Jump to content

Oak Park Firearm Regulation Forum - Public Safety Issue


GarandCollector

Recommended Posts

My link

 

Gun owners rip Oak Park regulation plans

 

By BILL DWYER wdwyer@pioneerlocal.com January 25, 2012 10:38AM

 

More than 100 people filled the Oak Park council chambers Tuesday night for a public hearing on regulating private handguns after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the village’s handgun ban in 2010.

 

The largely civil 90-minute event, technically a meeting of the Oak Park Health Board, saw handgun proponents outnumber pro-regulation speakers 15-7.

 

Handgun proponents, many wearing “I-GOLD” logo of the Illinois Gun Owner’s Lobby Day event, argued that reasonable, responsible law-abiding adults could and should be trusted to handle lethal weapons for the purpose of self-defense.

 

Regulation proponents argued that firearms are inherently dangerous, people are flawed and together they present a clear public health threat that requires regulation.

 

“We’re not here to talk about if citizens of Oak Park will have guns, we’re here to talk about how citizens will have guns,” said Reshnia Desai, of Lyman Avenue.

 

She quoted statistics that found that people with guns in the house are 12 times more likely to die in domestic violence incidents, and handguns are 11 times more likely to be used in suicides or suicide attempts, than they are to be used for self-defense.

 

Michael Podalak, of South Ridgeland Avenue, said that while he respects the Second Amendment, he disagreed strongly with one speaker’s contention that guns are “tools.”

 

“Guns are not tools. They were invented as a quicker, more efficient, more reliable way to kill another human being,” Podalak said. He noted that 75,000 people die annually by gunshot, a third of them accidentally.

 

Many regulation proponents were from the southeast side of Oak Park, where Oak Park’s first gun shop in 30 years, Windy City Firearms, opened for business on Roosevelt Road in December amidst a flurry of neighborhood protest.

 

Cara Hendrickson and Karen Blatchford, who both live on East Avenue near Roosevelt Road, joined Jim Kelly of the South East Oak Park Community Organization in calling for zoning laws that require more distance between new gun shops and parks, daycare centers and schools.

 

The owner of the gun shop, Justin Delafuentes, said the ongoing dialogue has little do with him or his business.

 

“It’s really about the people of Oak Park, not me,” he said, adding it would be impossible to open a gun shop in the village where there isn’t a school, park or child care business nearby.

 

Kyle Davis, of the 900 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, scoffed at concerns over gun shops located near parks, schools and day care, saying he’d never heard of “any person walking out of a gun store and shooting up a Montessori school.”

 

Davis said he favored a “common sense” approach that provided needed regulation “without infringing on my rights.”

 

Many handgun proponents, however, balked at any regulation whatsoever. While advocating educating people about proper handgun use, they disputed that educating young people would lessen handgun violence.

 

“You can’t pass any new legislation that the criminal element will obey, and that is the biggest health issue of all,” said Chip Buerger of the 1100 block of N. Columbian Avenue.

 

“It’s not gun violence, it’s gang violence,” agreed Edward C. Ferraro of the 1200 block of N. Linden Avenue. “That’s where you should be putting your focus, on controlling the gangs.”

 

A suggestion that authorities conduct “spot checks” of gun safety locks in people’s homes drew an audible and sustained groan from the audience.

 

“Not gonna happen,” one person called out.

 

David Schweig, of the 400 block of N. Humphrey Avenue, an original member of the Oak Park Freedom Committee that fought unsuccessfully against the 1984 handgun ban, passed out fliers urging the village to appoint a citizens committee on the gun issue.

 

Village Manager Tom Barwin said he would consider it.

 

“That may be one of the recommendations the (village) board makes. We’ll take these recommendations to the board, see if they think it’s appropriate, and check with our attorneys,” Barwin said.

 

Schweig ripped into village officials in general and Barwin in particular during his public comments. The existing handgun ban, he said, “has had no success at doing anything. Where’s the reports, where’s the statistics?”

 

He challenged Barwin to openly discuss what he said was a $1.6 million legal bill the City of Chicago and Oak Park still owed to the NRA lawyers who argued the case before the Supreme Court.

 

“Tell us poor ignorant citizens how much we really owe,” Schweig said. “I’d like to have that secret breached, Mr. Barwin, in the paper.”

 

Gregg Simon, of the 1100 block of South Oak Park Avenue, a lawyer who called himself a “Second Amendment Democrat” who did not own a gun, said he “hoped Oak Park would be more pragmatic than it’s been” and less ideological. It was, he said, headed for more expensive litigation if it pursued regulation.

 

Margaret Provost-Fyfe, director of the Health Department, said the board plans to include what it heard at Tuesday’s meeting with its own research on the subject, in a report to the village board.

 

“We’ll review it at our next meeting in February, and then forward it to the village board (in March),” she said.

 

Attendance at Tuesday’s meeting was likely hiked by a Facebook posting last week by the Illinois State Rifle Association, which urged members to come to the meeting and to arrive early.

 

ISRA 1st Vice President Mike Weisman suggested it was the other way around, saying he’d been alerted to the hearing by concerned gun owners from Oak Park.

 

Otis McDonald, the Chicago man who filed the federal lawsuit that eventually brought down Oak Park’s handgun ban, said he hadn’t expected Tuesday’s public comment to tilt against handgun regulation.

 

He expressed satisfaction at what he termed the forceful and informed manner in which handgun proponents asserted self-defense rights, saying “that is the argument.”

 

“Citizens are being misrepresented,” McDonald said. “Their desires aren’t being heard by the people representing them.”

 

McDonald underscored one of the main points voiced by handgun proponents throughout the evening, opining, “it is not law abiding citizens that are causing trouble. It is the people who don’t have to answer to the law.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My link

 

 

Big crowd for Oak Park gun forum

 

Comments skewed toward gun-rights side at Tuesday night meeting

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 2:58 PM

 

By Marty Stempniak

 

Staff Reporter

 

 

You're supposed to take care of us. You're supposed to be here for us and we're supposed to be safe.

 

The most telling line in that whole article. That's the mindset in that community and others like it. They want someone else to take care of them, keep them safe. They take no responsibility of their own. Let government take care of it.

 

That's the mindset we're up against.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Ken Trainor

 

Staff writer

 

Are you in favor of regulating guns in spite of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court banning our handgun ban? The Oak Park Board of Health, a citizens advisory panel, will host a public forum next Tuesday night to give residents a chance to weigh in on the subject.

 

GOOD LORD!!! Writer Ken Trainor spews his venomous rhetoric and right next to his gun hater manifesto are - not one - but TWO ads for The Sportman's Guide!! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!! I think we should ALL contact the Sportman's Guide and strongly ask them to pull their ads while citing this article. I, for one, refuse to do business with anyone that advertises with such liberal, gun hating businesses. I wonder how Mr. Trainor's boss will like that??

 

 

lol Buzz you are the only one that See's sportsman's guide. It's called custom advertising, through the use of "cookies" planted on your computer, add agencies advertise what interests you based on recent searches. For example, my wife has been doing searches on how to make her own laundry soap on our home CPU here..........guess what I saw? Yip adds for discounted laundry soap. you are ok to keep patronizing sportsman's guide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McDonald underscored one of the main points voiced by handgun proponents throughout the evening, opining, “it is not law abiding citizens that are causing trouble. It is the people who don’t have to answer to the law.”

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

All gun laws do is make it SAFER for criminals to practice their crimes.

 

When WE THE PEOPLE start getting in the face of the politicians as to why they are so concerned about protecting CRIMINALS instead of the folks who actually obey the laws and pay their salaries things will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The most telling line in that whole article. That's the mindset in that community and others like it. They want someone else to take care of them, keep them safe. They take no responsibility of their own. Let government take care of it.[/quote]

+1 on understanding that mindset. It's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism. You see the same attitude displayed toward home schooling. They have the attitude that"It takes a village to raise a child". Well they have an attitude that it takes the entire village to do everything, everything should be done by society, by consensus.

The flip side is true for holding criminlas responsible for their own actions. Many of them do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, society failed to provide a job for him.

This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal onto vaugue social problems and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. They view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like corporations that refuse to start making paint with no lead in it...

It's a baffling mindset.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone been able o determine if Oak Park is getting consulting services from LCAV?

 

http://www.lcav.org/

 

I've heard the gun control proponents twice quote LCAV verbiage / statistics.

 

They must be. When Chicago considered its new ordinance, the only 'expert' called in to advise was from LCAV. Every word spoken by them was considered gospel. The only other witnesses called were victims. Thankfully, most of them actually were interested in solutions to their problems, not pablum. The Mrs. and I managed to testify, but much later and most of the committee members had already left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeatedly asked Deborah Kadin who wrote one of the first stories on this in The Patch, if she had contacted LCAV. She references them in her article but it's not clearly a quote. She never responded to me. I asked her if she knew if LCAV was working with Oak Park - she never responded to me.

 

http://oakpark.patch.com/articles/oak-park-exploring-new-weapons-rules

 

I doubt that her report was unbiased journalism. Her first few paragraphs present LCAV ideas about guns being a public health issue as if they're facts. I think both Deborah and Tom Barwin want to keep their association with LCAV secret. I doubt that it is a coincidence that LCAV is working with Oak Park, and when Deborah was looking for a source for her story that she just happened upon LCAV on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest story.....

 

My link

 

So how much does Oak Park owe the NRA?

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 10:00 PM

 

By Marty Stempniak

 

Staff Reporter

 

Last June, an appeals court ruled that the Village of Oak Park and City of Chicago had to cover the National Rifle Association's legal fees in their long-running court battle. But the final tab is still up for debate.

 

The NRA sued several Illinois communities in mid-2008, looking to strike down their handgun bans. All subsequently lifted their laws, except for Oak Park and Chicago, which fought the case in court.

 

They ended up losing in mid-2010, and a year later, a judge ruled that the two municipalities should cover the NRA's legal fees. That matter is yet to be decided, but according to a Jan. 18 court filing, the gun group is seeking $1.73 million. Plus they want another $142,000 in fees that apply specifically to Chicago, and $326,000 in fees that apply just to Oak Park.

 

Village trustees passed a resolution in 2008, accepting an offer from Chicago to shield Oak Park from paying for the NRA's legal costs. But Wednesday Journal reported last year that city attorneys ultimately did not agree to that deal.

 

The two sides in the case are currently in the "discovery" phase of the case, going back and forth, exchanging information, according to acting Village Attorney Simone Boutet. She was unsure how the final bill might be split, or when the matter might be settled.

 

Village Manager Tom Barwin said he'd be "very surprised" if the gun group got more than $20,000 from Oak Park. It's important to note, he added, that the village was represented free of charge, and did not spend money on lawyers to defend its handgun ban.

 

"I think clearly those numbers are outrageous and they must have the most expensive attorneys in the country handling their case, which I suspect that the judge will see through," he said.

 

In a subsequent court filing, Chicago and Oak Park suggested that about $580,000 would be a more reasonable amount for the losing side to pay in fees. An NRA spokeswoman, meanwhile, said Monday that she expected the final tally to be "well into six figures."

 

Todd Vendermyde, a legislative liaison for the NRA in Illinois, thinks Oak Park should be careful in drafting any new gun regulations. Chicago adopted changes following the Supreme Court's ruling — some similar to the ones suggested by the health board — and the NRA is fighting the city again over those rules.

 

"We'll take them to court again," he said. "And the question is how much of the property taxes of the residents of Oak Park do they want to keep frittering away in endless litigation? Oak Park can either decide to abide by what the court said, or they can continue to try and thumb their nose at it, in which case it's going to get very expensive."

 

Former Village Attorney Ray Heise, who Oak Park is keeping on retainer to deal with the gun topic, said last week that the village is waiting until it sees the outcome of ongoing lawsuits in Chicago before drafting any new laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More....

 

My link

 

Some gun regulation is reasonable in Oak Park

 

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 10:00 PM

 

Sandra Shimon

 

One View

 

 

By its consideration of the subject of gun death, injury and disability, and the less quantifiable mental health toll of stress from and fear of gun violence, the Oak Park Health Department appropriately acknowledges that gun violence is, in fact, as much of a public health issue as any other epidemic, exacting the same costs and burdens on the health care system. It cannot be said that because an effective solution is difficult, we are relieved of the responsibility to exact one.

 

According to the OLR Research Report summary of the McDonald case, the Supreme Court found that "the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose."

 

It is inconceivable that there is not the legal talent and constitutional scholarship available to the Oak Park government to write legislation that both reasonably and constitutionally regulates firearm ownership and that would not subject the community to onerous litigation.

 

It is also worth considering that the striking down of the total gun ban was a 5-4 decision and that the Court changes its membership and its decisions. It's possible that Oak Park was just ahead of its time in its wish to eliminate guns and their attendant mayhem.

 

At present, there must be a balance of the rights of firearm ownership and the risks that the very presence of firearms imposes on the community. Certainly Oak Park citizens, particularly children, deserve our best effort in mitigating this hazard.

 

As far as the impact of gun ownership on crime prevention, I suspect that our law enforcement professionals are alarmed by the prospect of even the most well-meaning assistance of armed amateurs in law enforcement in Oak Park. I believe this possibility is a more reasonable concern than the police interpreting the statute as meaning they need not protect individuals and enforce the law.

 

But, as advised by the Jan. 25 Viewpoints letter on the firearm ordinance [Evaluating the existing firearm ordinance], I have asked myself the implications of the fact that the police have "no legal obligation for protecting an individual, only society in general." My conclusion is not that it is "every man for himself" in these circumstances.

 

In the best interest of my neighbors, delivery people, innocent passersby, children on their way to school or playing in front, and friends and family who visit, I will rely on the police, nonetheless, to prevent crime and protect the citizenry. I hope that eschewing gun ownership is the decision of many but for those who feel they must arm for their own security, reasonable restrictions should be applied.

 

I'm a person who wishes that all children but especially Oak Park children will always be able to play outside, never be awakened in the night by gunfire, and never have to sleep in bathtubs to avoid being shot.

 

Sandra Shimon is an Oak Park resident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet more....

 

My link

 

Create an Oak Park citizens committee on gun regulation

 

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 10:00 PM

 

David Schweig

 

One View

 

 

After listening to about 20 three-minute speakers at the village government-sponsored forum on Tuesday night, I became convinced of a few conclusions, meriting, I hope, serious consideration.

 

Which "side" has the "moral high ground" on this incredibly difficult issue? Answer: We all do! All Oak Parkers want the same thing when we really try to be thoughtful and fair minded about each other. Let's name a few things we all desire: Safety of individuals and, secondarily, property, with special concern about our children; good feelings and camaraderie toward our neighbors and friends; laws that make sense and thus do what they are supposed to do; an openness in "our town" that embodies the spirit of Lincoln that all men (people) are created equal, that lawlessness will not be tolerated and every person gets the same fair impartial treatment by the law — all of this at a financial cost that most of us agree is a reasonable and proper amount to pay.

 

Fortunately, we all agreed many years ago that we could have all this in our village if we trusted ourselves enough to set up a method to make sure each of us could speak at length in a clear, lucid and thoughtful way, which represented our personal ideas of how we could accomplish our goal.

 

Over the years, we have done this many times with great success. The Community Relations Commission and the Community Improvement Commission are two excellent examples. We learned that three minutes to speak, then be told to stop talking by a committee chairperson with no one on that committee asking questions or saying anything, never smiling, never frowning, never laughing, is cold, intimidating and makes many individuals, not used to such treatment, feel quite inadequate and frustrated.

 

This gun ordinance issue clearly deserves the impartial citizens' treatment approach, not a government-structured, standing committee with a predetermined "charge" by the village board to find ways to "save" the ordinance by finding loopholes in the U.S. Supreme Court decision that lets Oak Park keep something, anything, even if a big risk is taken to invite further expensive lawsuits. We must remember that all other suburbs that had ordinances like ours quietly rescinded them, presumably after weighing the dollar cost of attempting to outfox the U.S. Supreme Court. They decided there was no way to justify keeping them when each of these ordinances had never, at any time, in over 25 years proved of any value in reducing crime of any kind.

 

We Oak Parkers can surely use our tried-and-true citizens committee approach — six citizens for the ordinance, six opposed to the ordinance, a chairperson for each side, conducting open and extensive citizen input, philosophical, practical, moral and financial discussion with current research information, multiple dates of interviews and, finally, in 3-5 months, a report of recommendations to the Village Board.

 

Finally, several of us are putting together a request/petition of Oak Park citizens who think this is the right way to truly get a handle on the best way for us to fairly resolve this issue. If you agree, please call Dave Schweig at 708-383-3850 or e-mail daveschweig@comcast.net and leave your telephone number and/or email address. You can also call Dave Gawne at 708-848-4736 and leave your email and/or phone number. We will get back in touch very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Basically two messages:

 

We will never pay the NRA what they are owned, so even if we get sued again don't worry because we are not going to pay any time soon.

 

and

 

We are going to ignore the commentary from the meeting because we know whats best for you....

 

 

not surprised at all, I just hope this doesn't catch on elsewhere in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Basically two messages:

 

We will never pay the NRA what they are owned, so even if we get sued again don't worry because we are not going to pay any time soon.

S

and

 

We are going to ignore the commentary from the meeting because we know whats best for you....

 

 

not surprised at all, I just hope this doesn't catch on elsewhere in the area.

If a judgement is entered and ignored could eventually village assests be seized??? I thought their town hall was a very nice building and would make an excellent combined NRA/ISRA and even SAF midwestern offices, with a possible indoor range. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Basically two messages:

 

We will never pay the NRA what they are owned, so even if we get sued again don't worry because we are not going to pay any time soon.

S

and

 

We are going to ignore the commentary from the meeting because we know whats best for you....

 

 

not surprised at all, I just hope this doesn't catch on elsewhere in the area.

If a judgement is entered and ignored could eventually village assests be seized??? I thought their town hall was a very nice building and would make an excellent combined NRA/ISRA and even SAF midwestern offices, with a possible indoor range. :)

 

 

While the thought of an indoor range in the Oak Park City Hall does make me smile, I somehow imagine they would try to get some sort of injunction from a local judge who would be sympathetic to the poor poor town of Oak Park. Then its a whole nother process, the day the NRA is paid what they are owed heck very well may freeze over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The latest information, only up to 18 comments so far...

 

My link

 

Finding the middle on guns in Oak Park

 

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 10:00 PM

 

By Dan Haley

 

Editor and Publisher

 

Maybe it's clearer in retrospect. Maybe it's mostly clear to me, and others will disagree. But back in 1984 when Oak Park passed its ban on handguns — passed it by a margin but not by a landslide — it was a symbolic action. It was a hope-filled action that came with the expectation that towns and cities across the state and the nation would follow suit, that strong national gun control initiatives would take hold.

 

Oak Park was going to be a harbinger, not an isolated town on the edge of a tough city with too many guns. Not many people thought Oak Park's handgun ban was the magic bubble that would protect our borders from all gun violence.

 

That was then. Today we need to start any conversation about guns and their regulation by stipulating that, with the political makeup of the current Supreme Court, the Second Amendment is in political ascendancy. It is just a fact. And so more efforts in the current situation to run straight up against the court, as Oak Park and Chicago recently attempted, are going to fail, are going to divide, and are going to result in enormous legal costs.

 

That's OK. The 1980s were a hopeful time for actual gun control. This era isn't. But the need to try to find some place in from the margins of the NRA's intimidation and the "to the ramparts" rhetoric of the gun control left is more important than ever. And again, Oak Park has the opportunity to be a leader in this moment. If we take it.

 

Can we have a discussion where we focus on the possible? Most reasonable people agree there are too many illegal guns on our streets, too many knuckleheads shooting wildly at each other, too many small kids getting injured and killed.

 

So like the rapidly expanding national organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, let's start the discussion by saying the Second Amendment is what it is. But how do we stop guns from coming illegally into the country? How do finally make the current laws on background checks actually work? How do we shut down the illegal trafficking in guns that takes place every day?

 

Recently Oak Park's public health board, at the direction of the village board, held a hearing on guns and solicited citizen input on what options remain possible locally to put reasonable regulations on the legal possession of a handgun.

 

It did not seem like the most productive format for a genuine discussion. Now, as he has for a long time, local gun rights advocate David Schweig is asking the village board to create an ad hoc commission — Lord knows Oak Park understands that concept — to talk about guns and regulation.

 

I've known David for decades, all through the local gun debates. And when we go to the margins, we vehemently disagree. But when we talk in the middle, we find there are things to discuss that might have some impact on lessening gun violence without infringing on the rights — as currently defined by this court — of gun owners.

 

David wants six local citizens who support gun rights and six local citizens who seek strong gun control to sit down over months and see what common ground there might be. He has made the case for this twice in our Viewpoints section in the past couple of months. Now Village President David Pope is suggesting he may be open to the idea.

 

It can't hurt. It might help. It will give Oak Park a fresh chance to find out if our much touted tolerance for diverse views is more than a PR aura. And, just like in 1983, it will give Oak Park the opportunity to play, in a small way, a leadership role on a life-and-death issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest information, only up to 18 comments so far...

 

Thanks for the link. I left my $0.02:

 

If you want to start a conversation about ending ILLEGAL activity, that's great! But keep in mind that illegal activity is already in violation of existing laws: i.e. the solution to gun crime is law ENFORCEMENT, not law creation.

 

Making more laws only affects the law-abiding citizens like myself (who chose to buy a house across the street in Forest Park, to avoid Oak Park's draconian nanny mentality)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the "public health" model of treating violence inflicted with guns as a disease, I'd like to make an analogy that should make this easier to understand at the most basic level.

 

Yellow Fever (the scourge of the Panama Canal project) is a disease caused by a particular virus existing in nature which is not normally part of the human environment, and cannot infect a person without a mechanism to introduce that virus into the bloodstream. That mechanism is termed a vector, and the vector in this case is the aedes aegyti mosquito (among other species) which injects the virus into the bloodstream while taking a blood meal from a human vector. The virus grows in the bloodstream, and the person is afflicted with Yellow Fever, with varying effects, but very often resulting in death. The public health model addresses this problem not with cures (that is the area the practice of medicine addresses), but with prevention. You can prevent a disease by eliminating the disease virus itself, as has been done through universal inoculation with Smallpox, or by eliminating the vector as has been done less successfully through reductions in rat populations. Mosquito abatement programs are an example of ongoing efforts to reduce the vectors that are responsible for diseases like Yellow Fever, Malaria, and West Nile Virus.

 

Violence inflicted with guns is a condition affecting humans. The immediate cause of the condition is a bullet or bullets. The "Public Health" model at its most basic regards bullets as equivalent to a deadly virus, and gun owners as the vector. (The firearm itself would be equivalent to the mosquito's proboscis) It is obviously impossible to immunize people from the negative effects of bullets, and that leaves the "public health" advocates only with methods to "control" the "vector". The equivalent of spraying ponds and ditches for mosquitoes with DDT is to further restrict how and where you can keep and use your gun. So, they advocate gun locks and storage restrictions, as well as making owning a gun more difficult and expensive.

 

The "public health" model does not take into account such basic human concepts as free will, evil, crime, or self-defense. To them, the gun owner is a vector, and no more capable of rational behavior than a mosquito. So they will try to spray us all with their equivalent of DDT. It's just that simple.

 

Rant complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting way to look at what they're up to with the health angle.

 

Often a virus mutates before total annihilation and gets even more difficult to kill; if they were to completely rid the world of guns, the criminals would "mutate" and either build their own or find another suitable weapon.

 

That's what these folks fail to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wants six local citizens who support gun rights and six local citizens who seek strong gun control to sit down over months and see what common ground there might be. He has made the case for this twice in our Viewpoints section in the past couple of months. Now Village President David Pope is suggesting he may be open to the idea.

 

Now we get committees to debate what the 2nd Amendment means? Ah crap, forgot IL's version of it.

 

Anyways......in my opinion the committee will be a big waste of time and some of Oak Park's $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indigo: That is an interesting and very good analogy. Normally, that approach would be valid. The failure in that approach on this issue is that it doesn't consider efficacy (impossible to remove all "dangerous" weapons) or unintended consequences (limits ability of victims to defend themselves). Open minded public health advocates / researchers recognize that and don't support gun control. Closed minded ones don't recognize it and do support gun control OR they are simply following orders from their boss(es). FWIW: I think it might be a bit of both with the Public Health Director at Oak Park; but can't say for certain as haven't talked with her about this issue for over a decade. I can say for certain that many public health directors are pro-gun. I'd almost wager that the majority actually are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indigo: That is an interesting and very good analogy. Normally, that approach would be valid. The failure in that approach on this issue is that it doesn't consider efficacy (impossible to remove all "dangerous" weapons) or unintended consequences (limits ability of victims to defend themselves). Open minded public health advocates / researchers recognize that and don't support gun control. Closed minded ones don't recognize it and do support gun control OR they are simply following orders from their boss(es). FWIW: I think it might be a bit of both with the Public Health Director at Oak Park; but can't say for certain as haven't talked with her about this issue for over a decade. I can say for certain that many public health directors are pro-gun. I'd almost wager that the majority actually are.

 

Ranger, the "public health" model is as I described it, admittedly simplified for general consumption here in the forum. (Twenty-five years as a medical professional). The application of that model due to issues of practicality, etc. is as you describe above. But do not mistake variances from the bare-bones model as anything other than adapting the model to practical limitations. Individuals in the public health community may or may not subscribe (in varying degrees) to the application of the public health model to the question of firearms, but that application is at heart the process of eliminating the "vector" of the "disease". This movement has the potential (and ultimate goal) of being as deadly to our rights as a weasel is to the hens in a hen house, regardless of the intention of "open minded" individuals. Under the rubrics of "for the common good" or "for the children" or "if we can save just one life" the public health model will advance the onslaught on our rights. Just as communism is the deadly enemy of the natural rights to property, the public health model is the deadly enemy of the natural right enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wants six local citizens who support gun rights and six local citizens who seek strong gun control to sit down over months and see what common ground there might be. He has made the case for this twice in our Viewpoints section in the past couple of months. Now Village President David Pope is suggesting he may be open to the idea.

 

Now we get committees to debate what the 2nd Amendment means? Ah crap, forgot IL's version of it.

 

Anyways......in my opinion the committee will be a big waste of time and some of Oak Park's $$$.

Apparently the citizens' committee is an established concept in Oak Park and has it adherents on both sides of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to 107 comments at the present time.

 

Next meeting of the Board of Health when they will unveil their recommendations/findings:

 

Feb. 28th

6 PM-9 PM

Board of Health

 

Village Hall

123 Madison Street

Oak Park, Illinois 60302

 

Anyone care to speculate what those might be....

 

"guns are bad, we need less guns so lets impliment these common sense requirments" I think you are going to see handgun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, expensive training , a requirment for guns to be kept locked up like in DC and some kind of a total gun ban within x feet of schools etc....lets see how good my channeling of miss cleo is on the 28th....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to 107 comments at the present time.

 

Next meeting of the Board of Health when they will unveil their recommendations/findings:

 

Feb. 28th

6 PM-9 PM

Board of Health

 

Village Hall

123 Madison Street

Oak Park, Illinois 60302

 

Anyone care to speculate what those might be....

 

"guns are bad, we need less guns so lets impliment these common sense requirments" I think you are going to see handgun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, expensive training , a requirment for guns to be kept locked up like in DC and some kind of a total gun ban within x feet of schools etc....lets see how good my channeling of miss cleo is on the 28th....

 

And how long will it take to get Oak Park back to SCOTUS? And this time, without the cover of Chicago to pay the bill when they lose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to 107 comments at the present time.

 

Next meeting of the Board of Health when they will unveil their recommendations/findings:

 

Feb. 28th

6 PM-9 PM

Board of Health

 

Village Hall

123 Madison Street

Oak Park, Illinois 60302

 

Anyone care to speculate what those might be....

 

Registration/special permit and AWB at a minimum.

 

Oh wait, Cook already has AWB. Registration or a separate oak park permit then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My link

 

 

Big crowd for Oak Park gun forum

 

Comments skewed toward gun-rights side at Tuesday night meeting

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 2:58 PM

 

By Marty Stempniak

 

Staff Reporter

 

 

You're supposed to take care of us. You're supposed to be here for us and we're supposed to be safe.

 

The most telling line in that whole article. That's the mindset in that community and others like it. They want someone else to take care of them, keep them safe. They take no responsibility of their own. Let government take care of it.

 

That's the mindset we're up against.

Tim

 

+100% This is the quintessential anti. They think that the government will protect everyone; they take no responsibility for their own safety or behavior. And then they go live in the fantasy world where more laws by themselves make everyone safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to 107 comments at the present time.

 

Next meeting of the Board of Health when they will unveil their recommendations/findings:

 

Feb. 28th

6 PM-9 PM

Board of Health

 

Village Hall

123 Madison Street

Oak Park, Illinois 60302

 

Anyone care to speculate what those might be....

 

"guns are bad, we need less guns so lets impliment these common sense requirments" I think you are going to see handgun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, expensive training , a requirment for guns to be kept locked up like in DC and some kind of a total gun ban within x feet of schools etc....lets see how good my channeling of miss cleo is on the 28th....

 

And how long will it take to get Oak Park back to SCOTUS? And this time, without the cover of Chicago to pay the bill when they lose?

 

In their heart of hearts I don't think the politicians in Oak Park, or Chicago or Springfield for that matter really care one damned bit about how much money they waste on unconstitutional laws or actions. If the law plays with their base, they will go for it. It is the same reason they pepper the leglisature with bills that they know will go no where, so they can say to the voters in their district/town/etc "Well I TRIED to get X passed but the evil anti X loby stopped me" is the worst case senario. If the law is passed but overturned in the courts "Well the evil anti X judges in the courts blocked the law, its not the will of the people" is the best case. Nothing brings in money better to a political campaign than a politician who can rile the base.

 

Until we the voters punish those sufficiently who press for and pass these unconstitutional laws that waste our hard earned tax dollars we won't see any shift in attitude amongst those who serve us but have long since thought we serve them.

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...