Back at it

[Tvandermyde]

boys and girls --

 

after a couple of days with the wife & kids at a water park in the Dells, yes a waterpark in the winter with sub-zero weather, I'm back in front of the keyboard.

 

We have less than 30 days till the Illinois primary. Things are going to get hectic in a hurry.

 

We will be introducing bills in the coming weeks for this session.

 

In less than 60 days McDonald will be before the Court. After the City's filing, I'm convinced more than ever they are dreading this decision and praying for the best of the worst.

 

And our old friends at ICHV are at it again. Here is their latest post. Again, it gives us the insight to their type of thinking and mindset. But if they want to sit down at the table and talk, I'm willing to do so. I don't think they will like what they hear.

 

So since we are kicking off the new year, here you go....

 

Todd

 

Year End Thoughts from ICHV Executive Director, Thom Mannard

 

When we take a look at 2009, we quickly see that once again Americans witnessed a wide range of gun-related tragedies during the course of the year. At this point, it seems as if incidents of gun violence have become something that we expect in this country. It's the status quo. It's almost as if many people are getting blasé about gun violence.

 

It doesn't have to be like that. We can, and must, keep asking questions and raise our concerns about this issue.

 

First, though, let's take a look at the scope of what has happened in the last year. One of the questions we should be asking is "How can we put up with this?"

 

In the first half of 2009, a man in Alabama went out and killed ten people in two different counties. A man in Pittsburgh killed three police officers, while four police officers were shot and killed in Oakland. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in shootings at an immigrant counseling center in New York during a class on citizenship. Then the gunman killed himself.

 

In Fort Hood, Texas, of course, shootings in November occurred on a military base. But they happened with guns that were obtained off-base. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in the incident, including one woman who was pregnant. Later in the month, four officers in Washington State were ambushed, losing their lives in a coffee shop. Of course locally, we appear to be reminded daily of the toll gun violence is taking on Illinois communities.

 

Unfortunately, we can point to any number of different tragedies involving firearms that happened during the course of 2009. They are also linked in another way: there doesn't seem to be any real intelligent and thoughtful discussion about the role that firearms play in these incidents.

 

I haven't even mentioned other situations that don't involve shootings – but do raise questions. For example, what about when a man brought an assault rifle to a presidential rally in Phoenix? Why is a man bringing an assault weapon to a presidential rally and more importantly why is it permitted to happen?

 

These examples from around the country suggest one of the things we must do: promote dialogue about the use of guns in this country. We must understand that these incidents confirm how vulnerable we are and why gun control is needed. And, of course, we must understand that we can, and will, raise tough questions while still understanding that many individuals have the right to legally own guns if they so choose. But when bullets are fired, and innocent people are injured or die, from guns in this country, we must ask how and why this happens – and do something about it.

 

Just as examples from around the country demonstrate the urgency of this issue, we see as clearly as ever the impact of gun violence in Chicago and throughout the Illinois. Far too many innocent Chicago children and teens were killed with guns in 2009. We must remember that a weapon was used in almost all of these tragedies– a weapon that can be used from a distance, like 10 or 15 or 30 yards away. A gun.

 

Ironically this year, national news focused on the deadly tragedy at Fenger High School, which didn't involve a gun. The country's Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) visited Chicago after this incident. Unfortunately, the gun violence that has killed most of our young people in Chicago did not lead to the same kind of attention from Washington.

 

While promoting dialogue on this issue, let's remember what "dialogue" truly means. Let people who feel that giving guns to all is the right thing to do come to the table. Let those on our side come to the table. On most issues, there is a thoughtful and thorough discussion that engages both sides, however, when people raise legitimate questions about gun violence, they are also, according to some, questioning somebody's individual right to own a gun. There must be an understanding, particularly among gun owners, that talking about how guns contribute to the deaths of more than 30,000 Americans every year does not mean you are anti gun or anti second amendment. 30,000 Americans dying every year is a simple fact, and it is in the interests of both gun owners and those who don't own guns to discuss intelligently and rationally how we can reduce that number.

 

On the federal level, we know that Congress is supposed to be an institution that embodies principles. In reality though, Congress allows the gun lobby to set the agenda on this issue. Bills supported by the gun lobby have consistently received votes while bills supported by gun control advocates are not even given as much as a committee hearing. What does that say about the process? The current situation shows that we are not hearing all sides and allowing for a fair and just process.

 

There is another important fact we need to repeat: the solid majority of adults in this country – at least 60 percent – are people who could legally own guns, but choose not to own guns(we conclude this information from polls – it's impossible to get perfect data on this question because so many gun owners are not licensed). There are many times when I wonder how our elected officials in Washington D.C. can just sit there and only acknowledge the position of the minority – i.e., gun owners, but not the majority.

 

As we look back on 2009, we must wonder: what can we do to improve this situation? Well, there are a lot of things we can do – especially on the local level. We can make sure we keep guns out of our homes or at a minimum make sure they are locked and unloaded. We can ask about the presence of firearms in homes where our children play. We can also weigh in with elected officials and local media about our feelings on this issue. It is imperative that as we enter 2010 we communicate what we know about the impact of guns in our communities.

 

In today's America, we understand that many issues have daily impact and resonate with people – issues like health care, unemployment and the economy. At the same time, we must keep bringing up how guns are affecting our world. One year from now, we can safely predict that this issue will still be haunting us.

 

[Yas]

I guess he forgot the railroad tie that was used as a murder weapon of another 16 year old in September of 09 in Chicago. Has he added a demand to ban lumber also?

[TyGuy]

I guess he forgot the railroad tie that was used as a murder weapon of another 16 year old in September of 09 in Chicago. Has he added a demand to ban lumber also?

 

:Drunk emoticon: I have secured all exposed wood in my home to prevent it from injuring anyone.

[PPK]

As we look back on 2009, we must wonder: what can we do to improve this situation? Well, there are a lot of things we can do – especially on the local level.

 

How about working with the NRA to promote the Eddie Eagle program? How about demanding people convicted of violent crimes serve more than two weeks of their sentence?

[kurt555gs]

I guess he forgot the railroad tie that was used as a murder weapon of another 16 year old in September of 09 in Chicago. Has he added a demand to ban lumber also?

 

No, that's ridicules. They only need to ban "assault lumber", And register lumber owners, and laser etch a serial number on all lumber, so it can be tracked to whoever originally bought it.

[TyGuy]

I guess he forgot the railroad tie that was used as a murder weapon of another 16 year old in September of 09 in Chicago. Has he added a demand to ban lumber also?

 

No, that's ridicules. They only need to ban "assault lumber", And register lumber owners, and laser etch a serial number on all lumber, so it can be tracked to whoever originally bought it.

 

 

Assault lumber! :Drunk emoticon: How would one go about defining assualt lumber? Oh, found it on wikipedia. Any piece of lumber that has two or more of the following:

1) folding or telescoping foliage

2) pistol grip branch

3) bayonet knot

4) flash suppressor leaves

5) pine cone launcher

 

I personally like a nice bonzai for my CC tree. Ok, back on topic now.

[Jeffrey]

boys and girls --

 

after a couple of days with the wife & kids at a water park in the Dells, yes a waterpark in the winter with sub-zero weather, I'm back in front of the keyboard.

 

We have less than 30 days till the Illinois primary. Things are going to get hectic in a hurry.

 

We will be introducing bills in the coming weeks for this session.

 

In less than 60 days McDonald will be before the Court. After the City's filing, I'm convinced more than ever they are dreading this decision and praying for the best of the worst.

 

And our old friends at ICHV are at it again. Here is their latest post. Again, it gives us the insight to their type of thinking and mindset. But if they want to sit down at the table and talk, I'm willing to do so. I don't think they will like what they hear.

 

So since we are kicking off the new year, here you go....

 

Todd

 

Year End Thoughts from ICHV Executive Director, Thom Mannard

 

When we take a look at 2009, we quickly see that once again Americans witnessed a wide range of gun-related tragedies during the course of the year. At this point, it seems as if incidents of gun violence have become something that we expect in this country. It's the status quo. It's almost as if many people are getting blasé about gun violence.

 

It doesn't have to be like that. We can, and must, keep asking questions and raise our concerns about this issue.

 

First, though, let's take a look at the scope of what has happened in the last year. One of the questions we should be asking is "How can we put up with this?"

 

In the first half of 2009, a man in Alabama went out and killed ten people in two different counties. A man in Pittsburgh killed three police officers, while four police officers were shot and killed in Oakland. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in shootings at an immigrant counseling center in New York during a class on citizenship. Then the gunman killed himself.

 

In Fort Hood, Texas, of course, shootings in November occurred on a military base. But they happened with guns that were obtained off-base. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in the incident, including one woman who was pregnant. Later in the month, four officers in Washington State were ambushed, losing their lives in a coffee shop. Of course locally, we appear to be reminded daily of the toll gun violence is taking on Illinois communities.

 

Unfortunately, we can point to any number of different tragedies involving firearms that happened during the course of 2009. They are also linked in another way: there doesn't seem to be any real intelligent and thoughtful discussion about the role that firearms play in these incidents.

 

I haven't even mentioned other situations that don't involve shootings – but do raise questions. For example, what about when a man brought an assault rifle to a presidential rally in Phoenix? Why is a man bringing an assault weapon to a presidential rally and more importantly why is it permitted to happen?

 

These examples from around the country suggest one of the things we must do: promote dialogue about the use of guns in this country. We must understand that these incidents confirm how vulnerable we are and why gun control is needed. And, of course, we must understand that we can, and will, raise tough questions while still understanding that many individuals have the right to legally own guns if they so choose. But when bullets are fired, and innocent people are injured or die, from guns in this country, we must ask how and why this happens – and do something about it.

 

Just as examples from around the country demonstrate the urgency of this issue, we see as clearly as ever the impact of gun violence in Chicago and throughout the Illinois. Far too many innocent Chicago children and teens were killed with guns in 2009. We must remember that a weapon was used in almost all of these tragedies– a weapon that can be used from a distance, like 10 or 15 or 30 yards away. A gun.

 

Ironically this year, national news focused on the deadly tragedy at Fenger High School, which didn't involve a gun. The country's Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) visited Chicago after this incident. Unfortunately, the gun violence that has killed most of our young people in Chicago did not lead to the same kind of attention from Washington.

 

While promoting dialogue on this issue, let's remember what "dialogue" truly means. Let people who feel that giving guns to all is the right thing to do come to the table. Let those on our side come to the table. On most issues, there is a thoughtful and thorough discussion that engages both sides, however, when people raise legitimate questions about gun violence, they are also, according to some, questioning somebody's individual right to own a gun. There must be an understanding, particularly among gun owners, that talking about how guns contribute to the deaths of more than 30,000 Americans every year does not mean you are anti gun or anti second amendment. 30,000 Americans dying every year is a simple fact, and it is in the interests of both gun owners and those who don't own guns to discuss intelligently and rationally how we can reduce that number.

 

On the federal level, we know that Congress is supposed to be an institution that embodies principles. In reality though, Congress allows the gun lobby to set the agenda on this issue. Bills supported by the gun lobby have consistently received votes while bills supported by gun control advocates are not even given as much as a committee hearing. What does that say about the process? The current situation shows that we are not hearing all sides and allowing for a fair and just process.

 

There is another important fact we need to repeat: the solid majority of adults in this country – at least 60 percent – are people who could legally own guns, but choose not to own guns(we conclude this information from polls – it's impossible to get perfect data on this question because so many gun owners are not licensed). There are many times when I wonder how our elected officials in Washington D.C. can just sit there and only acknowledge the position of the minority – i.e., gun owners, but not the majority.

 

As we look back on 2009, we must wonder: what can we do to improve this situation? Well, there are a lot of things we can do – especially on the local level. We can make sure we keep guns out of our homes or at a minimum make sure they are locked and unloaded. We can ask about the presence of firearms in homes where our children play. We can also weigh in with elected officials and local media about our feelings on this issue. It is imperative that as we enter 2010 we communicate what we know about the impact of guns in our communities.

 

In today's America, we understand that many issues have daily impact and resonate with people – issues like health care, unemployment and the economy. At the same time, we must keep bringing up how guns are affecting our world. One year from now, we can safely predict that this issue will still be haunting us.

 

 

Looks like they have made the offer, is it worth it to persue? I can't imagine you would change their mindset at all but could definitely make them think hard regarding their stance. Doubtful it would have any impact on your ultimate goals either.???

[Thirdpower]

They've made an 'offer' by setting up a false dichotomy. You either support their agenda or you want to give machine-guns to kindergartners and violent felons.

 

"people who feel that giving guns to all is the right thing to do"

 

That right there shows the disingenuousness of their cause.

 

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010...make-it-so.html

[mack69]

giving guns to all

Hmmmm...I've never had anyone give me guns...anyone else experience this strange phenomenon?

[SirMatthew]

I was all set to offer rebuttal on most of his comments, but there is simply too much wrong with his logic and I'd end up writing all afternoon.

 

Encouraging dialog yet remaining steadfast to your own convictions...sounds like the Obama/Chicago way.

Unfortunately for him, we shouldn't have to (and won't) compromise our rights so this will forever remain a stalemate.

 

I can't wait to read some of his writings after incorporation.