http://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/NoneenWed, 11 Jul 2007 07:01:26 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109022<p>The purpose of the magazine ban is to make Kotowski look like he's "doing something" about a problem that actually doesn't exist. The fact of the matter is that most murders by firearm in this state are carried out with .38 caliber revolvers. Scant few involve any sort of semiautomatic rifle.</p><p>Of course, the antis will point to the Reed killing as the "reason why" we need a semi-auto ban or a magazine ban. The fact of the matter is that the cops knew that her murderer, Carail Weeks, was running guns from Indiana for months before he killed the kid, but did nothing. Let's not forget that almost a year before the Reed murder, Blagojevich held a dog and pony show announcing the formation of a state police gun running interdiction squad designed to halt the flow of illegal guns at the Indiana state line. As is typical with this governor, the squad was never formed and Indiana law enforcement officials were never brought into the process.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanWed, 11 Jul 2007 07:01:26 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109021<p>I heard that, Frosty!</p>Pro-GunnerWed, 11 Jul 2007 06:43:55 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109020<p>The ISRA board vs. the Vision Team was a philosopical dispute between two groups who actually put effort into preserving the cultural imperative of private firearm ownership. That discourse was healthy and has helped shape the most successful gun rights movement this miserable state has ever seen.</p><p>As for the rest of you who don't do squat to preserve your rights other than to sit on the sidelines and criticize people who are trying to make a difference, my message to you is put up or shut up.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanWed, 11 Jul 2007 06:26:35 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109019<p>Infighting with your nominal political allies is the state pastime in Illinois. It's what we do, it's who we are; it defines us as a people.</p><p>Democrats fight with each other even 10 days after the budget is due.</p><p>Republicans fight with each other while the Democrats flip them the bird and coast to easy landslide victories.</p><p>And pro-gun groups squabble constantly while people like Richard Daley, Rod Blagojevich, Dan Kotowski, and Mike Madigan run the state. There's no sense in pretending they don't. Do you recall the ISRA/CCRA/CCI/"Vision Team" wars? Ugh.</p>Don GwinnTue, 10 Jul 2007 23:46:28 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109018<p>SB1007 is ridiculous. First, onl law-abiding citizens will stop buying "high" capacity magazines. The ones they own are grandfathered.</p><p>Meanwhile, the criminals will most likely not even be aware of the ban and go about their merry way. When they are arrested with one of the deadly magazines in their possession, all that has to happen is their lawyer says, "He owned that prior to the ban."</p><p>So what is the real point of the ban? Think about it.</p><p>I'd like some gun control advocate here to explain clearly (cuz I'm so stupid, it seems) just how this ban will save lives.</p>dwlawsonTue, 10 Jul 2007 23:43:46 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109017<p>Pro...yeah, these guys are members of an elite corps of easy-chair know-it-alls that have all the answers yet are painfully short of ambition. Will ya see them lift a finger to help the cause? Nope. Will they moan and groan when Kotowski and the boys from CAGE knock on their door to take their guns? Yeppers.</p><p>But, I guess it takes all kinds.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 22:04:39 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109016<p>So now the ISRA is being criticized for grammar and spelling. What's next, neatness? The ISRA is protecting gun rights for all gun owners. For a gun owner to criticize a pro-gun lobby group is foolhardy at best.</p>Pro-GunnerTue, 10 Jul 2007 20:21:53 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109015<p>ISRA definitely needs work, but frankly the pro-gun groups in Illinois are a mess. I'm not a big fan of ISRA, but between them and Kotowski, I know which side I'm on. I think that's what Ken is saying, too.</p>Don GwinnTue, 10 Jul 2007 19:35:30 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109014<p>Ken...stop living in the past. The Valentinos are long gone and long forgotten. Shrill updates? Um, don't the actions of the gun grabbers warrant a degree of shrillness? Give us an example of how the ISRA has been unable to keep up with day to day political activities.</p><p>Um, mind if I ask what you've done to preserve gun rights, lately?</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 19:08:52 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109013<p>Frosty - because of some of their past actions during the Valentino era, their tendency to sound breathless and shrill in their updates, and what appears to be an inability to keep up with day-to-day political activities in Springpatch.</p><p>IMO they come off like a bunch of ninnies - which may or may not just be a matter of perception. They definitely need to work on their image.</p><p>For dog's sake, I see alerts published on their website that are full of grammatical and spelling errors! Do you know what that makes gun owners look like? It makes me cringe!!!</p>Ken in AuroraTue, 10 Jul 2007 19:00:15 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109012<p>Maybe Rich's soon to be purchased semiautomatic shotgun will be listed as an assault weapon.</p>Pro-GunnerTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:53:07 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109011<p>Special session #8 on "assault weapons" will be called tomorrow.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:48:21 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109010<p>It's also illegal to kill people in Chicago.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:44:58 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109009<p>Rich:<br>Time will tell who is wearing the pointy tinfoil hats.</p>Pro-GunnerTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:43:36 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109008<p>Rich, are you familiar with the handgun ban in Chicago? Do you know how the mechanism works?</p><p>See, they didn't pass a ban. Back then people were worried that some crazy federal judge would rule that they couldn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms or some such wild-eyed gun nut nonsense. So rather than pass an outright ban, they said they wanted to register handguns. No confiscation, just registration. "We have a right to know who has pocket-sized engines of death and mutilation" and all that good stuff.</p><p>Once the registration measure passed, they accepted some registrations and then simply stopped. For the past 20-odd years, it's been perfectly legal to own a handgun in Chicago. The catch?<br>You have to register the gun . . . and that Chicago will NOT allow you to do.</p><p>You aren't paranoid if they really do want you disarmed.</p>Don GwinnTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:40:17 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109007<p>Rich Miller takes a politician at his word when his word contradicts his actions?<br>Seriously?</p><p>Well, if he <i>said</i> he didn't want to ban guns, he must be telling the truth. I apologize.</p><p>I guess Blagojevich really wants to finish off this budget thing and the rank-and-file legislators really should have just worked 5 days per week. He's a politician, he wouldn't lie.</p><p>Meanwhile, Kotowski, whatever he says, is following the template for banning guns step-by-step as laid out by the Brady Campaign (back when they were Handgun Control, Inc.) and the "Violence Policy Center" (aka Josh Sugarmann's kitchen table.)</p><p>First step is to try to cull some gun owners out of the herd. To do this, you focus your efforts on banning one type of guns, which needs to have two key traits:</p><p>1. It must be a small, preferably obscure set of gun owners so that the majority of gun owners will not feel personally threatened.</p><p>2. It must be a group misunderstood by most voters and easily demonized, even if you have to be dishonest to do it. Sugarmann suggested that "assault weapons" are the best group with which to start (though he didn't know much about .50 BMG back then) and had this to say in print back in 1989:<br><i>"[Assault weapons] are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."</i></p><p>But you're probably right. It's probably just a coincidence. Personally, I'm having a hard time convincing myself. His actions are speaking so loudly it's hard to hear his words.</p>Don GwinnTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:31:12 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109006<p>Distaste of the ISRA? For what reason?</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:31:11 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109005<p>I don't think that incumbent Democrats really wanted an ethics bill, but they had to put on a good show and make it look like they might pass one because the ethics package proposed by Rich Whitney in 2006 was gaining popularity in the media.</p>SquideshiTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:26:57 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109004<p>Quite frankly, despite my distaste for ISRA they're helping make and keep gun control a third-rail issue...</p>Ken in AuroraTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:26:41 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109003<p>SB16 takes the standard list of guns that has been placed in every gun ban bill since the late 1980s and adds cosmetic language such as bayonet lugs, flash hiders, folding stocks, etc. It is little more than a continuous effort on the part of the gun control lobby to ban, force register and eventually, confiscate a type of firearm based upon its appearance. It is simple-minded logic on the part of politicians too lazy to do their own homework. It does, however, make for a good soundbyte when you are trying to look like 'you care'.</p><p>In case anyone thinks that confiscation isn't the ultimate goal of these bills, ask legal gun owners in the state of California about how 'well-intentioned' their pols were (and are). The only reason you don't hear about these efforts at the federal level anymore is that both the Democrats and Republicans KNOW that support of gun control is a loser on the national level and it is a good way to get sent home by the voters.</p>Name/Nickname/AnonTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:23:32 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109002<p>Kotowski was also the Chair of the ICHV, which has, as its mission, eliminating private firearm ownership.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:20:02 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109001<p>There was a federal ban but the Congress saw how stupid it was and let it sunset.</p>Frosty Da SnowmanTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:19:06 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18109000<p>Rich don't forget Kotowski is a chief sponsor of SB-16 the daley gun ban. a ban far more reaching than the federal ban in 1994.</p>DozerTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:13:54 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18108999<p>There was a federal ban that ran from '94 to '04, it wasn't renewed.</p>Ken in AuroraTue, 10 Jul 2007 18:08:36 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2007/07/10/backfire-2/#comment-18108998<p>Aren't there already bans on gun magazine size? I thought it was passed a few years ago.</p>Huh?Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:06:19 -0000