Before bearing arms, bare your soul

Opinion: Ken Trainor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Ken Trainor

Staff writer

The only citizens — non-law enforcement/non-military — who are mentally stable enough to carry a loaded gun in public are those who refuse to do so.

Yes, that's a Catch 22, but we have to draw the line somewhere, right?

Well, maybe not if you're an NRA partisan.

The Second Amendment states, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What could be clearer than that? Since most gun defenders are "originalists" (who claim to be able to divine the original intent of the Constitution's framers), they insist everyone should not only be able to own guns but also carry them. Forty-nine states, reportedly, now have some version of "conceal and carry" laws on the books. Illinois is the only holdout and probably not for long, given the zealous lobbying efforts of the gun proliferators and the natural spinelessness of politicians.

The originalists, however, ignore the entire first half of the amendment, which sets up the second half: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

The framers didn't have to include that clause. Or they could have limited it simply to "militia." But they didn't. They went to all the trouble of including "regulated," a word that gives gun worshipers night sweats. In fact, they went one step further to "well regulated." That raises the bar even higher.

A true originalist (which gun pushers and their Supreme Court allies clearly are not) would ask why the framers mentioned "well regulated militia" in the same breath as "the right to keep and bear arms." Gun propagators have never adequately explained that discrepancy.

Most do not belong to a militia (that we know of), much less a "well regulated" one. Therefore, we have to conclude that they are originalists only when it's politically convenient.

The framers, by the way, said "keep," not "own." A well regulated militia could issue arms that members would "keep" and "bear" only when necessary to the security of a free state.

I'm just sayin'...

But the critical question is, "What did the framers mean by 'infringed'?"

Does it infringe on the right to keep and bear arms if we forbid passengers from packing heat on commercial airlines? Presumably, in a post 9/11 world, with the 10th anniversary still fresh in our minds, most Americans would not favor conceal and carry on. Should citizens be allowed to carry loaded guns into town hall meetings with elected officials? Something tells me the politicians would draw the line there (if nowhere else).

So if we all (or most of us anyway) agree that the right to bear arms is not absolute — that it needs to be "well regulated" as the framers intended — then we should come to some consensus on where to draw the line.

Here's where I draw mine:

1) You need to be mentally stable enough to carry a gun.

2) No one is mentally stable enough.

Advocates of "conceal and carry" say they want to carry a gun because it makes them feel safer. Never mind that crime has been dropping overall for the better part of two decades. Never mind that guns, more or less concealed, make the rest of us feel extremely unsafe. After all, we don't know what stresses you're under. And I'm not willing to take your word for it, no matter how many NRA gun safety classes you say you've attended.

Have you ever experienced road rage? Have you ever "lost your temper"? Are you going through a divorce or have you been unable to get a job for two years after your company laid you off in the Great Recession? Is your home's mortgage "underwater"? Have you ever thrown a punch or shoved someone in anger?

Do violent revenge scenarios on TV or in the movies give you a thrill? Are you worn out from caring for an elderly parent? Is your health insurance company threatening to deny benefits to a sick loved one? Do you ever feel cranky after a few drinks? Do you ever indulge in more than a few drinks? Do you work too hard and too many hours and feel unappreciated? Do you have "issues" with certain people — Muslims, blacks, whites, Latinos, someone else? Have you lost treasured possessions in a natural disaster? Have you ever grieved deeply over the loss of a loved one?

The American Dream has ended for a lot of people. There is deep frustration out there. You think you're immune?

A lot of people who seem perfectly "normal" and "sane" are subject to personal meltdowns under trying circumstances. Emotions are powerful and frequently get the better of us.

No one is "stable" enough to keep a loaded, deadly firearm in easy reach when they're in public.

Police know this. That's why they put themselves through such strenuous training. Some years back, I went through a session and wrote about it. What the training hammers home is that discharging a deadly weapon is an awesome responsibility. In the heat of the moment, charged with adrenaline, in a situation that requires split-second decision making, it's horrifyingly easy to shoot an innocent person. If you don't recognize and readily acknowledge that danger, then you're not ready to carry a deadly weapon.

And I am anything but reassured when I read reactions from gun champions to columns like this. Those reactions range from explosive rage to derisive contempt to arrogant condescension (check out the comments on our editorial last Wednesday, Conceal and carry, at OakPark.com/Opinion as well as the comments this column will likely generate).

If you react so intensely to an opinion (protected by the constitutional amendment that comes before the right to bear arms), if you can't even be civil discussing this issue, how can we trust you to carry a loaded gun?

The only gun advocates who are even-keel enough to be in this debate are those who readily acknowledge that it makes many of their fellow citizens feel distinctly, even profoundly, unsafe, and that their own rights are not the only rights that matter. They know that, as Wikipedia puts it, "The United States has the highest rate of gun-related injuries among developed countries" and also the highest rate of gun ownership.

My measure of the progress of civilization is disarmament. Arming the public is clearly a step backward. Yet this community's attempt to take a step in the right direction has been blocked by outside gun lobbyists who want to impose their guns on us. How is that not tyranny? I thought resisting tyranny was one of the reasons gun advocates carry guns.

Don't kid yourselves; you're not freedom fighters.

I don't want to be within three blocks of anyone carrying a weapon in public, especially if I'm with loved ones. I'll bet the majority of Oak Parkers feel the same. Someone should put "conceal and carry" on a referendum ballot in Oak Park's next election. Let's find out where people stand. If it's 3-1 against, or higher as I would expect, how do you justify preventing us from drawing a line where, as a community, we see fit? So much for your deep allegiance to freedom from government interference.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I say guns for recreational use only, and ownership should be "well regulated" as the founding framers intended. If that results in some inconvenience, view it as a sacrifice you're willing to make for the common good.

Meanwhile, the only people who should be carrying guns in public are public safety professionals (in effect, our "well regulated militia").

The bottom line is, if you can't feel safe without concealing and carrying, then a loaded firearm isn't going to cure what ails you.

Contact:
Email: ktrainor@wjinc.com

Reader Comments

349 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: October 10th, 2011 11:32 AM

Seatbelts must be worn now by law. They save more lives than before. Continue

Harley Craig  

Posted: October 10th, 2011 7:53 AM

Mabey you were right, mabey we need more gun free zones look how well they work. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL58B41AEDEC1D84F6

Harley Craig  

Posted: October 10th, 2011 7:44 AM

They are not Genius, Just like law abiding citizens arent out commiting gun crimes. My point is that ANYTHING control laws only control law abiding citizens. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens and expecting less crime is like putting up a speed limit sign and expecting the local street racers to not break the speed limit while racing through town.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: October 9th, 2011 9:40 PM

I didnt know gangs were using boyscout knives to do their killings. You crack me up.

harley craig  

Posted: October 9th, 2011 8:41 PM

so, banning pocket knives from boyscouts will decrease knife deaths from gang fights? Brilliant! Why haven't we thought of that before. You should run for President!

harley craig  

Posted: October 9th, 2011 8:38 PM

@ gunzkill Less guns by criminals = less gun related deaths. Less guns for law abiding citizens = more gun deaths and and increased violent crime because the criminals are allowed to go unchecked. It's like banning matches from back yard BBQ'ers and expecting Arson rates to go down.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 9th, 2011 5:23 PM

Its simple Robert, Less guns will translate into less gun crimes/deaths. No need for stats. Same would be true for knives or any other weapon of your choosing

Robert Zeh from River Forest, Illinois  

Posted: October 9th, 2011 4:30 PM

@GUNZ KILL: I don't know if more guns on the street increase or decrease crime. In general I don't accept your premise that one can draw simple cause and effect conclusions when millions of people are involved. Real life isn't Sim City; it is far more interesting, wonderful, confounding and full of unforseen consequences than that. However, I believe you can look at data. Let's start with crime rates by state (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0297.pdf), and see how the crime rates correlate with gun ownership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html). When I plot things out on a graph (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2455798403846&set=a.1794848040500.2103947.1518666140&type=1&theater) I can't see any relationship between rates of gun ownership and violent crime. There are a lot of holes with this kind of statistical analysis --- I'm by no means a statiscian --- but looking at actual evidence is a far better approach than trying to figure things out from first principals. Lastly, would you care to answer my question about knife deaths?

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: October 8th, 2011 1:49 PM

Robert, Do you think less guns on the streets will cause crime to increase?

Robert Zeh from River Forest, Illinois  

Posted: October 8th, 2011 10:35 AM

@GUNZKILL --- if you think the lower crime stats are due to fewer guns on the street, how do you explain that the FBI's uniform crime stats (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls) show a decrease in murder across all weapon types from 2006 to 2010? I don't expect a decrease in the number of guns on the street to decrease the number of knife deaths.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: October 8th, 2011 9:04 AM

Last night in Chicago 20 were shot and 3 dead. Perfect example why guns have no place in our society. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-west-side-south-side-north-side-shooting-gun-violence-chicago-crime-20111008,0,4264575.story

j.oakpark  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 4:22 PM

but i am not stopping you... it is the law, so be it.

j.oakpark  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 4:21 PM

@Alan, I didn't even consider opening it. I did, however, go to the FBI page and look up stats on homicides by handguns: 2005:10,158. 2006:10,225. 2007:10,129. 2008:9,528 and 2009:9,143. It does not prove much. Statistical data collection methods may have changed? These are not big numbers and hardly worth all the fuss and money spent by NRA to protect my right to A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Alan  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 1:21 PM

@j.oakpark Did you even read the link or just put your nose in the air when you saw where it was from? Listen I'm not a big fan of FOX either, but it IS upsetting when the rest of the "liberal media" won't report on something. That my friend is a form of censorship.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 10:52 AM

Crime stats go down because there are less guns on the streets today than there was 10Yrs ago. Moving in the right direction. Lifting or putting into place a gun ban doesnt do anything in regards to the number of guns out there.

harley craig  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 10:40 AM

@ j.Oakpark you can think what you want about Fox news but the numbers they spouting come from FBI crime staticitics. Why is no other news source reporting on crimes rates dropped in both Chicago and DC after the gun ban lift, but the important thing is that had it increased as suspected it would have been plastered all over the news which it hasn't.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 10:35 AM

GUNZKILL That is why people are saying smaller government. They don't want the big one.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 10:34 AM

Harley Craig, thank you for letting me know. I can search around at the gun shops to find out what they say. There are a couple of big stores with ranges so they may have something. You made some good gun selections not to have to sell them.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 10:32 AM

Jg Morales, good points and you are right that hitting terrorists is not easy just with guns but not a wrong idea either.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 8:37 AM

Isn't Bush part of the govt you want guns to protect yourself from? Hes one the bad guys in your eyes. In one breath, you like the govt having weapons and killing, and in another you think we(people) must have them because we cant trust the govt? What gives?

Jg Morales  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 8:02 AM

Yeah, I thought it was funny that this was still going on lol. I don't understand the suggestion that being the only one without a gun somehow makes you more humane and safe in a world full of guns. That doesn't convince others to get rid of their own. It just tells others that you're a sitting duck. (I'm not speaking of American neighborhoods so much as I am the international community. How many would love the chance to overthrow the US.) People who never leave the confines of their comfy little realities often forget that barbarism is alive and will all over the world. Singing Kumbaya won't make it go away. I never had too many problems with bullying. I always hit back. And you know, funny thing... lol that usually solved the problem. =-p Violence isn't the only answer, nor is it always necessary, but sometimes a swift slap across the face delivers your message more effectively. Anyone who believes we need to throw our guns in the ocean needs to do a little traveling... and I don't mean to a cushy resort. However, when it comes to *terrorism*, I don't believe guns are the way to quell ideological warfare.

Harley Craig  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 7:55 AM

@ Q. I'm not sure, I have never been to a range period let alone one that rents guns, but I know that is what my city friends do when they want to check out a new gun. If I want a new gun I just buy it and try it out if I don't like it I can alwasys sell it, but I haven't sold too many guns in my life LOL

j.oakpark  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 7:40 AM

@Alan: first disqualifier in your post...foxnews, second using the word facts and fox news together. the closet thing to reality on fox is the Simpsons.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 7:36 AM

Continuing...No matter what terrorists or enemies of the Republic do, we must NEVER use force. We must try to REASON with them...Appease them, but never look like a bully. When I was a kid and picked on by a bully--and then wehn I BEAT UP the bully, did that make me the bully? or justified? I was justified, of course. Terrorists are bullies. and they must be dealt with. Tyranny must be dealt with. There are reasons to fight and to kill. And again, Gunzkill NEVER answers questions. Ignore him.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 7:31 AM

jG Morales: The anti-gun mantra never makes sense. Liberals are by nature statists. They think only government should have them and of course like Gunzkill, if the government uses them (even correctly--because to them there are almost never legitimate uses)they get bent out of shape. They don't get it that sometimes it is necessary to take lives. Who does Gunzkill blame? Well, like all kool-aid-drinking liberals--Bush. The idea that the bad guys are to blame is anathema to them. Continued....

Jg Morales  

Posted: October 4th, 2011 5:33 AM

If I'm not mistaken, sugar kills more Americans than guns. Or, do we just chalk that up to survival of the fittest? I call depraved indifference on Mars, Inc. et al. The anti-gun mantra would make more sense if it targeted certain types of firearms. In this, you guys might find more support from people who... see the value of a pistol but not a...subatomic machine gun.

GUNZKILL from Here  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:05 PM

The point is that people are dying everywhere because we HUMANS use guns to shoot and kill. Doesnt make much sense. Good ole boy Bush should carry a lot of blame for getting us into all these killing zones!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 9:51 PM

GUNZKILL There have been thousands of American Military Personal killed but a lot more of their people. Of course Obama is open to pull out anytime. After all, wasn't closing Gitmo and getting out of the war his campaign promise. What's his next promise besides saying he needs to start doing some thinking on jobs and the economy.

Alan from Forest Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 9:29 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/ Here are some facts for ya Kenny

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 9:00 PM

Q, your right about people dying overseas with guns. Thousands of American Souls!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:29 PM

GUNZKILL Wouldn't know when the last time someone bought the farm from a hand gun. Homeland security is doing a fantastic job protecting us from the people trying to get us because they pack heat so that's why they don't need to shoot anyone. Also, people can get rifles and shotguns for home protection but they would work for self protection when out on the town.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:26 PM

Harley Craig, do a lot of gun shops that rent guns carry the .45 made by Colt? Not sure if that is a common one or not but it's suppose to be a good hand gun.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 5:43 PM

When is the last time someone in combat overseas killed anything with a hand gun? Wrong again. Also, when is the last time homeland security killed anything protecting our soil?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 3:52 PM

GUNZKILL, you are absolutely right with your quote. Guns are saving our lives over in Iraqi and Afghanistan, plus we have homeland security packing heat in case someone wants to try and get us here.

Harley Craig  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 2:41 PM

Q. from Oak Park. Typically the only way you can try before you buy is go to a range that rents guns try one out and then go back to your dealer and tell them what you want. Or find someone with what you want close to you and make the trip to try it out. Most gun owners would be happy to let you shoot their guns at the range

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 11:45 AM

"Firearms SAVE lives (innocent) and property." Another fabulous quote.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:38 AM

SamAdams1776, checked out the H&K line up. I like the H&K 45 over the H&K 45 compact for the little longer barrel. Retail is 1237.00 for the H&K 45 and it appears that is an excellent weapon. Are you saying that gun stores will let you try guns that you are interested in buying before you buy them? Thank you for the information.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 10:34 AM

GUNZKILL, I wouldn't want a knife because it would not be effective as defense, but thank you for the suggestion. I read that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 9:30 AM

Still not answering the questions. Best bet is to call the police? So I see a woman being raped and let her GET raped and call the police. NO! I take out my gun. Tell him to CEASE. If he fails to do so, I KILL him. I am good enough to hit him only. I know of a 12 year old that shot a man between the eyes while the predator held a knife to the kid's grandmother. When seconds count---the police are minutes away (usually more than 15 or 20 minutes) Sometimes killing is WARRANTED you coward!

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:39 AM

Gunzkill: You have a bizzar perspective. Firearms SAVE lives (innocent) and property. You can NEVER disarms the bad guys, and more people have been killed by their own governments than ALL the killings by criminals. GOVERNMENTS CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON ARMED FORCE. PERIOD! Now, go back to my previous posts to you and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!!!! And address the statement made here. You spout words but NEVER engage in the discussion. What are you afraid of? Reason?

GUNZKILL  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:38 AM

Q: your cheapest bet is a knife. Just sayin. Safest bet is a call to police

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:35 AM

Q: assuming you are serious, your choice of manufacturer will depend on your budget. In my opinion, one of the VERY BEST is H&K, but pricey. Paraordnance, Springfield Arms, S&W, and Glock all make excellent firearms. And there are others. I suggest you try them out first at a range and check to see if what you like is within your budget. Also, do you want a "Polymer" gun or all metal? Spend as much as you can afford; you really DO get what you pay for. Good luck.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 8:06 AM

The Federalists eventually morphed into the Whig Party and then the Republicans. Today the Republicans (theoretically at least) inherit the Antifederalists view of limited government--this is oddly enough called "Federalism" The Democrats have not merely inherited the Federalists view of a powerful central government--they out and out approach totalitarianism. They would deny this, but their socialist agenda REQUIRES subordinating the individual to the state.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: October 3rd, 2011 7:54 AM

Gunzkill: ANSWER the questions! Also irregardless is not a word. Killing bad guys is GOOD Liberty REQUIRES arms. Jim: There have been changes in nomenclature. The term LIBERAL used to mean LIBERAL in FREEDOM. Our founders (mostly) were liberals that way. The current democratic party was Jefferson's "democratic Republicans" who were anti- federalists, which means they believed in a weaker central government. The Federalists bekieved in a strong centeral government- coninued next post

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 12:20 PM

I believe John Stuart Mill served in Parliament as a member of the Liberal Party. Are you sure that's a guy you want to be quoting, Sam? Better to look for inspiration from Ted Nugent.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 11:13 AM

Its funny how someone has turned this into a liberal/ conservative issue. Guns Kill both liberals and conservatives equally. Not sure it(gun) has a preference. We are part of the human race and irregardless of your views, you can not deny that guns kill and we need it to end.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 10:34 AM

SamAdams1776 Check out the link below. It's a .45 2.5 barrel revolver. Would you recommend buying from a website or from a store? For myself, buying from a store seems better but I suppose it all depends if there are big savings from buying on line. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/manufacturers_id/31/products_id/53525

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 10:12 AM

SamAdams1776 That is a lot of hardware you own. I'm not familiar with the technical terms but it's nice to know you have 45's because I have always liked that Cal. I think having the 45 on me in the house would be good, but if a group intruded I don't think I could get the AR15 in time because I have 3 floors to cover. Any suggestions, and also what would be the best manufacture for the 45? There are so much learning to do just deciding on which one and I would rather have one recommended.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 8:16 AM

Gunzkill and all liberals: "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."--John Stuart Mill

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 7:46 AM

Q: No idea if you are being facetious; however, I use two home defense weapons: a .45 cal handgun for the lone intruder, and an AR-15 for a home invasion. It has an EO-TECH IR compatible holographic site. I also have a C-Mag for it too. Of course I have many other rifles and handguns. But they are part of my collection: FAL/FN M1 Garand 1903 Springfield 98 Mauser 94 Winchester among rifles/shotguns Pistols: Springfield 1911A1 .40 S&W .45 S&W Ruger Blackhawk (.45) among others.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 7:38 AM

Gunzkill: That previous post is for you. Now: ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONS.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 30th, 2011 7:36 AM

1. Misnomer is the wrong word. 2. That has to be the stupidist thing I ever heard. I HAVE STOPPED criminals with a gun---TWICE and stopping criminals with guns happens AT LEAST 800,000 times a year---compare that to less than 45,000 misuses. 3. You have the right to live IF you can defend that right ONLY. 4. You STILL have refused to answer my PREVIOUS questions. PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!! BTW, there is a HUGE influx of blackmarket arms that comes hidden in shipping containers.

Are you on drugs?  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:30 PM

"...we must take one for the team and let the criminals secretly have them until we find them all and destroy them." This HAS to be the dumbest thing I will hear/read today. If anything beats this...my jaw will probably cave through the floor.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:28 PM

Harley Craig, I like the idea of the criminal soiling his pants when I jack one into the chamber, or do you recommend having it already loaded and of course off safety. Also, I came across handcuffs and that should be mentioned to people that if you shoot someone and they don't end up pushing daisy's then it's a good idea to wait until the cops get there, and you know they take their sweet time at it. Pass this along... When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 3:25 PM

Harley Craig, I've finally come to realize carrying a gun is my right and I now just checked into what is the best home defense weapon. Is this correct? "The general consensus in the firearms community is that the pump action shotgun is the top choice for home defense. They're relatively easy to use and nearly impossible to break. More importantly, the sound of chambering a hot round into a pump action 12 gauge is sure to soil the britches of even the most hardened criminal."

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 1:38 PM

I'm starting to think Q and Gunz are criminals with illegial guns. These 2 seem to think the only people that should have guns are criminals. All this safety they talk about are for their criminal buddies. At least that is how I interperet it because the only people in danger of law abiding citizens with guns are criminals that try to harm them.

GUNZKILL  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 10:38 AM

The misnomer is that the criminals will still have guns......for a while. People with guns wont stop criminals with guns. So that being said, we must take one for the team and let the criminals secretly have them until we find them all and destroy them. I want the "right" to be alive. :-)

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 8:56 AM

SamAdams1776, I'm in favor of people protecting themselves and that can been done in many ways and yes, even guns can help, but for you, please turn in your guns, if not for the safety of others, then do it for yourself.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 8:13 AM

Gunzkill: "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."--John Stuart Mill You sir, I am sad to say, are one of those miserable creatures Mills talks about being kept free by better men. What do you do with that freedom: Try to empower government to enslave us. You are indeed a statist!

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 8:05 AM

PEOPLE: YOU are responsible for your own safety--insofar as such is possible. You improve your chances when you are trained in the use of arms and in the martial arts. But there are no guarantees. Also your BIGGEST threat is ALWAYS from government. You must be prepared. And you must exert control over it. As Jefferson said: "hen the people fear government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." A well-armed public will ensure a free society.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 8:00 AM

Gunzkill: So are you going to answer all my questions, I have asked? I will ask THIS question for the 3RD time: How much freedom are you willing to trade to prevent non-government-caused deaths by firearms? You DO understand that the moment people are disarmed we WILL fall to TYRANNY and LOTS of deaths at the hands of government. It would happen before a single generation passes. Why do you think our founders were so prolific in their writings insisting on an armed public?

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 7:55 AM

Gunzkill: You sound like a nut. How do you propose to take guns from criminals? Answer this: ARE YOU OK WITH GOVERNMENT HAVING A MONOPOLY ON ARMS? DO YOU TRUST GOVERNMENT TO BE KIND? More people have been murdered by governments than all criminals combined over CENTURIES. And answer this: Why are you not outraged over all the automobile deaths? There are more of them than gun-related deaths? But you never answer my questions. Why is that? And how much freedom will you give up to get your way?

samadams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 7:50 AM

Q. Attacks can happen from complete strangers. How can you report something like that? even if you could, the police are NOT there to protect individuals. BESIDES, the REAL PURPOSE OF THE SCOND AMENDMENT IS TO DEFEND AGAINST TYRANNY. How hard is this to get through all you liberal's noggins? Also how hard is it to understand that the 2A COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY REMOVES THE ABILITY TO REGULATE THE KEEPING AND BEARING OF ARMS. The BOR is not about granting rights, it's about restricting government.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 29th, 2011 7:43 AM

Q: I have accessed the firearm I was carrying concealed TWICE to save my life. But you're right there is NEVER a guarantee you will access it fast enough. But had I not had it with me. I wouln't be here. By NOT having it, you ARE guaranteed to be another statistic. You're free to make that choice and thank God I am STILL free to make a different one.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 11:42 PM

Gunz you running for president. You keep saying we need to get rid of all guns, but you don't contribute any way that it would even be possible. If all guns could truly be gotten rid of I would gladly hand over mine but the fact is they cant. Anyone with a machine shop and a little knowledge can make one right in their garage. They are merely tools carved from steel nothing more nothing less. I don't see you screaming about banning cars they kill a heck of alot more people each yr.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 11:38 PM

HMMM. Il Assoc. Of Police Chiefs, IL SHerrifs Assoc. Chichago Police Seargeants Assoc. Are all on record as being in favor. The IL state police were Neutral untill GOv. Jello sent out the order to go against. The ONLY police that are activly against it is CHicago Brass. And they are all Daily Puppets trying to carry on the daily legacy.

David Letterman from The Late Show  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 10:03 PM

"Uh.. uh.. you got any gum?"

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 9:17 PM

harley craig, I would disagree with you that most law enforcement Officers are in favor of carry conceal. When domestics arise, odds of someone not emotionally balanced with firearms included makes it a very dangerous situation to walk into. All weapons first need to be cleared from all parties involved. I don't think the majority of Officers welcome that scenario. That's good you filed a report in regards to someone trying to kill you. Maybe you can ask the person not to kill you.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 8:57 PM

1(ONE) gun death is too many!!!!! Let alone 45,000!!!!!! No guns....No gun fatalities. If guns are used against people trying to kill you, chances are they have a gun. Take guns away from all people and then the easy ability to kill someone is gone.

harley craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:33 PM

the point is though, that A the police can't be everywhere at once they are extreamly over worked. B The police don't even have a duty to protect you, and that was made clear by the supream court. If law abiding citizens carrying is so bad and dangerous why are most police in favor of C/C?

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:28 PM

Yes I have called the police. "ok we will send someone out to take a statement" is their standard response. Just like the woman being raped the state police recomend that she vomit on her self to try to prevent the rape. And then when it's over you can call the please and they will send someone out to take a statement.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 6:32 PM

Harley Craig, I fully understand that if someone is trying to kill you, that it's better to have a weapon to defend yourself. Now that I understand why you want to carry a weapon, now my question is, who is trying to kill you and have you reported it to the Police?

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 3:49 PM

Q from oak park. We would be re-miss if we though that just because we carry means that we will be protected. We absoutly know that without a shadow of doubt there is still a chance, but it's all about options, If someone trys killing me while Im unarmed then it's a 100% chance I am going to die, if someone trys killing me while armed it's 50/50 could go either way but the option is there for me to try to defend myself so that I man live.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 11:53 AM

SamAdams1776 do you know who is a frighten immature child? Everyone who accepts having the Patriot Act to keep them safe from terrorist. You don't ever know for 100 percent when you can be attacked and you don't box in a society for the sake of feeling like you are safe. Same as guns. You can pack them all you want but when danger comes a knockin' you can't be sure you can pull it in time. It only gives you a false sense of security which is ridiculous in the face of real danger.

Q from Yahoo.com  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 11:44 AM

Haley Craig, I'm not saying more people will pack heat. It's very bothersome for most people to carry around a gun. People won't become crazy shooting each other with guns. I'm saying just like motor vehicle accidents, gun accidents will increase. Now do we want gun accidents to increase? No, of course not, but we don't want car accidents but we have them and you can't remove car's because they are very useful, as guns are only useful when you need them and you generally won't need them.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:55 AM

And Gunzkill: Do us a favor, respond to the numbers RESPONSIBLY, without hyperbole or silliness. If you cannot answer INTELLIGENTLY or REFUTE--then don't try--it sounds stupid when you do. You just end up sounding like a frightened immature and WORSE irrational child.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:50 AM

Gunzkill: Using an average of 45,000 gun-related deaths and a total of 290,000,000 guns in the hands of Americans (we can only use the known LEGAL--and rounding to make the math simple but not sacrifice much in accuracy: we have (45,000/290,000,000)*100 to put it in percent, then we have: .015517 percent. How much freedom are you willing to trade--how much power would you give government over us to get that to 0?

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:44 AM

Gunzkill: It doesn't help when you make up numbers. Annual DOJ numbers have fewer gun-related deaths than annual automobile fatalities-and that includes DEATHS from self defense(very few self-defense uses REQUIRE firing it--most cease when the weapon is drawn); suicides (and suicide rates are unrelated to availability of firearms); murders/crimes of passions; and accidents. We are talking about < 45,000 deaths from firearsm TOTAL annually--some years LOTS less. Lets compute percentages next.

Harley Craig   

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:37 AM

not enough need to cause an uproar? You should thank me for standing up for your right. What if it was the freedom of religion or freedom of speach. Would there not be a need for an uproar if the government said no. I would like to see what happens if the government stepped in and told one church NOPE you cant worship God that way. It would go over like the preverbial turd in the punch bowl. Not enough need, If you don't want to stand up for this country's beliefs you are welcome 2 leave

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 7:32 AM

Q from Oak Park. Once there is enough people? What is the majic number where guns will suddently make people crazy. In the state of florida alone as of july 31 2011 they have reported total number of licensees 1,020,420 There are 48 besides them. YOu do the math. You can't go almost anywhere outside of IL where you will not come in contact with a lawfull gun owner and you never see them used. Secondly what makes you think more people will choose to carry anyways?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 27th, 2011 12:12 AM

Harley Craig, let me explain it this way to you. Once there are enough people packing guns then like car accidents, gun accidents will start showing up and at that point, it will be very difficult to repeal it across the country. There just isn't enough need to carry heaters to cause an uproar and I don't care if you want to pack one or not. It really makes no difference to me as long as you can keep it in your pants and not have to whip it out if you are the jumpy type over anything.

Silly  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 11:32 PM

Why was it legal for women NOT to vote? Why was it legal for Blacks not to vote? It was legal at one point right?

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 10:07 PM

Q from Oak park. How about you try to answer my question with out skirting it and speaking drivel like a like a politician. Who cares how many people actually do, WHY IF IT IS SO BAD HAS THE 49 OTHER STATES NOT REPEALED IT? It's a simple question. If you are right and we are wrong why has it not been repealed?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 8:54 PM

Harley Craig, not many people in States that allow people to carry heaters bother carrying them. I've asked people from different States do you carry a gun and they weren't even aware they could I asked do you want to? Reply has been, "What for". There just isn't many people doing it and if it did pass here, not many would carry here. Glad you made it through today without the need to whip it out and blast someone trying to get more than their fair share of toilet paper at Walmart.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 7:38 PM

Oh and BTW I have been out of state all day and have been carrying a loaded 380 in my pocket all day. It hasn't jumped out and shot anybody yet. Not at Walmart or any of the other stores I have visited. I had a guy cut me off and flip me the bird and somehow I managed to work through the road rage I had at the time and my gun didn't even jump out of my pocket and fire it'self then. I must have one special gun if it behaves that well.

Harley Craig   

Posted: September 26th, 2011 7:31 PM

@ Go Ken! How can you say noone is trying to have a civil conversation, I asked a question days ago that nobody has answered so here it is again. here is a question for everyone who is anti gun and I want you to think for yourself and not give a canned cut an paste response. If IL is going to be such a bad place when conceal carry passes, then why is it all over the US gun laws are laxing not getting more restrictive, Why have NONE of the 49 other states even attempted to repeal their CC Laws

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 3:04 PM

Since you brought some numbers into this conversation.....If 800,000- 2.5 million were used in a good manner.......Then 3X's that were used in a nightmare awful kinda of way. Maybe its 6X's? Still counting

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 1:57 PM

Mathclass? Did you forget the 800,000-2.5 MILLION times lawfully used arms defend life and property. Also SOME gun deaths in your little exercise include lawful self defense--subtract those. Accidents are covered in education and training and crimes YOU CANNOT STOP. And suicide rates are unaffected by availability of firearms. You suck at math.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 1:54 PM

Q: YES! a few thousand terrorists are wreaking havoc with us forces in the Middlea East. just 3% of gunowners (lots of them foermer military, former police and ACTIVE as well) would represent 1.7 MILLION gunowners!!! Please! and do you think most Soldiers would shoot against Americans? Not likely. I should know--I AM one. The REAL REASON those who defend the 2A do so is to ensure protection actainst Tyranny! Otherwise, what you suggest is to give up on liberty.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 12:34 PM

Scoot, you are being a bit naive when you say the NRA is a not for profit. Do you know the salaries people get paid for running not for profit organizations? Check out what they pay at the Red Cross.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 12:32 PM

SamAdams1776 do you really think your guns will stand against what the government has? Why even bother. You are using a fly swatter against a tank. I would think you may have been very impressed that our government could go in and roll over Iraqi troops in days. There was nothing surprising about that, and they had better weapons they you do. Try and think of another reason why you need guns.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 11:12 AM

1 dead body, 2 dead bodies........Plus another 4 dead bodies. How many does that make for this weekend? How about the year?

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 11:11 AM

Time to put the Guns down boys and girls, Math class is about to start.

Scott  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 7:58 AM

OakPark, This is in regards to your question about supporting the NRA with $. The reason we do that is it costs money to do the things the NRA does. We just won 2 huge cases and you have to pay these people called lawyers. We have tons of programs that train individuals to own and operate all different guns, programs that benifit wounded soldiers, just all kinds of things. And it all costs money. P.S. the NRA is not for profit 501 c

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 26th, 2011 7:35 AM

Gunzkill: You cannot disarms the bad guy. He does not get his guns at the local gunstore. There is a huge blackmarket of arms coming in shipping containers--and they include full-autos. Finally, EVEN if you COULD disarms the good and bad guys, that would leave government with an open monopoly on arms. The concepts of individual freedom really are anathema to you aren't they? Admit it here to us and to yourself--YOU ARE A STATIST. Freedom is really too hard a thing for you.

GoKen!  

Posted: September 25th, 2011 4:05 PM

I admire your abilty to write what so many of us think but lack the courage to say to those that don't agree. How sad it is that the vitriol is spewing and that there is no attempt for a real dialogue by so many people. There are so many of us that admire your opinions and the careful way that you balance strength of conviction to fairness. Once again, scores of supporters and anti gun folks read and remain silent instead of standing with you. Keep going; we need this voice.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 25th, 2011 12:59 PM

What about the NKA? The National Knife Association. How come a knife that is a legal weapon cant be used instead of a gun? Everyone could conceal and carry and not worry about the knife going off on accident. The knife, like the sword was here first!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 10:16 PM

I'm not saying it's wrong to support the NRA with your money but you should know why you are supporting them and not believing in just a sales pitch. If you want to own a gun for protection, you don't need an organization telling you why. You should be able to determine why yourself because they won't be there if the time arises and you have to exercise your rights of protection by discharging your weapon.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 10:14 PM

Cont... So now everyone card caring member of the NRA can take pride in knowing they belong to a once important organization to benefit our country. Then it had to give way to politics and convince people why they should pay their membership and tell people the importance of their right to own and even carry a weapon. It's a business and like any business and to run it correctly means bringing in money so they needed to convince people on the importance of owning a gun for protection.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 10:09 PM

Why do they call it the NRA? Because it stands for National Rifle Association. Why not Rifle and Gun Association? Because it was based off of Soldiers who could not shoot very well. So it was a good idea to have a place that could train potentially new Soldiers how to shoot. When the Military took to training new Soldiers how to shoot properly, the NRA needed to keep members and bring in new ones, so they decided to make it a general sort of place for people who like all types of fire power.

Q from Oakpark from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 8:42 PM

Well, I am here to apologize as I met ol Jarhead1982 today, guess what, he did not kill me. He only laughed at the utter idiocy I demonstrated by being more afraid of a law abiding gun owner. He noted it was really cute how some anti blogger took over his name making claims like any politician does in a lame attempt to slander them when the politician never has any facts to counter their opponents position. Ol jarhead almost peed his pants laughing at our stupidity, we antis should be ashamed.

Val from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 8:35 PM

I just wanted everyone to know I have voluntarily committed myself to the Betty Ford clinic to help with my drug induced fantasies and perpetual lying about everyones rights. As well as my lame attempts at mind reading and character assasination of the lowest order against those who do not belive my lies. Please forgive my ravings as I go through the most serious of detoxifications from my guzzling of a minimum of 10 gallons a day of my favorite Obama Lama Ding a Ling prozac/lsd koolaide.

Jim M  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 6:38 PM

Which is more dangerous ? A LAW ABIDING armed citizen or Kenny Boy Trainor armed with a weekly column.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 2:41 PM

Gunz Kill, age appropriate means when you have a big enough hand and just enough strength to hold and shoot the weapon.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 1:25 PM

"age appropriate guns"...Still laughing and wondering

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 12:06 PM

Scott, why don't you just make your AR15 with single, semi and full selections. Why your son is at the range he can shoot single, then with moving targets he can go to semi and when the bad guy comes charging he can go to full auto. Just make it 5.56mm rounds. For groups of bad people attacking all at once, attach a grenade launcher to it and fit it for a bayonet so if he runs out of ammo he can still have something to defend himself with.

Scott  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 9:05 AM

GUNZ KILL, It doesn't matter how much crime goes up or down, it's our right and that's that. If you don't like it, lobby your reps to get the 2A repealed. Keep in mind no matter what the crime rate is, it isn't the law abiding citizens that are committing the crimes and law abiding are 99% of gun owners. You can pass all the gun laws you want but it will only affect the law abiding. How is that supposed to reduce crime?

Scott  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 8:51 AM

You guys are killing me about Jarhead. It's a stupid internet forum and he's reaming you guys because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Scott  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 8:39 AM

I should clarify, we'll chamber it to .22 to start off, then when he gets to his teens or so we'll convert it to .223 and hopefully by then we'll get rid of the stupid full auto ban in IL and we can add select fire to his AR.

Scott  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 8:34 AM

QFrom Oak Park, I said "by" middle school. We just had our first child and I am building him an AR-15. He will most likely be taking his first shots before middle school. I am a firearms instructor if that makes you feel any better lol

Val  

Posted: September 24th, 2011 7:59 AM

@Jarhead1982-Whew, we sure are all glad you showed us all how stable and sane you are!! Creeeepppy. Someone hide the ammo.

Notso  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 11:40 PM

Freedom to own a gun, freedom to not own a gun. Freedom to carry, freedom to not carry. Isn't freedom a wonderful thing?

harley craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 6:10 PM

sorry now answer my question I asked before. Seems nobody can answer a straight forward question with a logical answer

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 6:07 PM

Q from OP Obviously that question is silly at best. Obviously if someone open fired as someone was running away with your posessions would be charged with Murder As their life in not in jepardy if the perp is leaving. And nobody can answer exactly what they would do, I can tell you what I do when I carry in other states I don't go to places where I think I might need my gun. it is not my intention to look for a fight it's to mind my own business and come home safely to my family. Now answer Q

Another OP resident  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:37 PM

It's just Ken's opinion, folks! Clearly, we all have strong opinions when it comes to GUNS for they are power tools of the most sinister caliber. Bang bang, shoot shoot.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:34 PM

I'm rather sure anyone with a gun strapped to their hip that someone else can get the drop on them. Now comes the choice, do you wait until the person robs you and runs away before you open fire, or do you make a grab for your sidearm and shoot it out right then. Any suggestions for either side is welcomed.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:31 PM

Jarhead1982, you really were getting emotionally unstable over your postings. I'm glad you weren't in the room with everyone else, otherwise we would be concerned if we said anything, you would drop the hammer on someone.

cdodgela from New Orleans area  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:15 PM

This is so wrong on so many levels. All I can say is that this guy (progressive, lib, freedom hater)should be put out to pasture. It is simple: Gun ownership up, crime down. Enough said...

Gunzkill from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:15 PM

I know I speak for the few remaining anti gun zealots, and apolgize for insisting your rights stop at a township, county, or state line. We recognize our own isane fears of the law abiding and how we refused to acknowledge fear of the criminals of who we believed have superior rights. We also apologize for perpetuating the lie that gun control reduces violence and any data driven reply is welcome in ANY place of conversation. Please pray for us as we serve penance in a non speaking monastary.

Jarhead1982 from Atlanta  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:03 PM

Racist no, despiser, hell yes! I despise Nazi's and communists who believe freedom and privacy is a privilege. I despise the perpetual lying by ALL politicians. I despise people who only handle problems with emotional solutions as reality has always proven that only increases the problem relying on emotions alone! I despise people who abuse the privilege of power, especially police who think they are superman. I then handle that despisement by yanking their freaking chains, it is rather fun!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:54 PM

Wait, I was going away, but now I am back. Why is that? I am so confused. I am caught in the space time continuum and I worry that every time I post a nasty comment that I will be forced to post a I love you all and I mean you no harm and I am sorry that I have taken over your local newspaper and I won't do it again, because I don't live and should not care about what you do.

Jarhead1982 from Camp Pendleton  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:49 PM

Hey now I am from California. I also love watching how the antis get so flustered at not being able to answer any of those facts with anything more than hilarious rants and other acts so often perpetuated by the intellectually incapable. Sometimes, they even just shutup, which is an added bonus. Dont like my sarcasm about suing the police, didnt read my previous post about that issue, so guess your the idiot here eh Val!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:47 PM

Now I am form the land of peace and flowers. I will lay down my weapon, and my gun. I no longer want to argue. love you all and I will go away now and leave you peaceful Oak Parker's alone.

Jarhead1982 from Houston  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:42 PM

Hey, now I am from Houston. White Supremicist, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, boy thats a laugh. You reaaaalllllyyyy insulted me there einstein. Must be a mind reader as you know me heart and soul, just by my badgering idiots who base their unsubstantiated beliefs on emotional ka ka and refusing to acknowledge facts that even a normally anti gun government acknowledge to exist. I love yanking the chain of such idiots and watch them spew pea green soup like the exorcist.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:37 PM

Geez, and there are multiple police firearm dicharge studies showing the % of people who are shot, where 76-80% of that total where both shooter and injured were both involved with a criminal act (mostly drugs). Google it, you will see, especially the Chicago police, lol! Yeah, old gunsaresentient claims more good people die from misuse of guns, but funny how that einstein refuses to admit that over 95% of those deaths invovle criminals and suicides.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 4:33 PM

Poor widdle commnist, cant hack a free American speaking their mind and slinging so many irrefutable government facts that they choke on it like all good fascists do. USDOJ The United States Department of Justice has this annual report, the National Gang Threat Assessment. Last report 2009-2010 shows the government acknolwedges 80% of all violent crimes committed each year bu career criminals/gang members. Geez, you dont have any government data to refute this government data eh?

harley craig   

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:31 PM

here is a question for everyone who is anti gun and I want you to think for yourself and not give a canned cut an paste response. If IL is going to be such a bad place when conceal carry passes, then why is it all over the US gun laws are laxing not getting more restrictive, Why have NONE of the 49 other states even attempted to repeal their conceal carry laws? It's simple the fears you have of blood running in the streets simply did not materalize.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:22 PM

I take it very seriously and she is not allowed to handle guns unless I help that is why NO MATTER I drop what I'm doing when she wants to get one out. I don't ever whant her to feel like I am too busy and for her to get one on her own. And what is the apropriate age? The state has issued FOID cards to 6 mo olds. ???

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:21 PM

"age apropriate guns" Its all been said!

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:19 PM

Columbine is a prime example of how someone uneducated about guns that put them on a pedistal as a symble of power looks at them. Those of us that utilize them everyday, they are a tool no dirrerent that a hammer with each having it's specific purpose. But how is keeping guns away from me going to solve the problem with criminals? Do you think a woman being raped should lay there and take it? Or should she be able to defend herself if she chose to?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:16 PM

Harley Craig, not afraid of guns. Have shot several types and machine guns. You may be surprised but your daughters ability to learn does not give her the ability to reason as an adult because she isn't. So until she does become an adult, or what the law currently says is the appropriate age to own a weapon, then it's your responsibility for all actions she does with a weapon, regardless if you are or aren't with her. I certainly hope you take that responsibility seriously for many years.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:15 PM

Unfortunatly I realize how he must have felt when we were kids a friend of mine was shot in the face and killed by a kid that was playing with his daddys gun. That is why my daughter has learned that they are not toys they are tools just like my table saw can hurt her too. Seriously read "gunproof your child" you can get it on amazon for $8 it was written by a retired police officer.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:11 PM

harley craig, Columbine is a good example of weapons in the wrong hands. An Officer on the scene was telling me the shooters also shot targeted with shooting people in the spine so if they lived they would be paralyzed. People who are not mentally balanced will choose guns over any other instrument that can kill. Guns can be concealed and it takes a pull of a trigger to kill.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:10 PM

Q.From Oak Park,I don't expect you to get it, you are obviously are afraid of guns, While most kids run around point toy guns at each other playing cowboys and indians, My daughter will stop them and explain how it is dangerous to Muzzle somebody with a gun even if it's unloaded or a toy. And as I stated earlier she is only allowed to shoot age apropriate guns she know she has to master one before she can try a new one. She has worked her way up to a 22 rifle,but is still on airsoft w/pistol

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:07 PM

Guns can be handled safely with full understanding, but even with that there was a terrible accident between 2 police officers on the range leaving one killed by the other. How do you think that Officer felt and feels about that? There was an Officer who discharged his weapon accidentally when waiting with his team for a bust. Had a FBI instructor explain how guns explode in the shooters hands. Hope you are an expert because I am not. I am not opposed to weapons, but know they aren't for all.

harley craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 1:01 PM

@ Gunz you say: GUNZ KILL Posted: Friday, September 23rd, 2011 10:36 AM Let me pose another question. Is there ever a time in your brain, that GUNS should be banned? I say NO, why is it so hard to understand that the only people that will follow a gun ban are law abiding citizens? And those are not the ones you need to worry about. Guns were banned at virginia tech, how good did that do?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:58 PM

Harley Craig, I thought you were really joking about your 4 year old daughter enjoys shooting. First off, she was introduced to guns, and you created her enjoyment for guns. It didn't work the other way around. I'm not a person who will say how bad you are for doing that because some people do drugs around their kids and aren't willing to share. So at least you are sharing. As for keeping guns locked up? Yes, even police officers do that. Bullets go one place, gun goes another and is locked.

Harley Craig   

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:48 PM

It's no different than teaching your kids how to swim so if they fall in the pool they don't drown. No matter how hard you try, you can not child proof every gun your child might come in contact with, so you gun proof your child. Police have been doing it with their children for yrs, do you think they unload and lock up their weapon at night, NO they teach their kids how to safely interact and live around guns. Read the book by Massad Ayoob a retired cop called "gun proof your child"

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:44 PM

@ Gimpy, you can joke all you want, but I am not kidding, Obviously she is only allowed to shoot age apropriate firearms. But the point is, my kid will not accidently kill someone playing with one of my guns because she knows they are dangerous but knows how to properly operate one. They are not on a pedestal that she is forbiden to touch, if she wants to handle a gun I drop what I am doing and we get out whatever gun she wants to see and she learns about it.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:40 PM

Mark from Forest Park. Tire Irons have been used because the people didn't have quick access to a gun. Are you saying that people have the right to keep arms so if the government decided to take over then people could defend themselves? Mark, do you think a gun is any match to a tank, a rocket, a bomb, etc..? I would say what are you smoking but that law hasn't been passed yet and Oak Park is in favor of it. Then we all will need guns to protect us from people stoned on pot.

Mark from Forest Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:34 PM

And the author goes on to ask "Have you ever experienced road rage? Have you ever...." Why are you equating losing a temper with being homicidal? They are two VERY different things. Having a firearm won't magically make somebody homicidal. If somebody has a murderous rage, do you think a lack of a firearm will stop them? EVery day people are murdered without firearms (should we ban tire irons because they're so easily accessible to somebody with road rage?)

Mark from Forest Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:27 PM

Enough with misuse of the tired "militia" argument. Seriously. In DC v Heller, the ruling issued by the Supreme Court said the same thing we've all known since day 1: The "militia" is simply all citizens capable of fighting. The ruling also acknowledged the 2nd Amendment isn't about fighting foreign invaders (the British) or the native Americans... it is about preventing OUR OWN federal government from creating a standing army and ruling us with force. Read pp 22-28 of the Heller ruling.

Gimpy from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 11:42 AM

Harley Craig, your daughter is so cute. I really like her pink lace holster strapped to the side of her stroller. Remember when you let your shoot your 12 gauge from her tricycle? What was it? 10 or 15 feet the force from the recoil sent her rolling backwards into the garbage. Absolutely a blast. When you bringing Alfred out? Your son is just about 2 now... Isn't he?

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 11:09 AM

@ Scott, you are right aboout the families, I get compliments on how my 4 yr old daughter is so well behaved. A lady once complimented her and asked her "why are you always so well behaved when all the other kids are being silly" Her unscripted response " because if I get in trouble my dad wont let me shoot with him when he gets off work" Out of the mouths of babes.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 10:52 AM

But of course Scott, I am also against tattoo's but the libs in Oak Park let them open their shops in town. Doesn't bother me, and it would bother me if you were wearing a gun on each hip, two ankles holsters, one concealed in your pocket and one up your sleeve. You can never have to many guns and you should have plenty of back ups in case someone gets the drop on you or gets your first gun drawn out of your hands.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 10:49 AM

Scott, glad most gun owners will wait until their kids are the age of middle school students and not like the doctor who took his 8 year old son to a gun club to shoot an Uzi submachine gun under strict guidance by professional gun experts at a professional course. Some gun nuts thought a boy of 8 years old could handle it, and the father thought they knew best but the boy is dead. 99 percent of you gun nuts shoot each other on hunting trips and have no idea what you are doing handling a weapon.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 10:36 AM

Let me pose another question. Is there ever a time in your brain, that GUNS should be banned? Lets say gun violence raises 2000% a yr? Wheres the limit for you "gun people"

Scott  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 10:32 AM

Also what is so sad is that if any one of you antis would meet us at the range and you actually learned how to safely handle and use a firearm, you would do a 180 and be hooked for life. Give it a chance

Scott  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 10:30 AM

Someone wondered if we spend as much time with our kids as we do lobbying for our rights. In my experience 2A advocates are some of the most family oriented people I know. Most of our kids will learn how to use a firearm by middle school. Now that's quality family time!

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 9:41 AM

Yeah, you gun people win. Congrats. The Supreme Court (as currently constituted) agrees with you. I just wish that satisfied you. Instead, if some small weekly paper opinion writer disagrees, you circle the wagons on some message board and post your manifestos and belittle your opponents in the guise of a conversation. Go hug your kids, jeez. And yeah, "libs" is used by non-liberals as a pejorative, like "tea baggers."

Notso  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 9:03 AM

"Guns KILL more Good people than bad". Pretty difficult to prove that statement one way or the other, due to what defines a good person vs. a bad person AND due to the large number of people reported in the yearly death stats that were rival gangs killing each other . BUT, regardless of that, it does prove that the police can't personally protect you and that good people should be willing to protect themselves and their families.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 8:59 AM

There should have been at least 200 posts by now. Come on all of you, start posting. This topic is as hot as hot brass flying out of a machine gun.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 8:26 AM

Good bad or indifferent. Here is the stat I DONT like so much: Guns KILL more Good people than bad!!!!

Val  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 7:24 AM

@jarhead1982fromDearborn--FYI, the police cannot be sued for failure to protect, they are immune, you idiot. Not that I am against gun ownership in general, just suspicious of gun ownership by white supremacists from Michigan.

Daniel Hurtado  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 7:19 AM

Prof. Kierkus, I would be interested in being pointed to the evidence you reference that suggests that gun-carriers are more mentally and emotionally stable than non-carriers. I do not agree with Trainor's hyperbolic generalizations about people who carry guns or want to carry guns, but the opposite proposition seems to me equally implausible. Indeed, I am interested in what the psychological connection purportedly is between mental/emotional stability and the practice of carrying a gun. It is difficult for me to conceive of any relationship one way or the other. Even as a purely statistical matter, it is a counter-intuitive result given that the cohort of gun carriers would have to include all of the persons who have committed crimes and other acts with guns that reflect severe mental/emotional instability. And I am quite curious about the design of any survey(s) or clinical study(ies) that purported demonstrate a correlation been carrying a gun and mental/emotional stability.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:22 AM

Many, many, many more of that example exists, where the bad guy had suprise, yet ended up on the table at the local morgue. Then again, all one has to do to is read those 80 on average examples a month to understand resistance is not futile, just by review of all that government data. That and to take their hands off their ears, open their eyes, and quit repeating to infinty LALALALALALALALALALALALA in the insane hope those facts will simply cease to exist.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:15 AM

Oh my, we have an actual Borg on the blog "Resistance is Futile". Seems without doing any research, how in June 2010, an 80 yr old army vet, and a late 60's something store owner, within a week of the McDonald ruling, were both suprised by burglars, who shot first at their intended victim, where the victim then went, retrieved their gun, and killed the robber. Even funnier, how that was in Chicago. So where were the police and why havent they been sued for failure to protect?

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 5:11 AM

Ah poor widdle eaton, can't refute a thing that was referenced from all that government data and studies. Yeah, have researched it, collected it, and when idiots keep repeating their lies, reposting it. Funny how no one has ever refuted those facts. Funny how all that information is available for those who wish to know, much less can do the simplest thing a child does on a computer, google. As for potty training, would you prefer I not wipe first before you kiss my arse

Notso  

Posted: September 23rd, 2011 12:42 AM

Once again, there are NO guarantees in life. What you can do is increase your odds that something will or will not happen, but no guarantees. You need to understand that.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 11:28 PM

The the person that thinks the 2 individuals that were murdered in OP would have been "saved" with a gun, think again. You are completely wrong. Both incidents were surprise attacks probable from behind. Like I said before, if someone comes up to you with a gun to your head, how do you plan on defending yourself with the gun that is in your pocket? Funny how having a gun doesnt do much for people in many incidents. Parachutes dont always work.

Eaton from Sumbeari Ohio  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:34 PM

Jarhead 1982 from Dearborn, did you do all of that research all by yourself? We must talk about your potty training sometime.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:53 PM

You can go here and read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludwig & Cooke study noted below, doesn't prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime. You have better data and facts than these experts who by chance, are anti gun, LOL, LOL, cold day in hell ring a bell! http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R2

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:50 PM

Shall we look at the FBI report from several years ago? http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_1to3.pdf http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_4.pdf http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_5to6.pdf http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_7to8.pdf http://www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_9.pdf cont

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:48 PM

England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK) So much for less gun equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, or city, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases. Care to review some of the government reports on how gun control didn't work?

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:46 PM

1997 Australia, Canada, England banned guns Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref AIC.GOV) Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan) Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn't solved one crime, such a common trend.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:45 PM

All while at the same time we see 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 states total, and 34 states implementing concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 3 states and 71 universities implemented concealed carry. All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as several bloggers suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep. So much for more guns equals more violence BS!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:44 PM

We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF. We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009. That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murder

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:43 PM

Oh that's right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again. Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh? Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see! Then again, liars refuse to accept the facts from all those court rulings, government agencies, their data and studies. Really must suck to be you!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:40 PM

...well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven't. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA. Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:39 PM

Yet antis now claim the dependent clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim. Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers?

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:38 PM

The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state's. "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." Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") cont

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:36 PM

Hey gunsarentsentient, are you speaking of getting shot, or complaining about not getting a courtesy reach around in prison? Hey mayb you few remaining antis, can demonstrate that the militia, existed before the armed individual. See that is the only logical way one could argue that a person is armed, only due to the prior existence of the miltia. Warns us when you have those facts to support that belief, as hell will surely have frozen over!

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 2:21 PM

So, liberal(lib) is now a bad word? Prefer to be referred to as a progressive? Well, ok, I'll now say prog instead of lib, hope that works for you. FWIW, you can refer to me as a conservative, or I guess a cons for an abreviation. And exactly when did I call anyone a coward? I believe I did say someone's 'ideas were cowardice', but don't think I called anyone a coward. And freedom to carry or to not carry is still a wonderful thing.

dave from plaq  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 1:57 PM

seems this jackass forgot a few words to the second he added well regulated to te people 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

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 1:21 PM

We got the bullet points. Gun laws in Oak Park are history. But the battle is not over. Open Carry is up next. It means you have the right to show you're armed at the grocery store, nightclub, church, day care center or on a college campus. Gun ownership should increase as restrictions are reduced or eliminated and some will believe they are now safer. But more criminals will have guns too. They'll steal 'em from law abiding homes or buy in a thriving marketplace. America is loading up!

Hypocrite Alert  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 1:02 PM

Hey, Notso, are you telling me that "libs" and "typical lib" are not used by you in the pejorative? And calling the writer "cowardly?" Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry.

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 12:59 PM

@Notso- Since there's no way to argue with the cold hard facts, their only recourse (Mr. Trainor included) is to demonize the opposition. That's how you know when someone has lost the debate... they get "personal".

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 12:22 PM

"All Gun Nuts"..... There we go again with the personal attacks. Don't you just love it? :-) Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 11:53 AM

I wonder if the gun clingers here are as passionate about their families and children as they are about their precious guns. I wonder if they could go pages and pages effusively praising their kids as much as they do about their right to have their guns. I guess it's easier to cut and paste message board crap than speak from the heart.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 11:37 AM

All Gun Nuts. Next time our country is in danger of being over thrown, I will back your right to the 2nd amendment, but until then you just want guns strapped on your hips in the name of self protection so you can walk late at night in the worse dangerous area and know you are safe unless some bad guy takes a shot at you from the bushes. If you are going to learn the proper way to react with a weapon, then you are going to need to train everyday and that is just not going to happen.

Second Amendment Dem from Oak Park  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 11:18 AM

Gunz Kill: Ask the UIC professor who was bludgeoned with a hammer while walking down the street whether he would have liked to have had a gun on him that day. Ask the guy who was killed in his garage in an East Ave alley whether he would have liked to have had a gun that day. Oh, that's right. You can't, because they were both murdered in Oak Park and their assailants never caught.

j.oakpark  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 10:05 AM

Notso: read anything by Noam Chomsky. Just saying, you can find someone to support your point of view, particularity these days with anybody being able to blog. I do not find anyone crazy for supporting their point of view and I do wish that people would step away from the keyboard when they feel the urge to attack someone's opinion( I don't think your are guilty of that) rather than defend their own.

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 10:04 AM

Isn't freedom wonderful? Own and carry a gun if you want, don't own one if you don't want to. Who can be against freedom?

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:54 AM

"There's none so blind as those who will not listen."

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:54 AM

I've never had or needed to use a gun in my entire life. Disarm the bad guys and the good guys. Take one for the team.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:39 AM

And Mr. Berg, the PURPOSE of the 2A is to ensure the people can OVERTHROW a tyrannical government. Please see my earlier postings. Yes it COULD happen and yes the people not only could, but WOULD win. SamAdams1776 III MOLON LABE No Fort Sumters Oathkeeper (military)

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:35 AM

Also note how Mr. Berg identifies anyone but a government agent as crazy, who carries arms. Mr. Berg, if you really want to learn (on the off-chance) go here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html Good starting point.

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:32 AM

Don't you just love it when the personal attacks start(crazies, gun-nuts, etc). You know you've won the argument then.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:32 AM

See? Another statist in Mr. Berg here. He has read what he likes in the article (likely has fears) and agrees with that article and has not learned to understand what MILITIA is, what "well regulated" means: it means adjusted to some standard--in this context it means they can shoot well); or who the "people" are whose rights he would end. He likely believes the BOR GIVES us our rights, rather than restricts government. Likely he does not know there is a PREAMBLE to the BOR (Bill of Rights)

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:28 AM

Read John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". It's an interesting read.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:26 AM

NOTSO: The most naive believe they can disarm everyone (giving government the monopoly on arms)--the less naive know better but are out- and-out statists and they use the excuse of public safety to increase dependency upon government.

Martin Berg from Oak Park  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:24 AM

Thanks so much for another important, thoughtful article on a subject that (as you predicted) brings out the crazies who actually own the guns. Your Constitutional point is one I've wondered about, too. And I even would have no objection to the National Rifle Association if that's what they truly were about--rifles. Use or possession of any firearm smaller than that should be restricted to police or military. Period.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:23 AM

Gunzhill: I lied of course. You can NEVER be safe. For there is always the threat of homemade weapons and of course governments have killed FAR, FAR more of its citizens than criminals have. Your only real choice is between freedom or tyranny. Abandon all notions that you can be safe. You can improve it by being armed, and prepared, like the 800,000 to 2.5 million annually that SUCCESSFULLY defend their lives, the lives of their families and their property. Grow a pair!

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:23 AM

Don't you find it interesting how libs are so afraid of the extremely rare accident involving a lawfully carried firearm, yet the much too common violence caused by a criminal doesn't seem to faze them at all....

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:17 AM

Gunzkill: You can only ever hope to disarm the GOOD guys and endanger them as a result. Why would you do that? Guaranteed safety is unachievable. Freedom is! The tradeoff is that in a free society, people can choose to do evil and that can cost innocent lives. Do you WANT to be free? What risks are you willing to take to BE free? Understand you can't be free AND safe. An amplifier can get more gain, but at the cost of bandwidth. Nature is like that. Sorry. Your choice: Freedom or safety?

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:11 AM

Gunzhill: Actually, it's the opposite. Because more and more states are doing the right thing with regard to carry, violent crime is DOWN. And you still haven't explained HOW to disarm the bad guys. You cannot just but machine guns at gun stores, can you--yet they GET them! Just as they do semi-autos's. You're solution CANNOT work and will actually increase crime and create up to 2.5 million MORE victims. It is the assault on individual rights that MUST STOP! Continued next post

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 9:00 AM

Your right, the over throws are happening all over America. The criminals are overthrowing innocent communities with GUNS and it needs to stop. More guns just leads to more gun violence.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:53 AM

Gunzkill: How do you propose making all these criminals treat others with respect? How do you propose to ensure government respects individual rights? It can never, ever happen! Our founders understood this and therefore restricted government with the 2A in the BOR, which really only tells government they can't interfere with PRE-existing rights we have because we draw breath, not derived from government. You seem to have great difficulty with this. The 60's utopia can never be. Abandon it!

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:50 AM

Gunzkill: Still, I should address your comment about low probabilities. When YOUR the one being killed or robbed--it matters. You would TRY to trade the 40,000 annual deaths with maybe hundreds of thousands MORE victims. The criminals will be armed and government CANNOT BE TRUSTED to have the monopoly on arms. Some of those 40,000 are suicides (rates are unaffected by availability of guns), some murders, a handful of accidents (education fixes) and some self defense.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:44 AM

Gunzkill: You still don't get it: IT IS a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT PROTECTED by the BOR to ensure the people can overthrow a tyrannical government. Just 3% of the American gunowners represent 1.7 million. Imagine if they should rise up! You think our military has trouble with a few thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq? That is NOTHING as compared to such an uprising! And remember, some of that 1.7 million are trained current and prior-service military who own their weapons privately.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:37 AM

Well said Harley! The TRUE purpose to the protection of the 2A is to ensure the people can overthrow a tyrannical government and its agents. That said, many of us who serve in the military, are Oathkeepers (literally and figuratively)! Wish I could say the same for Federal LEA's but as their very existence offends the Constitution, I can't. There are no police powers granted the Federal Gov't by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment is clear on where all unspecified powers reside.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:35 AM

Sam adams, its nice that you cite examples but the truth is its still an extremely LOW % of all incidents that DIDNT NEED GUNS. Reality doesnt lie.

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:18 AM

@ Q from Oak park You say "and there was no longer a militia needed and that goes for their guns too, because the Armed Forces are well equipped" This IS the reason that "the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Having the option available to defend yourself from criminals is secondary

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:17 AM

For the 4th consecutive year in a row, gun sales are up and violent crime is down. HOW CAN THIS BE? Can it really be true that more guns = less crime and even in a very bad economy when crime is supposed to increase? Many more citizens are carrying firearms. Is the Brady Bunch not telling us the truth? http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/proof-positive-violent-crime-down-gun-sales-up

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:11 AM

Scott: The REAL question is, why do these people even require a license (they don't in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming--where they properly have what is known as Constitutional Carry)---anybody remember that part of the 2A conveniently ignored by SCOTUS: "...shall not be infringed"? ALL GUNLAWS OFFEND the BOR. When someone misuese that right, the response is to PUNISH. PRIOR RESTRAINT is unacceptable. PERIOD!

Scott  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:04 AM

Go here http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews In top left click on show archive, then in the middle click on last five days of live shows. Then across the top you can select the date you want. After date is selected just scroll down to Hero of the days.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:03 AM

GUNZHILL wrote: " Peace is ALL POWER and can prevail if people learn to respect our cultural differences and honor the fact that we all are the same under the HUMAN RACE" Famous hippy words: give peace a chance! Peace can prevail IF-----now THERE is a BIG IF for you! People are robbed, raped, and murdered EVERYDAY--large numbers. THAT is NO if! What rose-colored glasses is he looking through? Respect others? NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! NEVER so long as man rules on earth! ARMS are CRITICAL!

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 8:02 AM

Gunzkill is the typical lib you hear after one of the shootings, such as the recent IHOP incident in Reno.... "That's not supposed to happen here, I just don't understand, this is such a peaceful little town"... Some people never learn.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 7:53 AM

Gunzkill: The IF's most certainly ARE there. I have needed my weapon twice. Conservative estimates are more than 800,000 times annually that lawfully-owned firearms are used to defend life and property--some estimates top 2.5 million, but even at a low 800,000 that is some if! makes sense when you realize how MUCH crime there is. And you STILL forget the REAL reason to be armed is to respond to tyranny. Did you know there was such a response to corrupt elections in 1946 in Athens Tennessee?

Scott  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 7:52 AM

And by the way. When you guys call those of us who carry gun nuts and crazy and so forth, you're insulting about 9 million Americans who are licensed to carry across the country.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 7:41 AM

Gunzkill's left-wing bent reminds me of the 60's "give peace a chance," motif. He's obviously not familiar with the famous saying, "Si vis pacem parabelum." And what about when I am not home? My wife has her CCW and md my wife and 16-yr-old son are well-trained to use the arms we possess. And sir, I was snuck-up on, but still sensed it and put the drop on the predator. Still, there are no guarantees, but it is a certainty who wins if I am unarmed, now isn't it?

Scott  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 6:40 AM

Good job Jarhead! Q. In Oak Park, You say we should use our most powerful tool we have, that is our ability to think. So you're saying that Mary Ann Shepard should have just "thought" her assailant away when she was nearly beaten to death in that church down in Anna? GUNZ KILL, consider tuning in to Cam & Company on nranews.com or serus xm patriot some time. Every night on his show he has a story called Hero Of The Day about an armed citizen who defended himself.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:31 AM

.. more likely to kill you than a law abiding citizen carrying concealed! Or how more guns does not equal more violence, and even funnier, how less guns never equals less violence. Yeah, all that data from a source that should be biased towards gun control, showing how gun control is a failed solution. Time to go to work, just let us know if you want to chew on some more facts you cant refute!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:28 AM

...grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. All this government data, all these actual police incident reports, all these court rulings all showing that the anti gun zealots have it all wrong. The best they can claim is "guns bad, dont touch", LOL! So much more to add, are you thirsty for more, especially showing how doctors are 12,000 to 25,000 times ...

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:24 AM

We have not even demonstrated the rate of non reporting of law abiding citizens successful self defenses and the number of total incidents yet. According to FBI police crime reports, in 2008 there were 14,180 murders and 616 justifiable homicides (of which 371 were performed by law enforcement) in the United States. However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide statistic does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, ...

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:22 AM

82,252 dead and injured / 15% of targets hit x 100 = # times shots fired = 548,346 548,346 / 15% x 100 = # of times guns used inviolent crime = 3,655,644 violent crime incidents. Man, all that just from government data and simple math you cant refute. Since so many times a gun is not used to kill, can anyone explain how if a guns only purpose is to kill, how 99.68% of the time it is not used as a tool to kill? I mean, if I were a gun, I would be personally incensed at this abject failure.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:16 AM

We also see in 2008 12,252 murders and over 70 k injuries to violent crimes. So lets work backwards and verify these govt & police studies/data. 381,000 VCR x 15% = # of times shots fired =51,570 x15% = total # of times target hit = 8,753 total injuries that should have occurred if the number of violent crimes committed were all reported. But since they were not all reported, and the government acknowledges this is true, you must work backwards off the actual deaths and injured.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:10 AM

Then these POLICE firearm discharge studies and, including Chicago, show 76-80% of those shooters and injured, were both involved in a criminal act at the time of the shooting. All that data from government sources, and what it shows is this. Criminals acknowledge they fired a shot in 15-18% of the incidents hwere they used a firearm during a crime. Police acknowledge the same incident rate. Police acknowledge at best, they hit their target 15% of the time.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:06 AM

Next.. FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil violent crimes reported, 381k involve a firearm. 80% of all violent crimes committed by career criminals/gang members USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001 www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf, www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf, www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 5:03 AM

Back to concealed carry. Since those police incident reports are only where someone was shot/injured, explain again how all those other successful self defenses never occurred? To demonstrate, ets focus just on violent crimes for the moment. See, even criminals are human, and unfortunately for you, they still have the right to defend themselves when attacked. Even when their career choice puts them in extreme danger to begin with. Multiple court case precedents prove this to be true.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:58 AM

Yeah, the police dont suck, they are just outnumbered. But hey, based on certain bloggers, just because it does not happen to them, they say there is no reson to be prepapred. Using that logic, we should expect certain bloggers here to prove they have no life, home, car, or medical insurance as being prepared is insane eh? Same goes for all those agencies and ermergency personnel, no need to practice for man made or natural disasters as that is insane too!

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:55 AM

The police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis? FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 49% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate. Remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008. So based on that (1.38 mil x 49%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil 4.8 mil = 8.75% solved of the total VC committed.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:51 AM

More.. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:50 AM

More.. Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody) Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:48 AM

Funny how all those successful self defense incidents are from actual police incident reports. You know, the same police departments who are not owned or managed by any of the NRA/80 mil law abiding gun owners. Funny how you forget that the police have no legal liability to protect the individual citizen. Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:45 AM

More.. 9-year-old saves mom by stabbing attacker in the back; 2nd time girl has knifed mom's thug ex-beau (WI) Attacker fought off with knife. (WA) Man Uses Machete To Fight Off Intruder, Suspect Caught (FL) Police: Woman Stabbed Man In Self-Defense (NV) One dead, one critical after shooting in Kinsey (AL) Funny how all those occurred in the last several months. Funny how websites, KC3, The Armed Citizen, American Rifleman and many more collate on average 80 successful self defenses a month.

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:42 AM

More.. Robber Had Jeweler at Gunpoint When Co-Worker Opened Fire, Police Say (CA) Gunfire exchanged in Jackson home burglary (MS) Ohio concealed handgun license-holder defends own life when attacked by two men at gas station (OH) Bastrop chief reports resident kills burglar (LA) Burglary suspect in good condition (AL) Fatal shooting ruled self-defense (OH) No charges in killing of would-be burglar (OR)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:41 AM

More.. Robber shot by one of the victims he was attempting to rob (OH) Suspected burglar shot by passerby on Bainbridge Island (WA) Robersonville man shot by 77-year-old after breaking into home (NC) North Columbus homeowner spoils teens' attempted robbery (GA) Victims describe Gresham mob attack (OR) Man fatally shoots former employee who drove pickup into his residence (CA) Father shoots robbery suspect in W. Phila. (PA)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:39 AM

More.. Why Women Should Carry Concealed Handguns (SC) Another business owner with concealed handgun license defends self from armed robbers (OH) 2 shot, 2 sought after home invasion southwest of Tucson (AZ) Congressman, grandson fight off armed intruder (IA) Homeowner speaks out after shooting intruders (NV) Cranberry Homeowner Shoots At Early-Morning Intruders (PA) Attempted Barber Shop Robbery Turns Deadly in Detroit (MI) Security Guard, Suspect Injured In Shootout (TN)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:38 AM

More.. Woman shot, 3 in custody in Oak Lawn home invasion (IL) Alleged Intruder Shot in Johnson City Home Invasion (TX) 63-Year-Old Woman Kills Nearly Naked Male Home Invader (KY) Victim Pulls Guns on Attackers: Cops (CT) Newport woman shoots intruder (KY) Bellingham resident surprises, scares off home burglar (WA) Protecting his home from intruders: Is Estates man a hero or lucky? (FL)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:36 AM

More.. Phoenix homeowner turns tables on burglar (AZ) Armed diner shoots robbery suspect outside St. Petersburg Applebee's (FL) Castle Doctrine - it's not just for gun owners (OH) Attempted carjacking in Detroit ends in death of suspect (MI) Mexican villagers attack alleged crooks, killing 6 (Mexico) Bryant PD: Woman Shoots Alleged Abductor (AR) Applebee's Diner Shoots Mugger (FL) Shotgun-toting teen defends mom, home from burglars (TX)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:35 AM

More.. Robbery suspect shot, killed by customer (WV) Suspected intruder shot on north side (TX) Store owner shoots, seriously hurts alleged would-be robber (MS) Man Reportedly Shoots Brother-in-law in self Defense (GA) No charges for Minneapolis stabbing suspect (MN) Homeowner held burglary suspect at gunpoint for 8 hours (NV) Police: Off-Duty Guard Shoots Robber (MD) Bad year for burglars in Tacoma continues with Wednesday shooting (WA)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:33 AM

More.. Man who shot ex-wife slain by stepson in self-defense (FL) Cleveland homeowner shoots teen burglar (OH) Man Shot in Butt While Stealing Fake Marijuana with Fake Gun (TX) Sheriff: Boiling Springs homeowner acted in self-defense in fatal shooting (SC) Shotgun deterrent: A Manchester example (NH) Alleged armed robber killed by Okauchee homeowner (WI) Restaurant Owner Shoots Robbery Suspect (OH) Would-Be Robber Fatally Shot By Intended Victim, Police Say (OH)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:32 AM

More.. Homeowner shoots burglar (MO) Rogers County Homeowner Fed Up, Shoots Repeat Intruder In Leg (OK) Cleveland: Homeowner shoots, kills suspected burglar (OH) Man allegedly shoots would-be burglar (CA) Turnabout is fair (gun)play (PA) Woman Says Deadly Shooting Was Self-Defense (CA) Man pulls 90-year-old woman from alligator's jaws (FL) Women took action against would-be assailants in separate incidents (MI) 70-year-old Detroit woman shoots at intruders (MI)

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 4:29 AM

Here are your "IF's" einstein...Website Keep & Bear Arms %u2022 Dayton store clerk pulls concealed handgun on armed robber (video story)(OH) %u2022 S.F. woman stabs home intruder to death (CA) %u2022 Intruders shoot man; girlfriend fires back (OR) %u2022 Employee with knife runs off would-be robber (OR) %u2022 Grizzly bear kills hunter near Boundary County (ID) %u2022 Homeowner: Shooting was self-defense after finding girlfriend with other man (TN) %u2022 Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: Mon

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 1:29 AM

"If someone is trying to kill me or my family"- This never happens to 99% of worlds population ever! No guns needed. All the hubub is over IF. The IF's just arent there people.

Notso  

Posted: September 22nd, 2011 12:02 AM

You never know how you'll react in that situation until it happens. But for me, I'd rather be reasonably prepared than not prepared at all. If someone is trying to kill me or my family, at least I'll have a chance, which is a lot better odds than those at Columbine, VT, Luby's, McD's, Amish school, etc had.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:58 PM

If you haven't figured out what the most powerful weapon we have, it's your ability to think. You can protect yourself , your family and your property by using methods that are not welcoming to criminals. Semi Auto's with a round ready to go is dangerous and if you are going to use a revolver you can avoid accidental discharges by never leaving a live round for your first shot. If the trigger hit the ground that could fire it. So many safety rules to know to be your best with a weapon.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:51 PM

So before everyone starts thinking a gun is going to make them a super person against all invaders, you really should take more time to decide if you could better protect yourself by using the most powerful weapon we all have. PS. Everyone is doing really well on their posting. We should have it up to 200 posters in another day. cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:50 PM

Having a gun and having courage and the ability to know how to fire back at someone firing in your direction takes a lot more then a conceal carry permit. Not everyone has that make up of a person, and most people will tell you that once you have killed in self defense no matter if it was a sanctioned kill from our government in a foreign land or if it was a home invasion, most people wish they never had to experience that and would not look forward to it again. cont....

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:49 PM

property, etc.. Lets just call it what it really is and it's just a bunch of people who feel the need to carry a gun. I'm not saying I disagree with that because I know if I was in a McDonald's or a high school, college and many other places when an emotionally unstable person walked in and started killing people, I would welcome someone shooting back and saving lives. The problem is that not everyone will shoot back. Having a gun does not give you courage cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:49 PM

and there was no longer a militia needed and that goes for their guns too, because the Armed Forces are well equipped. So the idea that people are using the 2nd Amendment now to say they have the right to bear arms is not correct, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who spend countless hours working on ideas that shows this is what the framers wanted people to have, but in actuality, no one wants a gun to fight to protect our land they want it to protect themselves and their families,

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:48 PM

It's more efficient doing it this way instead of filling a warehouse full of guns, so the next time a foreign invader wants to take away our freedom, we can call up and tell all of the men to grab their guns and bring them in because we are putting together a well regulated militia to go out and fight. Later, the militia gave way to something called the Armed Forces, who are full time members and have the job of protecting our rights to freedom,

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:47 PM

Interpretations of what "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."? really means is up for grabs to whomever it fits well for, so my thoughts from why they worded it that way is when everyone got to thinking about how to protect against invaders, someone said, lets write in that people have a right to keep and bear arms and it can't be infringed upon by government. cont...

JKDIV  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:10 PM

Regardless of where they live, the "gun nuts" seem to be very well educated on the history, language, & case law associated with the issue at hand. Ken's argument, based on his cowardly feelings & a 6th grade understanding of the 2A, has been effectively shredded. It's comical to hear parochial Oak Parkers, champions of diversity &dialogue, discount the opinions of outsiders.

Isreal L. Williams from Mount Airy, NC  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:02 PM

Alright I respect freedom of speech but just becaus you can rambel on like a ignorant soul doesnt mean you should and from the way you were BENDING THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT im 99.999% CERTAIN THAT YOU AGREE WITH HOW OBAMA IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY (in the ground) anyways im fairly certain that you would spray your batman underware with crap if you seen a gun in real life So i Speak for everyone who understands the 2nd amendment when i say this umm STOP BEING A ANTI GUN **** And Grow up

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:22 PM

Oh that's right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again. Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti's always have. They always fail to prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual. Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:21 PM

federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven't. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA. Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? .. cont

Jarhead1982 from Dearborn  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:19 PM

Yet da autho now claims the dependent clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it einstein, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim. Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the ... cont

Jarhead1982 from Detroit  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:18 PM

The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state's. "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." Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") cont

Betsy Davis from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:12 PM

Oh Ken, you certainly were right when you expected the crazies to come out in force in response to your article. If these are the people carrying concealed weapons, Lord help us.

vincent from ChiTown  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 8:03 PM

Well Ken, as per your posts, I guess you will have to stay in Oak Park as the rest of America has rejected your thinking. Thanks for your opinion.

kurt555gs@yahoo.com from Joliet  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 6:06 PM

I see several people misunderstand the McDonald ruling that separates the well regulated militia in the Second amendment from an individual right to bear arms. It's over. Done. Nothing to do with a militia has any bearing on the Concealed Carry argument. What the arguments here fail to say is post McDonald, my right to carry a concealed weapon to Al's Beef is being violated by the State of Illinois and Oak Park. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution. Or, obey the law and let me carry.

Jon Merrow  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 5:59 PM

One other thing. You say "The only gun advocates who are even-keel enough to be in this debate are those who readily acknowledge that it makes many of their fellow citizens feel distinctly, even profoundly, unsafe, and that their own rights are not the only rights that matter." I agree with this sentiment. Not enough people can be objective in discussions. The art of debate has been lost in modern society; including in government chambers unfortunately. That said, the same is true of the other side. Many anti-gun people are completely wrapped up in emotion. Typically that emotion is fear. They don't believe they're stable enough to own a gun, so no one else is either. I see this in a lot of people. In America, we never let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument! If everyone could be a little more open minded and objective, this country would be a much nicer place to live. I bet people in other countries wouldn't hate us quite as much either. It's too bad that we've become a country of self centered & emotional. It's too bad that common sense and common courtesy aren't common any more. If they were...what we could accomplish! What a nation this would be!

Jon Merrow  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 5:34 PM

Just so I understand correctly here Mr. Trainor, let me confirm a few things. I'm not going to get into the Constitutional debate. The Supreme Court made the decision. They're the final word short of Constitutional amendment. So no one, outside of police & military, are mentally stable enough to bear arms you say? No police officer or military member has ever lost their temper or experienced road rage? None of them are losing their homes or been affected by natural disasters? None of them have ever shoved someone in anger? None of them is going through a divorce? (Have a look at divorce rates in those professions some time) You're talking about fields that are heavily populated by young males. You don't think they find violent movies & TV shows thrilling? Really? I didn't know we're using automatons. That's good news! No more human lives lost in service to this country, right? Now let's talk about training. Do you know, after the initial training, how often most police officers train with firearms? How about the military? I can tell you that the ONLY time I went through ANY firearms training in the Navy was in boot camp. 4 whole hours. But according to you, that made me better than the average person on the street. The average police department does quarterly, biannual or annual firearms qualifications. That's it. Some officers take it upon themselves to do extra training at great personal expense. And let me tell you I've met & worked with some officers that were down right scary, unsafe and stupid. Do you know how many police officers commit domestic violence or excessive force? Too many. Do you know how often people who carry handguns train? A lot of them train monthly. A lot of them take classes that surpass police training. Have I experienced road rage? Yup. With a gun close at hand? Yup. Did I have any inclination to shoot? Nope. Not once. It's too bad I'm so less mentally stable, as a civilian, than I was in uniform. Or don't I count?

Tim Maul  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 5:08 PM

Ok, being a proud gun owner and user, I obviously have a biased opinion. However, I think you make a valid point about the first part of the second ammendment. Still, we should use a little common sense when dealing with the gun issue. If someone is "mentally unstable" enough to comitt a crime in the first place, they are going to do it with or without the gun. Guns are only tools. Are we going to ban kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Anything else a criminal could use? Think about it.

TheMilitia_IsUs  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 5:07 PM

"Most do not belong to a militia ..." Absolutely NOT True! We are all part of the militia. As per the U.S. Code - TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > ? 311 Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... Verify the information for yourself. This is easy enough to do, and the author (Ken Trainor) certainly FAILED to do.

Watson  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 4:31 PM

The oddball who posts using a crude spin on someone else's screen name is a sorry sort who should be ignored. We are subjected to the same goofiness on a regular basis and the comments posted demonstrates that this person is only using this venue to attack the same individual. What a waste of space!

Christopher Kierkus from Grand Rapids, Michigan  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 4:17 PM

With a topic like this there's going to be a lot of EMOTION (on both sides of the issue) ... so I'm going to try to steer clear of that and stick to "just the facts Ma'am". I have two comments to make: 1) Mr. Trainor's primary thesis is that people who feel the need to carry a firearm in public are, by definition, not mentally stable enough to do so. If he were correct, we would expect rates of criminal offending, suicide and other anti-social behavior to be much HIGHER among people who carry than those who do not. In fact, empirical evidence tends to indicate just the OPPOSITE: they are LOWER. In other words, the evidence suggests that people who carry are, on average, more mentally, and emotionally, stable than non-carriers. Sorry Mr. Trainor, but the core argument of your piece is just plain WRONG. 2) As to his secondary argument (about the meaning of the 2nd amendment), it reads: "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." That comma in the middle, tiny as it is, is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. It means that the framers were saying 1) The country needs a Militia, AND TO HAVE ONE 2) The right of the people to be armed won't be infringed. Why 2 separate thoughts? Why not lump it together as one? Simple: you CAN'T have 1) without 2)! There's no point to having a militia (regulated or not) if people don't have weapons! Without guns, what do you want the militia to do: use harsh language to repel the forces of tyranny? ;-) So contrary to what Mr. Trainor implies, the keeping and bearing of arms is NOT contingent on the Militia. The existence of an effective Militia is contingent on INDIVIDUALS having the right to own weapons. That's why recent SCOTUS cases have affirmed an INDIVIDUAL right to own! Hope that clarifies things a bit for everyone, Dr. Christopher A. Kierkus Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Grand Valley State University

john murtagh from oak park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 4:13 PM

Interesting article, Ken. I am going to skip posting here though. I don't have my internet armor on.

Jay  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 3:58 PM

@GUNZ KILL: You are correct about (some) guns in Mexico coming from the U.S. However, you fail to mention that our Buruea of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was the distributor. They allowed the guns to freely flow down there and then failed when they lost track of them. It's a tragic siuation that has cost lives, but law abiding gun owners didn't do it. Our Government did.

Scott  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 3:31 PM

Epic, Yes I do know what site it got posted on. It's called illinoiscarry.com. Care to join us?

Epic Putz from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 3:30 PM

And of course the obligatory appearance from well-known Oak Park Constitutional attorney Epic Lulz. Figured it would be a matter of time before you showed up and regaled us with support for gun control. Going to cite Cruikshank for support? Of course in that Supreme Court case the Court ruled that it was ok to deprive freed slaves of their 2d Amendment right to bear arms....please tell us how that racist decision, the basis for modern gun control laws, was properly decided.

Jg Morales  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 3:05 PM

It's not that we miss the part about "well regulated Militia", it's that opposers miss the part about this "being necessary to the security of a free State". The REAL catch is your claim that no one is stable enough to carry a gun. Yet, so many unstable people are doing so against the law. It does not state that only militia members have the right to bear arms. It states that because a well regulated militia is necessary for THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, this right should not be infringed upon. Or, it could be that the founding fathers were real dummies and incapable of being specific enough to make your claims clear in their wording. Clearly they knew that not everyone was part of a militia, and thus the 'only for militia members claim' is and always has been dead in the water. "The right of the people"... not the right of some people, nor the privilege granted under special circumstances... "the right of the people". Since you deem it appropriate to bring into question the mental stability of those who support conceal and carry, would it also be fair to question your reading comprehension? Good grief! "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington On that note, I disagree. I think what they had in mind is very clear. Granted, it's not my opinion that gun ownership should not be regulated at all, but your claims are pretty nonsensical. Fear of guns does not make one safe from guns. The real gun nuts are the ones who so strongly oppose them, with this rather paranoid expectation of mass human failure. The divorcing man who really wants his wife dead finds away. Changes in law don't change character/values that much...

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:53 PM

Allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is not going to end this debate. The next step will be open carry. I expect we will also see efforts to end gun registraton and owner permits.

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:52 PM

GUNZ, Ken, and all those that agree with you, why don't you take a more direct route with your quest. Rather than trying to make the 2A into something it's not, why don't you just try to have it repealed? With all your arguments about feeling safe, concerns about everyone's emotions, mental capacity and status 24/7 (basic trust of law abiding citizens), you should have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support your theory that no one should have a gun. Then your Nirvana can finally be realized.

epic lulz  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:45 PM

Anyone know what gun nut forum this link got posted to that is driving all the out-of-town gun nuts here to slam the thread?

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:43 PM

All those Mexican guns are coming from America. Take guns away all over the world and maybe we'll have something.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:41 PM

Thats why there are laws that require fences around pools. Guns kill. We make laws in this country to regulate stupid. Unfortunately we have to take it one step further when the laws dont work. Take GUNS away all together.

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:40 PM

GUNZ, so you just admitted its not the law abiding that are the problem, it's all the idiots. So somehow taking away our gun rights somehow solves the overall gun problem, even though you do nothing about the idiots? Sheesh, your intellect is dizzying. Gun control DOES NOT WORK. No matter how much you libs hate guns, that fact will NOT change. Meanwhile efforts to let violent criminals out due to overcrowding in our prisons get serious consideration. I must be crazy to think the way I do........

William Ashbless  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:39 PM

Mexico strictly controls access to firearms. If you are a civilian you can't get them. Only the government(known worldwide for graft and corruption)and the criminal cartels possess the means to defend themselves. 35 bodies dumped on a city street in full view of hundreds of witnesses just this morning. Gun Control works all right!

Harley Craig  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:34 PM

@gunz You agree there is nothing to fear from law abiding citizens yet you don't come up with any suggestions how we ban all guns. Last I checked all non perscription drugs are banned yet grade school kids sling rock all day. There has to come a point in your life when realize that you cant gun proof the world. It's like trying to ban all swimming holes because some people don't know how to swim, you cant so you teach people to swim so they can protect themselves from drowning.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:28 PM

Go to Mexico and see how well that gun ban of there's works.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:26 PM

How many times do you hear a story about a ccw holder that committed a violent crime? Thats the point! Its not the law abiding gun people, its the gun violence carried out by idiots. Yes, take away the guns and you still have idiots, but I'll feel better and so will millions that die innocently from them. Guns KiLL.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:24 PM

Go to the middle east if you want to see weapons galore all over the place. See how well its working for them.

Scott from Hume  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:21 PM

You must not travel outside of IL much. I assure you if you've spent much time at all in any other state you have brushed shoulders with someone who was carrying. Why are you so afraid of us who carry anyway? How many times do you hear a story about a ccw holder that committed a violent crime? And for those of you who think there should be all this background check and training, do you think that's what criminals do in the states that are shall issue?

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:15 PM

Gunz, this problem is your problem, not mine. I already have my solution. I could care less what you choose to do. AMF.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:14 PM

Some great comments there Phil.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:11 PM

I like having a big gun because it makes me feel bigger where I am not as big as the guys I see in the shower at the gym. Don't infringe on my rights to hold my powerful sleek weapon in my hands. The feeling when the weapon in my hands discharges makes me forget all my troubles, if only briefly. I don't need a prescription for bullets, like I do for Viagra.

Cling to Guns? Check. What about God?  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:08 PM

Well, the opponents of this opinion piece are using language that indicates they respect others and aren't afraid at all. They get WI FI in their bunkers.

Ken Trainor Should Be Fired  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:05 PM

In any case, your logic seems to be flawed. For example, that constitutional right to remain silent seems to not trip your trigger. How about that whole equal protection thing? You can't have it both ways. Either we follow the constitution or we don't. By the way, there is a comma between Militia and being in the amendment. You should have a chat with your editors.

Ken Trainor Should Be Fired  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 2:02 PM

Anyways Ken, I'll bite. I can pretty much guarantee that I am not insane, yet I am a gun owner. Do I think that concealed carry should be open and limitless, no. Should a person go through an intensive background check firearms training course to obtain a permit, yes. We all know that a person has a right to keep a handgun in the home for protection, and if the state changes the law, you liberal loons gnash your teeth just thinking about the losses in Heller and McDonald.

Ken Trainor Should Be Fired  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:59 PM

I am always amused by Ken's ultra left-wing liberal rantings that appear from time to time. Ken, whats wrong? There was a three or four week span in there when you actually appeared to be taking the prozac and wroting some worthy stuff. I guess sometimes you can't help yourself. I am guessing, based on your backwards theory about mental instability, that your block is likely occupied by 2/3 insane people and 1/3 sane, as is the rest of O.P. (more to come)

William Ashbless  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:54 PM

People get rightfully pissed when you start denying them their civil rights. Yes, Heller/McDonald affirmed those rights. Feel proud to join the southern bigots of the 60's in feeling superior to those you aim to oppress and subjugate. Gun Control is racist and Elitest. It most affects those who need rights the most. Your little Utopia where only the gov't has arms sure worked in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Mexico, India......

William Ashbless  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:46 PM

Your 'Well Regulated Militia' are the police and military. Interesting in light of the Bill Of Rights being a document that has nothing to do with granting Powers to the gov't and is seen as a gaurantee against gov't intrusion into our private lives. The 'people' in the 2nd ammendment are somehow different than the 'people' in all the others. The militia is every able bodied man from 14-60 research into the Federalist Papers would tell you that.

Charles from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:44 PM

Quoting GUNZKILL: "We meed to ban ALL guns and take one for the team to enable the safety of all. Then we wont need our "personal armed policepeople" " You advocate depriving me of my Second Amendment rights so I hereby return the favor by revoking your First Amendment right. You are hereby banned from posting any further comments.

Barry Hirsh from Miami FL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:26 PM

Ken, get with the program. Denial doesn't become you. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in D.C. v Heller: The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." . . . Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method." Loser.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:23 PM

There are no guarantees in life. In a free society, you can't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Just like you can't guarantee that nobody can kill you, doesn't matter who you are. If someone wants you dead and is willing to trade their life for yours, not much you can do to prevent it. Protect yourself and those you care for as best you can, it's up to the individual to do so, the govt can't do it.

Harley Craig from casey  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:13 PM

@ Gunz riddle me this? Why do the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest gun violence rates? Why do mass murders by mad gunmen only happen in "gun free zones" ? It's the same reason wolves atack flocks of sheep that have no sheep dog they want an easy target. Preventing lawfull people from carrying guns makes more targets for those who carry them illegially.

Dansjeep from Owosso,MI  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:10 PM

1) Well-regulated in the context of the 18th-century language means well-equipped. 2) In the 1700's, the militia was all able-bodied men between 17 and 50.

Harley Craig from Casey  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 1:08 PM

@ Gunz There is NO deffant way to get rid of ALL guns. Even if they knocked on every door and searched every home, they still would not get ALL guns. It goes to the old saying God created man Smith and Wesson created us equal. But we arent equal because the only people sane enough to carry are prohibited by law whereas the insane just break the law and carry anyways.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 12:56 PM

So far, no viable solutions, just more nonsense. Obama has nothing to do with this. Far stretch.

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 12:10 PM

Gunz, your crackin' me up here. The answer is obviously to do like the Russians do. It's too graphic me to describe in these envirions, but you get the picture.

mrmagloo  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 12:07 PM

Sheep attract predators. The problem attempting to placate predators is, you create a safe haven for them to multiply. The liberal, supposedly socially 'advanced' members of our communities who dream up countless new excuses and 'ailments' to let violent criminals off the hook, has exaspirated the situation. Unfortunately, a passive, loving, caring, and docile demeanor isn't going to help one bit when the bad guy turns his eye on you. It's time for CCW!

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 12:06 PM

This GUNZ is a troll right? Okay, I'll bite. Those people were killed by people, who happened to use guns. It's like those innocent people that Obama has killed, the difference is he uses bombs. See? Nothing can happen without a persons INTENT. Those bombs that kill innocent brown people sometimes, do not fall on their own, someone has to make it happen. Did that help?

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 12:00 PM

What is the solution to getting guns out of the criminals hands? I ask ALL of you pro gun folks?

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:59 AM

This is so typical of a lib.... I don't want a gun and I don't want other people to have guns, but I'll call people with guns to (supposedly) protect me. What a laugh.

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:56 AM

Actually, it is sort of self-indulgent, discussing CCW with the leftists/anti-gunners/pansy types. Most of the battle is won, with the exception of a a few places like Illinois. It will come to Illinois, despite the leftist legislature and leftist judges. So, pro-self-defense types, probably better you spend your time reloading or on the range, rather than wasting time arguing with these sore losers over a battle almost completely won.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:50 AM

What and where are the rights of the people who are innocently killed by these GUNS???

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:50 AM

Gunz, you and our fellow travelers have lost the argument. If what you espouse was going to happen, it would have happened already, what with the flock of leftists that infiltrated government from the 1960's. Your side fought and lost. Rightly so. Because I live, I have a right to self-defense. You aren't going to prevent me from doing as I see fit in this regard. CCW has swept the country. Get used to it, or leave. Actually, you leftists leaving sounds GOOD. Do us all a favor.

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:45 AM

@gunz kill: Call the police? To do what....document the crime scene and take pictures of my dead body or my family? Sorry, that doesn't give me the fighting chance. The police are NOT bound by law to PROTECT you, only enforce the laws. They are reactionary. The point is, if that's how you feel, then YOU go ahead and do that. Let me live how I want to live. If it isn;t about rights for you, fine...but it is for me, and no one else should be able to infringe on my rights.

Second Amendment Dem from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:44 AM

@Gunz Kill: Calling the cops really helped that kid who was beaten up in that Chicago alley by gang members who then called the last number dialed on his cell phone to taunt his girlfriend....point being, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves from the scum of society as the cops are not always around.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:37 AM

jonesy, this isnt about rights for me, its about people dying(every day, all day)In order for us as a society to rid the guns of the criminals, the good guys must take one for the team. In time guns will be less of a burden on our society. Need help? Call the police.

Second Amendment Dem from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:37 AM

I always like how people in Oak Park want to "vote" on whether citizens should be allowed to assert their Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. Should we also put to a vote whether Mr. Trainor should be allowed to keep asserting his First Amendment rights? Mr. Trainor, how about we vote on whether Oak Park citizens should be able to assert their Fifth Amendment rights? Why stop with the Second Amendment?

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:35 AM

@GUNZ KILL: It would be nice if peace and respect was all it took to make the world like you describe. But until you can remove evil from people's hearts, it will never be so. That's why I carry.

TJ  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:33 AM

Silly little man sez " Someone should put "conceal and carry" on a referendum ballot in Oak Park's next election. If it's 3-1 against, or higher as I would expect, how do you justify preventing us from drawing a line where, as a community, we see fit? So much for your deep allegiance to freedom from government interference." Yes, and lets take the same steps and actions in regards to homosexuality. Lets draw the line and make it a felony, as we, the community, see fit. Oke Doke?

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:32 AM

People get angry over this because folks like you want to tell others the manner in which they can excercise that right. You want to put limits on that right based on feelings, which cannot be quantified, no matter how much you talk about it. If you're scared of law abiding people carrying near you, how about the criminals who are carrying illegally? I guess you "feel" safe with that? I'm not a freedom fighter because I want to carry, I am because I have to fight for rights I should have already

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:31 AM

Peace is ALL POWER and can prevail if people learn to respect our cultural differences and honor the fact that we all are the same under the HUMAN RACE.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:28 AM

Robber comes up from behind you walking down the street and sticks a gun up to your head. Gee that gun in your pocket really helps-NOT! Innocent gun violence wont stop until we banish ALL guns. Sorry.

Bill G  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:27 AM

Well-regulated in its 18th-century context means well-equipped. And the militia was all able-bodied males between 17 and 50. Vermont requires no permit to carry concealed. Anyone can do it. Why isn't Vermont a sewer of crime, shooting and murder?

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:26 AM

Another great quote. "The majority of people will never need home insurance for their houses, auto insurance for their cars or a fire extinguisher for their kitchens, so why have them?" Ans: insurance can not harm or kill anyone while guns do. I love the argument that guns protect your "families". Really? My guess is that one person handles the gun, so what to do when a robber robs your wife when you're not home or when she walks home from the train, or when your child is coming home from school

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:25 AM

Ken, I love how you how you throw the 1A in our face to talk trash about the 2A. Sure you can say what you want, but you'd sure like to pass your opinion as gospel for the rest of us to follow. We can't even be in the debate unless we acknowledge your discomfort? No one has a right to "feel" safe. A right, such as the right to keep and bear arms(aka own and carry)is strictly voluntary. You either excercise that right, or you don't.

j.oakpark  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:23 AM

Hey Q: anytime there is a story about or from Oak Park relayed to firearms(hand or shoulder fired)there are tons of new posters. That said, most of them are not from Oak Park. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that...just that the Oak Park specific stories, ie buying Westgate (was it the property or the building...not clear) tends to get Oak Parker residents commenting. And of that group there is a core of people who comment using the same nom de plume or their real names.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:03 AM

This is an excellent story for Ken to choose to write about and it should generate at least 200 comments. I notice too that there are a lot of new posters are here. Welcome new posters.

Jonesy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 11:01 AM

Ken..Ken...Ken..wake up buddy. So everyone who wants to carry a gun is mentally unstable? And WE are the paranoid ones? Why is it that you can't do 15 minutes of research on this topic before posting? As others have mentioned, the original meaning of the word "regulated" does not bend to the modern liberal mindset. And please read the McDonald and Heller cases; the SCOTUS torpedo'd your irrational version of the 2A at both the federal level and the state level. But why let facts get in the way?

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:59 AM

NOTSO: He doesn't explicitly state it. But the theme is present. It's present in the arguments of all who would disarm us. THEY are afraid! Also, they are universally statists, even when they deny it, since to them only the government should be armed. What else could they be?

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:58 AM

If Ken says police go through extensive training to learn when to shoot, then give that course to citizens who want to protect themselves. As for the Constitution, well I think anyone knows that can be changed to what fits our leaders. Bush/Cheney did a great job at it, and Obama made sure to keep the Patriot Act in force. So much for a democratic president who follows and not leads, who talks but not walks the talk. Hurray, lets vote again for him.

Q from Yahoo.com  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:54 AM

I did not know of anyone in the Army who collected guns. The Army provided you with what you needed and when you were done they took them back. I always question why people need more than one gun to protect themselves with and I don't consider guns an item worth collecting but I suppose people like collecting items that are made for only one purpose, to kill. I do know I would prefer a weapon for protection when police are just minutes away when seconds count.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:54 AM

Very well said Sam. I just never understood such cowardice as the ideas talked about in the original article.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:50 AM

Ken Trainor: Read what I have written. You are an uneducated fop. I don't care what degrees you have. It happens many such as you graduate annually from universities. Nothing against University education in PRINCIPAL. I am educated as an Electrical Engineer. But that is but one aspect. I am a patriot, a parent, husband and property owner. I take my responsibilities SERIOUSLY. And as I told one here, it is an act of COWARDICE to refuse your responsibilities, and that includes self-defense!

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:45 AM

GUNZHILL: As Edinburgh said, "The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. He who has nothing, and belongs to another, must be defended by him, and needs no arms: but he who thinks he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses, or else he lives precariously and at discretion." Cowards shrink from responsibilities. And it is YOUR responsibility to defend YOUR family and YOUR property. I am done.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:42 AM

Gunzkill: I have NEVER drawn my weapon in anger. And I never will. There may well come a time I will draw it, but not in anger. Nor will I feel guilty if I must take a life that tried to harm me, my family, or take my property. I would hate to be such a coward that I would not prepare to defend my life, my family's lives, or my property.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:35 AM

GUNZKILL: So sorry, but I have NEVER observed a gun kill anyone--only people can choose and act. A gun is but one instrument to do so, either for good or evil. Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est - A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands. (Seneca) Look in the mirror GUNZKILL. You cannot trust others with arms, because you do not trust yourself.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:31 AM

Since most cops will never shoot their weapon, I guess we should take guns away from all cops, since guns are only good for killing. That would also save those citizens who are accidentally shot by those cops that do use their firearms.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:25 AM

GUNZKILL While I serve in the GUARD, I own MANY weapons provately, as do most military, Regular, reserve, or guard--MOST reserve and guard are formerly active duty. I have drawn my weapon twice in self-defense. Was not necessary to shoot, but had I not had it, I would not be here. Things happen when you're alone at night in a dark empty parking lot at 2:00 AM (returning to my car from an event, I was the last to leave) But in the end, it's about protection from tyranny, not ordinary criminals

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:21 AM

The majority of people will never need home insurance for their houses, auto insurance for their cars or a fire extinguisher for their kitchens, so why have them?

Vette  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:19 AM

You're plan to cure all ills with a "ban" is ludicrous. The only people who respect a ban are law-abiding citizens. They are the ones not carrying a firearm only for self defense. The criminals don't care about the law. It is already illegal for them to carry a firearm (or in most cases) even to own one. If we put in further restrictions, it would have zero affect on the criminals, except to make it easier on them by continuing to disarm their victims.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:14 AM

"the majority of cops will never shoot their weapon at a person throughout their career." Same is true for people who THINK we need guns and have to carry them. Its a mirage. Guns kill and that includes the good people and the bad. So Sorry.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:10 AM

From the Declaration of Independence: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. THIS IS WHY IT IS CRITICAL to have an armed population!

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:07 AM

Our founders meant what they said, and said what they meant. And they truly were prolific writers. Understanding the meaning is not that difficult. In the end, the Second Amendment has one purpose: to serve as a prophylactic measure against tyranny, and failing that, as it's cure! What words show this? Parts of the Federalist certainly, but even more so in the Declaration of Independence. In the next posting, words of "treason" from our founders!!! not really, the treason is from tyrants!

Steve  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:06 AM

If I was going to write an article to be read by many people, I would try and become familiar with the subject matter. You are completely ignorant of the subject on which you wrote, and have made yourself look foolish.

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 10:00 AM

While we're at it, we should probably ban all other countries from manufacturing guns too. Oh, never mind, we'll just make it illegal to bring guns into the country, kind of like we do drugs since that works so well.

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:59 AM

Thomas Jefferson was clear. It is NOT meant to be interpreted. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Harley Craig from Casey  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:56 AM

@gunzkill..How do you propose we ban ALL guns? Anybody with access to a machine shop can produce their own components to make their own weapon. Mabey we should ban machine shops too?

SamAdams1776  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:56 AM

Trainor also needs to read the 2 US Supreme Court rulings, both of which he appears to be unfamiliar with. As for knowing what the founders meant: they were PROLIFIC writers and kept minutes of the Convention meetings. Next we will look at what Jefferson said about the meaning of the Constitution and how we should "interpret" it.

SamAdams1776 from Apopka  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:48 AM

In 1787, the meaning of "to regulate," was 1)To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. 4) To put in good order. In Federalist # 29 Hamilton clearly shows that the meaning more closely aligns with 2,3, or 4. Also, rights may only be exercised by people. States have powers ONLY. for more understanding, go here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Notso  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:48 AM

"....if you can't feel safe without concealing and carrying" .... typical of a lib, it's all about your feelings. You might want to try a little logic and common sense for a change.

Wrong Gunzo...  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:46 AM

@ Gunz Kill, The sole purpose of a gun is determined by the user. For those who possess guns for self-defense the purpose is not to maim and kill i.e. the majority of cops will never shoot their weapon at a person throughout their career. Many people have weapons for self-defense and you will never know about it because THEY HAVEN'T SHOT ANYONE. Ironically, those in illegal possession of guns tend to lean towards the maiming and killing you mentioned.

NRA Benefactor  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:43 AM

Yeah, that makes so much sense that we should disarm the police also. What a boob.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:27 AM

Guns have one sole purpose to maim and kill.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 9:19 AM

Jack said "Those who are licensed to carry gun in public are the most law-abiding group of citizens around." Really? So gun violence doesnt carry over to any law abiding people? Please. Those same folk are the most scared and paranoid people as well. Ban 'em Danno

Jack Burton  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 8:49 AM

The author is akin to a flat earther. When seeing a globe of the earth for the first time a person who believes in a flat earth must confront their inner most core to see just how strongly they are willing to hang on to what is obviously erroneous, and laughable, beliefs. Those who are licensed to carry gun in public are the most law-abiding group of citizens around. Millions carry every day, in dozens of states across the country, and have for decades without any of the horror stories he projects. Yet the author totally ignores this fact, and goes on about his way no different from the flat earther who finally decides to close his eyes instead of look closely at the globe. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own reality. And the reality is that this author is basing his whole philosophy upon a fantasy in his own mind. He is the type to write a column complaining about the way unicorns are being treated down at the local circus. But ignorance is curable. I'd suggest going to www.gunfacts.info for the free book that gives real, documented information about the issue instead of fantasies.

GUNZ KILL  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 8:32 AM

We meed to ban ALL guns and take one for the team to enable the safety of all. Then we wont need our "personal armed policepeople"

Phil  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 8:31 AM

Since you obviously have no clue as to what you're talking about all I'll say is "May your chains rest lightly upon you" when you achieve the kind of society you think you want.

TJ from   

Posted: September 21st, 2011 8:01 AM

This author lives in a dream world. Does he have his own personal policeman? It is ok with me if he wants to turn over his safety to some agency, but he is silly to think that practical people are willing to to so. This guy could win a Darwin award, his outlook is so Pollyanna-ish. Fortunately, his argument has lost. This weak article is another reason to drop any dialog with liberals - just stonewall anything they want to do. Stop 'em cold in their tracks, just like what's happening in D.

Paul  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 7:57 AM

Hoplophobia from the Greek hoplon, meaning weapon or armor, is defined as the "fear of firearms"[1][2][3] and as the "fear of armed citizens". -wiki Why do you fear your fellow citizen? Especially when statiscis shows that people who hold a concealed weapons permit are very law abiding.

Jeremy  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 7:36 AM

OK, first of all, in the English language, there is this thing called a comma. It seperates different thoughts that are in the same sentence. Learn about that little piece of punctuation then go back and read the 2nd ammendment again. Next, you say,"No one is "stable" enough to keep a loaded, deadly firearm in easy reach when they're in public." Then you turn around and say, "it's horrifyingly easy to shoot an innocent person." But if EVERYONE is mentally unstable, who is actually innocent?

Bob  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 6:46 AM

Your opinions about the meaning of the second amendment have been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, and guess what; the Supreme Court said your opinion was ridiculous, and spelled the reasons why out in great detail. "Just Sayin."

T Duck from Cincinnati  

Posted: September 21st, 2011 6:13 AM

You should not refer to the meaning of "Well Regulated" in the modern context, but research what it meant in the 1700's. Also if you took the time to research what the founders wrote that the milita were the people as a whole. Thomas Jefferson stated when reviewing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, one review it in the context and the times it was written in, not my modern definitions.

Quick Links

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


            
SubscribeClassified
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad