Champaign county sheriff opposes assault weapons ban

The Champaign County Sheriff is among those who are opposing an assault weapons ban in Illinois.

Sheriff Dan Walsh is a member of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association, which this week adopted a resolution opposing the ban.  But Walsh has taken the stance a step further by sending letters to local state lawmakers and Illinois Congressmen about how gun violence has affected Champaign County.

Walsh said law-abiding citizens with guns are not the problem.



Walsh also said that a step in the right direction is increased mental health services.



Walsh added that the Champaign County Jail is not designed to offer the services that mentally ill people need, and so those people's situations often get worse during their stay there.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association is offering some of its own solutions to the gun violence problem, which include giving police access to mental health records, addressing violent video games and prosecution of those who violate existing gun laws.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm

How does addressing violent video games do anything?

illini_trucker wrote on February 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Glad u asked!! Now, before I continue, everyone can flame away at my decisions, I could care less. I have a nine year old in which he was allowed to play "violent video games" during his every other weekend visit with his momma and the two weeks out of the summer. More specifically CoD Black Ops II, Mortal Kombat, Skyrim... Just to name a few. Ok ok, Skyrim was at my house too. I would like to address a few points. First, my opinion on games in the first place. They teach patterns (EXCELLENT for math), have a story to tell (imagination and reading), and problem solving skills. I do and still take the firm stance in this belief. However, moderation is key to this, and some games should be downright not played by kids.  Mine is be no means a bully of any sort. And trust me, he ain't the only nine year old or lower playing these games. But, I will say using him as experience, and my own experiences. Wait a minute.. Did I just say MY experiences?? Yes! Grand Theft Auto III.. If u couldn't tell from my screen name what my profession is.. I have since made it a firm point to NOT play any GTA within one hour of driving. It just helps me go back from virtuality to reality. In essence, I'm in control of an 80,000 pound killing machine (aka semi truck) and I'm no longer in a battle tank with a cheat code for invincibility. Safety safety safety first!! And that usually ends with a very decent pretrip inspection!! So now back to the boy. Games HAVE become extremely graphic to the point of well.. Wow!! That's all I can say. Stories have left fairyland and are more real and grotesque as they ever have been. So to answer your question.. Addressing violent video games, whether limiting or completely erasing them (its not up to me to determine regulations), I am on a "road to recovery" with mine, severely limiting them and promoting an extreme basic of society I believe that has been neglected with him over the past year and my overall rant as to why violent games should be addressed..... Compassion for life and others. Everyone can flame me all you want but mom and dad, take a look at your kids actions.. Kids that play violent games.. And look me in the face thereafter and tell me I'm wrong...

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I don't know that there is any trustworthy evidence that violence on movies, TV, or video games causes violence in the real world - by kids or otherwise.

 

illini_trucker wrote on February 13, 2013 at 7:02 pm

It is a psychology thing. Some people are stronger than others when it comes to temptation and invitation. Sadly enough, in order to protect all the People, a lawmaker has no choice but to go with an acceptable lowest common denominator. More unfortunate is that denominator is anyone's guess where it lies universally and to further that argument, it's gotta be able to be put into writing. I'm not saying my kid or anyone else's kid is going to be the next Lanza.. But common sense thinking, the realism behind some games numbs the mind to otherwise compassionate ideals. How much? Well, lets go back to the psychology thing that everyone is different. Maturity also plays a key role and that's also anyone's guess variable as to universally identify a mature age.

Ryder wrote on February 15, 2013 at 5:02 am

"Sadly enough, in order to protect all the People, a lawmaker has no choice but to go with an acceptable lowest common denominator."

And yet this same logic meets so much resistance when it comes to regulating actual firearms instead of virtual ones in games. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens with clean criminal records and no history of mental health issues, but couldn't you use the same basis to argue that the lowest common denominator justifies stronger regulation?

I make that contention rhetorically because I don't agree with the principle behind it; similarly, I don't think censoring media where the vast majority of people can consume it without being induced to perform criminal behavior is the answer. 

I'm not personally a staunch 2nd amendment advocate, but I don't really have any interest in seeing guns taken away from (most of) their owners, nor do I think such a process is socially feasible. Still, the scapegoating of media, in particular video games, has reached ridiculous levels in the wake of the most recent tragedies. It is a politically dishonest action being widely used to either deflect blame and attention away from the dynamics of gun ownership (generally speaking, by a minority swath of idiots on the right), or to delude ourselves into thinking that we are actually addressing the root causes of violence without actually digging into hard science and data (generally speaking, by a minority swath of idiots on the left). 

There's certainly a discussion to be had about the national obsession with violence, and the role all entertainment, including video games, have in furthering that. But to take the opinions of politicians or laymen who are untrained and unstudied in the fields of neuroscience or psychology and to treat them as authorities on the causes of aggression and violent behavior is the height of absurdity.

It's nothing but disingenuous public relations at this point. We all know nothing is actually going to be done -- nationally speaking, the political, economic, and social willpower does not exist to address the problem on any comprehensive level. The pols will blather, wave their arms around, pander to their lobbyists, donors, and constituents, and then we'll move on to the next news story in another couple of months.

gftst wrote on February 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm

What happens when said "law abiding citizens" dont secure their assault weapons properly and have them stolen out of their home or vehicle by a criminal??  Sure hope Sheriff Walshs deputies dont encounter those criminals that have stolen those law abiding citizens assault weapons which is probably where most criminals get their guns from.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm

How many guns are reported stolen?  Guns in the hands of criminals do not have to be stolen guns.  Many guns are sold to the criminals by "law abiding citizens".  If I am a "gun collector",  I buy several guns each year.  No one comes around, and counts them.  The guns serial numbers are not registered to my FOID card if I buy them from others.  You just have to know who to buy from, and who to sell to in order to make a profit.  You can buy them in other states, put them in your trunk, drive back home, and sell them off for a profit.  No state troopers stop you at the state line to see what is in your trunk.  What happens with them later does not bother the "gun collector".  The same deal works in selling guns in Mexico.  It has got harder due to the Mexican authorities now checking car trunks.  They did not in the past.  The guns being used in Chicago are being sold in Indiana, and downstate Illinois (outside of Chicago).   "Criminals will always get guns."  Sure as long as there are no reasonable gun regulations.  It continues because some people holler "I have the right to have as many guns as I want as an American citizen thanks to the Second Amendment which protects citizens from a tyrannical government !" 

ronaldo wrote on February 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

The number of violent crimes committed with stolen firearms are a drop in the bucket and are nothing more than a diversion from the underlying causes behind gun violence.  If you want things to change, how about expending your energies on solving the problems instead of pointing fingers at irellevant players in your little game?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Is that even true? Where's the statistics on the ratio of violent crimes committed with stolen firearms vs. violent crimes committed with bought or legally owned firearms?

ronaldo wrote on February 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 9% of guns used in crimes are stolen.  That includes ALL crimes committed with guns, not just murders;  and it includes guns stolen from ALL sources (businesses, homes, other criminals, etc.) - not just the so-called irresponsible gun owner that gftst so eloquently eluded to.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm

So you're saying that most guns used in crimes are purchased? Sounds like we should be more heavily regulating their sale, then.

ronaldo wrote on February 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Don't give up your day job for Director of Logic.

I'll leave it at that and allow you the last word, which seems to be your MO anyway.  Go get 'em, Tiger.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Please enlighten me as to why my logic is flawed, rather than ducking and running.

If only 9% of crimes with guns regard stolen guns, then that means 91% are from purchased guns, correct? Are these legally purchased guns, or illegally purchased? If legally purchased, then  the "destroying law abiding citizens freedoms because of criminals" argument goes out the window. If not, then there is significant illegal purchase of weapons. I'm guessing it's the latter.

If so, then more stringent regulation of sales is necessary - to ensure that law abiding citizens are the ones getting the guns.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Thanks ronaldo for explaining it.  The "stolen guns" myth is just that; a myth.  Buying a gun from Scheels, Gander Mountain, or any other chain outfit has more paperwork.  Buying a gun at a gun show, or better a "gun collector" attending the gun show requires not much, if any, paperwork.  More guns are sold out of a car trunk than in a sporting goods store.  I was in Hardin County, Illinois, recently.  I had two guys from across the river ask me individually if I was interested in buying a gun.  Semi-automatics either pistols, or rifles were available.  No questions asked; cash only.  Both described themselves as "gun collectors".

ronaldo wrote on February 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm

You do realize that as a seller of a firearm in the state of IL you are required by law to maintain a record of transfer for ten years, right?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Well then where are the criminals getting the guns? If 91% of guns used in crimes are purchased, and the record requirement is sufficient, then how are they purchasing the guns?

Answer - the records in many cases aren't sufficient. We need NATIONAL regulation.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm

ronaldo;  Yeah; but who checks on it?  Guns are not registered to owners in most cases.  If it is a person to person sale, who is going to check on it?  If you have a FOID card, there is no listing of the guns you have.  I do not sell guns.  I favor reasonable gun control.  At least; a national data base of felons, and the mentally ill based on medical records would be start.  Of course, people would complain about the medical records of mentally ill individuals being released to the federal government.  That would scare the Heck out of the conspriracy theorists.  

ronaldo wrote on February 13, 2013 at 11:02 pm

No, the government does not have a registry of guns owned, nor should they.  The reason that you're obligated to keep records on the gun transfers is so that if the gun is ever used in a crime, it can help trace it to the perp. 

As long as whatever legislation you or whoever else deems "adequate" doesn't infringe on even one single right of the law abiding, then lay it on the table.  Otherwise, I have yet to see one that doesn't.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 14, 2013 at 9:02 am

Your depending on the "good citizen" to do the right thing by keeping records to assist law enforcement.  How many "good citizens" do you think do that?  How many "good citizens" rant about the "evil government"?  How many report the "stolen" guns?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm

And how is registering the weapon an infringement? It's not unconstitutional in California - why would it be in Illinois? 

militantlibertarian wrote on February 14, 2013 at 5:02 pm

By your clearly flawed liberal logic do you wish to register everything? You must not mind the government in every aspect of your life.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm

We already register cars, and no, I wouldn't mind registering my firearms.

bluegrass wrote on February 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm

So a couple of guys tried to sell you a gun in a parking lot, and from that you draw the conclusion that more guns are sold out of a car trunk than a sporting goods store?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm

bluegrass;  If you want to buy a gun for illegal reasons, or to sell to someone; you do not go to a sporting goods store.  Do you really believe that all of the guns in this country were sold in sporting goods stores?  If you want to check it out; drive down to Paduach, Ky, and ask around.  Yeah, sure....... all of the guns used by the criminals were stolen after they were bought in a sporting goods store.  Keep that dream if it helps you.

bluegrass wrote on February 14, 2013 at 10:02 am

First of all, I do not want to buy or sell a gun for illegal reasons.


But you're talking about two different things here.  You said more guns are sold out of a trunk than out of sporting goods stores.  That is not true.  You didn't say more guns purchased illegally, or more guns purchased that will be or have been used in illegal acts are purchased out of the trunk of a car than in a sporting goods store.  


The paperwork for buying a gun from a dealer, at any gun show or legitimate auction in the state of IL, is the same as anyone would fill out at any sporting goods store.  The waiting period is also the same at gun shows or for private sales or from a retail store.  Legally one cannot walk into a gun show in Illinois and buy a gun from a dealer or private seller, and legally go home that day with a pistol or a long gun.  And Ronaldo is right.  If you did legally purchase the gun from the guys in the parking lot, they are supposed to take your FOID information, and keep a record of the transaction for 10 years, and technically the seller is also supposed to run a background check on the buyer. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Wow.... aren't we technical, and touchy...   If I want to buy a gun to use for illegal purposes; I would go to a gun show, and talk to fellow "collectors".  I would go to an event, or place that other "gun collectors" would be.  If I wanted to sell a gun at a higher price than offerred by a dealer; I would go to an event, or place that other "gun collectors" would be.  The sale would not take place there.  It could be a parking lot, or a rural road.

Your being naive in your "good citizen" attitude, and argumentative personally.  Where do you really think criminals get their guns?  Do you think that their grampa left it to them?  Do you think that they went to the local gunstore, gun show dealer, or the guy that is going to ask for a FOID card?  They go to people who are looking for a higher profit than the market value.  It's like buying booze when you were underage.  Oh... you never did that because that would be wrong.  You could have got into trouble. 

bluegrass wrote on February 14, 2013 at 9:02 pm

Technically, "we" are not being technical.  I am being technical, and admittedly touchy.  You and many that share your verve for increasing control over law abiding citizens, make a lot of generally untrue statements, and I enjoy holding folks to account.  Just like I get held to account by you all sometimes.  It's just a word game,  like you calling me naive.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, despite reading it three times.  However, I think what you're saying is that criminals figure out a way to get guns regardless of the laws..... Careful, you might just be making the very argument that anti-gun control advocates have been making all along, which is that laws don't stop criminals from getting firearms. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 10:02 am

I am saying that criminals get guns from "good citizens" who do not see what they are doing as wrong.  They are not bothered by "gun regulations" since "it is every American's right to bear arms".  The see dollar signs instead of crime victims.  I believe that citizens, not non-citizens, have the right to have a gun if they pass a comprehensive background check including their mental status.  The gun's serial number would be registered to the owner's FOID card.  Fifty caliber Barrett's, high capacity magazines, and certain rounds of ammunition would be banned.  The gun owner would be encouraged to purchase liability insurance to cover the cost of shooting victims.  Gun possesion laws would be enforced to the maximum both for the criminal, and the person who sold the gun.  FOID cards would have to be re-newed every three years.  A national data base would track the guns purchased, ammunition purchased, felons, and persons with misdemenors involving mental illness.  

All of this "good citizens", "law abiding citizens", and "right to bear arms" junk is a diversion from the reality of how criminals get guns in this country.  With appoxiamately 50% of the people in this country living at, or below the poverty line; the last thing we need is more guns without reasonable control of who gets them.  Even if all gun manufacture stopped today, there are more than enough guns out there to keep gun violence rolling for years.  

Yeah... your point is "laws don't stop criminals from getting firearms".  How do you know?  This country has never tried it.  What big, bad guns laws have been passed in American history? 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 10:02 am

I agree with most of this, although:

1) I don't believe that if all of the other items were instituted, it would be necessary to track ammunition. 

2) I'd like to know what specifically would be banned. I aggree with banning fully automatic weapons completely. In addition, I support bans of rifle magazines higher than 7 or so, and handgun magazines higher than, maybe 12? I'm not sure how I feel about the banning of certain ammunition. I'm all for banning armor-piercing ammo, but I'm not for banning hollow point. I do feel that people should have a right to defend themselves in their own home (even though they do a poor job of it), and hollow point ammo has high stopping power.

3) I'd like to see some way to prevent owners from selling to other owners. I would still allow inheritance and gifts to family members (assuming that they had FOIDs and registered the weapon to them). But I would like to see all sales that are so difficult to monitor (and don't have background checks, etc.) banned entirely.

 

bluegrass wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

All of this "good citizens", "law abiding citizens", and "right to bear arms"  junk..

I've read all the other stuff before, but this is a new one.  I really like it.    

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Why don't you quote all of it instead of bits of it?  Why don't you explain your views on gun regulations?  Go ahead with it.  Why so shy?  Is it because you want nothing done?  It is easier to snipe than go on the record.  Yeah.. a Libertarian... L.I.N.O.

bluegrass wrote on February 18, 2013 at 11:02 am

When you quote part of the Consitution and label it as junk, I think it's worth noting, or 'snipe(ing)' as you call it. 

I've already laid out what I think are better ways to reduce gun violence with limited resources, in detail, on this site.  And, if you read them, you would also note that they include addressing education, recidivism, gang affiliation & violence, drug & mental health treatment.  Does that sound like a Libertarian?  If you would stop projecting your own thoughts onto the comments of other writers, and taken them on their own merit, it might help you understand my viewpoints a little better. 

I do not agree with your your suggestions, I've already said as much, many times.  The problem is that I don't define your ideas as "common sense" and "rational," and I think that's where we are having a disconnect.  Me, I agree with fellow LINO, Crazy Uncle Joe, who apparently believes that these new proposed regulations will not be effective either.

smokn69 wrote on February 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm

violent video games and movies dont kill people people kill people!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fedupwithstatereps wrote on February 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Can we at least agree that something HAS to change??!!  One law passed is not going to address the gun violence.  There has to be MANY changes that effect how guns are sold, how they're tracked, and who can buy them.  Violent video game have to be addressed because like it or not they are not appropriate for kids.  Parents need to take responsibility and say no to letting their kids play these games. Unfortuantly, many parents would rather let their kid play any video game than have to pay attention to them.  There has to be more society involvment and not just statements such as "this is my rights and you can't take them away."  It solves nothing.  We should all have an interest in curving gun violience because it effects all of us.  I'm so sick of hearing gun owners cry about the 2nd amendment.  I come from a long line of card carrying NRA members but seriously, do you think that in 1791 when the amendment was adopted that they could have meant miltary assult rifles capable of taking out an entire movie theatre?  Times have changed folks and not for the better. Something has to change regarding how guns are purchased, how they are tracked, who buys them and where.

There, that's my rant -- feel free to blast it like I know you will....

 

militantlibertarian wrote on February 14, 2013 at 8:02 am

In 1791 the muskets used by the Army were the same guns that the non military public also owned, it just also happened to be the public was the militia as well. What part of Shall Not Be Infringed do you gun conrol zealots not understand?

militantlibertarian wrote on February 14, 2013 at 8:02 am

I own several guns including so called "assault" weapons(made up term by the way). i also play "violent" video games and watch violent movies etc and I and several million other gun owners never killed or shot anyone. If you look at number of guns plus number of people and number of gun homicides)(10,000) or so its a very low % of ppl getting killed with guns each year. There is no problem with guns its just the national mainstream media pushs it daily making it appear to be worse than it really is. There are far more things killing way more people each year I dont see any of you gun control nuts calling for bans or restrictions on these things.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 14, 2013 at 8:02 am

There are far more things killing way more people each year I dont see any of you gun control nuts calling for bans or restrictions on these things.

Aside from the impossible phrasing that makes no sense, I have to ask: What things? Cancer? Heart disease? I absolutely would ban these if possible.

militantlibertarian wrote on February 14, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Cars kill way more people than guns, hell a few weeks ago 200 some people were crushed to death in a concert hall, there was only bout 400 people killed all year by so called "assault" rifles. Hammers killed more people than rifles. I can list more and more but that probably doesnt matter to you. Ill ask you again what part of Shall Not Be Infringed do you not understand?

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 14, 2013 at 10:02 pm

"American gun deaths to exceed traffic fatalities by 2015" (citing CDC stats

You can't say "You will not be infringed" out of one side of your mouth and then complain that the system needs to enforce the existing gun laws before they bother you, out of the other side of your mouth. Existing gun laws ARE infringement of the second amendment, as we are a nation of laws. Laws evolve in response to ever changing societal dynamics. Maybe turn off the video games and put down the bullets and read for a bit instead. 

 

RN4Veterans wrote on February 18, 2013 at 7:02 am

Bulldogmojo, you give a very interesting reference there ""American gun deaths to exceed traffic fatalities by 2015" (citing CDC stats)" which of course has a highly misleading link attached. The chart with the stats is NOT from the CDC, but clearly states below the chart it is data complied by Bloomberg. The whole graph highly subjective. I too can manipulate stats to fit my agenda and make some really craft looking graphs, which is why this is all BULL. Don't you find it interesting that this graph is on a BLOOMBURG OWNED Media site, one of the Obama supporters? Wake up and smell the manipulation.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 18, 2013 at 9:02 am

I assume that the same would apply to all Fox News statistics, then. Or CATO institute. Or PFAW. Etc.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I had no doubt that someone would declare the article a fabrication because it was on Bloomberg's site which made it's bones on very accurate and credible reporting to the business sector and this article in particular was written by Chris Christoff one of the most respected journalsts who writes mainly for business week. So ok if you want to take the political angle of the self exhaulted drunken patriot then "Nugent" away...

If you are an RN who supports Veterans as your handle implies then I ask you, haven't you seen enough damage from guns?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 6:02 am

Hammers do not kill more people than rifles. Stop lying.

militantlibertarian wrote on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 am

If you wish to debate the FBIs Uniform Crime Stats, then take it up with them, maybe you two uniformed sheep need to learn how to read and research, it may be beyond your scope of intelligence though...http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20   http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-h...

So if you wish to not believe the FBI then so be it

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

Seriously, you obviously can't read the stats. Does it say JUST hammers? Or does it include other items? Baseball bats, pool cues, crowbars?

To take one of the items and exclude the others is to distort the statistic. It would be like me claiming that civil war era colt revolvers kill more people each year than all cutting weapons combined. I'm guessing you did it intentionally. If you simply didn't understand the statistic, and weren't being intentionally dishonest, I'll belive you, but please say so.

B-Evs wrote on February 15, 2013 at 9:02 am

So, I looked at your link.  And then I looked at the actual FBI page.  I found it interesting...the 'hammer' section is 'blunt objects', including clubs and so forth, like the first reply to this post states.  Then I looked at the rifle section.  And I noticed that the FBI had to split the gun deaths into handguns, rifles and shotguns.

It is misleading to say that you are only comparing rifles to hammers, when you should be comparing firearms to blunt objects.  On that point, you have 8,775 firearm deaths vs 540 blunt object deaths.  How many people defend themselves (which is what you are proposing that you use your gun for) with a rifle?  Would not a handgun be more efficent and carriable?  If it is home defense, a shotgun would be better, given that it would have less power to penetrate into other areas of the building.  And there, we have about the same amount of deaths as rifles, but far less than handguns.  And there are those 2,000 deaths where the type of gun is not known or stated.  So, we could actually be looking at over 2,000 rifle deaths, we just wouldn't know it from the chart.

militantlibertarian wrote on February 15, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Handguns were responsible for the mass majority of the Homicide deaths. Rifles and shotguns were less than 1% yet all the idiot libs want to do is ban rifles. Even with that the type of rifle is not know it could be bolt action, lever, semmi auto etc, the point being is banning semi auto rifles is not the answer and did nothing in the 10 years they were banned. Like i stated with the number of guns plus number of people 10,00 gun deaths is a drop in bucket to the 325 million people plus estimated 270 million plus guns in this country.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm

So were you lying about the hammers, or did you misunderstand?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 14, 2013 at 8:02 am

What part of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" do you not understand?

Also, this shows a lack of understanding of constitutional law. To take one clause and apply it overarchingly to everyone else is problematic. Obviously some regulation is necessary, or do you believe that everyone should be allowed nuclear weapons? 

illini_trucker wrote on February 17, 2013 at 6:02 am

The comma that comes immediately after the word militia, therefore separating it and including the People, militia or not as well!

I thought we learned commas in 2nd grade!!

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm

That may well be, but infringed isn't an absolute. Take the sixth amendment, for instance. where's the boundary line for a speedy trial? Did you know that it's actually subjected to factor tests and balancing tests? In short, no rights are absolute.

rsp wrote on February 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm

You are absolutely right. I read a paper on this recently regarding the shall not be infringed and it explained how the constitution applies to everyone. So it is unconstitutional for the government to take guns from felons, the mentally ill, abusers, even children. In fact, a case could be made that prisoners have a right to their guns. It's a good thing you're not a zealot and support the constitution. We need to overturn the unconstitutional restrictions they have placed on certain people who have been margainalized. 

 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 14, 2013 at 9:02 am

I am incredulous of the NRA's stance that only law abiding people should own guns when they have turned a blind eye for decades to the loop holes that have allowed unchecked weapons to get into criminal hands. Unregulated private sales, no national or interestate background checks, unregistered inheritance of guns, gun show loopholes. They were for a national registry in the 90's but now that is just too inconvenient for the profit line of their benefactors in the arms industry. What the public wants is to live in a society where we can feel free to walk around without having to feel the need to arm ourselves, otherwise what are the police for? Aren't our police at least in part our "Well regulated militia"? The campus police will tell you in gun safety class that you can defend the inside of your home and/or attached garage from an intruder but outside of that you could be facing a murder charge because that is their jurisdiction.

Dan Walsh has a right to his opinion but his job is to protect the public and if he wants weapons in circulation that would eliminate the tactical advantage of his own police thereby making us less safe, then that is a serious concern. He seems to have no plan to round up any loose guns of any caliber just rest on his view that assault weapons are already in the right hands. 699 gun murders in Texas in 2011 where they have concealed carry and a very exaulted relationship with owning guns so the good guy with a gun argument apparently doesn't hold water. Brilliant!! Once again I ask the question, what kind of a person walks into a gun store and says "Hey, you know that gun they used to kill all those kids at Newtown, I'm looking for one of those."

AR-15's are flying off the shelves because "dat ding dang Obama is gonna take em' away". Really? The simple minded ran to the grocery stores and cleared the shelves of Twinkies too when they thought they would never again be able to get one. It's called the blue light special effect and the gun companies are laughing all the way to the bank on turning your irrational fears into cash. How about the gun stockpilers put a little more money into the college fund and less into the bullet fund.

cateyes wrote on February 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm

I think that it's reasonable to have some type of updated laws dealing with the buying and selling of guns. Our country has evolved over the generations and I think so should gun laws. I'm not saying banning guns is the answer but, as a whole, as a nation we should look very deep into this problem. I believe that being a "responsible gun owner" has the responsibility to do so, instead of point the finger and say, it's not my problem, don't take my guns away.

Batman wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Every gun rights supporter says "law-abiding citizens" are not the "problem".  Every human being is born "law abiding".  Now unless our wonderful Sheriff can assign a deputy to monitor every citizen of the county 24 X 7, I am just not sure how he is going to stop a "law abiding" citizen from becoming an alleged criminal in a split second.  I would love Dan Walsh or some other NRA lackey to explain that to me.  Christopher Dorner was a law abiding citizen till he allgedly shot 2 people to death in SoCal and went on a killing spree.  He was a "good guy" - he used to be a cop.  A bazillion studies show that suicides are far more prevalent when the person has access to a gun.  If my memory serves me right, it wasn't very long ago that a local cop comitted suicide with a gun.  I am surprised that the Sheriff was silent on the subject of universal background checks and high capacity magazines.  Assume I am a "bad guy" - I need a gun to protect myself so I go to a gun show and simply buy one, or go to a "private dealer".  So why does the NRA and its lackeys not support universal background checks.  Another dumb argument is - when you ban guns, other violent crime (assaults, sexual assaults, etc.)  goes up.  So when the UK (population - 64 million) has only 38 gun related deaths a year and the USA (population - 314 million) has 11,000+ gun related deaths a year, we as a society would rather keep violent crime down but have no problem with people shooting each other and themselves to death!!!!  If I owned a gun, which I some how would have on me 24 X 7 (unlike the poor sod in the shower that Jodi Arias shot in AZ), have an employer that let me bring it to work every day (ROFLMAO) so I could protect myself if a "law abiding" disgruntled ex-employee walked in with an AR-15 and started spraying my work place with lead, and be safe.. should I go on about how ridiculous this line of thought (if you can even call it "thought")?  Any human, law abiding or otherwise always has the element of surprise on his / her side.  Dan Walsh as a law enforcement officer should know that - isn't that why his deputies wear bullet proof vests??  Should I as a law abiding citizen also go out and buy a bullet proof vest that I can wear 24 X 7 hoping to minimize the impact of a surprise gun crime directed at me??

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Batman;  Thank you.  The "law-abiding citizen" comments made in defense of no gun regulations are phony.  Male inadequatecy is a leading reason for the gun culture in this country.  "Be a Man; Pack a Gun."  The wantabee Rambos fantasize about being heroic with a gun in their hand.  The more that play the fantasy results in more being killed by their fantasy.

rsp wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Don't forget the pink guns they came out with to market to women. A cross between making violence cute and trivializing the act of self-defense. 

rsp wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

You really need to mount a gun rack above the shower. And a few monitoring screens so you can keep track of the outside as well. No surprise attacks, prepared if a loved one comes after you. With a gun under your pillow you can "rest easy". Always sleep with one eye open. 

Batman wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

My Dobermans sleep with one eye open.  ROFLMAO

Batman wrote on February 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm

One other question - is a simple automatic pistol under the pillow sufficient or should I place a loaded surface to surface missile launcher under the pillow?  I have been told it might be slightly uncomfortable resting my head on a pillow that has an automatic pistol under it - loaded surface to surface missile launchers don't pose a similar problem.  One advantage of firing a surface to surface missile at a "bad guy" is it would carry him all the way to Guantanamo Bay.  That would save Champaign County tax payers a lot of money; it would simply bypass this County's legal system and result in permanent incarceration in Cuba.

Batman wrote on February 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm

My employer has concluded that most of us who work here are "good guys" and the rest are "bad guys"; there may be a few in between (those convicted of jay walking, littering, watching too much Big Bird on TV, spying for the now defunct Soviert Union, exporting F-16 fighters to the Illinois Kangaroos Association in Australia {not sure how the Association ended up in Australia} and similar serious criminal offenses)  In a compromise move and an effort to protect us, my employer has ordered a whole host of AR-15 assault rifles for us "law abiding" "good guys" to be placed on our individual desks or workstations, so that our "bad guy" colleagues know not to mess with us.  This move pleases me immensely as the value of my stock in the gun manufacturer has jumped up as a result of this large order and my employer's generosity to us "good guy" employees.

rsp wrote on February 15, 2013 at 10:02 pm

You need one of those memory foam pillows. Conforms to the shape to the gun. Not sure if I would trust the dobermans. They are definitely keeping an eye on you. What do they do while you sleep?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm

We are back to "dogs" again?  What's with "guns", and "dogs"?  Yeah.. there are "gun dogs" like pointers, spaniels, and retrievers....   I was pulling for the German Wired Haired Pointer in the Westminister Dog Show this week.  Wonder if the Sheriff has dogs?  Wonder what kind of dogs?

Batman wrote on February 16, 2013 at 4:02 pm

I was pulling for the Dobie at Westminster.  They thought she had a good chance of being best in show.  Damn shame.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Oh man !  I am sorry; but she was a bitch.  I always like seeing the male dogs win. 

Batman wrote on February 16, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Stick their heads in the windows and keep an eye out for the "bad guys".

skiparoo wrote on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 am

if the crooks have 100 bullets, i want 200 in my clip.  send em to me with my health care and birth control pills.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I have never seen a 200 round magazine on packable gun.  Why do you need birth control pills fighting "crooks"?  The health care I can understand.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm

If the reports are accurate the Navy Seal who killed Bin Laden only used 3 of the thirty rounds in his clip so why does anyone need a high capacity magazine to protect their home? You don't need a high capacity clip you just need more target practice. The ONLY reason people have high capacity clips is because they don't want to waste time reloading at the range not because they think they will need it for a Scarface style fire fight or for "Hunting". If we are being honest

Keep in mind if you open fire in your home those shots that miss and possibly even the ones hitting their target will keep going through the wall and into the neighbor's house and people on the street and cars going by or even your kid's bedroom etc. If you screw up and wrongfully kill someone the NRA will not be coming to your defense as they claim unless it would be a high profile political move for them.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Sadly, the people who buy assault rifles for home protection do not give any thought about where their rounds go.  Killing a neighbor's kid, or someone walking their dog never enters their heads.  How many "action movies" show collateral damage to innocents?  Too many are convinced that a horde of criminals are going to kick in their door.  Plus; it is a Macho thing substituting for something else.  A pistol, or shotgun is all that is needed if they are that afraid of someone kicking in their door.

johnq wrote on February 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Tell that to the Korean's who used "assault" rifles to defend their businesses during the LA riots...

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 19, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Really, Johnq? The issue with the Rodney King riots in your opinion was a caliber of weapons choice? That is your inroad to the eruption of mob violence in reaction to long imposed social poverty and police brutality conversation?

You saw this ONE newstory 21 years ago and this is your dream justification for having military style assault weapons? You better click the link and watch it again and look closely at the weapons those guys are carrying on that rooftop. Also those business owners were not trapped on that roof and it was NOT their living room. If I owned a business and their was a riot and I had time to get away (which they did) I would not gun down throngs of people over Twinkies, Gatorade and KimChi as you would. I would leave and make the insurance claim later knowing I didn't kill anyone. When did you surrender your common sense for an Alex Jones talking point? 

I just have to ask, are you also one of those people who thinks that during hurricane Katrina white people were "finding" food but black people were "looting" food?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 19, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Also, those are shotguns. I saw one single barrell, one side by side, and one over under.

I'm not a big fan of the nebulous definition of "assault rifles" but no definition I've ever seen includes those.

johnq wrote on February 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to
tell the innocent and

law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their

own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless,

and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and

liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control

crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves

to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by

forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected

behavior of the law-abiding." ---Jeff Snyder

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 19, 2013 at 3:02 pm

I will say it again, since you're posting it again. Society controls crime by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals frequently. This quote is flat wrong.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 19, 2013 at 4:02 pm

SaintClarence27;  Thanks for your comment.   I thought the quote came from Burma Shave signs.

johnq wrote on February 20, 2013 at 8:02 am

What makes your ideology superior to all others...
you seem pretty full of yourself. Flat wrong...not my thoughts. I believe that it doesn't require a document or piece of literature to tell me I am allowed to defend my gift of life. I also don't beleive I need you or anyone else dictating how I can defend that gift.

 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 am

Can you read? It's wrong not (necessarily) because of the ideology, but because society controls the behavior of law abiding citizens to prevent criminal behavior ALL OF THE TIME. It's claim that society does not do this is what makes the quote FLAT OUT WRONG.

And yes, if your "defense" of that life endangers other people, then you can certainly be regulated.