So the mask slips a little further.

…or, This is what “common-sense gun control” looks like:

As state after state voted to let residents carry concealed guns, Illinois has held out, for a long list of reasons: A strong gun control movement. A dynasty of powerful Chicago mayors. A line-up of state leaders who oppose expanding access to guns.

With Wisconsin now on the verge of adopting concealed carry, Illinois soon will be all alone, the last state with a complete ban on carrying concealed weapons. That makes it the next big prize in the fierce national contest over gun control, with the National Rifle Association and its allies targeting the 50th state….

Gun control advocates want to hang on to Illinois and avoid nationwide defeat on concealed carry.

“Illinois is really important nationally,” said Mark Walsh, director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The country needs “one state people can look to and see it’s still doing the right thing,” he said.

That pretty much speaks for itself. No kind of personal defensive arm carry, an “assault weapons” ban, and that’s what they call doing the right thing. I have said it before and I will say it again. Anti-gunners are evil.



17 Responses to “So the mask slips a little further.”

  1. mick Says:

    > No kind of personal defensive arm carry

    Maybe I’m being naive here, but it sounded like “un-concealed” guns were okay.

    > Anti-gunners are evil.

    These anti-gunners you’re talking about are elected mayors and state leaders. They’re not expanding gun control laws and stealing 2nd amendment rights, they’re resisting change in their home state. Why is that so evil?

    • James Says:

      No, they are actually stealing 2nd amendment rights,
      There was a time in this country when carrying a firearm was a non-issue. That was abruptly changed one day in the name of “safety”. This was and continues to be a theft of our right to self protection and has done nothing to encourage safety of any kind, except for career criminals.
      They have continued to restrict the 2nd Amendment through legislative force through things like “Assault weapons” bans (which are outright laughable), .50 BMG bans, “approved handgun rosters”, regular capacity magazine bans, and the like. Every one of these laws is direct infringement on the rights of the people of Illinois.

      If you think that “un-concealed guns” *sounds* fine, then I encourage you to walk down the street in Chicago with a pistol on your hip. Let me know how the concrete tastes after those “non-restrictive” laws and “understanding” peace officers confront you.

      Point is, Illinois remains the only state interested in only making sure the criminals are armed and the innocent constituents are not. This makes the proponents of civilian disarmament evil, and with full knowledge of their misdeeds.

      • mick Says:

        > No, they are actually stealing 2nd amendment rights,

        Failing to change the laws is stealing rights? The citizens of IL have the same rights they did last week. Sure, the laws have changed in the past and I can understand how that is an issue of civil liberties, but this is not the same thing. It’s not disarmament. It’s the same amount of armament.

    • James Says:

      No, they actively stole those rights away from those citizens long ago and refuse to acknowledge them or give them back.
      If I steal a car tomorrow, and try to sell it five years from now, it is still a stolen car, and I would still be a thief.
      Self Defense is a human right, and the laws in Illinois actively steal the right of self defense from the populace there.

      Yes, failure to effectively recognize a civil right is prohibition of the civil right, and is continual theft of same.

      Consider Lawdog’s analogy, found here:

      “I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

      Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

      I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

      You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

      Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

      There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

      I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

      You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

      So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

      And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

      This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

      Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

      I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

      I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.”

      There is not a *new-for-today” theft of Illinois’ citizens’ civil liberties, but there are even more restrictions in Illinois than what Lawdog mentioned on the Federal level. I have mentioned those before.
      Theft is theft, and the powers-that-be in Illinois are stealing from their constituents, no matter how much you might disagree.

  2. southtexaspistolero Says:

    No, open carry is by and large prohibited in Illinois, except in unincorporated areas.

    Why is that so evil?

    Because the status quo is denial of a basic human right. It’s been said before, and I agree, that if you’re denied the means of self-defense, you’re denied the right of self-defense — and if you’re denied the right of self-defense, you’re effectively denied the right to life itself. Sure, your killers might be prosecuted, but that’s going to be small — if any — consolation to the people you leave behind.

    • mick Says:

      Guns are a powerful means of self-defense, but not the only option.

      • Sabra Morse Onstott Says:

        They are the best option, though, especially for people like my husband and myself, who have physical limitations. (He has cerebral palsy and so a much weaker right side; I have scoliosis and consequently zero upper-body strength.) To deny the less-capable among us–and make no mistake, this encompasses most women, who simply are not as strong as most men–the best tool for self-defense is immoral, at the least.

  3. southtexaspistolero Says:

    This is true, but what else is there that is portable and doesn’t depend on body strength or proximity to one’s attacker? We’re not all able-bodied. I have noted before that I myself have an affliction that has left my right side weaker than my left side. But I can shoot a gun just fine.

    • mick Says:

      Tasers & pepper spray come to mind. Do gun laws apply to guns modified to shoot rock salt? ‘Cause that’d be awesome.

      • James Says:

        I wear a thick duster jacket fairly often, whether because of weather or horse riding, etc.
        I guarantee a taser will not penetrate it.
        A taser is a one-time-use item, save for a couple of very expensive models wherein you have the option for a second shot. This still won’t work on thick jackets or guys/gals wearing thick undergarments.

        Ever sprayed pepper spray in the wind? Doesn’t work too well. Pretty easy to wind up dusting yourself with it. Not hard to neutralize the stuff, either. Even the most asinine of criminals are finding this out.

        A firearm is a firearm. What it shoots is immaterial. The problems with your suggestions are that it does not ultimately get an attacker to leave you alone. Society tried the stun gun/protective order/pepper spray approach for far too long, while the criminals continued to use knives and guns. Many of us have since wised up and chosen the best means possible for defense. A firearm puts any woman, frail senior citizen, handicapped person, etc. on the same force plane as any attacker. From there, it is all a matter of training and acceptance of personal responsibility.

        The restriction of self defense is evil. Plain and simple. When you restrict the means and methods of self defense, you are (in effect) killing innocent people without regard to their right to life and protection of same.

  4. mick Says:

    > A taser will not penetrate [a thick duster]. A taser is a one-time-use item… Ever sprayed pepper spray in the wind?

    Of course each means of self defense has it’s own pros and cons. A knife is good for keeping unarmed people at least arms reach away. A taser is good for taking down one or two assailants if they aren’t wearing very thick clothing. Pepper spray is good if you’re not down-wind. A pistol is good if there aren’t more assailants than bullets or if they aren’t in full riot gear. All of these can be enough in some situations and not in others. I guess the key would be using what you can and being aware of the situation you are in and if your defense will be enough.

    > The restriction of self defense is evil… you are (in effect) killing innocent people

    Any restriction at all is evil? Any compromise is fundamentally flawed? That’s a pretty extreme position. I don’t think you’re ever going to be happy in a democracy where people have a range of views and sometimes their representative don’t expand access to firearms.

    • James Says:

      You are at least somewhat correct in saying that every means has pros and cons. I look to the means of self preservation that has few cons while in my hands. I carry two magazines on my person in addition to the magazine that is in my concealed pistol, giving me 49 rounds of ammunition at hand. This might seem like too much to some people, but I am not out to impress. I may *need* one round, or I might *need* 49. My threat assessment will dictate how many rounds I need in order to stop the threat (which does not necessarily mean *kill*).
      If I am leaving my zip code, I carry a rifle in the truck with me, and four extra regular-capacity magazines, giving me 150 rounds of ammunition. Again, a bit much in some people’s opinions, but for those who don’t understand the need, I encourage them to visit southwest Texas where your nearest Wal Mart is 2 hours away, and involves you driving through 140 miles of *nothing-but-open-desert*. My rifle rounds can easily penetrate most any level of vest unless there are ceramic plates involved, FWIW.

      Your extreme misuse of my words does not lend itself well to proving your point, if any.
      The restriction of my right, or the right of someone 1000 miles north of me, to the most effective manner of self defense and the ability to easily and legally transport said tool, is absolutely evil.

      Let’s not forget WHY gun control laws were put on the books, and it wasn’t for this false sense of safety some glean from gun control, it was quite simply put in place to restrict the ability of freed slaves to resist the violence of their former masters. From there, it has always been a manner of racism and control.

      I may never be completely satisfied with what I do have in regards to firearms freedom, but that will not stop me from trying to assist others who’s rights are often overlooked.
      There remain plenty of elected officials that range from neutral to downright hateful on the subject of self defense and firearms. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect the facts to stand, and the facts are very plain; civilian disarmament and restriction on self defense have never and will never work, if the end goal is crime reduction.

  5. mick Says:

    Whoa there, I have no problem with your rifle and southwest Texas commute. I’m not here to take anyone’s cake. I’m really asking about why it’s so evil not to change the laws in IL. From what I hear, it’s because any amount of gun control is violating the basic human right. Is that a fair way to put it? Does that also mean that all firearms available to criminals should be equally available through legal means, or am I taking it too far?

  6. Crotalus Says:

    Mick, take a walk in the wilder parts of Chicago sometime. If you survive, we’ll talk about some of the other methods of self-defense,and how they work against the criminals (including Chicago cops) who pack guns and knives in spite of Chicago’s laws designed to disarm the lawful citizen.

    Me, I remain unconvinced that a gun is not the best self-defense tool out there. BTW, we shoot to stop the threat. The thug’s life is at risk and may be forfeited, but he started it so his right to life no longer counts. I’m not really interested in “humane” ways to stop the bad guy.

    • mick Says:

      > If you survive, we’ll talk

      And if I don’t, the discussion will be settled. Got it.

      > I’m not really interested in “humane” ways

      I was brainstorming “legal” ways that you could defend yourself in Chicago. Is sounds like those means aren’t good enough. What is good enough for you?

      Is there any means of self defense that isn’t the best means in *some* situation?

      • James Says:

        Unfortunately, even if there are means of self defense, the laws go even further to restrict people from ability to defend without legal repercussions. Illinois does not have too many laws in place designed to protect those who protect themselves. There shouldn’t be any argument whatsoever as to whether someone can defend themselves, no matter their location.

        The means you propose are not good enough for me. If you care to, please suggest a means of defense that can be effectively handled and used the same by a person of any size, sex, or age. Firearms are the only tool that qualifies and has a large rate of success in stopping a criminal. If they did not qualify under those conditions, the police themselves would not carry them.

        In regards to an imperfect match to “any-and/or-every-situation”, we aren’t exactly implicating the widespread use of diesel fuel and fertilizer bombs to take care of those pesky mosquitoes, nor claymore mines to keep dishonest neighbors out of our vehicles.
        What I am suggesting is that a firearm, more specifically a handgun, gives you options as to the level of resistance and safety *you* as the owner can count on, and it is up to *you* how much or how little aggression you show in its’ use. It may be overkill for swatting flies, but if it actually comes down to a situation where you need to protect yourself or your family from a two-or-four-legged critter, do you really want to have a doubt in your mind as to your ability to do your job and protect them?
        I don’t. I refuse to file down liberty’s teeth in the name of playing fair, and I certainly hope that my neighbor’s to the north see their rights recognized once again.

  7. mick129 Says:

    The means you propose are not good enough for me. If you care to, please suggest a means of defense that can be effectively handled and used the same by a person of any size, sex, or age.

    I have. In IL, there are legal means of self defence that can be used regardless of physical stregnth and they aren’t good enough for you. Saying that less effective means is the same as none is a little bit of a stretch, but I see where you’re coming from. It’s a basic human right and when they get infringed, people get worked up.

    My favorite human right is privacy and reasonable searches. The constitution-free zone, warrentless wiretapping and warrantless GPS tracking really piss me off. I read the other day that the FBI decided there’s too much paperwork for when they want to dig through someone’s trash, then use a lie detector while questioning them about anything interesting they found in the trash. This is why I wish I could vote more directly on the issues. Neither party is interested in addressing this kind of stuff.

    we aren’t exactly implicating … claymore mines to keep dishonest neighbors out of our vehicles.

    Okay. Would allowing concealed handgun but prohibiting the rifle in your truck be enough for Illinois not to be evil? Are the laws in Texas about right? (I don’t know the Texas gun laws.)

    And going waaay back up the page:
    A firearm is a firearm. What it shoots is immaterial.

    That’s really too bad. A handgun with non-lethal bullets seems like it would be the best means of self defense that fits into the spirit of Illinois’ laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: