Jump to content

Slanted Tribune Poll


mauserme

Recommended Posts

A new Tribune poll offers only additional gun control options in a possible move to claim support for more regulation.

 

http://newsblogs.chi...-work-here.html

 

 

The comments are interesting, especially this posted in response to all the criticism:

 

These choices are drawn from laws on the books in California and Washington D.C., to which Chicago is looking if its own gun ban is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Because the poll software only lets my options get so long, I had to offer the options in very truncated shorthand.

 

I figured 2nd amendment aficionadoes would recognize each and know the actual wording, while the wording might be simpler and clearer to newcomers to the topic. I worded the poll.

 

Thanks for all of your questions and comments.

 

-- James Janega

Trib Nation Manager

Chicago Tribune

post-1741-127679514623.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me they could have gone with one less really bad choice and added the ever popular "None of the above"

 

Typical for the Tribune, though...

 

I actually voted for "illegal to shoot guns in the city" under the assumption there'd be a self-defense carve out (as there is now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, thank you, Ms. B!

 

I was going to return and cross-examine the unfortunate Mr. Janega after he responded to my comment, but, well, it just didn't seem sporting.

 

The sad thing is, they know they're awful, and they just don't care.

 

What doesn't show in these threads on this forum is that the entire front page of this morning's Tribune is a black-and-white photo of the muzzle end of a J-frame, pointed straight on at the viewer.

The fact that the revolver is clearly unloaded makes it very little less unsettling.

An unpleasant presentation on the table at breakfast this morning, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new Tribune poll offers only additional gun control options in a possible move to claim support for more regulation.

 

http://newsblogs.chi...-work-here.html

 

 

The comments are interesting, especially this posted in response to all the criticism:

 

These choices are drawn from laws on the books in California and Washington D.C., to which Chicago is looking if its own gun ban is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Because the poll software only lets my options get so long, I had to offer the options in very truncated shorthand.

 

I figured 2nd amendment aficionadoes would recognize each and know the actual wording, while the wording might be simpler and clearer to newcomers to the topic. I worded the poll.

 

Thanks for all of your questions and comments.

 

-- James Janega

Trib Nation Manager

Chicago Tribune

Figures lie and liars figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me they could have gone with one less really bad choice and added the ever popular "None of the above"

 

Typical for the Tribune, though...

 

I actually voted for "illegal to shoot guns in the city" under the assumption there'd be a self-defense carve out (as there is now).

What about ranges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, thank you, Ms. B!

 

I was going to return and cross-examine the unfortunate Mr. Janega after he responded to my comment, but, well, it just didn't seem sporting.

 

The sad thing is, they know they're awful, and they just don't care.

 

What doesn't show in these threads on this forum is that the entire front page of this morning's Tribune is a black-and-white photo of the muzzle end of a J-frame, pointed straight on at the viewer.

The fact that the revolver is clearly unloaded makes it very little less unsettling.

An unpleasant presentation on the table at breakfast this morning, indeed.

I received a call this morning from a friend in Chicago about that photo of a gun aimed right at readers . . .

yeah, let's try to scare the bejeebers out of everyone over these scary guns . . .

 

 

The people on the streets of Chicago run the risk of seeing that sight every day

because Daley keeps them defenseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-1741-127679514623.jpg

 

Let's see here...IMHO,

 

1. NO

2. Arent ALL firearm sales FTF??? Whether it's between 2 private foid holders or FFL? So, sure, why not.

3. A minor inconvenience so I'll choose my battles...

4. NO registry whatsoever! How about that? However I may be dreaming so 3 yrs if extremely affordable would technically be better than the registry them currently have.

5. That's what the 4473 is for. NO on the ammo record.

6. Too vague. No answer.

7. Clips??? Stripper or en bloc? LOL

8. Lot's of towns have similar ordanances. In Naperville, I believe it's illegal for a MLB pitcher to throw a fastball. I don't care for such an ordanace.

9. NO. A 10/22 w/a tapco stock could & probably would fall under such a definition.

10. Isn't this something FFLs are already doing? When the ATF come out to do audits, the books have to be accurate & everything accounted for?

 

I took the poll & the only thing I checked was the FTF firearm sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-1741-127679514623.jpg

 

Let's see here...IMHO,

 

1. NO

2. Arent ALL firearm sales FTF??? Whether it's between 2 private foid holders or FFL? So, sure, why not.

3. A minor inconvenience so I'll choose my battles...

4. NO registry whatsoever! How about that? However I may be dreaming so 3 yrs if extremely affordable would technically be better than the registry them currently have.

5. That's what the 4473 is for. NO on the ammo record.

6. Too vague. No answer.

7. Clips??? Stripper or en bloc? LOL

8. Lot's of towns have similar ordanances. In Naperville, I believe it's illegal for a MLB pitcher to throw a fastball. I don't care for such an ordanace.

9. NO. A 10/22 w/a tapco stock could & probably would fall under such a definition.

10. Isn't this something FFLs are already doing? When the ATF come out to do audits, the books have to be accurate & everything accounted for?

 

I took the poll & the only thing I checked was the FTF firearm sales.

I'm sorry to fall OT here but, being a former Napervillian for far too long, this one really caught my eye. Anything to back this up? I have a good friend who is a Naperville Detective, also a baseball nut. I'd love to know more about this before quizzing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-1741-127679514623.jpg

 

Let's see here...IMHO,

 

1. NO

2. Arent ALL firearm sales FTF??? Whether it's between 2 private foid holders or FFL? So, sure, why not.

3. A minor inconvenience so I'll choose my battles...

4. NO registry whatsoever! How about that? However I may be dreaming so 3 yrs if extremely affordable would technically be better than the registry them currently have.

5. That's what the 4473 is for. NO on the ammo record.

6. Too vague. No answer.

7. Clips??? Stripper or en bloc? LOL

8. Lot's of towns have similar ordanances. In Naperville, I believe it's illegal for a MLB pitcher to throw a fastball. I don't care for such an ordanace.

9. NO. A 10/22 w/a tapco stock could & probably would fall under such a definition.

10. Isn't this something FFLs are already doing? When the ATF come out to do audits, the books have to be accurate & everything accounted for?

 

I took the poll & the only thing I checked was the FTF firearm sales.

2) Gunbroker.com

3) Major violations are grown up minor inconveniences.

7) LMAO, many will have fun with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go...

 

Boy, this sure made the ol' eggs and sausage go down easy.

 

http://www.cherryriver.com/images/Trib%20cover.jpg

 

 

Jerks.

What is that rule again? It is talked about so frequently among firearms enthusiasts.

Oh Yeah-

 

NEVER POINT A GUN AT THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL OR OTHERWISE UTTERLY DESTROY.

 

Media is showing its true colors with that picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-1741-127679514623.jpg

 

Let's see here...IMHO,

 

1. NO

2. Arent ALL firearm sales FTF??? Whether it's between 2 private foid holders or FFL? So, sure, why not.

3. A minor inconvenience so I'll choose my battles...

4. NO registry whatsoever! How about that? However I may be dreaming so 3 yrs if extremely affordable would technically be better than the registry them currently have.

5. That's what the 4473 is for. NO on the ammo record.

6. Too vague. No answer.

7. Clips??? Stripper or en bloc? LOL

8. Lot's of towns have similar ordanances. In Naperville, I believe it's illegal for a MLB pitcher to throw a fastball. I don't care for such an ordanace.

9. NO. A 10/22 w/a tapco stock could & probably would fall under such a definition.

10. Isn't this something FFLs are already doing? When the ATF come out to do audits, the books have to be accurate & everything accounted for?

 

I took the poll & the only thing I checked was the FTF firearm sales.

 

I'm sorry to fall OT here but, being a former Napervillian for far too long, this one really caught my eye. Anything to back this up? I have a good friend who is a Naperville Detective, also a baseball nut. I'd love to know more about this before quizzing him.

 

Jeffrey,

 

I apologize I was being sarcastic. They do have pretty darn strict rules though. No airsoft or bb discarge, no archery unless in a prescribed area. I'm posting from my phone but I'll post the ordinance when I get home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me they could have gone with one less really bad choice and added the ever popular "None of the above"

 

Typical for the Tribune, though...

 

I actually voted for "illegal to shoot guns in the city" under the assumption there'd be a self-defense carve out (as there is now).

What about ranges?

 

They closed down the last range in Chicago. However, those are excluded as well in most every city that has that type of law. You just can't take your gun into your backyard and start plinking within city limits. Given the population density, this makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me they could have gone with one less really bad choice and added the ever popular "None of the above"

 

Typical for the Tribune, though...

 

I actually voted for "illegal to shoot guns in the city" under the assumption there'd be a self-defense carve out (as there is now).

What about ranges?

 

They closed down the last range in Chicago. However, those are excluded as well in most every city that has that type of law. You just can't take your gun into your backyard and start plinking within city limits. Given the population density, this makes sense.

So you support the interest balancing approach? It seems that is the core of your position there.

 

It "makes sense" to have cops empowered to look everywhere and anywhere they see fit in search of criminal behavior, yet there exists a boundary that keeps them from doing exactly that.

 

I offer that the answer is not declarations that people cannot do something,and are to be punished if they do even when no person was wronged or harmed, but rather it is full assignment of personal and individual responsibility when you do something and someone is harmed.

 

Remember this? Even the most well intentioned code sees lines crossed that are supposed to be protected.

 

We must remove ourselves as a country from this idea that every possible negative can be removed by legislating away the ability to do this or that. The end of that road is this -

 

That which is not mandated shall be prohibited.

 

This is the opposite of Liberty my friend. The exact opposite. What was it that Franklin said about that again?

 

Oh yeah.

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

This is not to say I would support shooting a .50 in front of the Sear Tower, seriously, but what would be wrong with plinking .22 CB's in my backyard in a city, town or village? Does the fact that another might do something stupid justify removing my ability to exercise my rights responsibly? I know it doesn't, for that amounts to collective pre-emptive punishment. Collective punishment of this nature is exactly why Citizens cannot even carry a firearm here in Illinois, and that is obviously something you oppose and wage a high caliber battle against. That said I am having trouble understanding your position on this one.

 

Not accusing bro, just trying to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tribune's follow up story

http://newsblogs.chi...after-them.html

 

 

 

06/22/2010

 

Talking gun bans in Chicago, and what might come after them

The city's 28-year-old handgun ban could be overturned this month by a pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling. When reporter Dahleen Glanton interviewed Mayor Richard Daley about it, Trib Nation asked online readers to pick among the 10 or so countermeasures the city was considering.

 

We didn't include "unfettered access to guns" because the city wasn't considering it. But it came up often in the comments. ("Any other fundamental civil rights that you'd like to infringe upon?" asked one reader.)

 

Among the options the city is considering, the highest vote-getters online at Trib Nation were "no ammo for people convicted of gang crimes," "only face-to-face gun sales," "only over-the-counter ammo sales" "report each firearm sale to the government," and "keep records of identifying info on buyers and ammunition sold."

 

Interestingly, of the 442 votes cast, only 7 were from inside the Chicago city limits...

 

 

 

Still, a good number came from the Chicago suburbs and downstate Illinois.

 

downstate Illinois.

 

"We didn't include "unfettered access to guns" because the city wasn't considering it."?? And they say they aren't Daley's mouthpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tribune's follow up story

http://newsblogs.chi...after-them.html

 

 

 

06/22/2010

 

Talking gun bans in Chicago, and what might come after them

The city's 28-year-old handgun ban could be overturned this month by a pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling. When reporter Dahleen Glanton interviewed Mayor Richard Daley about it, Trib Nation asked online readers to pick among the 10 or so countermeasures the city was considering.

 

We didn't include "unfettered access to guns" because the city wasn't considering it. But it came up often in the comments. ("Any other fundamental civil rights that you'd like to infringe upon?" asked one reader.)

 

Among the options the city is considering, the highest vote-getters online at Trib Nation were "no ammo for people convicted of gang crimes," "only face-to-face gun sales," "only over-the-counter ammo sales" "report each firearm sale to the government," and "keep records of identifying info on buyers and ammunition sold."

 

Interestingly, of the 442 votes cast, only 7 were from inside the Chicago city limits...

 

 

 

Still, a good number came from the Chicago suburbs and downstate Illinois.

 

downstate Illinois.

 

"We didn't include "unfettered access to guns" because the city wasn't considering it."?? And they say they aren't Daley's mouthpiece.

 

It'd be 8 then because I answered from a connection 'downstate' but I live in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...