Jump to content

Gun toters: legends in their own minds


GarandCollector

Recommended Posts

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-30-2014/Gun-toters:-legends-in-their-own-minds/

 

Gun toters: legends in their own minds

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 10:00 AM

 

To all the legal gun owners in this country: Thank you. You legally purchased your weapon, you learned how to use it, and you keep it in a safe. You hunt with it and humanely harvest truly healthy, free-range protein. You sit quietly in the woods with your son or daughter watching the sun come up through the trees, experiencing nature and a moment that would make Walt Whitman seethe with envy all while I sleep in the city about to experience my bourbon-induced hangover and rain-soaked newspaper.

 

Furthermore, I know that if you could, you would use your weapon to defend my family. For that, I thank you sincerely and with all my heart. And I would do the same for you and your family. When I close my eyes, I see myself in slow-motion flying through the air, lighting up a 9mm Beretta, each tiny missile finding purchase in the chest of a bad guy. And when it is over, the bad guys are dead and the good guys are alive but a little shaken. I tell everyone, "It's all OK now. Take your families and go home. Just doing what any good citizen would do who happened to have a gun." Just like in the movies.

 

I've shredded paper bull's eye targets in a range and blown to smithereens pop cans off hay bales. And if I were ever attacked by a pop can, in a controlled setting, with plenty of time and no pressure, watch out. "I've got a thirst for justice! Drink this, Diet Coke can! Bam! Bam! Bam!"

 

I'd like to believe I'm a gifted gunslinger like you who wouldn't panic, wouldn't choke, would always find the right target because in pressure situations, I always make the right decisions. Surprise me and I will react like I've had hours to think about the perfect response, especially in high-pressure life-or-death situations. Because that is how people are.

 

Adrenaline is clarity-juice. Just like in the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Lot of derp in those few paragraphs.

 

No one that I know of that conceal carries ever looks forward to the day when he/she must employ their gun. We know quite well that decision is going to be analyzed by a lot of people who weren't there. We might be prosecuted even if we are clearly justified.

 

We discuss scenarios and even think about how to react to different situations but that is far different then fantasizing about doing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya see what I have to put up with folks? I bet the guy that guy who was robbed in his own backyard with a gun pointed at his head thinks differently. And no, I wouldn't protect you or your family. We train with the essential knowledge we are not deputies. Chucklehead Oak Parker. If my kids weren't going to school here, I'd be out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a perfect example of the reason I think some people shouldn't own weapons. Some have trouble separating fantasy from reality.

Maybe the coffee hasn't set in yet but I don't think "Steve" is a gun owner. It is pure anti gun in its delivery and very fitting of the Kool Aid mentality out here. A real CCL holder would refute everything he said. Stevo succeeded in looking like a idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More this week from the front lines.....

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-30-2014/Why-I-oppose-the-gun-referendum/

 

Why I oppose the gun referendum

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 10:01 AM

 

On the Nov. 4 ballot, there will be a referendum that reads: "Shall the Federal Government enact legislation requiring universal background checks of criminal and mental health history record information for all transfers of ownership or possession of firearms, including transfers which occur at gun shows, over the Internet, and privately, as a step toward preventing the ownership or possession of firearms by criminals and those with serious mental illnesses, and as a step toward preventing illegal gun trafficking altogether?"

 

What will happen if this initiative is supported by the residents of Oak Park? The statement of principle will be submitted to some un-named committee in Springfield or in Washington where it will probably quietly die.

 

If it is pursued, committee studies, hearings and draft legislation will consume a couple of years with no guarantee of support. Local hearings, house votes and senate votes, then reconciliation will require a couple years more before the bill goes to the president.

 

Then the legal challenges begin. All of this could consume a couple of decades and two or three administration changes. All the while, bad people are hurting innocent citizens.

 

Suppose the residents of Oak Park, Cook County and Illinois stood together and, with one voice, demanded our court system start to prosecute thugs and gang-bangers who use firearms to hurt others, to the absolute extent of the law. By noon, the first sentences could be handed out and the bad guys would be enjoying their evening meal in Stateville.

 

The FBI and Dept. of Justice report that people who commit armed felonies do it about every 18 days. A 10-year sentence would prevent 200 crimes and probably more than a few senseless deaths, all in the time the referendum is being considered by Congress. This initiative would be quick, cheap and no good citizen would oppose it.

 

Support the referendum if you feel it demonstrates a practical, realistic solution to the gun violence problem. Vote No if you believe there are better solutions or just take a pass if you don't know.

 

Ray Simpson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-30-2014/'No'-vote-is-a-vote-against-gun-violence/

 

'No' vote is a vote against gun violence

Opinion: Columns

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 10:02 AM

 

John Erickson

 

I have submitted numerous gun violence-related articles to the WJ over the past months. In spite of Viewpoints editor Ken Trainor and I disagreeing on almost everything about guns, politics and socio-economic policies, he has published all of my writings without editorial modification. I commend Mr. Trainor for providing coverage of both sides of the gun ban/gun violence issue.

 

Do you want to decrease gun violence in the Chicago area? Vote "No" on the Oak Park Township gun referendum in November and send the (at least) 15 proponents of the measure back to the drawing board to come up with measures that really will decrease gun violence. (That's right, 15. Per Illinois state law, it only takes 15 axe-to-grind signatories to put a township referendum on the ballot.)

 

I always enjoy reading the writings of Ray Heise because he is so skilled and eloquent at hiding his true agenda [The benefits of a nationwide background check system, Viewpoints, Sept. 10] as well as the wording of the referendum itself.

 

Mr. Heise evidently does not believe it is OK for law-abiding citizens to have guns, but it is OK for the government, criminals and crazies to possess guns. How else can you explain a proposal that impacts only law-abiding citizens and is not concerned with whether or not criminals or the seriously mentally ill are likely to comply with it? (I think he means "dangerously mentally ill," not "seriously mentally ill.")

 

No evidence is presented as to how this proposal will decrease gun violence, let alone get guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. We are asked to believe, to "take a step," a "necessary and substantial step in the right direction," to create uniformity among the states with respect to background check processes. Religions deal in faith, not citizens facing a threat. And Mr. Heise even admits that Universal Background Checks/no exceptions (UBE/ne) will not, "in and of itself," decrease gun violence. So what do we have to add to UBE/ne to actually decrease gun violence?

 

He repeatedly ignores the spectacular failure of UBC/ne in the city of Chicago (as well as the failures of magazine capacity limits, assault weapon bans, even a complete gun ban and Oak Park's Nuclear Weapons Ban).

 

Mr. Heise repeatedly minimizes the difficulties with implementing the law as a "minor inconvenience" for legal gun owners and ignores the cost to taxpayers. (He is not a gun owner himself so his referendum will not affect him. Also, his nice Oak Park village pension allows him to easily afford the $200 cost of transferring a gun through a licensed firearms dealer!)

 

Unrelated to the referendum, "common sense" initiatives mentioned by Mr. Heise conveniently impact only law-abiding citizens and not criminals and crazies. That is nonsense, not common sense.

 

Mr. Heise falsely accuses gun owners of not wanting to give up even an inch, yet he and the GunNo!ers are actively trying to gain ground against gun ownership in exactly this way, an inch of nonsense at a time.

 

If you want to decrease gun violence, vote "No" and demand laws and actions that actually reduce gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More this week from the front lines.....

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-30-2014/Why-I-oppose-the-gun-referendum/

 

Why I oppose the gun referendum

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 10:01 AM

 

On the Nov. 4 ballot, there will be a referendum that reads: "Shall the Federal Government enact legislation requiring universal background checks of criminal and mental health history record information for all transfers of ownership or possession of firearms, including transfers which occur at gun shows, over the Internet, and privately, as a step toward preventing the ownership or possession of firearms by criminals and those with serious mental illnesses, and as a step toward preventing illegal gun trafficking altogether?"

 

What will happen if this initiative is supported by the residents of Oak Park? The statement of principle will be submitted to some un-named committee in Springfield or in Washington where it will probably quietly die.

 

If it is pursued, committee studies, hearings and draft legislation will consume a couple of years with no guarantee of support. Local hearings, house votes and senate votes, then reconciliation will require a couple years more before the bill goes to the president.

 

Then the legal challenges begin. All of this could consume a couple of decades and two or three administration changes. All the while, bad people are hurting innocent citizens.

 

Suppose the residents of Oak Park, Cook County and Illinois stood together and, with one voice, demanded our court system start to prosecute thugs and gang-bangers who use firearms to hurt others, to the absolute extent of the law. By noon, the first sentences could be handed out and the bad guys would be enjoying their evening meal in Stateville.

 

The FBI and Dept. of Justice report that people who commit armed felonies do it about every 18 days. A 10-year sentence would prevent 200 crimes and probably more than a few senseless deaths, all in the time the referendum is being considered by Congress. This initiative would be quick, cheap and no good citizen would oppose it.

 

Support the referendum if you feel it demonstrates a practical, realistic solution to the gun violence problem. Vote No if you believe there are better solutions or just take a pass if you don't know.

 

Ray Simpson

I liked this "Suppose the residents of Oak Park, Cook County and Illinois stood together and, with one voice, demanded our court system start to prosecute thugs and gang-bangers who use firearms to hurt others, to the absolute extent of the law. " He seems to understand people commit crimes, not weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to make a bumper stickers and sneak around Oak Park putting it on city vehicles and all the cars with Obama/Biden stickers.

 

"Progressive Kool Aid, the Official Beverage of Oak Park Illinois."

 

Thankfully, the noises he and his ilk make, are just the sound of sore losers that haven't seen a "win" in over a decade and have no real prospects for the forseeable future.

 

(But feel free to stay home in November and help give us 4 more years of Quinn doing everything Madigan says to.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal bloggers: legends in their own minds

 

To all the liberal bloggers in this country: Thank you. You thoroughly research your topics, gather unbiased evidence, and draw conclusions based on objective facts. You fuel the information age with your wit and candor and serve the higher purpose of public education with no expectation of praise or laudation. All while I sleep knowing that I have an option that you don’t.

 

Furthermore, I know that if you could, you would use your intellectual superiority to change the world for the better. For that, I think you sincerely with all of my heart. And I would do the same if it weren’t the infectious love of liberty to which you, apparently, are immune. When I close my eyes, I see the surge of collective emotion burst forth onto my keyboard; the vestige of Hollywood fantasy narratives and YouTube documentaries culminating into a single, irrefutable straw man, to which I draw general, unrelated conclusions about other people. And when it’s all over I would tell everyone, “It’s okay to admit that I know what’s best for you.”

 

If I had to provide an opinion, I would have plenty of time to consult my biased sources, twisted facts, and leftist echo chambers to form a powerful hominem that would instantly sway public option to my view of tolerance and acceptance while simultaneously relieving the world of any point of view that doesn’t agree with me. Just like in the movies.

 

I’d like to believe that I’m a gifted internet troll like you who would put forth a truly rational, unbiased argument and that my words would instantly force my world view on others who don’t agree with it, nor welcome it.

 

There is after all only one correct world view. Just like in the movies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect I'm in the minority here on a CC board when it comes to UBC's. I'm not entirely opposed. I've had a background check for all 9 firearms I own, and also for the three that I previously owned, that's twelve background checks (100% of my gun purchases). I've never felt the effort involved in an NICS background check (5 min of paperwork), or the expense of FFL fees ($20 on top of a $500 gun) were a hinderance to my right to bear arms. I also didn't feel like my privacy was being violated since the government isn't tracking my gun purchases. I'm comforted by the fact that 80,000 people who failed their NICS background check in 2012 did have a significant barrier to gun ownership. I know some will find other ways to obtain guns, but I know that this is not true for 100% of ineligible applicants.

 

That being said, I understand some of the reservations. UBC's should only be universal for transfers of ownership. No one should have to do a background check so their friend can shoot their gun at the range, take it hunting, etc. There needs to be an easy, taxpayer funded nationwide system that any citizen can access for free. This should not be an excuse for the government to tax individuals out of their right to bear arms. It also needs to respect privacy of prospective buyers. A seller should be able to enter the buyer's SSN and get a simple "pass" or "fail" with no details. The system should also not maintain records of gun purchases (just like the NICS system doesn't). Given the simplicity of such a system from a user standpoint, I wouldn't even object to requiring background checks between family members. It would be free, and it could literally take 30 seconds with no invasion of privacy.

 

Some people have expressed their concern about rejections. What do you do when you're standing in a dark alley with a prospective buyer and he fails the background check you just ran on your smartphone? How do you explain to him that you can't sell him the gun?Well, you're an idiot if that's how you sell your guns in private sales. There are several things you can do to avoid this situation: run the background check ahead of time, meet in a crowded place (or in front of a police station), and be prepared for a prospective deal turning south. After all, would you really want to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon just to avoid a socially awkward (or in very rare circumstances: dangerous) situation?

 

Mental health issues are certainly relevant to gun ownership, but I understand the hesitation here regarding privacy, and how people who need help might hesitate to seek it for fear of ending up on a government list. I freely admit that I don't have a solution for this, but reporting someone's criminal background to a database should not cause concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect I'm in the minority here on a CC board when it comes to UBC's. I'm not entirely opposed. I've had a background check for all 9 firearms I own, and also for the three that I previously owned, that's twelve background checks (100% of my gun purchases). I've never felt the effort involved in an NICS background check (5 min of paperwork), or the expense of FFL fees ($20 on top of a $500 gun) were a hinderance to my right to bear arms. I also didn't feel like my privacy was being violated since the government isn't tracking my gun purchases. I'm comforted by the fact that 80,000 people who failed their NICS background check in 2012 did have a significant barrier to gun ownership. I know some will find other ways to obtain guns, but I know that this is not true for 100% of ineligible applicants.

 

That being said, I understand some of the reservations. UBC's should only be universal for transfers of ownership. No one should have to do a background check so their friend can shoot their gun at the range, take it hunting, etc. There needs to be an easy, taxpayer funded nationwide system that any citizen can access for free. This should not be an excuse for the government to tax individuals out of their right to bear arms. It also needs to respect privacy of prospective buyers. A seller should be able to enter the buyer's SSN and get a simple "pass" or "fail" with no details. The system should also not maintain records of gun purchases (just like the NICS system doesn't). Given the simplicity of such a system from a user standpoint, I wouldn't even object to requiring background checks between family members. It would be free, and it could literally take 30 seconds with no invasion of privacy.

 

Some people have expressed their concern about rejections. What do you do when you're standing in a dark alley with a prospective buyer and he fails the background check you just ran on your smartphone? How do you explain to him that you can't sell him the gun?Well, you're an idiot if that's how you sell your guns in private sales. There are several things you can do to avoid this situation: run the background check ahead of time, meet in a crowded place (or in front of a police station), and be prepared for a prospective deal turning south. After all, would you really want to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon just to avoid a socially awkward (or in very rare circumstances: dangerous) situation?

 

Mental health issues are certainly relevant to gun ownership, but I understand the hesitation here regarding privacy, and how people who need help might hesitate to seek it for fear of ending up on a government list. I freely admit that I don't have a solution for this, but reporting someone's criminal background to a database should not cause concern.

 

I'd be down for UBC's, as long as they're completely voluntary and the government wasn't involved in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI includes several hundred "lawfully justified homicides" of criminals killed in the act of committing a crime by law abiding citizens in their crime reports every year. Multiple studies have revealed between 1.5 and 2.5 million lawful defensive gun uses each year, the vast majority taking place without a shot ever being fired, so while variants of the scenario you describe do occur, they are thankfully rare.

 

You see, the government has over 20 court cases absolving them of any and all liability should they fail to stop your attacker, even when they know about the threat in advance... The court says the ultimate responsibility of protection lies with us.

 

You may picture yourself an action film movie star in your twisted fantasy, but most regular citizens simply want to be able to address any threat to themselves or their families with reasonable, lawfully justifiable force. .. Sorry if it disrupts your imaginary imagery of the steely eyed hero with a "thirst for justice", but I say a little prayer when I don my holster in the morning that my sidearm may stay in the holster and not have to be used.

 

Rest easier in the knowledge that errors among armed citizens involved in lethal force incidents is actually lower than the error rate of police, by nearly a 5:1 ratio.

 

Or keep comparing plinking to self-defense, and maybe CNN will consider you a subject matter expert for having been published, and actually having fired a real live gun with bullets and everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection isn't so much with the background check itself, the FOID check here in IL was completely painless and free when I bought my last gun.

My objection is the slippery slope, they keep chipping away with 'reasonable' restrictions, piling on one after the other, frankly, if they want to take one more inch, they should give up something, like drop SBRs and suppressors off the NFA would be a good start, but THEY never give up anything, so I'm not anymore either.

 

I suspect I'm in the minority here on a CC board when it comes to UBC's. I'm not entirely opposed. I've had a background check for all 9 firearms I own, and also for the three that I previously owned, that's twelve background checks (100% of my gun purchases). I've never felt the effort involved in an NICS background check (5 min of paperwork), or the expense of FFL fees ($20 on top of a $500 gun) were a hinderance to my right to bear arms. I also didn't feel like my privacy was being violated since the government isn't tracking my gun purchases. I'm comforted by the fact that 80,000 people who failed their NICS background check in 2012 did have a significant barrier to gun ownership. I know some will find other ways to obtain guns, but I know that this is not true for 100% of ineligible applicants.

That being said, I understand some of the reservations. UBC's should only be universal for transfers of ownership. No one should have to do a background check so their friend can shoot their gun at the range, take it hunting, etc. There needs to be an easy, taxpayer funded nationwide system that any citizen can access for free. This should not be an excuse for the government to tax individuals out of their right to bear arms. It also needs to respect privacy of prospective buyers. A seller should be able to enter the buyer's SSN and get a simple "pass" or "fail" with no details. The system should also not maintain records of gun purchases (just like the NICS system doesn't). Given the simplicity of such a system from a user standpoint, I wouldn't even object to requiring background checks between family members. It would be free, and it could literally take 30 seconds with no invasion of privacy.

Some people have expressed their concern about rejections. What do you do when you're standing in a dark alley with a prospective buyer and he fails the background check you just ran on your smartphone? How do you explain to him that you can't sell him the gun?Well, you're an idiot if that's how you sell your guns in private sales. There are several things you can do to avoid this situation: run the background check ahead of time, meet in a crowded place (or in front of a police station), and be prepared for a prospective deal turning south. After all, would you really want to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon just to avoid a socially awkward (or in very rare circumstances: dangerous) situation?

Mental health issues are certainly relevant to gun ownership, but I understand the hesitation here regarding privacy, and how people who need help might hesitate to seek it for fear of ending up on a government list. I freely admit that I don't have a solution for this, but reporting someone's criminal background to a database should not cause concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect I'm in the minority here on a CC board when it comes to UBC's. I'm not entirely opposed. I've had a background check for all 9 firearms I own, and also for the three that I previously owned, that's twelve background checks (100% of my gun purchases). I've never felt the effort involved in an NICS background check (5 min of paperwork), or the expense of FFL fees ($20 on top of a $500 gun) were a hinderance to my right to bear arms. I also didn't feel like my privacy was being violated since the government isn't tracking my gun purchases. I'm comforted by the fact that 80,000 people who failed their NICS background check in 2012 did have a significant barrier to gun ownership. I know some will find other ways to obtain guns, but I know that this is not true for 100% of ineligible applicants.

 

That being said, I understand some of the reservations. UBC's should only be universal for transfers of ownership. No one should have to do a background check so their friend can shoot their gun at the range, take it hunting, etc. There needs to be an easy, taxpayer funded nationwide system that any citizen can access for free. This should not be an excuse for the government to tax individuals out of their right to bear arms. It also needs to respect privacy of prospective buyers. A seller should be able to enter the buyer's SSN and get a simple "pass" or "fail" with no details. The system should also not maintain records of gun purchases (just like the NICS system doesn't). Given the simplicity of such a system from a user standpoint, I wouldn't even object to requiring background checks between family members. It would be free, and it could literally take 30 seconds with no invasion of privacy.

 

Some people have expressed their concern about rejections. What do you do when you're standing in a dark alley with a prospective buyer and he fails the background check you just ran on your smartphone? How do you explain to him that you can't sell him the gun?Well, you're an idiot if that's how you sell your guns in private sales. There are several things you can do to avoid this situation: run the background check ahead of time, meet in a crowded place (or in front of a police station), and be prepared for a prospective deal turning south. After all, would you really want to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon just to avoid a socially awkward (or in very rare circumstances: dangerous) situation?

 

Mental health issues are certainly relevant to gun ownership, but I understand the hesitation here regarding privacy, and how people who need help might hesitate to seek it for fear of ending up on a government list. I freely admit that I don't have a solution for this, but reporting someone's criminal background to a database should not cause concern.

Why should I have to pay a fee for a background check if I want to sell a gun to a family member or a friend? Does the background check guarantee that the purchaser will not misuse the weapon? Isn't the background check an instant de-facto registration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

miztic, the Oak Park antis have stated very clearly that everything they do is done as a step toward their goal of the abolition of civilian firearms ownership. As long as this remains their goal, there is no point in engaging with them at any level.

Exactly! as long as the whole "common sense" BS is just then being disingenuous, I'm refusing to give them one more inch.

 

For that matter, there's no evidence BG checks even do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

miztic, the Oak Park antis have stated very clearly that everything they do is done as a step toward their goal of the abolition of civilian firearms ownership. As long as this remains their goal, there is no point in engaging with them at any level.

 

Exactly! as long as the whole "common sense" BS is just then being disingenuous, I'm refusing to give them one more inch.

 

For that matter, there's no evidence BG checks even do anything.

Consider what this Washington inside had to say on the issue:

 

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

 

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

 

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

 

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

By the way, the insider?

 

 

Charles Krauthammer, in his article Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet." Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...