hotel.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 4:01 PM

@ Dwyer - are you suggesting that Federal Firearms Dealers in Nevada are not required to use the 4473 form? I don't believe that is correct. The federal requirements are in all 50 states, there may not be any state restrictions. This guy had to be deranged and his motives are unclear. The results of his insanity are all too clear.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 3:50 PM

@Mike Hanline - Just got off the phone with my daughter and you are right - no metal detectors - - for now. She works at the Mirage and they are all but shut down today. There are a lot of variations about what happened and I wonder if we will ever get the straight scoop. My rifle in the army was a M-2 carbine (Full auto) and I am sure that given a shift in a tool room I could make the conversion from M-1 (semi auto) to M2 ( Full auto) Another recollection was that that little selector switch changed real tight groups to trying to keep the rounds in the right end of the range. The act of conversion put this whole thing into a violation of the 1924 act (Sullivan?) I bet everyone in that venue was looking for the shooter at ground level and not 30+ stories up!

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 3:39 PM

There are NO laws regulating guns in Nevada. None. Perhaps a significant dip in Vegas tourist revenue because they're fearful of getting killed or horribly injured just watching a concert, will persuade Nevada to make efforts to impose reasonable regulations- let's start with outlawing 100 round cylinders.

Mike Hanline  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 1:33 PM

@Ray They say this guy wasn't on law enforcement's radar at all, including the local police. I'm hearing that he may have modified legally purchased firearms and converted them into fully-automatics. Are you sure about the metal detectors in casinos? It would seem to make sense, but I don't recall ever seeing any when I've been there.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 11:03 AM

@ Dwyer - just saw latest from Vegas, You were correct on the number. 500+ injured. Happy to report my daughter was safe at home when this all happened.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 10:50 AM

@ Dwyer - Just a point it is 50 dead and 100 injured - One person injured would be bad enough but we don't need to triple the number for impact. I heard the recording of the attack and that guy was shooting a real machine gun. It has been illegal to own one since 1924. ISIS is claiming responsibility and they have the ability to provide illegal firearms and massive amounts of ammunition. That casino hotel has metal detectors - how did this guy get a couple hundred pounds of ammunition into the hotel? Severe federal laws were broken here by a guy who was on the FBI and local police radar. A major police screw up happened. The indication he was seeking machine guns should have triggered his arrest. A new law will never be any better than the one's broken here.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 2nd, 2017 10:18 AM

That wasn't a "well regulated militia," that mowed down nearly 500 innocent people at a Country music concert last night. And by the way, when the Revolutionary War ended, the government took back all it's weapons.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: September 26th, 2017 8:23 AM

@Dr Kline - well said! What Mary Kay misses, like most others, is WHY the gun violence occurs? Take away the guns and knives would be the instrument of terror. So long as we have one small sector of our society who choose to live outside of the rules and give life no value we will have violent behavior. It is impossible to solve a problem if you refuse to understand the root cause . That understanding might call into question our societal, community and churches impact in the community.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 9:57 PM

The cognitive dissonance of folks like Mary Kay is obvious. They "know" guns are bad, but can not accept that our Founders therefore would approve such a bad thing and memorialize it in the 2nd. The solution to their dissonance is that the 2nd has to be a collective right... and not an individual right. Of course the SCOTUS disagreed (DC v Heller; City of Chicago v McDonald). And a reading of the history of the 2nd - as you, Mr. Hill, pointed out - clearly shows that the 2nd was meant to be an individual right from the get go. Hey that is why James Madison - the author of the first 10 amendments coined the term: "The Bill of Rights." Rights refer to individuals - not states. States have powers - not rights. Speaking of the architect of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, this is what James Madison had to say about an armed populace: "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... (Federalist 46)." As a physician I am appalled by the gun violence in America. But at least when I talk about guns I have made an effort to know the facts behind the 2nd, and not make things up out of whole cloth like Mary Kay does. Here's a suggestion Mary Kay: actually make an effort to learn the historical narratives and facts - both historical and contemporary. I know that might require some effort on your part and perhaps create even more psychic trauma as you age disgracefully.

Benjamin Hill  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 8:06 PM

BTW - forgot to add. Those guys you are worried about committing crimes with guns? Legal gun owners commit less than 20% of all crimes in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. More than 30% of the guns that end up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to the research. But more than 40% of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren't committed by lawful gun owners. See here -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.ec38e48bf65f

Benjamin Hill  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 8:00 PM

Opinion - "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." What did the Founding Fathers really think? "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Look at this article - http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-park/news/ct-oak-park-shooting-tl-0601-20170530-story.html No thank you, opinion writer. I'll stick with my 2nd Amendment rights and the right to defend myself and my family when needed. Specifically for the "guys coming here with guns." If you prefer not to - by all means, have at it.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 7:31 PM

Yes gun violence is a conundrum. And Mary Kay's solutions - as usual - are totally inane. No Mary Kay, criminals do not buy guns at the local gun shop (are there any in Oak Park?) Your suggestion to the contrary, is either satire (poorly done) or sheer ignorance.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 4:11 PM

@ Richard - you ask if criminals buy all of their guns at local gun shops? The question should be do they buy any of their guns legally? Answer is NO! If it were possible to dry up the illegal gun trade, almost all of the gun related violence would go away. Since that would be HARD , just go after those who obey the law, that is relatively EASY! What good is a new law if you cannot enforce the several thousand laws that are on the books already. Just do something so you never have to accomplish anything. All sides of this argument want to end gun violence, some want to seem to be concerned without being inconvenienced.

Richard Stephen  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 3:11 PM

OK, Mary Kay. Explain how, when your proposed "State of Emergency" is declared, that the criminals with illegal arms aren't going to just hide their weapons. Or are they just going to welcome the National Guard into their home and leave all the guns out on the kitchen table in plain sight, for the National Guard to confiscate? Maybe after they share a cup of coffee while this is all going on? Also, where are these local gun shops you want to close? None exist in Oak Park or Chicago or even River Forest. I don't think there's any in Berwyn, Forest Park or Cicero either. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I think you really mean, is you'd like to see all guns shops closed. Do you think criminals really buy all their guns in "local gun shops". Preventing law abiding citizens from buying guns legally will have little to no impact on firearm related crimes. Ordinary I'd take this editorial piece as satire, but in Oak Park, I'm sure your completely serious.

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 2:22 PM

Brian may mean universal background checks. If I'm wrong I'm sure he will come back and tell us. The basic difference is that currently if you hold a FOID card, you are background checked every single day whether you are buying a gun or not. A universal background check would instead background check you when you purchase a firearm. But if we are going to pry into people's lives, I'd prefer background checking those people who do not have FOID cards since the criminals will exist in that subset. FOID holders are in the law abiding subset, as proven by their ability to get a card.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 12:57 PM

Brian: please explain how a Uniform Background Check is different from the background check done before issuance of a FOID card? If a citizen chooses to exercise his (or her) 2nd amendment rights, does the requirement for a Uniform Background check, violate other constitutional rights such as those so expressed in the 4th and 14th? I'm curious, I really want to know.

Ray Simpson  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 10:48 AM

@ Ken a couple months ago I designed the perfect sign for Oak Park windows. It was an infinity symbol ( 8 on its side ) with the red circle and dreaded slash to tell everyone that everything is prohibited.. Then we could get rid of those brown pylons in the park that informs you what you cannot do.

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 10:05 AM

Plan #1 is the way the Nazis and other tyrannical dictators came to power. Who could have envisioned Nazis in Oak Park in this day and age? What's next, swastika stickers next to each of those "no guns" stickers? Mary Kay, we will be very disappointed with you if this happens.

Jenna Brown Russell  

Posted: September 21st, 2017 9:50 AM

Our brilliant founders constructed a nation where people could freely-without fear of government suppression or retaliation -use their inalienable right to free expression to call for the suppression of others' inalienable rights. And while they surely never imagined instantaneous, electronic delivery of ideas from the masses through the Internet, the first amendment is not limited to pamphlet and soap boxes. I doubt the author would wish to otherwise limit individual freedoms only to those that were available 200 years ago. She just wishes to alienate people from 'rights endowed by our creator' because she believes she's got a better plan.

Michael Loos  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 6:58 PM

#1 is the very reason the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. It's called Tyranny. Ms O'Grady, you are the very reason people carry.

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 3:30 PM

@Dwyer... It means keep your hands out of our pants. Which words made that difficult? I don't care where you lived or worked or whether you want to comment, so stop your meltdown. It is interesting though, that while you no longer live, work, or go to school here, you still believe in your own mind that you are influential here, when really you're just an old white guy who likes to snipe at those of us who actually have some skin in the game and live here. But you know... But conservatives! ... But White House! ... But, but, but...Trump!

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 3:23 PM

@ Bill Dwyer: I am all for these proposals because at the present time I want to try something to end the problems. I am on recored as being for Uniform Back Round Check, if we give up the FOID card .If the conversation is over that will be painful it will be painful because there wont be any more to say on the issue, But before standing down, the proposals must works , that is a big if and I enjoy and want the exchange. As Far as First Amendment rights, how many times did we talk about issues you found interesting?

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 2:35 PM

"Out of our pants"? Really, Stuck Ken. I won't even ask what you mean by that. As for commenting here, I lived in OP from the age of five to 53, graduated from OPRF and worked at the Journal for years. So I'll comment on anything I care to here. Tough for you if you don't like it, "snow flake."

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 2:02 PM

It's just more shrill from the left. Mary Kay has a proposal... Kick down peoples' doors and take their guns. Bwahahaha! Go convince your legislators. Take our guns away indeed! Come and take them!

Ray Simpson  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 11:02 AM

Once again we are hung up on "HOW" people solve disputes rather than the more difficult question of "WHY." The problem group have almost universal inclusion in gangs, drug culture and poverty. Enforcement of existing laws would solve most of the gun related problems, yet, progressive legal system lets bad people back on to the street to wound and kill. If we take a hard look at why people kill one another we might be taking the first step toward understanding the problem. That understanding would call into question our education system, our community monitoring youth and churches providing moral leadership. You cannot solve a problem if you refuse to understand the causes and effects. It is as if we are trying to solve a crossword puzzle without definitions - just put any letter in any square and assume you finished the puzzle. WRONG! The ultimate aim of the gun regulators and the gun rights people is the same, no one solving disputes with guns. How we get there is the dispute.

James Peters from Oak Park  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 9:45 AM

Here's another interim step: 4. The Health Department does stop-and-frisk searches The ACLU stopped police from doing that and made it easier to transport guns; It probably added deaths in the gun violence epidemic. That makes it a HEALTH issue!

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 9:44 AM

@Bill Dwyer ... If you want to see projection and quaking then look in the mirror. You are the one imputing emotion. Have I ever called you by anything other than your proper name? Do you see me getting emotional and calling you Bill D Liar? Is it not your team projecting timidness and fear about going to the store when you say it's us? Frightened little snowflakes. And thanks for confirming that you aren't even an Oak Parker who likes to stick his nose in our business. Keep your nose out of our pants Dwyer.

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 9:42 AM

Glad to see the OP decided to finally sign her name to the story. Somehow I'm not surprised by who the author is. Mary Kay, the concealed vs. open carry ship sailed a long time ago, back under democrat control of the House, Senate, and Governor. That ship is not going to turn around just because you are uninformed, easily triggered, and nosy what others keep in their pants. As for your 3 points... 1. Why am I not surprised by liberals wanting to take away your rights? Especially when this will unfairly impact those without your white privilege and cannot go down the expensive legal route that imposes an unfair tax just for excersing a Constitutional right. Leave to Mary Kay and other leftists to want to infinge on people's lives, integrity, and safety. 2. If you had done some research so that you can speak logically instead of emotionally you would have discovered that there are no local gun shops to close. Nice blurt out though. 3. It appears that you are just an uninformed hoplophobic non-carrying mope who just wants to lump everyone, law abiding and criminals into your basket of deplorables. How will you make criminals show you their guns on the El? Maybe when they show you their guns they will let you hear them too. There won't be any law abiding people on the El to protect you since that is a prohibited place and law abiding people abide by the law. Stay out of our pants Mary Kay.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 8:05 AM

You really need to pay at least some attention to reality, Brian. The right controls the White House, the Senate and House. Why then is it necessary for your bogeymen on the left to "stand down" or otherwise be silent? They're not in charge. Are you that threatened by people exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 7:45 AM

Father Plfager must perform a miracle to become a saint No voodoo involved, of course in his case there is plenty of youdoo, and little hedoo... Paragraph 5. The founding fathers weren't thinking about muskets and bayonets. They were thinking of muskets without bayonets because the bayonet musket was strictly a military weapon. an assault rifle, useless around the home.Pistols at that time were made small to carry in a pocket. Accurate at close, very close range. escond Amendments rights were upheld after it was proven the government violated the Civil Rights of citizens. I am still waiting for the apology. 1. All for calling out the military police units of the National Guard and Federalized Troops police units,ie. military police. Not National Guard infantry field units. Confiscate illegal arms, fine. Remember your terms, illegal arms, held by persons who are forbidden to possess firearms. The AA communities argue against stop and frisk, much less this so I have no worry, this wont be done even if needed State elected officials from the Chicago area argued against the Chicago Police Supt. call for stricter prison terms for people who use a firearm to commit an offense. .2. Close the gun shops and a drastic reduction in shootings and deaths will follow. No spike in shootings before the new gun shop opened in Hodgkins, no spike or drop in shootings after the new gun shop opened in Hodgkins.. 3. All for open carry. I as a retired police officer and gun owner, with my fellow gun owners, would love to spend time in the City of Chicago park, during the summer nights with my fellow gun owning African American Fathers and Mothers standing in a public park, putting my life on the line so someone elses children can play safely. The best moment of my private life was walking in the neighborhood with the 25th Mens Club shutting down a drug house for an evening. If any of this works the left will be forced to stand down, and more painfully, be quiet. Lets try it.

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 7:14 AM

It's fascinating to watch the projection of quaking conservatives like Stuck Ken, who impute emotions to others that in truth they themselves harbor. Who's the "snow flake" here? People with the courage to go about their daily lives without carrying a lethal weapon everywhere, or timid, fearful souls who need a firearm to merely venture out to the grocery store? The same kind of person, I'd say, who's too scared to even let people know his true name and face.. . .Signed: Bill Dwyer, former Oak Parked and current resident of Dunlop Avenue in Forest Park.

Ken Stucken  

Posted: September 20th, 2017 12:20 AM

Wow, you got so scared that you forgot to sign your name! Guess what? It's none of your business to know who's carrying a gun. Just assume everyone is. I think you have a couple choices though. Lock yourself in your house and stay in there nice and safe, or get four of those "no guns" signs. One for your forehead and one across your back. Then make the other two into armbands so that nobody can sneak up from the sides. And stay out of the sun snowflake.

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2017

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

Quick Links

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


            
SubscribeClassified
MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad

Latest Comments