LOS ANGELES – Time Warner Cable's blackout of CBS continued Saturday, and neither side indicated a resolution of their dispute over fees is imminent.
Time Warner dropped CBS Friday in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and several other cities, leaving three million customers without the network's programs. The issue is fees that the cable company pays CBS to air its programs.
Each has accused the other of making unreasonable demands. On Saturday the two sides even seemed to disagree on the status of negotiations. A Time Warner spokeswoman said Saturday afternoon that negotiations are ongoing. CBS said it expects talks to resume soon, but the decision rests with Time Warner.
One person has died and 11 others have been injured after a car drove into a crowd of people walking along the famed Venice Beach boardwalk early Saturday evening before the driver fled the busy Los Angeles tourist site. A Los Angeles Police spokesman said late Saturday that one person had been detained for questioning in nearby Santa Monica, though it was not immediately clear if the person detained was the driver. Police were looking for a dark-colored Dodge Charger or Avenger. [emphasis added]
The driver was a man described as having sandy blond hair and estimated to be in his mid-20s, [emphasis added] authorities said.
Multiple witnesses reported that the driver appeared to be "moving purposefully" and in control of the car as it plowed through the crowd, Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Brian Humphrey said. The car was still moving as it drove out of sight of firefighters and the people who were hit.
When is America going to wake up to the ongoing threat of unregistered Assault Automobiles? Why do we allow our young people, who are obviously too immature to understand the terrible responsibility they assume when they buy Assault Cars (which are available to anyone at Car Shows without background checks!) to possess these Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Shouldn't we at least require purchasers of Full-Auto Assault Cars to demonstrate a proficiency in the operation of these high-power weapons?
This is clearly a situation which begs .. nay, REQUIRES ... Federal control.
In the past, there were no restrictions; anyone could buy a car. But that was back in the days when cars had only small, two-cylinder engines. Cars then couldn't travel much more than walking speeds.
Now anyone can buy a V8 engine. Surely our forefathers did not envision the day when eight-cylinder engines were available. If they had, they would have established restrictions on cars with more than two cylinders! Imagine if they had realized that cars could be purchased which had a terminal velocity of over a hundred miles an hour.
In a Nation which famously established a speed limit of 55 miles an hour, there is clearly no NEED for a car which can travel at over twice that speed. Even interstate freeways have a speed limit of no more than 65 or 70mph. Why do the irresponsible car manufacturers persist in building cars with the possibility of going more than the legal speed?
Conservatives point out that the 55MPH speed limit, which was a progressive movement in the 1970's, had proven to be "less than effective" at meeting the stated goals of that Federal law. We all know that the true purpose was to keep irresponsible car owners from unregulated access to Weapons of Mass Distruction ... Assault Cars!
But they, the evil Conservatives, had a Secret Weapon: The AAA!
This nefarious Special Interest Group lobbied senators, threatened Representatives with the withdrawal of political (and financial) support, until our poor beleagured Congressmen had to choose between bowing to the powerful Lobbiest or facing defeat at the polls.
This is the result of powerful Special Interest Groups. Even though the AAA has over 60,000,000 members, it is unconscionable that our elected representatives should bow under lobbyist pressure on an issue which is so clearly vital to the safety of the American Public.
It's clearly time for right-thinking Americans to rise up against these Special Interest Groups. Write your congressman! Tell him (or her, or it, as the case may be) that you are opposed to the ... well, perhaps not illegal, but clearly WRONG .. pressure exerted by these special-interest voting blocks.
Who cares if the AAA has all those votes in their pockets? Clearly, it is time that our brave senators and representatives rise up and Vote Their Conscience! The votes of millions of Americans count as nothing when compared to those of dozens of Right-Thinking (okay, Left-Thinking) Americans who KNOW that the average citizen is neither bright enough, not responsible enough, to be trusted with an Evil Assault Car!
Now .. go vote for Obama and help him stop this travesty now!
You know it's The Right Thing To Do. Do it for the children.
Too distracted by personal events, I haven't kept up with news that I think is interesting to this audience. Well, that's Hubris. Still, things have been going on in my life that *_I_* think are interesting. Here's an example:
Wimpy Loads:
Last Friday (last weekend in July) .. I received a communication from The Hobo Brasser to the effect that he was going Under The Knife soon for repairs to his knee(s), and the Saturday match at Dundee was the last time he would be shooting until he and Spicy-Lady would Snowbird to Texas for the Winter. I agreed to meet him at the match so we could squad together.
Scene shift to Geek Central .. that cluttered garage where I keep my reloading equipment and supplies. Since the GeekGun (10mm STI Edge) was still hors d'combat at the gunsmith (a consequence of a KaBOOM! in March of this year), I decided that The Beloved Kimber was the only viable alternative for last-moment rearmament.
I hadn't loaded .45ACP ammunition for well over two years, so I was pleased and surprised to find a box of 300 Semi-wadcutter 200gr bullets (made by a man who hasn't been in business for 10 years), some Winchester Large Pistol primers, and half of a 1-lb canister of Vihta Vourhi N330 powder. Checking my loading log, I determined the 5.0 grains of VVN330 was the correct load, and I set my Bullseye powder measure accordingly. My records indicated 1.275" OAL was adequate, but I settled for 1.262 as my preferred bullet-seating depth because .. I just had a feeling.
I only managed to load 100 rounds, because it took me a while to swap my dies from the Dillon XL650 Turret to the Lee Turret press ... the XL has not served me will lately, as it does not cycle primers properly. But that's another story.
The next day, Saturday, I showed up late at the Dundee match but was pleasantly surprised that the squad was still on their first stage. When my turn to shoot came up, I was confident that I had fresh ammunition and I was eager to shoot.
When the buzzer went off, I engaged the first of 12 targets (at point-blank range) and The Beloved Kimber went .. Ker-POP!
The load was so light that, although the bullet cleared the barrel and put a solid A-zone hit on the target .. the slide didn't cycle properly! It ejected the spent brass, but the following round jammed.
I cleared the jam, tried the next round.
Ker-POP!
Okay, one more time:
Ker-POP!
It wasn't a fluke. EVERY round in my magazine was too lightly loaded to properly cycle the slide. I gave up. The match fee was $17, and the cost of gasoline for the 170 mile round trip was .. well, more than that.
I stuck around for an hour, but as Norman the Ungrateful pointed out: "IPSC is not a spectator sport". I went home to pout, and to contemplate my sins.
A couple of days later, Guy Neil ("Front Sight" Reloading Guru, who lives in the area) emailed me to ask what happened. His impression was that I got stove-pipes. I explained that the empties ejected okay, but the following rounds weren't seated in the chamber because the load was too light to cycle the slide correctly.
Then I started thinking. Where, exactly, did I get that load of gunpowder? And why was it inadequate to the purpose?
I realized that this was part of a 3-pound batch which I picked up at the prize table at the 2003 Open/Limited Nationals in Bend, Oregon. This stuff was ten years old!
Later, I went back to re-examine the canister. The markings on the label indicated that the batch was actually manufactured in 1998 ...15 years ago.
The powder didn't appear to have drawn moisture, and it was tightly sealed so I don't think that moisture contributed to the problem.
No, my best guess (and it's only a guess) is that the gunpowder deteriorated in a sealed, water-tight container due only to age.
There's a moral here, and that is that if you don't test your ammunition before you got to a match, you probably are setting yourself up for failure.
I had experienced that once before, in 1996, when I loaded a batch of 9mm with a new 115gr LRN bullet and took it to a match. The OAL was okay, but the bullet shape was one I had never tried before (I had been shooting conical bullets). Turns out that the mere bullet shape was sufficiently different that the round wouldn't seat in the chamber of my SW659. Go figure. (At least that time, since I hadn't shot a single round, I got my match fees back!)
I'm pretty sure there's a moral to this story.
I don't care.
I'm still pissed.
The charging handle is a critical component of the AR rifle. Knowing how to use it properly is essential to operating the AR. And, while in theory it seems simple, like most aspects to gun handling there's a lot more to it than most people realize.
With all weapon manipulations consistency is the key to safety and efficiency. So, when cycling the handle the right-handed shooter uses the left hand. To perform a chamber check or lock the bolt to the rear the right hand works the handle.
As usual, The Shooting Wire (click here to subscribe to their informative daily newsletter) provides useful tips on a wide variety of shooting-related interests. And as usual, I read every article and even followed up by clicking links which lead the reader to more detailed info.
But when it comes to the AR frame ... I tend to holler "Whoa, Nellie!"
I got a bad feeling about AR style rifles. And no, it's not about the "EEEEvil Black rifle" thingie. It's all about my experiences with the AR Model 16 (M16) during my so-called Military Career.
You may be old enough to remember what a controversial subject the original M16was, during the Vietnam War Era.
They got dirty in Vietnam .. red dust coated the working mechanisms, and the rifle required frequent cleaning with a special lube to be applied after the rifle was determined to be 'clean'.
The special lubrication medium was a thick grease, looking a lot like Vaseline, and it attracted dust like a magnet attracts iron filings.
Not rust .. dust!
In the early days, soldiers died because their M16's jammed early in a firefight; often after the first shot. The model was modified to include a 'forward assist' plunger, which was useful when the bolt failed to return to battery because of particle fouling. The familiar "Tap/Rack/Bang" immediate-action drill was not available to U.S. Soldiers in Vietnam until that necessary feature was added.
From top to bottom:
M16 A1
M16 A2
M4 A1
M16 A4
By the time I got to Vietnam, I had read everything available in Gun Magazines about the M16, including the emphasis on frequent/thorough cleaning and lubrication.
Some of the literature included descriptions of the "incredible maiming power" of the fast, lightweight bullets. One article I recall included graphic x-ray photos of the arm of a Viet Cong who had been wounded. The upper arm bone was clearly shattered by the bullet.
The article also mentioned, in passing, that M16 rounds (5.56 MM) were frequently "deflected" .. or more appropriately "exploded", but contact with trees ... twigs ... leaves.
In case you are not familiar with tropical jungles, there are more trees, twigs and leaves there than there were "targets" (Viet Cong, NVA). And when American soldiers found themselves in a firefight, they often found themselves outgunned by the enemys' AK47. Bigger bullet, slower velocity.
As a consequence, many American soldiers chose 'other' arms to defend themselves.
Designated "Point Men" (those who walked at the head of a squad in the jungle) were given first choice of the limited number of M14 rifles; firing the venerable .30 caliber bullet (.308; 7.62 NATO), those magazine-fed rifles were so effective in the jungle that the 'first responders' had no doubts that their semi-automatic fire could and would disrupt the organization of a Viet Cong ambush.
Unlike the Garand (which fired a similar, but not identical cartridge and amazed the .30-06 advocates of the 1903/A3 Springfield), this rifle was magazine fed. Which allowed American troops to shoot more often (20 times instead of 8) and reload more quickly than the clip-fed Garand.
Medics often opted to arm themselves; their choice of weapon was a WWI 'Trench Gun" ... a short-barreled 12-gauge pump shotgun. It held 5 12-gauge shotgun shells and when loaded with buckshot could cut through the shrubbery with great efficiency. There were few of these available via legitimate military sources, which explains why medics ALWAYS got those few available. And none of us complained; we knew that the one man who ALWAYS received first priority was he who would keep us alive until the dust-off chopper arrived. I personally witnessed three occasions when our medic (always called "Doc") saved live and/or limb of men in our platoon; on the one occasion when he lost a man who had been too badly wounded by a grenade fragment to the heart, he cried on his knees in the middle of the battlefield. We always protected our medic, and he was always high on Librium.
As a Platoon Sergeant, I chose to use an M79 grenade launcher. That shoulder-fired, single-shot 40mm break-action weapon offered not only a wide variety of ammunition (fragmentation grenade; double-ought shot shell with more .32-caliber 'pellets' than a 12-gauge shotgun; parachute flare; starshell flare) but it was so intuitively 'point shooting' friendly that most grenadiers removed the sights. I only experienced one time when I regretted that my "Thump Gun" was sightless; when we spotted an ammo can in the field, and I tried to detonate the suspected booby-trap by hitting it with grenade rounds at 50 yards. (It turned out to be .. and empty ammo can, nothing more.)
The advantage to a commander was obvious. Our division (FirstI Infantry) was a light infantry division, which means we didn't carry heavy packs and we typically operated in small units. Think ... the Platoon Leader (lieutenant) took two squads on on mission while I, the Platoon Sgt (E6 Staff Sergeant) took the other two squads on another mission.
The M79 is an 'area weapon' ( like a mortar round ), a 'signalling tool' (like a starshell), a night-time illumination tool (like a parachute flare), and a small-unit shotgun (again, the 'buckshot' round).
The Thump Gun allowed me to use my weapon as both an offensive weapon and as a "command tool". My job was not to shot at the enemy; it was to direct the fire of my element .. my two squads .. toward the element.
I could walk through the jungle with a buckshot-round loaded, and it provided the 'area' firepower of a shotgun with twice the one-shot coverage of a 12-gauge shotgun.
I could use the grenade round during a firefight to not only bring pain to the enemy, but also to signal to my men where they should be directing their fire.
I could use the parachute flare when we ambushed Viet Cong forces at night, so that we could safely sweep the "kill zone". Usually, we called upon support artillary to fire "Flare Rounds" so we had light to see potential (not-dead) enemy who might return fire as we assaulted the kill-zone; with the M79, we could assault sooner and more quickly for the initial pass over the killing grounds. Division Artillary often took several minutes to register the target area and to load for illumination rounds. I and my M79 was right there, right then .. we didn't have to either stumble through the dark nor to wait for the wounded enemy to crawl away before we swept the area. We found wounded Viet Cong in kill zones who turned out to be valuable sources of military intelligence, because we COULD see them, dominate them, and capture them up before they left the battlefield. We never lost a man in the aftermath of a night ambush, simply because we could see immediately who remained in the kill zone or in the near vicinity.
And when we called for external ground support after a night ambush (usually, that would be an armored platoon or squadron, the starshell gave the support troops their initial guide on our immediate location. It's impossible to overemphasize how important that ability could be to a unit which has just ambushed a Viet Cong unit which has only been decimated ... not destroyed .. an whose surviving members are conceivably loitering in the area with 'payback' on their mind.
(They might counter-ambush us .. but they will not fire on mobile armored forces! There's nothing quite so militarily overwhelming as a tank firing a cannister round from it's main gun down the gulch through which a NVA raiding party has advanced against an ARVN base camp .. and then used the same route to didi out of the kill-zone.) Back to the M16:
So, what part did the M16 play in Vietnam?
It got a lot of American troops killed, when their maintenance turned out not to have been adequate to the job at hand.
Yes, it allowed American troops to carry more ammunition than those American troops could carry during WWI and WWII (.30-06) and even Korea (still .30-06). But the M16 was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". For example, the only reason why more American troops were not killed by "Blue-on-Blue" attacks (friendly fire) is that the 5.56mm M16 round was so ineffective in deep jungle vegetation. I witnessed several accidental "Blue on Blue" firefights which would have been much more deadly if "real rifles" had been used.
So it's obvious that my personal bias against the M16 and it's descendents (the M4, etc) is based on negative personal experiences .. especially when compared to 'real guns', such as the shotgun, the grenade launcher, and even (omg!) the 1911.
(In a personal note; this week I exchanged an series of texts with my Navy Cop Son "The Squid" in which he called me a "1911 snob".)
So .. yes, I am preternaturally (?) biased against small-caliber, high-speed rifles which jam easily and .. especially! .. need detailed instructions on how to LOAD THE NEXT ROUND so as to preclude a feeding failure.
I look for reliability first in a firearm, and stopping power next. I don't see the AR frame as one which has proven to meet either criteria, especially in a combat situation.
I have been told that the 'current generation' is much more reliable than my experiences of .... omg, has it been 40 years ago now?
On the other hand, the Beretta 92 in 9mm has replaced the 1911 .45 acp in most American Military Units .. except in units which DEMAND both Reliability and Stopping Power. In those units, the 1911A1 in .45acp (or its varients) are still the standards.
This article (okay, go back to the top and click on the link) suggests that anyone whose life depends on their AR-style rifle needs to know just how frail and tempermental it is. I'm uncomfortable with that. I think that any combat rifle which requires a "forward assist" is fatally flawed.
"Fatally Flawed": that's an euphemism for "piece of shit weapon which will get combatants killed".
No, I have ALWAYS been uncomfortable with American troops having to nursemaid a tempermental rifle. Why have we gone to that option, when better rifles are available.
I have pistols which cost more than that! And I'm only shooting in competition ... not in defense of my life in a combat situation. Back in The Day, M16's cost a whole lot less, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Is it because the troops can carry more ammunition? Is it because the emphasis on American military training has changed from 'accuracy' to 'volume of fire'?
Perhaps both of these factors.
_________________________________________________________
I'm not going to reach a conclusion here. But you might. And ... I think I've spent enough of our time for you to make up your own mind about whether the AR frame is better as a military arm (at $1,000/unit) or as a competitive arm (at considerably greater expense, but less cost in terms of fatalities).
You probably wouldn't agree with me. But then, perhaps you've never seen a kid crying and cussing over a jammed AR when the bullets are flying.
Temperatures in the 90's ... approached 100 degrees yesterday. Too hot to type up here in The Hell Room.
Blogging temporarily suspended until it snows.
This is OREGON?
Linda Ronstadt - Heat Wave - YouTube
Just about every aspect of why and how George Zimmerman came to fatally shoot an unarmed teenager on Feb. 26, 2012, is open for debate.
But one conclusion ought to be obvious: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay
in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good." And
even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his
altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm
had not been involved. Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman
case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has
made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take
guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from
dangerous situations.
My view:
Opinions are like .. rectums; everyone has one.
I've tried to stay away from the Florida trial and its ramifications, but this one hits straight into one of what are two of my most personally important ideals: Personal Responsibility, and the Second Amendment.
I want to address each statement in this opening paragraph (the rest of the article is no better) to demonstrate the difference between "guns are bad" and "each situation must be considered in view of the facts" philosophies.
Point 1:If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today. Counterpoint: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, George Zimmerman may not be alive today.
It has been proven in court that Zimmerman was being savaged by (the bigger, stronger) Martin, who had the Neighborhood Watch Captain on the ground, underneath him, and who was beating Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. The Florida Courts and a jury were willing to accept that Zimmerman was in fear for his life .. especially in view of Martin's shouted threat that "you're going to die tonight". Zimmerman at that point had the option of thinking that Martin was merely speaking insincerely, or believing that Martin intended he would die that night.
Point 2:An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay
in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good."
Counterpoint:I concur that Zimmerman made a monumentally bad decision. Two stupid people made stupid decisions. The one with a gun failed to die before he could be beaten to death by his attacker. Zimmerman should not have allowed the confrontation to occur, but how was he to know that the 'suspicious person' would turn violent?
Point 3: And
even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his
altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm
had not been involved.
Counterpoint: Disagree. As was accepted at the trial, Martin had voiced a death threat while he was in a position to make it happen, and he was obviously doing his best to beat Zimmerman to death. Zimmerman was physically overwhelmed and, with no apparent other recourse, used his legally carried pistol to stop his assailant from murdering him.
Point 4: Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman
case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has
made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take
guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from
dangerous situations.
Counterpoint:Suddenly, this 'dialogue' shifts from specific allegations to societal/political issues. This society has, in the past three decades, begun to pay attention to the nuances of the Second Amendment; it has ceased to abridge the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The fallacy of the Opinion published in the USA Today article is demonstrated in the last phrase: "... and to bear less responsibility to retreat from
dangerous situations."
This statement completely ignores two of the most significant facts of the trial of George Zimmerman:
Zimmerman's attorney never raised the question of the Florida 'stand your ground' law;
The 'stand your ground' law was not applicable, because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat. He was on the ground, being pressed against the sidewalk by his larger, more aggressive attacker, who was trying his best to beat Zimmerman to death. He could NOT retreat!
In any state in the union, a man who is being beaten, who has been verbally threatened (believably) with death, who finds himself in a situation where he has no lesser defense against his attacker, and in his own defense can offer no better response than to use a weapon ... that man would not be charged, let alone tried, of felonious murder.
I have offered before that both actors in this tragedy were idiots. But they at least had the small defense that they were acting in the heat of the moment, and had NO time to consider their actions in a calm, reflective manner.
The author of this Opinion article in the newspaper, however, has no defense against his careful statement which he has apparently been considering for days, if not months.
There is nothing more dangerous than a careful, reasonable idiot; the danger is that someone may not recognize him for one of the class of politically "Useful Idiots" to which he so obviously, proudly and cluelessly belongs.
George Zimmerman verdict: Former neighborhood watch leader not guilty in death of Fla. teen Trayvon Martin
I've been very careful to NOT comment on this story until the jury verdict was rendered.
Yeah, like I'm going to affect their decision.
Now that it's all "over", and I can speak freely, here's my opinion. As if anyone is interested:
The guy .. Zimmerman ... didn't have to be there. He didn't have to get out of his car. He didn't have to be carrying. He didn't have to confront "The Trespasser". (T. Martin)
He (Zimmerman) was looking for a confrontation, and he got one. He got to pull the trigger, and that's what he was hoping for.
The "perp", Trevon whatshisname? He was bad news looking for a confrontation. He was trespassing, he dismissed the 'security guard' (Zimmerman) as "a cracker"? Come on, what does that matter? Zimmerman didn't know, Martin's opinion had no influence.
It speaks volumes to Martin's attitude, and intentions.
Two hyped-up guys looking for a fight .. each found one. The difference was, one brought a gun to the fight.
Stupid freaking idiots, neither one of them had any business being there.
Martin died. What a shameful waste. Any human life is worth saving.\
Zimmerman was acquitted .. of what? Second Degree Murder? I'm not sure whether he deserved judicial punishment, but come ON! The guy is an idiot. He makes people who carry firearms for their own defense look bad. Do I think he was fearful of his life because his head was being pounded into the sidewalk? I don't know all the facts .. but I think he put himself into the situation, whatever it was .. willfully.
Would I have behaved differently?
I hope I wouldn't have been confronting the trespasser alone. Don't these guys have radios, or cell phones?
Oh, didn't he phone 911? yes, he did; the operator warned him to NOT challenge the interloper.
Zimmerman ignored what was, probably, in these circumstances ... good advice.
Bottom Line:
A pox upon both their houses!
Bottom line: two idiots, one gun.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. If either of these congenital idiots had been stopped before they met, NONE of this had to happen.
If there was a federal law against being a stupid butt-****, Zimmerman would have been rightfully convicted.
Or, if it turned out differently, Martin would have been convicted.
Is there "No sex in Federal Lock-up?" I know I'm being indigenous here; work with me, okay?
If either of them had ended up in prison, and was deprived of the opportunity to have a woman in the room with them, the human race would be improved due solely to the fact that they would not have been allowed to reproduce.
Which is my fervent hope for "Not Guilty" Zimmerman.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a bunch of Maroons!
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced Wednesday he will use his veto power to suspend state lawmakers' pay after they missed his deadline to deliver pension reform.
"This is an emergency," Quinn said. "This is a crisis. This requires the full attention of those who were elected to the General Assembly."
Quinn said he informed the comptroller of his intentions to suspend all legislative salaries and stipends for the General Assembly and for himself until the reform is on his desk.
He described the pay halt as a wake-up call for those who have failed for two years to take action on the state's pension crisis.
[emphasis added]
No, this is a wake-up call for the legislature because they overrode his veto on the Concealed Carry bill!
... Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Buffalo Grove) said the move does "nothing to move us toward a solution to our pension crisis and only serves as an unnecessary distraction." Quinn's gubernatorial opponents called it a stunt. "The pension crisis won’t be solved by political stunts," Bruce Rauner said. "It will be solved by bold leadership that’s willing to take on the powerful interests in Springfield." "It is obvious to everyone by now that this governor is long on press conferences and short on results," Bill Daley said. "This media sideshow doesn’t get things done, in fact it stands in the way."
Both the Illinois House and Senate on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Pat Quinn's revised gun bill, making the state the last in the country to allow firearms to be carried in public. The Senate voted 41-17 after the House's 77-31 vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto that wanted to keep guns out of places that serve alcohol and impose a one-gun limit.
The votes came just before a midnight federal appeals court's deadline to allow Illinois residents to carry concealed guns. Quinn used his amendatory [sic] veto last week to make changes to the compromise concealed carry bill already passed by the legislature.
In a not-so-surprising move, Illinois State Legislatures decided to support the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court of The United States - SCOTUS) and over-ride the wishes of the Governor of that not-so-great state.
We in the rest of the country have heard that The Machine .. the political entity which controls politics in Illinois and especially in Chicago ... was and always will rule the state regardless of any 'outside' influence; such as SCOTUS.
Quinn's "amendments" would, among other points, limit the number of firearms one person could carry "concealed" to one (?), limit the number of magazines to one, and limit the number of rounds of ammunition carried to ten. It would also mandate that the firearms carry 'concealed' would be "CONCEALED!" .. whatever that means.
Local Trepidation:
Not everyone in Illinois is jubilant about the new gun laws: In an MSNBC article, (titled:
Despite Chicago bloodshed, Illinois will allow concealed carry
... one writer offered:
Some lawmakers from urban jurisdictions like Chicago voted against
the concealed carry law, fearing it would lead to even more gun
violence. The city has struggled to bring down the rate of murders and
shootings, but over the 4th of July holiday weekend, at least 60 people were shot and 12 were killed in Chicago. Over Father’s Day Weekend, more than 40 people were shot and seven were killed by gun violence. Tuesday’s passage was a significant victory for the NRA, after
Congress failed to pass a bipartisan bill that would have strengthened background checks for
all commercial gun purchases. Although President Obama continues his
pledge to pressure Congress to pass stricter gun legislation, the state
where he served as a senator voted to expand gun rights.
Oh, was anyone unaware that Chicago and Illinois are the center of Liberal Democrat politics?
But of course, it's all the fault of the NRA.
The
assertion that Chicago has " .. .struggled against gun violence ..."
seems somehow a violation of the 'you can't have it both ways' rule.
"Gun Violence" is already rampant in Chicago, specifically, and Illinois, generally. Are shooting deaths going to go UP just because people can now defend themselves? If so .. it's going to be the gang-bangers who suddenly must consider that the home-owner they are accustomed to terrifying may now be armed. Wouldn't THAT be a rude awakening?
Increased
restrictions on private possession of firearms hasn't worked, so what
has the Governor of Illinois done to 'struggle against gun violence'?
He has tried even harder to prevent honest citizens from possessing the means to
prevent Gun Violence and protect themselves. Doesn't sound to ME that
Governor Quinn has 'struggled' all that hard, considering that he is
protected by armed guards at all time.
The proposed "concealed carry permit" would piggyback on a fee for a license to own a handgun, and why the CCP would cost $150. (Not known yet whether that is per permit or per gun, but one assumes that it's "per permit" .. surely no responsible local government would double-bill a "per gun" permit!)
Nobody has yet mentioned that this would constitute an intolerable tax on the poor, who can probably ill-afford to purchase a firearm except at street-prices; expect stolen-gun prices to go up in the immediate future, by the way. It's just business, driven by the Democratic Machine and their whining juvenile efforts to ensure that if they don't get to have everything their own way ... somebody else is going to pay!
For a comparison, some counties only charge $65 for a CHL ... but I'm sure Illinois knows best how to serve its citizens. After all, they've done so well to date.
Significance:
Back in the early 1960's, then-President Dwight David Eisenhower posted armed federal marshals at the entrance to public schools in the Deep South to ensure that black students could attend 'mixed race' schools depending on their residential address .. not "separate but equal" schools, based on their race.
This Illinois acceptance of a Federal mandate is perhaps equally as significant as the true integration of educational opportunities.
Which is to say, not only must the states pay more than 'lip service' to the Constitution, but the states must also be prevented from undermining the clear intent of the Bill of Rights by imposing draconian and pettifogging restrictions on the civil rights of their citizens.
Chicago, we're looking at you here. No more Tammany Hall; no more one-man rule.
This is a HUGE step forward for Gun Rights Advocates:
For too many years, we have heard of, and read the words of, citizens who have decided to leave their home state and move to where they can freely exercise their Civil Rights. In this case, we're talking about the Second Amendment.
But this is not the only reason to move; gay rights, excessive taxation, and other 'local rules' have brought about a forced migration. It doesn't much matter what your personal issue is, or whether you are personally in favor of (or opposed to) the display of a Christian Cross on public land .. to cite just a few examples. The Constitution is The Law of The Land, and this simple document defines the freedom of America.
It is "Rule By Law".
Tough Time in Chicago
I know there are going to be 'troubles' in Chicago. Somebody will take advantage of the new laws, and will be found guilty of 'brandishing' a firearm when he or she feels intimidated. They will go to jail. Some people will be shot; some of those people will not deserve it.
When you've been held down for so long, and you finally have the RIGHT to defend yourself, you may be lost in the heady reality of personal choice.
Illinois already had a tragic history of stupidity. Senseless shootings are reported on a DAILY basis. Now, there will be a new twist for reporters; it's not just gang-bangers shooting the innocent, it will be the Honest Citizen who hasn't learned to merge his new freedoms with his new responsibilities.
But I am going out on the limb here and suggest that gang-bangers will learn a new brand of civility.
Chicago may take a while to learn the lessons of civility, but the penalty for slow-learners has just increased. Other states have learned these lessons with relatively few "hiccups" let us hope that Illinois citizens can learn to be Free Citizens rather than Subjects as easily, and with as few over-reactions.
