UPDATE 5/8/07: For folks visiting this particular post after linking from one of the blogs promoting liberal gun laws, be forewarned that my beef isn’t so much with being for or against guns … it’s really about the lies being spread about Sen. Kotowski (as I’ve already indicated numerous times on this and other blogs). Feel free to comment about the gun lobby’s fibs (professional and layperson lobbyists alike) since that’d actually be quite a bit more on topic. Just sayin’.
Now back to the original post which is relatively old at this point…
(Again I’ll repeat the Upper Mississippi River Blog’s gentle reminder — “grab your lunch”. This is a long one and based on a conversation I had earlier this week with State Senator Dan Kotowski. After doing some research into what he described, I felt a need to post about it. Short version: the gun lobby apparently likes to lie about Sen. Kotowski. Oh, and abuse the honor of our troops’ service and sacrifice in the process. Go figure.)
People who are staunch pro-gun activists and folks who believe in gun safety can be like oil and water.
And apparently the so-called gun “rights” gang are willing to lie, cheat and throw whoever they have to under the bus in order to promote their more-guns-now agenda.
Me? I respect a citizen’s right to own a weapon but, like free speech and our other rights in the First 10 I also recognize that in order to maintain order and stability as a society we need to place certain limits on those rights. What do I mean? In terms of free speech, you can’t really say anything you want — slander, libel, defamation, etc. are all illegal because they harm other citizens.
Same goes for the second amendment. To maintain a livable society, we as citizens agree to put reasonable limits in place. One more such reasonable limit would be to ban .50 caliber rifles — these are the 5-foot long rifles which fire 5-inch long bullets capable of downing a passenger jet from the ground. Yet folks in the Illinois State Rifle Association are all to eager to keep that sort of weapon readily available … perhaps just in case another Mohammed Atta manages to get a Florida drivers license and has a new way to crash a plane. Great idea, not.
[Clarification: Gun advocate "45superman" (originally mentioned later in this post) indicates it is the cartridges which are actually about 5 1/2 inches long. The bullets themselves are slightly smaller, but nonetheless capable of easily piercing steel and literally obliterating anything in their path.]
Another reasonable limit would be to reduce the number of bullets allowed in a clip. A great many guns are designed for 9 bullets or less. If you want to protect yourself and your family, you’ve got bigger problems than just a burglar or mugger if you need more than 9 bullets. Think about that — why would a gun owner really need more than that if not for offense (instead of defense)?
What do these things I mention have in common besides gun powder and cold black steel? My State Senator Dan Kotowski.
He was first elected to the state capitol last November and is currently at the start of his first term. I had a chance to talk with him a bit earlier this week and he mentioned some of the bills he was working on with regards to community safety — and the baseless, vitriolic attacks he’s had to put up with as a result. (Full disclosure: I supported Sen. Kotowski during the last election and will almost assuredly be helping him again in 2008 when he is up for reelection.)
In the past few weeks he has been working to ban .50 caliber rifles (many call these massive military-ready rifles terrorist weapons, and rightly so). For those of you not up to speed with modern weaponry, you can pretty much consider these guns highly mobile cannons. Several other states — from California to Jersey — already have or are strongly considering banning them as well.
And, in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in which shooter Cho was able to gun down more people more quickly because of the larger magazines he used, Sen. Kotowski has also begun working to limit magazine capacity under the common sense maxim that fewer bullets mean fewer deaths in a situation like that.
For this, the wild west gunners from the Illinois State Rifle Assoc. to the National Shooting Sports Foundation have dragged the guy through their mud.
A little background: Sen. Kotowski is already earning a reputation as one of the hardest working folks in Springfield and he’s only been in office a few months. In fact, longtime Illinois political analyst Russ Stewart says of the Senator’s 2006 campaign, “Kotowski must be commended for his industry and his insight.” Having witnessed him in action in the Capitol Building he has clearly kept that same strong work ethic going. Before being elected to the State Senate, he was an advocate for gun control and also for children’s issues. More importantly, Sen. Kotowski is simply a decent family man and good neighbor who genuinely listens to and cares about his constituents.
In what is either an seemingly coordinated effort to ’soften him up’ before the 2008 election cycle or simply a case of lemmings following each other down a dark tunnel of malarkey, a number of “incidents” initiated by gunners have clearly shown that they have all but painted a big red and white bullseye directly on Sen. Kotowski.
Big Gay Al’s Big Gay (Gun) Blog picks up on a recent NRA press release about a Kotowski press conference that was crashed by a gun-maker:
…when the senator pointed to an Armalite .50-caliber rifle and called it a “military weapon,” he got the shock of his life. The top guy from Armalite [Mark Westrom] stood up in the audience and told the crowd that’s not true. He said they’d never sold the rifle to the military.
That post from Big Gay Al is very similar to the ISRA press release discussing that press conference which Mr. Westrom snuck into. Apparently Big Gay Al, who is actually gun-toting, homosexual blogger Albert Lowe of Michigan, has never heard of fact-checking.
The problem for the Rifle Associations and the parrots who echo their baloney is that Sen. Kotowski didn’t lie about a thing with regards to the Armalite .50 cal rifle. In fact, Mr. Westrom’s company Armalite has in the past consulted with the military about this gun. They may not have “sold it” to the Pentagon (as Mr. Westrom technically said), but Sen. Kotowski never claimed they did in the first place. What the Senator did say, however, was that it was a military weapon — which it is. As such, it’s also a potential terrorist weapon and would allow a wannabe Tim McVeigh or Mohammed Atta to obliterate a plane full of folks … leaving O’Hare in a jet bound for heaven instead of a Florida vacation.
Now in his April 5th blogpost, Big Gay Al indicates that Mr. Westrom’s Illinois-based company (Armalite) would simply close shop and move to a different state for manufacturing the gun if it were to be banned in the Prairie State. Based on the text of the bill as written, this is actually untrue. Armalite could make them but only for the military, the police, and a few select other law and marshall enforcement entities (as opposed to recreational “target shooters” or wannabe terrorists who feel a need to completely disintegrate their targets). Whether or not Armalite would choose to continue to do so would be up to them and their business’ bottom line. Remember this little tidbit; it’s important.
But for Big Gay Al, Mr. Westrom and their fellow gunners the point isn’t to talk about terrorists, military applications or even business practices. The point is to turn such common sense measures and any discussion of same into ridiculous circus acts, apparently complete with clowns and rhetorical gymnasts who will twist words in order to change the subject and generate red herrings and straaw men. All that’s left to do after that is accomplished is to alert their friends to prep press releases and blog posts about it and send it out to the Big Gay Als all across America so they’ll repeat the false impression that a lie was told…
What do you call a lie about a non-lie? Is that a gross misrepresentation? The word “gross” does seem appropriate, doesn’t it?
Something else that’s “gross”? Goofs who don’t understand the legislative process. It sounds more complicated than it is but, up until the time a bill is voted on, the text of that bill is completely fluid and can (and does) change from hour to hour let alone week to week. One such goofball writes for a pro-gunner blog called “Armed and Safe”. Apparently the “ignorant” part is implied. Blogger “45superman” titles his May 1st post: “Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski supports the sexual exploitation of children” — another gross misrepresentation.
The bill in question started as a children’s isssues bill but has since been revamped to account for gun safety as Sen. Kotowski works to ban large capacity magazines. Sexual exploitation has nothing to do with it, except for a partisan conservative who has decided that he can earn some cheap political points by twisting the words to sound sinister.
Back to our story. All this cantankerousness from the gunners really got rolling at the beginning of April, before the VA Tech massacre on April 16th. It’s what happened right around the time of that massacre that really goes beyond “gross”.
The day of the VT shootings, Sen. Kotowski pushed for limits on magazine capacity as mentioned above. Cho, the VT shooter, wouldn’t have been able to kill so many so quickly had his clips been smaller — perhaps within the limits Sen. Kotowski proposes.
In the days after the shootings though, a bulk postcard drop was delivered to residents of Sen. Kotowski’s district courtesy of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. You can see the mailer here (warning: it’s a PDF file hosted on a separate server which Illinois Reason neither owns nor controls).
Remember the tidbit I mentioned above about Armalite possibly closing shop in Illinois? That’s what this card from Connecticut-based NSSF is apparently about, gun makers that might see a need to stop their work. Except, this mailing takes it to a whole new level by claiming that State Senator Dan Kotowski is somehow against our troops because he wants to ban the gun manufacturer from supplying weapons to our soldiers.
This, friends, is a lie. Actually, it’s two lies. Sen. Kotowski is a staunch supporter of both current members of the Armed Forces and veterans who have completed their service, plus the bill the NSSF disputes does not ban supplying weapons to the military (it does the opposite).
The bill (SB16) that NSSF questions specifically exempts the military as well as police officers, prison wardens, etc. (in fact, there are actually multiple exemptions for the military in the bill, this is but one):
(d) This Section does not apply to or affect any of the following:
…
(3) Members of the Armed Services or Reserve Forces of the United States or the Illinois National Guard … (Emphasis added.)
Note the utter ridiculousness of the NSSF’s claim on its face. The bill specifically excludes the military from the .50 caliber rifle ban. Moreover, Sen. Kotowski is a State Senator not a Federal Senator so any such legislation would affect only Illinois if it is passed. Last time I checked the Pentagon was a Federal entity (even our remarkable Illinois National Guard is subject to the demands of our Commander-in-Chief). And, as Big Gay Al pointed out Armalite would be free to move to a new state anyway.
(Oddly enough, the postcard — in promoting the idea that .50 caliber rifles are weapons the Army uses — also further negates Mr. Westrom’s rhetorical slight of hand from that press conference he interrupted… but remember that technically Mr. Westrom is still correct because he said Armalite never “sold” their rifle to the military.)
So now, in the process of attempting to villify a state Senator they clearly despise simply because he’s trying to protect citizens from military-grade weaponry, the gunners have gone to the gutter and used the honor and sacrifice of our brave troops in order to promote their political agenda.
Perhaps “gross” is not a strong enough word for the gun lobby’s growing number of lies against this one person. It’s certainly not a strong enough word for how they simply used our soldiers like pawns in their game. And our stalwart soldiers have let them know it:
Veterans Slam Gun Industry for ‘Despicable’ Tactics Against Illinois State Senator
… In attacking Kotowski, the NSSF postcard falsely claims that the Illinois legislation would shut down defense contractors providing weapons to troops in Iraq. Even the most cursory reading of the legislation reveals the NSSF’s claims to be clearly and categorically untrue. Senate Bill 16 explicitly exempts manufacturers who supply weapons to the United States military.
… Dan Tobon, an Army specialist and sniper who recently returned from Iraq stated, “I disagree with the National Shooting Sports Foundation using my service in Iraq to claim that Senator Kotowski is planning to deny our troops the weapons they need on the battlefield. I was a sniper in Iraq who used a 50-caliber sniper rifle and I can tell you these weapons have no practical use whatsoever in the civilian world. It’s really unfair to falsely claim that any lawmaker isn’t supporting our troops just to further their own policy interests.” (Emphasis added.)
The article goes on as active duty servicemember and veteran alike lay the NSSF’s absurd lies bare and impugn the rank politicking and agenda-pushing NSSF does at the expense of their brave service. God bless them for standing up for truth and honesty in the face of the massive tentacles of the gun lobby. They deserve our respect, not cheap political bullcrap.
As so many of those who wish to make our gun laws ever more liberal often do, I also encourage you to contact your state legislators — both representatives and senators. Ask them to support Sen. Dan Kotowski’s common sense measures to ban weapons before terrorists use them (SB16) and to limit clip capacity to a reasonable amount for personal and home defense (SB1007).
You can find your legislator through the State Board of Elections search page.
No one, including Sen. Kotowski, wants to take guns away from good, law-abiding folks who already own them (that exemption is also included in SB16). But, his aim, which I support, is to try and reduce the risk from these deadly weapons. And if a few of the growing noses among the gunners get clipped back down to size in the process of shining a bright light on their lies and distortions, so be it.
39 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 4, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Real’s World » Blog Archive » Common Sense
[...] Drawing a Bead while their Noses Grow Longer [...]
May 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm
"Vituperative Attacks" « Illinois Reason
[...] offended by my recitation of the facts about Sen. Kotowski you can’t even bother to link to my post on the matter. Where I come from that makes you weak in the knees (then again, you do think calling you a [...]
May 8, 2007 at 11:09 am
John
This blog is disingenuous, misleading, and full of deceit.
#1)A single shot .50 cal (which these rifles are single shots with a 5 round magazine, are not capable of bringing down an airliner. There have been studies shown, if you had used Google, that would show this. Not to mention that these rifles weigh in excess of 30 pounds and are bulky, which makes carrying them around a bit obvious. Furthermore, there have been zero crimes committed with these target shooting rifles and I ask you to prove otherwise.
#2) To change a bill after committee, as Sen Kotowski did is legal, but unethical. It’s pushing an agenda using a covert means, commonly known as bait and switch. I think the proper term is a Shell bill.
#3) Sen. Kotowski’s bill trying to limit magazine capacity will be as useful as any weapons ban. If you limit it, only the criminals will have them. If you want good statistics, do some more googling about Florida’s concealed carry law: paying particular attention to the crime rate before the law was passed and then after.
#4) Only you can make a concious effort to actually review the truth and facts concerning gun laws. If you continue to only look at information that confirms your view, you will be committing what is known as confirmation bias. If, however, you want the truth, all you have to do is look at both sides and you might realize that your own lack of knowledge about the facts is making you look uninformed, biased, and uneducated.
Good luck and good day.
May 8, 2007 at 11:54 am
Apparently, Standing Up for Honesty Means Your "Angry"... « Illinois Reason
[...] just leave it at that. He had to stroke his ego a bit and label me “angry” simply for telling the truth about what Sen. Kotowski wrote, said and did. This in light of his own over-the-top malarkey about [...]
May 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm
robnesvacil
John,
You’ve failed to demonstrate how this blog is either disingenuous, misleading or full of deceit.
1 - How is that a .50 caliber rifle can pierce steel but it cannot down a jet? Explain that one. For every study you find about jets, I’ll find an actual real life instance of this weapon obliterating solid objects in its path (as in walls, vehicles, etc.). This is why militaries worldwide use them in combat.
Hauling such 30# weapons around may be obvious, but currently is perfectly legal for anyone to do. The cops could pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, but would have no probably cause just because one of these rifles was hanging out of your truck’s cab.
And just because “zero crimes” have been committed doesn’t mean we should wait until afterward to do something. Condoleeza Rice made the same bogus claim about jets being used as missiles to destroy skyscrapers… and we all know how that turned out.
2 - To change a bill after committee is neither unethical nor covert. The bill still needs to be discussed and go through 3 readings before the entire chamber — and that’s only on the Senate side. If approved there it then needs to be discussed and voted on in the House. Plenty of opportunities to stop truly bad legislation should the legislators want to do so.
3 - Sen. Kotowski is not the only one working to limit magazine capacity so it’s curious that you only focus on him.
The point in criminalizing something of this nature is to ensure that the book can be thrown at criminals if they’re found with them (the point, as I’ve stated elsewhere, is not take anything away from law-abiding citizens). It’s one more tool at the disposal of the justice system as they try to remove miscreants from our streets.
And truth be told, all you need to protect yourself (if that is your actual goal) is a single bullet — this bill is nowhere near that.
4 - Same goes for you friend.
And best to you as well. Thanks for commenting.
May 8, 2007 at 2:19 pm
robnesvacil
PS, John (aka “whyzdom“), are you denigrating me simply because I made a late-night slip up in my post (yes, I wrote most of this original post late at night — deal with it).
I called a cartridge a bullet. Is that what you consider disingenuous, misleading and full of deceit?
Once my error was pointed out, I added a clarification to the post. Perhaps that Is what you consider disingenuous, misleading and full of deceit?
John, your cohorts at various pro-gun blogs are jumping up and down whining like little preschoolers who aren’t getting their way. …Calling me and others bizarre names. …Questioning our character. …Insinuating foul motives. …Wondering about our loyalties.
And you’ve done the same right here based apparently on a single slip of the virtual tongue — and all because I’m standing my ground and calling bullshit on the lies and distortions your allies are spewing about my state legislator.
That behavior (from you and others), sir, is what is so ridiculous in all this. For people who claim to be acting in the best interests of everyone you’re not acting like it.
May 8, 2007 at 2:28 pm
CD
Theoretically any rifle could take down a jet if you shot in the exact spot that you needed to but if a lane is flying at whatever altitude and speeds in excess of 150 mph I think it would hard pressed for anything to hit it, let alone hit anything that would actually bring it down. If you’re driving your car on the highway doing 75mph and someone tries to hit you with whatever from 1/2 a mile a way what are the chances he’s going to hit you, now lets bump up the speed, distance and altitude.
These weapons cost over $10,000 each so your typical street criminal is not going to have one and it would be a little hard to carry one around with you while you’re trying to commit any crime. I don’t know if you’ve carried anything more than your groceries from your car to the kitchen before but carrying 30 plus pounds of gun alone is going to slow you down and wear you out extremely fast.
In regards to changing a bill after committee is legal but when the basis for the bill is changed that is when it is unethical. If the bill would’ve reflected changes along the lines of the orignal context that would be fine but to add something that has nothing to do with the original bill that is what’s wrong. Would it make sense if changing traffic laws were added to that bill? Not at all, you would expect changes in traffic laws to come out in a different piece of legislation concerning oh let’s say, traffic laws and violations.
And the single bullet theory of yours…lets say for instance you have a break-in at your house and there is more than 1 robber/attacker. That one bullet theory of yours just went out the window. Let’s say you are so scared when you go to shoot or your adrenaline is going that you miss with that one bullet, now what? How about leaving things as they are because you don’t know what the situation is going to call for and you don’t know what type of shooting I do. Do I need to keep different magazines if I do different types of shooting? Is the value of my life in my own home only worth one bullet? I think not.
May 8, 2007 at 4:13 pm
robnesvacil
CD…
1 - .50 caliber rifles are not “any rifle”. As I’m sure you well know, those particular rifles are capable of blowing holes through steel — same thing terrorist Richard Reid was trying to do from inside a plane cabin with his shoe. For that matter, an experienced shooter with a steady hold could take out a pilot (remember when the Administration was raising red flags about those little laser pointers possibly being used to ‘blind’ pilots? Same concept).
2 - Al Qaida-funded terrorists are not your “typical street criminal”.
And my kids weigh more than 30#, thank you very much. Besides, you really think a terrorist is going to just carry one around with them willy-nilly instead of putting in the back of a van or SUV? Right now, our liberal gun laws allow anyone to do just that provided they have proper ID.
3 - I suggest you learn a bit more about how laws are passed before commenting on the bill writing process. Every year a great many bills go through the exact same process you and others are only now cynically criticizing out of spite. If you dislike the process so much, the Illinois Constitution is up for re-evaluation soon (every 30 years) so you may want to consider changing those aspects of the legislative process.
4 - The “one bullet” was an example of an extreme that absolutely no one is talking about. It was used to highlight the similar ridiculousness of someone claiming they need a magazine with a large capacity to “protect” their home. People who claim to need such large-capacity clips are not using them to protect themselves.
You mention that I don’t know what type of shooting you do. What do you shoot at that requires a larger capacity (rather than you simply wanting a larger capacity)? I’m curious; because to me there’s a difference between simply wanting something and actually having a need for it. Ambulances need to break speed limits and run red lights, for instance.
May 8, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Edward C
Robnesvacil, what is the “proper” ID here in Illinois?
May 8, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Gill B
I like his exclusion of high capacity magazines used for “black powder” hunting. I’ll bet the RedCoats wished they had those at Yorktown.
May 8, 2007 at 9:56 pm
robnesvacil
Oy. (And I mean that with all due respect.)
Readers may be interested to know that both “Gill B” and “Edward C” have the same IP address.
May 8, 2007 at 10:44 pm
CD
You know why no terrorist anywhere is going to use one of these guns to shoot down on aircraft, because it cost absolutely nothing to build a bomb and blow something up with mass casualties, creating that mass instant fear. And the reason they use that tactic is because it’s guarenteed to work. Since 1983 when Hizballah started using the suicide bomber it has been the chosen tactic of terrorists worldwide, not a rifle, and certainly not a .50 cal.
I said the bill writing process was legal but unethical, I know how the system works but that doesn’t make it right. What if the bill now included something along the lines that meant something about your rights that you care about? Would you then say it was unethical or would you just say that’s how the system is?
That’s what I really don’t understand about some of you people, you have this attitude that people who own guns are crazy people. According to the National Vital Statisics Report firearms deaths account for 1.2% of death in the U.S. and that includes self defense shootings and people killed by police. If you want to help people and make a difference why don’t you go lobby against McDonald’s and Burger King because heart disease and a bunch of other medical issues along with motor vehicle accidents accounted for the other 98.8% of deaths in the U.S.
There is a saying that goes ‘I may not believe what you have to say but I’ll defend your right to say it’. If there is no means to defend that right then what are you going to say in the future? I can say this because I am military and I have served in Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Why does there have to be a need for it? I want it. What do you drive? Is it an SUV, a luxury sedan? Do you really need it or did you just want it? That’s the beautiful part about this country, we have stuff and I mean everything from designer clothes, multiple flat screen tv’s, cell phones, playstations, Hummers and BMW’s because these are items we want, not items we need. No one is gonna say ‘don’t get that playstation for your kid, he needs to get exercise otherwise he’s going to get fat and die of heart failure’ (number 1 cause of death), yet I have to hear you say you’re not allowed that gun because…because why, you don’t like it? You’re scared I’m going to do something? I’m scared you may die from sitting around doing absolutely nothing or looking for some extra twinkies at Wal-Mart and having your heart give out on you. I don’t know what you do for exercise or what your recreational hobbies and you don’t know mine. How about we all turn our nice cars, our 1,000 watt stereo surround tv systems and all of our guns in and we can all have the same thing, nothing, absolutely nothing and then you can bitch about the freedoms you don’t have because they were taken away from you.
May 9, 2007 at 2:56 am
robnesvacil
“You people”?
That’s the heart of the problem, isn’t it? You reject the very notion that we’re actually all Americans and some of us might have more stringent preferences for our security.
As far as terrorists, just because something hasn’t yet happened doesn’t mean it won’t. If you don’t think bin Laden can scrape together $10,000 at the drop of a hat you haven’t been paying attention. Again, I’ll remind you that the Bush Administration claimed to have had no idea that anyone would ever think to hijack planes and use them as missiles to destroy buildings.
And now look at how restrictive air travel has become in the US (though it’s still more relaxed than in most other parts of the world).
In fact, several of our inalienable rights as citizens have been curtailed by our own society (vis a vis the government on our behalf) including freedom of speech, rights to privacy, prohibition on warrantless searches, etc.
Why is the Second Amendment, in your opinion, holy and not amenable to common sense oversight?
In fact, 2A states we as citizens have the right to bear arms so, in your opinion, does that mean you and I can head out and buy a few nuclear warheads if we can gin up enough cash? Nukes are “arms”, are they not?
(That of course, is a use of the ol’ extreme-example rhetorical ploy which seems to be favored by the gunners recently visiting this blog…)
And I suppose since you’re so concerned about what everyone’s eating that you’re a big fan of liberal Ald. Joe Moore (he of foie-gras banning fame).
–
More and more what it really seems this issue swirling around Sen. Kotowski is about is that pro-gunners are ticked that their candidate lost (not that former Sen. Axley was a pro-2A Republican… I don’t think she ever had a chance to deal with anything one way or the other in that regard… but still, she doesn’t have the resume of Kotowski when it comes to guns).
And boy do the fangs come out to go along with all the whining and lying.
Like I said, CD, if you don’t like the system then work to change it. Just don’t lie about people while you’re doing it.
If you want to try telling this suburban district that .50 caliber rifles or large capacity magazines pose no danger in your efforts to oust Sen. Kotowski go for it. I have a hunch your words will fall on deaf ears even in this “leans-right” district but you can still try (especially so given the voting records of the area’s Republican legislators, which echo Sen. Kotowski’s proposals on these issues).
I respect that you interpret 2A to mean there should be no common sense oversight of weaponry whatsoever — you’re entitled to your opinion. But I also respectfully disagree in that I think we as a society should have reasonable supervision of firearms in this state if not in this country.
Thus, in part, my post above about the falsehoods being spread about Sen. Kotowski and the explanations I’ve offered for why I would choose to stand up against those lies.
(And, for the umpteenth time, if you already own a .50 caliber rifle no one’s asking you to “turn it in”. The bill has a specific exemption for current owners to be able to keep such rifles. In my mind, that exemption waters down the bill but it does so in the spirit of ensuring that no one ends up taking away any guns — a reasonable compromise if you ask me. So stop repeating the “turn it in” lie… It’s a moot point.)
May 9, 2007 at 7:04 am
CD
When I say ‘you people’ it is you anti gunners, and you have your opinions on what is right and so do I. You think we should depend on a government for everything and you are perfectly fine with letting your rights diminish for this, cool, good for you. I don’t feel that way but that is my opinion.
Of course Bin Laden could scrape together $10,000 but why would he do it for buying a single gun for doing something that has never been done before such as trying, and I stress trying, to shoot an aircraft out of the sky when he can buy/build over a 1000 bombs in which he knows exactly what they’ll do. Using the terrorist ploy is stupid, yes stupid, they have shoulder launched missiles and other devices for carrying out these acts so push away from the terrorists thing because it’s not going to happen that way. And in the intel world, yes, they knew that it was possible for an airliner attack but don’t think anyone would actually do it.
The reason people could get on airlines like they did is because the U.S. is because until something happens to us in this country we don’t think it’s going to happen here. After it does happen we go to a heightened sense of security for a while and then most people get complacent until it happens again. How long before something happens here again because we get into our normal complacent lives and don’t look out for what’s going on?
Nuclear arms huh? How about we buy our own airplanes and use those as bombs, better yet we’ll just buy our own fighters and load them with homemade missiles. How can you launch into something like this when it pertains nothing to what we’re talking about. How about for home protection I build a trebuchet and when I see someone driving down my street I can launch a firebomb at them.
Let’s look at our rights that are slowly eroding away, how much of your privacy and speech do want to give up? You’re on here speaking out against something you believe in, what happens when you don’t have that option? This isn’t just about 2A take a look at all of the legislation that has come out over the past 4-5 that has affected your rights. 2A isn’t the only thing being affected, you even mentioned it yourself in regards to privacy and speech. So where does it end? What do you have to be left with before it matters?
I don’t have a .50 cal and I’ll never own one because I don’t care to. In fact I only own a couple of handguns for self defense and target shooting and a couple of hunting rifles, nothing extreme. I think shooting is a sport that builds personal responsibility and responsibility for the life around you.
I like foie gras, I like all foods since I’ve travelled and I like beer and wine also. I think it’s ridiculous that someone would ban a food, if it was banned because of the techinique in which the animals were being fed then I understand, but this isn’t a forced feeding debate that we have going on.
There are laws governing what you call the common sense oversight of weaponry. There are laws out there prohibiting machine guns and other things and I’m glad they are there but where and when does it stop? That’s what the anti gun lobby wants, people to have nothing and I say this because my mother feels one way about guns (anti) and my father is (pro). If my mom had her was there would be none in the US at all but unfortunately we don’t live in Utopia.
You never said what kind of car you drove or mentioned anything about my need/want part. You also didn’t address the part about the other 98.8% of deaths in the U.S.
And for the umpteenth time, actually when I talked about turning weapons in that was sarcasm to go along with turning in our nice cars and tv and just having basic needs not wants, you know, kind of like communistic state. I know there are grandfather clauses for just about eveything so no need to go crazy for the umpteenth time.
Alright I need to go back to work defending your rights, have a good day.
May 9, 2007 at 8:27 am
Kurt "45superman" Hofmann
One mistake I frequently make is that I have a tendency to assume that anyone who makes statements about firearms that I find to be extremely silly (such as the “threat” .50 caliber rifles pose to aviation) must actually know better, and is lying. I tend to forget that for people who might not have any interest in firearms, the arguments put forth by such rabid, extremist gun rights deprivation advocates as Senator Kotowski are actually convincing. That’s a mistake I need to correct–because some people who do buy into the gun rights deprivation lobby’s myths might change their minds, at least to a degree, if given a little more information.
With that in mind, I would like to address the issue of the supposed risk of .50 caliber rifles shooting down jetliners.
A favorite claim by those advocating a ban is that fifty-caliber rifles can shoot down planes. There is no record in the Transportation Safety Boards’s Aviation Safety Database of a rifle bringing down a commercial airplane. Robert Johnson, Chief Spokesman of the Transportation Security Administration, says that his agency does not feel that .50 caliber rifles are high on the list of potential dangers. Ronald J. Hindenberger, Director of Aviation Safety for Boeing, ranks rifle fire below bird strikes as a threat to airplanes. Could a .50 caliber bullet theoretically take out a pilot or punch through a fuselage during a take-off or landing? Of course, but so could a round from a 100-year old Mosin-Nagant. The military’s last .50 caliber anti-aircraft gun was not a rifle—it used the Browning M2HB machine gun, firing 500 rounds per minute. Actually, it was a quad mounting of the M2HB—for a total of 2000 rounds per minute. It is no longer used by the military, because it is not adequately effective for shooting down aircraft. You are most likely aware that machine guns are already illegal in Illinois. Shooting a plane down with a rifle would be nearly impossible. SB 1471, by the way, would ban not only semi-automatic rifles (which still fire much too slowly to be useful for shooting down aircraft), but also bolt-action, and even single-shot rifles.
Kotowski might be a great guy–but as long as continues his efforts to attack gun ownership rights in Illinois, he needs to expect those whom he wishes to disenfranchise to do their best to stop him. I actually agree with you that attempting to do so by disseminating lies would be an unscrupulous move (as well as tactically ineffective, in the long run). Where we disagree is that there have been any such lies.
May 9, 2007 at 10:01 am
robnesvacil
CD asks, “How can you launch into something like this when it pertains nothing to what we’re talking about. “
….So only you are allowed to us hyperbole to make a point?
By the way, another way of saying “anti gunners” is “people with common sense”. Funny thing is I’m not anti-gun, I’m pro-common sense (then again, clearly, any attempt to simply supervise guns is “anti-gun” to folks on the extreme). You want to have a gun or two or 100 — go ahead. I just believe we should use common sense when it comes to guns.
And, contrary to your claim that intel experts knew about the possibility of flying airplanes into buildings but thinking no one would actually do it… there were captured al Qaida affiliates who had planned to commit the exact same operation throughout the Pacific years before 9/11/2001. Blows your ill-informed “yeah-buts” out of the water.
And PS, CD: when I spoke of freedom of speech I was discussing the limits placed on it regarding slander, libel, etc. Basic civil protections we as a society put in place to maintain order. If you had read my original post you would’ve known that.
–
Kurt “45superman” Hofmann…
For the umpteenth umpteenth time, just because someone hasn’t done it yet doesn’t mean they won’t try as we all well know. No one had dared to use fertilizer to blow up a building til pro-gunner Timothy McVeigh came along, even though people had known how to do it for years… And only after the OKC bombing do we now track fertilizer sales.
May 9, 2007 at 10:15 am
M. Thompson
Don’t you find any folly whatsoever in your belief that because someone could do something sinister with an item, it should thus be banned?
How many freedoms are you willing to surrender in order to create the illusion of safety?
I hypothesize that someday terrorists could use the internet to coordinate an attack (In fact, I’m confident they already do this routinely). Why not ban personal computers from private homes, as well as public access to internet connections with speeds greater than 14.4 kbps? No one really needs to surf the internet more quickly than that, do they?
If .50 rifles were banned for lawful citizens in Illinois, this would in no way prevent individuals with malevolent goals from acquiring and using them regardless.
While I strongly disagree with your apparent fondness for gun control, I’m even more alarmed by your overall eagerness to strip away our rights because of what “could happen” and your apparent willingness to entrust the government to take care of us.
May 9, 2007 at 10:26 am
robnesvacil
As proponents of liberal gun laws have shown they are wont to do, M. Thompson drops in another rhetorical slight of hand with his slippery-slope, extreme-case story telling: “I hypothesize that someday terrorists could use the internet to coordinate an attack (In fact, I’m confident they already do this routinely). Why not ban personal computers from private homes…”
Actually, Pres. Bush is already doing something like this with his warrantless wiretaps program — currently a violation of the 4th Amendment.
And CD wondered why I asked — out of hyperbole — if he would favor folks being able to buy nukes since those are also “arms” in the basic sense. (Notice he never answered that one, but instead laughed it off.)
–
M., to answer your oddly worded question — I am abundantly comfortable with banning .50 caliber rifles (most of the liberal gun law advocates here have said such weapons are not readily available anyway due to cost) and high capacity magazine clips (not a single opponent of doing this has indicated how doing that would in any way impair their right to bear arms).
And no one is proposing to ban all guns, just the .50 caliber rifle (and even then with several loopholes and exceptions at that). So your use of the word “ban” is on-the-whole incorrect. Instead, this is a common sense measure to protect against a hypothetical, but still known, danger. We do the exact same thing when we pass through airport security and take off our shoes and watch as all the ladies have to leave their make-up behind — it’s a common sense measure to protect against a hypothetical, but still known, danger (in this case, small explosives hidden in travel-size tubes).
May 9, 2007 at 10:34 am
M. Thompson
So because the 4th Amendment is already being eroded, it’s okay to throw the 2nd into the grinder as well?
You may think of my example as a sleight of hand, but I see it as the inevitable outcome of the type of policymaking you endorse. Your formula seems to be that “Item X could be used by an evildoer, thus item X should be banned/highly restricted”. If the government can do that with .50 rifles, then what’s to stop them from doing it with anything else?
I see you’ve been seduced by the gun-control lobby’s jargon in referring to “high capacity clips”. People who actually are knowledgable about firearms simply refer to them as standard capacity magazines, as that is what they are. The “high capacity” part came about when our enlightened politicians decided that ordinary citizens were too stupid/reckless/irresponsible to be trusted with magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, so anything above that was arbitrarily called “high capacity.”
Like I said previously, if the government can limit us to 10 round magazines, they can limit us to 5, then 3, then only single-shot weapons, the nothing at all.
That is not hyperbole, nor is it a sleight of hand.
May 9, 2007 at 10:49 am
Kurt "45superman" Hofmann
” . . . and high capacity magazine clips (not a single opponent of doing this has indicated how doing that would in any way impair their right to bear arms).”
Would banning movable type printing presses impair the right to free speech? I argue that it would, even if the populace were allowed to write whatever they wanted by hand. By the same token, I argue that magazine capacity limits are indeed an infringement on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
To flip that question around, how do you think a magazine capacity limit would help? You realize, I hope, that if Kotowski’s SB 1007 monstrosity passes, I could cross the Mississippi (about 20 miles away) and buy such magazines in Missouri, and there would be no way to prove that I didn’t have them before the ban passed (and don’t think I wouldn’t do it). In other words, the ban is completely unenforceable.
If it could be enforced, do you actually think it would prevent a person bent on evil from inflicting a vast amount of carnage? Watch this guy’s reloads, and tell me that having to do them after every ten rounds (or every five) would be a problem for him.
And yes, before you point it out, I realize that I am arguing that a magazine capacity limit law would infringe on my rights, but at the same time would not greatly interfere with a killer’s evil acts. There is nothing inconsistent with these arguments. Where magazine capacity really comes into play is when someone is shooting back (a situation into which a gun owning citizen could be thrust)–the mass murderers like Cho tend to conveniently conduct their attacks where that is not an issue.
May 9, 2007 at 12:55 pm
robnesvacil
The recently departed Mr. Cho, late of Virginia, thanks both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hofmann for their continued support for his weapon of choice.
To paraphrase… guns don’t kill people, they make it easier for people to kill people. And whether you call it “high capacity” or “standard capacity” the more bullets in a clip the easier and easier that killing can be done.
It’s clear that neither of you are actually grasping my points, even if for the sake of rational debate. I respect your diligence, but disagree strongly with your premises.
Best to both of you.
May 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Len
Those of us with knowledge of firearms know that you and your senator are either lying or are have no idea what so ever of what you are talking about. For example, your nonsense about .50 cals and airliners. The rifle weighs 30+ pounds. To hit a moving target you have to swing through or maintain a steady lead on a moving target. Even landing or taking off a jet is well over 100 mph. Arnold in his prime could not hold the rifle properly and swing it in such a way as to successfully hit a target. 2nd every year millions of doves, geese, phesants, quail, and ducks are MISSED by hunters. This is with a much lighter SHOTGUN shooting a pattern (whichis a roughly circular groupingof pellets froma shotshell, of lead, steel or other non toxic shot roughly 30 inches in diameter with anywhere from 72 for the larger size pellets to 700+ for the smaller pellets. Now you expect anyone to believe that a person is going to hit a plane in a vital area with a 30 pound rifle shooting one projectile 1/2 ” in diameter? Where is said person going to practice to make such a shot? Did you ever see the world war ll footage where it shows navy gunnery crews missing kamakazis as they were ramming the ships. These are trained crews shooting double 20mm guns and quad (4) .50 caliber maching guns for a total out put of 2000 rounds a minute and still miss a much slower propeller dirven aircraft. Yet you are trying to tell people that one man with one rifle shooting one bullet can do it. Like I said you and your senator are either lying or are grossly ingnorant of the facts. Either way neither of you shole be making any decisions on anyone elses right to own something that you know nothing about. If youthink it is so easy you can come try to shoot clays any Sunday. I will supply the gun,ammo, and clays. We can shoot at a state area and you can bring as many bodyguards as you desire.
Len
May 9, 2007 at 2:42 pm
robnesvacil
Already discussed Len. Have anything new to add?
(Thanks for the offer to go shooting with you though.)
May 11, 2007 at 9:00 am
robnesvacil
Earlier, M. Thompson asked, “So because the 4th Amendment is already being eroded, it’s okay to throw the 2nd into the grinder as well?”
Actually, he missed my point. In doing so (whether he missed the point purposefully or not) he actually served to try and further his side of the debate. So be it.
My point was that our society (through the government, which is run by “we the people”) places limits that it considers to be reasonable on our Constitutional rights.
The 1st Amendment is “eroded” by the fact that you make yourself eligible to be sued if you slander, defame, or libel someone else. That is a limit on free speech, and a reasonable one in my opinion (and I’m not alone).
The limits are placed in the interest of the safety and protection of each member of society. In other words, the 1st Amendment is limited for the benefit of the “common good”.
More recently, the 4th has been “eroded” by the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. My belief is that this is not a valid “limit” on the 4th amendment. Many partisan conservatives feel it is a reasonable limit while a great many others (liberals, libertarians, etc) think it is unreasonable. This one is up for debate still.
Again, the limits are placed in what the President considers to be the interest of the safety and protection of each member of society. In other words, he decided to limit the 4th Amendment for the benefit of the “common good” (though, clearly, I and many other disagree that this is a reasonable effort).
As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, again any limits placed on it would have to be reasonable in my opinion.
M. Thompson, Kurt Hofmann, Len, Edward/Gill, and CD all believe that any limits whatsoever are completely unreasonable. I get that. But I also disagree.
I used the examples of the 1st and 4th only to show that it has been done and that each member of our society has the ability to decide for himself what their comfort level is regarding how far those limits may go.
This is the benefit of living in a democracy. We get to debate where, or even if, to place limits on our own rights.
Doesn’t mean that there is sand in the pussies of those who would prefer that there be no limits whatsoever on guns any more than it means there is sand in the crotch of those who do believe we need rational limits. It also doesn’t mean you’re less American or less patriotic or less loyal than one another. It just means we all have different opinions and preferences.
You don’t like it that we Americans think differently from each other? Move — but there’s no other country in the “First World” where the gun laws are more liberal.
But while we debate what should be a serious matter ain’t it fun to pepper in all this locker-room talk? (…That was sarcasm for all you copy-and-paste fans.)
May 11, 2007 at 10:04 am
Oil + Water = Whine « Illinois Reason
[...] May 11th, 2007 in “Grassroots” Conservatives by robnesvacil As I wrote a week ago those who believe in the most liberal weapons laws possible and those who believe in common sense [...]
May 14, 2007 at 8:35 pm
MyNameIs Nobody
I’ve never seen so much cock and bull from a left liberal homophobia in my life. We’ll actually I did, once, he’s now lock up in a mental facility
May 15, 2007 at 8:21 am
robnesvacil
Nobody, LOL.
Methinks you’re missing a few words in there. Your post makes little sense.
If you’re trying to imply I’m a homophobe … well, thanks for the laugh this fine Tuesday morning.
May 15, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mark
By tacking a high cap magazine ban to this piece of legislation, it is clear that Kotowski has other priorities which will infact create opposition and stall this legislation which was originally authored to protect our children against pedophiles. As such, Kotowski has in fact taken a position which is against protecting our children from pedophiles! It is by Kotowski’s own action, the credibility of this bill is now compromised after Kotowski tacked on a high cap magazine ban to this bill. Thus, it is Kotowski’s action that has jeopordized what may have been a good piece of legislation against pedophiles! All the result of Kotowski attempting to cloud the issue and mix in his own rabid agenda against guns & gun owners. Kotowski is responsible for creating resistance against this child protection legislation by his own desperate and irrational actions as a gun hating legislator.
It is clear to me, Kotowski has made his anti gun agenda a priority over protecting our children against pedophiles. How perverse is that?
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” - Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
May 16, 2007 at 9:02 am
robnesvacil
Mark,
Perhaps by “create opposition and stall this legislation” you actually meant, “pass the Senate”.
Further, it is rather perverse that you yourself would think such disgusting thoughts about a well-regarded family man. It is clear you don’t even know Sen. Kotowski.
(And the only “desperate and irrational” folks I’m running across on this matter are from your side of the debate with all their petty locker-room insults, hollow rhetoric and weak arguments.)
Best to you and yours, Mark.
May 16, 2007 at 9:14 am
Quote of the Day « Illinois Reason
[...] another post on the Illinois Reason blog a fellow promoting liberal gun laws named “Mark” stated that he thinks certain legislators are acting “desperate and irrational” [...]
May 16, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Mark
Kotowski is an elected official. Any voting citizen has the right to draw his own conclusion. And draw my own conclusion I will.
Kotowski by his own action tacked a high cap magazine ban to a bill piece of legislation (SB1007) which was originally intended to protect children from pedophiles. His actions is clear and by this own action, Kotowski has placed gun control above the issue of protecting our children against pedophiles. This is twisted.
To be crystal clear for you since you didn’t understand my my original point, I’ll take the time to spell it out for you. You will see strong opposition to this legislation in the House in direct response to this sneak attack on gun ownership by Kotowski. What he did is perverse and it’s my right to my opinion Pal. By the way, I happen to be a well regarded family man.
Now that you’ve respond to my clear statement of the facts by calling me perverse, we know your game. It is your name calling based on my opinion(s) that only reflect poorly on you, and confirms your place among the rest of your ilk, the liberal social eletists in this country, otherwise known as the Democratic Party.
However, you are right about one thing. I don’t know Kotowski personally and I never would want to. My time is valuable. Kotowski is not worth my time as he is a traitor to the United States and the Constitution of this land. He is a disgrace.
So keep it up. We know your game: DENY, DISCREDIT & DELAY. That’s right. Deny the truth, discredit your opponents, and delay the outcome if it doesn’t suit the liberal agenda, the erosion of inalienable constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.
Yes, liberalism is a disease.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler, 1935
May 16, 2007 at 6:49 pm
MyNameIs Nobody
[quote]Your post makes little sense.[/quote] I’m not the least bit surprised that it doesn’t.
[quote]If you’re trying to imply I’m a homophobe … well, thanks for the laugh this fine Tuesday morning.[/quote] Who’s implying, I’m saying…
May 17, 2007 at 9:12 am
robnesvacil
Nobody: [quote]LOL[/quote]
Given that you have no clue what you’re talking about in that regard, Nobody, it’s safe to say you’re a total clown. It’s odd how people such as yourself who have never met me enjoy making up lies about me based on absolutely nothing. Good luck with that.
(Are you calling me a homophobe just because I linked to a dude who calls himself “Big Gay Al”? That’s the stupidest, most illogical thing I’ve ever read. If the guy called himself “Big Lutheran Al” would you then run around calling me an anti-Lutheran? If he called himself “Big Goatee-wearin’ Al” would you call me anti-facial hair?)
May 22, 2007 at 8:37 am
robnesvacil
Congrats Mark on winning the Godwin’s Law Award for this thread.
May 27, 2007 at 12:04 am
Pathetic « Illinois Reason
[...] believe in common sense and rational supervision. Obviously, the ISRA, NSSF, and their sycophants would rather lie than have a reasonable debate with common sense folks — whatever keeps those donations [...]
June 23, 2007 at 3:14 am
“I have a gun. I’m going to come and kill you.” Part 2 « Illinois Reason
[...] rational gun owners into hard-liners who are so juiced up on the gun lobbyists’ rhetoric of smears, vitriol and lies that they would take the uncivilized, irrational step of actually threatening someone’s [...]
June 23, 2007 at 7:25 am
POed Lib
The amazing irrationality and total fanaticism of the gunsel gunwacks continues to amaze me. They are so paranoid that someone is going to take their little toys away.
You would think that they would try, just a little, to be responsible. But, no. For the gunsel gunwacks, responsibility is not part of their worldview.
We need gun registration, limits on ammunition sales, limits on the number of guns per month, limits on the types of guns and a large number of other reasonable limits.
Of course, the gunsel gunwacks don’t agree. But they are not called gunwacks for nothing.
June 23, 2007 at 7:29 am
POed Lib
“By tacking a high cap magazine ban to this piece of legislation, it is clear that Kotowski has other priorities which will infact create opposition and stall this legislation which was originally authored to protect our children against pedophiles.”
Wow, what a clueless and totally irrational gunwack. You may be a good family man, but you need to repeat a civics class. Did you pass 6th grade?
All of this stuff you condemn is simply normal bill amendment passing stuff in any legislature. If you don’t like it, get elected to the State Legislature and change the procedure. If you don’t do that, at least try to learn something. That means, unfortunately, putting down your weapons for a minute. For gunwacks, that is asking for a lot.
June 26, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Seemingly ignoring the maggots in the fruit « Illinois Reason
[...] Sen. Kotowski’s election last November to target the guy with all their rhetorical ammo, including several hits that were blatant lies (that post details but a few of the instances in which the lobbyists and activists who derive [...]