Guns: I am not gong to take a side on conceal and carry, but given that is the law, I think it is reasonable that privately owned areas which are open to the public, such as stores, and office buildings, can prohibit guns on their premises without having to give a reason. This is the law in Illinois and many other states. It think it is inconsistent to not allow public entities such as schools, transit, and courthouses to do the same.
I know this is tad off subject, but I never had a desire as a teacher to be packing in the classroom. I suppose there are inner city teachers that if not actually packing, have certainly thought about it. But I think the negatives far outweigh the positive. Does the teacher need to have it on their person at all times? It wouldn't be much good if they didn't. If in the classroom, how do we keep students from getting at them? If students know that a teaching is packing, does that put the teacher in danger from students that want the weapon? Would any such teacher need to undergo police training to know when to pull it out and use it? I can't wait to see the headline "Teacher kills student that only pulled his phone out his pocket." How about "Teacher kills student after student makes threats over his failing grade?" Yes, I know the reasoning is to try and limit the damage in a mass shooting. So when the "lockdown" announcement comes from the office, the teacher is supposed to immediately strap on his "rod" and become an avenging angel? Sorry gun people, but I see a lot more problems than saviors in this, which is probably why I know of no public schools in the world that arm teachers. There are a few countries like Israel, Pakistan, Kenya, and Thailand that have discussed it. They came to the conclusion it was not a good idea. Naturally MAGAs are telling lies. Israel does not require teachers to be armed. And they need it more than we do. We don't have the same level of Arab terrorists running around shooting, kniffng, and throwing bombs. They just didn't decide it was such a hot idea.
By the way, as a substitute, if I ever find out that a teacher anywhere near me is packing, I will report to the office and walk out even if state law allows it. I would worry more about me being shot than a mass shooter.
My mother-in-law is a retired CPS teacher and taught at schools all over the city. I don't think she ever thought carrying a gun would be a good idea.
School shootings seem to always get a large amount of media attention where shootings out in public usually get little to none. I believe that schools are relatively safe. Teachers carrying or active shooter drills are terrible ideas, IMO. Even if either one of those things has an effect of increasing safety in an active shooter scenario, they raise levels of anxiety (which is really bad for little kids) and make people think that it much more likely than it actually is.
Save the childs!! Is it possible that Agent Orange knows the actual definition of "Incredible"?
"The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child. And you know many of these childs, 15 years later, say “What the hell happened? Who did this to me?” — Donald Trump
It's not their job. First of all, Trump gets bashed every day in articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. They simply don't say it like you did, Garry. Second, it's the job of American voters to make that determination. The ones that vote for him deserve what they get. Don't forget that he only won the first time through the Electoral College.
I am excited everyday to look at baseball scores in the hope of the Sox making history. (I didn't grow up here, I have no affinity for either Chicago team, but also harbor no animosity toward them either, like the way I do for a team like the Yankees)
It's just exciting to keep seeing those loses pile up and new milestones hit. That stat about the being the first team on 59 years to have three losing streaks of 10 or more games then turned into the first time since 1900 a team has three losing streaks of 12 or more games. The historical badness is so great.
American sports rarely has anything interesting going on a the bottom of the standings as a season winds down. One of the fun things about European football is that the system of promotion and relegation means the teams at the bottom of the table still have something to play for and gives the fans something to watch. In America it is only a rare season like this one that you have any reason to look at the bottom of the standings.
And if they hadn't beat the very good O's yesterday they'd be 0-9, on the brink of a FOURTH losing streak of 10 or more. They still have time; I wouldn't put it past them. (Yes, I'm a Sox fan who hasn't been to the park this season, but I'd go if I could.)
Very true. Although I usually follow them closely, this week got complicated, and I lost track of when I'd last seen their W-L record. My bad! Thanks for the reality check.
There aren't enough attacks on that rotten schande & gonnif Reinsdorf for what he's done to the team & his insane attempt to screw the taxpayers out of a second ballpark in less than 35 years, just like his equally inane fellow travelers, the rotten thieving McCaskeys who want to McFuck a second free stadium out of the taxpayers, again, not satisfied with exactly what they wanted 30 some years ago!
i can't tell if you're being sarcastic - but i laughed at your post regardless.
i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - i, too, hate the yankees.
and i agree with your comparison to european football - american sports, both pro sports & college football - shd have a relegation mechanism - THAT would be a deterrant to tanking.
* Thanks for distinguishing "modern era" from "162-game era" without using "modern" to describe the latter, as the Trib confusingly does. (I'm using "162-game era" for second reference and for clued-in readers.)
* Why take space to explain your inclusion of the 1916 A's when you wouldn't explain your inclusion of Babe Ruth when writing about prolific hitters? His MLB career began home in 1914. Modern era is modern era. Just do it!
Areas that ban concealed carry are known as soft targets. That little sticker (progressive Cardinal Cupich put them up on every Arch property before his formal installation) keeps law abiding citizens from carrying while advertising to potential criminals that they have free range.
Does the *notion* that that a CC *might* be present have an influence?
Google Pulse Nightclub shooting and draw your own conclusions.
That is absolute nonsense. There are low income areas where some feel taking from others is the only way to survive. Crooks are crooks. Concealed is a non- issue. If what you say we're true, there would be virtually no crime on the streets in concealed carry cities. That's not even close to true. I live in a town where crime is close to non-existent and there has been one murder in over forty years. Is it because of concealed carry or because I live in a small town where people simply don't feel the need to rob each other?
Rather than using metal detectors to scan for guns entering schools, which obviously offends a lot of goofy people, we need to go in the other direction and require that all students carry loaded guns to school starting in first grade, with the kindergarten curriculum focusing primarily on weapons training. “Sorry Debbie, sorry Johnnie, but you can’t come in because you forgot to bring your gun to school today.”
We used to have the monthly beat meetings at Sullivan HS in Rogers Park at 7PM. We would just walk in the unlocked doors by the main office & go to the social room for the meetings. There were metal detectors at the door, but of course, no one manned them after hours. I always thought it would be easy for someone to bring guns into the school that way, as we could wander the halls by ourselves at that hour & there was no one there to stop us. So any student who wanted to, could've shown up at night, put the guns in his own locker & brought them out & used them to kill people.
Hey, I like it! If it's that important to the gun nuts, let's put it in the curriculum rather than depending on all the training be done at home where some parents might actually be opposed to armed children. Think about all the space wasted on school sports when we could be erecting target ranges for practice. It could even be considered a cathartic release for disturbed students that might kill targets rather than each other. There us one high school in my area that has a competitive shooting team. There are high schools in rural areas that give students the day off on the first day of deer season. Why should rural kids have all the fun. And of course, just as the NRA keeps telling us law abiding responsible children have just as much right to be armed as the bad, disturbed children. Of course we all believe that all the students would be responsible and that there would be no accidental or playground shootings. You know, Freddie, you convinced me. Where do I sign up to support your cause?
When it comes to conceal and carry, I don't want to think about the mayhem that would result if a good guy and bad guy go at it on a crowded CTA bus or El train.
"The ghastly execution-style slaying of four people sleeping on a CTA Blue Line train early Monday was such a horrific one-off that it should not figure into the debate about concealed carry on trains."
I had to re-read that paragraph just to make sure it wasn't sarcasm. How many times should something like that happen before it should figure into the debate? Should it have been more people shot in order to matter? Would it matter more or less if it more ghastly? I no longer live in Chicago and hadn't heard of this incident, it was nowhere on national news. This is how commonplace this has become in this country. I did hear about the Georgia school shooting yesterday, just days after the start of school year. The coverage is already dying down. "No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" - The Onion, 2014
Separately, "I’m baffled by the Republican attacks suggesting that Harris is not an intelligent person." Sorry to be the one to point it out, this is a dog whistle referring to the age old disgusting racist trope that black people are stupid. Harris' biggest disadvantage is that she mobilizes bigots of all stripes against herself.
That wasn't a "gangland" type of shooting in Forest Park. It was a severely mentally ill man who never should have been out of custody, let alone posses a gun who did it!
I don't think anyone said "gangland". Makes no difference. Measures should be taken to at least attempt to minimize the number of guns in public spaces.
The so-called Founding Fathers made certain parts of the original Constitution vague. Many would say that it gave it the flexibility to adjust with the times. But in the case of the Second Amendment, it totally screwed things up. No one, not the Supreme Court or anyone else, knows just what it means. At the time it was written, a new country, didn't have much of an army. Without citizen soldiers, there would be no United States. So what is the 2024 purpose of this amendment? Most would say protection. The idea that having guns on one's person makes them safer is idiotic. I have heard it said many times that criminals will be wary, not knowing if their potential victim is packing. That is utter nonsense. How many people walk around with their guns in their hands? If a robber pulls a gun you were not expecting, you will be a victim long before you get your gun out. And wary robbers? They rob people to get valuables. If they think they are in danger, they will simply be quicker to shoot victims. How many Chicagoans have already been shot while being robbed? Would they have been safer with a concealed weapon or just shot that much more quickly? Having concealed weapons on public transportation won't make anybody safer. The robbers will still rob. But now riders that have imbibe too much will have an outlet for drunken idiocy. Have a hard day at work, then bump into someone on the train? The rider version of road rage. Get into a spat with the significant other on the bus? Just shoot them. For those defending this on the wording of the Second Amendment? We are not at present being attacked by Redcoats and we have thousands and thousands of military and legal type persons like cops that are supposed to defend us. To me, the only real purpose of carrying is to make carriers feel more powerful. Tradtion? What tradition? The idea of everyone packing in the Old West is a Hollywood inspired myth. East of the Mississippi River, it was rare. So maybe this judge can enlighten us as to what tradition he is referring to. The American public has never been armed to the teeth like it is today. So this "tradition" is pretty new. I am not advocating for the banning of guns by private citizens, a radical scare tactic by the right who would try to convince us that banning or limiting anything is the same as banning all. I know it's like spitting into the wind. But could we at least use some accuracy and truth to guide the issue?
You make an excellent point. What does it mean? In historical content, several parts of the document were written to deal with situations that arose after the French and Indian War and even before. The John Peter Zenger case led to the First Amendment. One couldn't be arrested merely for being critical of the king. The British wanted the colonists to help pay for their own defense and their European issues- whether or not colonists had a say.. The required quartering of British soldiers and the tactics used by soldiers led to other parts of the Bill of Rights. The entire Bill of Rights was basically a reaction to what colonials saw as British indecency. Even after independence was granted, the British, with a heavy presence in Canada, were still seen as a threat as well as a threat to American commerce on the high seas. So thus, the Second Amendment. So what does it mean? Can Americans "bear arms" any time they so desire? Or only when they are acting as part of a militia defending the country? The colonials could not even conceive of assault weapons or automatics such ad machine guns. Does a limitation on one type of weapons mean a limitation or ban on all types? That's what conservatives would have us believe. If assault weapons are banned, can you still own a hunting shotgun or a handgun? Does the amendment mean you can only carry when in defense of the country? It's a vague silly Amendment. Gun rights advocates want the broadest definition possible- rather hypocritical considering the narrow definitions they want when it's something they want abolished. So everyone points to the rulings of the Supreme Court when they don't know any better. We, who believe in the rule of law, might abide by them. But let's face it- on the Second Amendment, the nine holeys don't know any better than the rest of us.
Mark Jacob's "What Journalism Isn't" should be a must read for every political journalist and media organization covering this election. The propaganda press is out of control.
Wendy, yes, the press is out of control and substantially as stenographers for the Democratic Party. There was a poll a month or so ago (I couldn't find it though) that reported coverage of Harris was 91 percent -- 91!!!! -- positive while Trump's was probably 10 or 11 percent positive. We keep hearing about the travesty of Trump going to Arlington -- how dare he politicize sacred ground! -- while ignoring that the families asked him to appear and also asked Biden and Harris, who ignored them. ABC national news publicized Harris' statement about how terrible it was that Trump went to Arlington, and completely ignored videos the family members made in response to Kamala. Members of the media, by and large, are incredibly biased -- toward the Democrats.
I think the press is guilty of attempting to normalize the American right wing. Here are a couple articles that support my position. The first is an article about how the New York Times sanitizes and cleans up Donald Trump’s incoherent word salads, probably not a good idea when covering a 78-year-old Presidential candidate. The other is about how the mainstream press is essentially sanitizing the connection of the MAGA movement to modern-day Naziism.
I don't have any sons but sons resonate in this PS. First, I will never be able to read Rachel Goldberg's words without hearing in my head the broken-hearted final "FINALLY" in her eulogy. Hersh Goldberg-Polin was "the" hostage for my, symbolizing all the others. His execution makes me rage. And second, congrats to your son and his bride-to-be and all of your family! It's wonderful the family will be part of the music-making. Last weekend was the Fox Valley Folk Festival in Geneva -- was Ben there? Were you? Found myself wondering about that last week.
Back when Yahoo chat rooms were a thing in the '90's, a bunch of NRA enthusiasts were asserting that we'd all be safer if there were more guns because, you know, "a good guy with a gun," blah, blah, blah. I asked, "Would we be safer if EVERYONE had a gun, or if no one did?" Not a single one of them answered, or even attempted to answer, the question. Since then every state has been forced to pass a concealed carry law (the "American tradition" that started around, what, the year 2000?). Now our streets are literally flooded with weapons and there really is no turning back. Too bad sleeping passengers and children in classrooms (or even hundreds of cops in Uvalde, Texas) can't actually stop a bad guy with a gun until the damage has been done.
Also consider that there are more gun deaths by suicide than by murder. It does not matter matter how "good" a person is if he struggles with mental health.
Really? In a response to criticism of the NRA wanting more guns on the street? If you really were agreeing with Mary Beth’s argument and adding the suicide info to further it, then my apologies in good faith. That plus the mental health comment, however, are regular defenses of not tightening gun laws.
Mental health problems leading to violence (including suicide) is clearly an argument in *favor* of regulating access to guns. In fact is is often found in city ordinances what a person with documented issues (mental health or intellectual disability) is not allowed to have a gun.
Yes I was adding more support to Mary Beth's conclusion. Arguing on the basis of "good guys vs bad guys" is not relevant to most of the gun deaths.
Guns: I am not gong to take a side on conceal and carry, but given that is the law, I think it is reasonable that privately owned areas which are open to the public, such as stores, and office buildings, can prohibit guns on their premises without having to give a reason. This is the law in Illinois and many other states. It think it is inconsistent to not allow public entities such as schools, transit, and courthouses to do the same.
In this as in a number of cases, as the philosopher Mr. Bumble said, the law is a ass.
I know this is tad off subject, but I never had a desire as a teacher to be packing in the classroom. I suppose there are inner city teachers that if not actually packing, have certainly thought about it. But I think the negatives far outweigh the positive. Does the teacher need to have it on their person at all times? It wouldn't be much good if they didn't. If in the classroom, how do we keep students from getting at them? If students know that a teaching is packing, does that put the teacher in danger from students that want the weapon? Would any such teacher need to undergo police training to know when to pull it out and use it? I can't wait to see the headline "Teacher kills student that only pulled his phone out his pocket." How about "Teacher kills student after student makes threats over his failing grade?" Yes, I know the reasoning is to try and limit the damage in a mass shooting. So when the "lockdown" announcement comes from the office, the teacher is supposed to immediately strap on his "rod" and become an avenging angel? Sorry gun people, but I see a lot more problems than saviors in this, which is probably why I know of no public schools in the world that arm teachers. There are a few countries like Israel, Pakistan, Kenya, and Thailand that have discussed it. They came to the conclusion it was not a good idea. Naturally MAGAs are telling lies. Israel does not require teachers to be armed. And they need it more than we do. We don't have the same level of Arab terrorists running around shooting, kniffng, and throwing bombs. They just didn't decide it was such a hot idea.
By the way, as a substitute, if I ever find out that a teacher anywhere near me is packing, I will report to the office and walk out even if state law allows it. I would worry more about me being shot than a mass shooter.
My mother-in-law is a retired CPS teacher and taught at schools all over the city. I don't think she ever thought carrying a gun would be a good idea.
School shootings seem to always get a large amount of media attention where shootings out in public usually get little to none. I believe that schools are relatively safe. Teachers carrying or active shooter drills are terrible ideas, IMO. Even if either one of those things has an effect of increasing safety in an active shooter scenario, they raise levels of anxiety (which is really bad for little kids) and make people think that it much more likely than it actually is.
Save the childs!! Is it possible that Agent Orange knows the actual definition of "Incredible"?
"The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child. And you know many of these childs, 15 years later, say “What the hell happened? Who did this to me?” — Donald Trump
Why won't the media just come out & admit he's a useless, worthless fucking moron?
It's not their job. First of all, Trump gets bashed every day in articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. They simply don't say it like you did, Garry. Second, it's the job of American voters to make that determination. The ones that vote for him deserve what they get. Don't forget that he only won the first time through the Electoral College.
I am excited everyday to look at baseball scores in the hope of the Sox making history. (I didn't grow up here, I have no affinity for either Chicago team, but also harbor no animosity toward them either, like the way I do for a team like the Yankees)
It's just exciting to keep seeing those loses pile up and new milestones hit. That stat about the being the first team on 59 years to have three losing streaks of 10 or more games then turned into the first time since 1900 a team has three losing streaks of 12 or more games. The historical badness is so great.
American sports rarely has anything interesting going on a the bottom of the standings as a season winds down. One of the fun things about European football is that the system of promotion and relegation means the teams at the bottom of the table still have something to play for and gives the fans something to watch. In America it is only a rare season like this one that you have any reason to look at the bottom of the standings.
And if they hadn't beat the very good O's yesterday they'd be 0-9, on the brink of a FOURTH losing streak of 10 or more. They still have time; I wouldn't put it past them. (Yes, I'm a Sox fan who hasn't been to the park this season, but I'd go if I could.)
Actually, if they had lost that game yesterday it would have extended the third long losing streak they had going to 13 games.
Very true. Although I usually follow them closely, this week got complicated, and I lost track of when I'd last seen their W-L record. My bad! Thanks for the reality check.
As a child, when the Yankees were mentioned in conversation, his comment always, "those damn Yankees".
There aren't enough attacks on that rotten schande & gonnif Reinsdorf for what he's done to the team & his insane attempt to screw the taxpayers out of a second ballpark in less than 35 years, just like his equally inane fellow travelers, the rotten thieving McCaskeys who want to McFuck a second free stadium out of the taxpayers, again, not satisfied with exactly what they wanted 30 some years ago!
Tell us what you really think, lol. I agree completely.
Absolutely agree. Let the billionaires pay for their own friggin' stadia. Leave the taxpayers out of it.
i can't tell if you're being sarcastic - but i laughed at your post regardless.
i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - i, too, hate the yankees.
and i agree with your comparison to european football - american sports, both pro sports & college football - shd have a relegation mechanism - THAT would be a deterrant to tanking.
Not at all sarcastic, I'm genuinely excited about the prospect of witnessing history.
Regarding the Hapless Hose:
* Huzzah! You've earned it.
* Thanks for distinguishing "modern era" from "162-game era" without using "modern" to describe the latter, as the Trib confusingly does. (I'm using "162-game era" for second reference and for clued-in readers.)
* Why take space to explain your inclusion of the 1916 A's when you wouldn't explain your inclusion of Babe Ruth when writing about prolific hitters? His MLB career began home in 1914. Modern era is modern era. Just do it!
* I give up: Why mention 80 years?
Areas that ban concealed carry are known as soft targets. That little sticker (progressive Cardinal Cupich put them up on every Arch property before his formal installation) keeps law abiding citizens from carrying while advertising to potential criminals that they have free range.
Does the *notion* that that a CC *might* be present have an influence?
Google Pulse Nightclub shooting and draw your own conclusions.
That is absolute nonsense. There are low income areas where some feel taking from others is the only way to survive. Crooks are crooks. Concealed is a non- issue. If what you say we're true, there would be virtually no crime on the streets in concealed carry cities. That's not even close to true. I live in a town where crime is close to non-existent and there has been one murder in over forty years. Is it because of concealed carry or because I live in a small town where people simply don't feel the need to rob each other?
Rather than using metal detectors to scan for guns entering schools, which obviously offends a lot of goofy people, we need to go in the other direction and require that all students carry loaded guns to school starting in first grade, with the kindergarten curriculum focusing primarily on weapons training. “Sorry Debbie, sorry Johnnie, but you can’t come in because you forgot to bring your gun to school today.”
We used to have the monthly beat meetings at Sullivan HS in Rogers Park at 7PM. We would just walk in the unlocked doors by the main office & go to the social room for the meetings. There were metal detectors at the door, but of course, no one manned them after hours. I always thought it would be easy for someone to bring guns into the school that way, as we could wander the halls by ourselves at that hour & there was no one there to stop us. So any student who wanted to, could've shown up at night, put the guns in his own locker & brought them out & used them to kill people.
I was always amazed it never happened.
Hey, I like it! If it's that important to the gun nuts, let's put it in the curriculum rather than depending on all the training be done at home where some parents might actually be opposed to armed children. Think about all the space wasted on school sports when we could be erecting target ranges for practice. It could even be considered a cathartic release for disturbed students that might kill targets rather than each other. There us one high school in my area that has a competitive shooting team. There are high schools in rural areas that give students the day off on the first day of deer season. Why should rural kids have all the fun. And of course, just as the NRA keeps telling us law abiding responsible children have just as much right to be armed as the bad, disturbed children. Of course we all believe that all the students would be responsible and that there would be no accidental or playground shootings. You know, Freddie, you convinced me. Where do I sign up to support your cause?
When it comes to conceal and carry, I don't want to think about the mayhem that would result if a good guy and bad guy go at it on a crowded CTA bus or El train.
Remember the "good guy" Bernard Goetz? The "good guy' phrase was coined by the corrupt shill for gun manufacturers and weasely bad guy Wayne LaPierre.
"The ghastly execution-style slaying of four people sleeping on a CTA Blue Line train early Monday was such a horrific one-off that it should not figure into the debate about concealed carry on trains."
I had to re-read that paragraph just to make sure it wasn't sarcasm. How many times should something like that happen before it should figure into the debate? Should it have been more people shot in order to matter? Would it matter more or less if it more ghastly? I no longer live in Chicago and hadn't heard of this incident, it was nowhere on national news. This is how commonplace this has become in this country. I did hear about the Georgia school shooting yesterday, just days after the start of school year. The coverage is already dying down. "No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" - The Onion, 2014
Separately, "I’m baffled by the Republican attacks suggesting that Harris is not an intelligent person." Sorry to be the one to point it out, this is a dog whistle referring to the age old disgusting racist trope that black people are stupid. Harris' biggest disadvantage is that she mobilizes bigots of all stripes against herself.
That wasn't a "gangland" type of shooting in Forest Park. It was a severely mentally ill man who never should have been out of custody, let alone posses a gun who did it!
I don't think anyone said "gangland". Makes no difference. Measures should be taken to at least attempt to minimize the number of guns in public spaces.
Did the suspect have a concealed carry permit? If he didn’t, I don’t see the relevance.
Because we need to debate paperwork, not lives being lost?
I'm not debating your points except one: the shooting on the el was on national news. I was out of town and saw it on either ABC or NBC national news.
Thanks for mentioning it, I missed it
The so-called Founding Fathers made certain parts of the original Constitution vague. Many would say that it gave it the flexibility to adjust with the times. But in the case of the Second Amendment, it totally screwed things up. No one, not the Supreme Court or anyone else, knows just what it means. At the time it was written, a new country, didn't have much of an army. Without citizen soldiers, there would be no United States. So what is the 2024 purpose of this amendment? Most would say protection. The idea that having guns on one's person makes them safer is idiotic. I have heard it said many times that criminals will be wary, not knowing if their potential victim is packing. That is utter nonsense. How many people walk around with their guns in their hands? If a robber pulls a gun you were not expecting, you will be a victim long before you get your gun out. And wary robbers? They rob people to get valuables. If they think they are in danger, they will simply be quicker to shoot victims. How many Chicagoans have already been shot while being robbed? Would they have been safer with a concealed weapon or just shot that much more quickly? Having concealed weapons on public transportation won't make anybody safer. The robbers will still rob. But now riders that have imbibe too much will have an outlet for drunken idiocy. Have a hard day at work, then bump into someone on the train? The rider version of road rage. Get into a spat with the significant other on the bus? Just shoot them. For those defending this on the wording of the Second Amendment? We are not at present being attacked by Redcoats and we have thousands and thousands of military and legal type persons like cops that are supposed to defend us. To me, the only real purpose of carrying is to make carriers feel more powerful. Tradtion? What tradition? The idea of everyone packing in the Old West is a Hollywood inspired myth. East of the Mississippi River, it was rare. So maybe this judge can enlighten us as to what tradition he is referring to. The American public has never been armed to the teeth like it is today. So this "tradition" is pretty new. I am not advocating for the banning of guns by private citizens, a radical scare tactic by the right who would try to convince us that banning or limiting anything is the same as banning all. I know it's like spitting into the wind. But could we at least use some accuracy and truth to guide the issue?
You are exactly right!
The 2nd Amendment is the single worst piece of prose ever written in the English language.
Absolutely no one knows what it actually means, especially with commas in so many strange places, even for 18th Century writers!
You make an excellent point. What does it mean? In historical content, several parts of the document were written to deal with situations that arose after the French and Indian War and even before. The John Peter Zenger case led to the First Amendment. One couldn't be arrested merely for being critical of the king. The British wanted the colonists to help pay for their own defense and their European issues- whether or not colonists had a say.. The required quartering of British soldiers and the tactics used by soldiers led to other parts of the Bill of Rights. The entire Bill of Rights was basically a reaction to what colonials saw as British indecency. Even after independence was granted, the British, with a heavy presence in Canada, were still seen as a threat as well as a threat to American commerce on the high seas. So thus, the Second Amendment. So what does it mean? Can Americans "bear arms" any time they so desire? Or only when they are acting as part of a militia defending the country? The colonials could not even conceive of assault weapons or automatics such ad machine guns. Does a limitation on one type of weapons mean a limitation or ban on all types? That's what conservatives would have us believe. If assault weapons are banned, can you still own a hunting shotgun or a handgun? Does the amendment mean you can only carry when in defense of the country? It's a vague silly Amendment. Gun rights advocates want the broadest definition possible- rather hypocritical considering the narrow definitions they want when it's something they want abolished. So everyone points to the rulings of the Supreme Court when they don't know any better. We, who believe in the rule of law, might abide by them. But let's face it- on the Second Amendment, the nine holeys don't know any better than the rest of us.
Eric, I was going to write a reply concerning your conceal and carry statements (I still may).
But upon reading the complete Sentinel, let me wish your son Ben congrats.
And I think it is very cool that you and family members will supply the wedding music.
I finally had time to listen to the whole video - so cool!! That's surely going to be a VERY fun wedding :-)
Mark Jacob's "What Journalism Isn't" should be a must read for every political journalist and media organization covering this election. The propaganda press is out of control.
Wendy, yes, the press is out of control and substantially as stenographers for the Democratic Party. There was a poll a month or so ago (I couldn't find it though) that reported coverage of Harris was 91 percent -- 91!!!! -- positive while Trump's was probably 10 or 11 percent positive. We keep hearing about the travesty of Trump going to Arlington -- how dare he politicize sacred ground! -- while ignoring that the families asked him to appear and also asked Biden and Harris, who ignored them. ABC national news publicized Harris' statement about how terrible it was that Trump went to Arlington, and completely ignored videos the family members made in response to Kamala. Members of the media, by and large, are incredibly biased -- toward the Democrats.
I think the press is guilty of attempting to normalize the American right wing. Here are a couple articles that support my position. The first is an article about how the New York Times sanitizes and cleans up Donald Trump’s incoherent word salads, probably not a good idea when covering a 78-year-old Presidential candidate. The other is about how the mainstream press is essentially sanitizing the connection of the MAGA movement to modern-day Naziism.
https://newrepublic.com/post/185669/trump-incoherence-new-york-times-ignores
https://steveschmidt.substack.com/p/maga-is-infested-with-nazis
Congratulations to Ben and best wishes to all for a wonderful wedding.
I flinched a little at the placement of the first quote so close to the word "appalling."
I don't have any sons but sons resonate in this PS. First, I will never be able to read Rachel Goldberg's words without hearing in my head the broken-hearted final "FINALLY" in her eulogy. Hersh Goldberg-Polin was "the" hostage for my, symbolizing all the others. His execution makes me rage. And second, congrats to your son and his bride-to-be and all of your family! It's wonderful the family will be part of the music-making. Last weekend was the Fox Valley Folk Festival in Geneva -- was Ben there? Were you? Found myself wondering about that last week.
No, Ben had some out of town gigs and was preparing for his wedding, which went off marvelously!
The White Sox record is so bad they've already been eliminated from playoff contention in the 2025 and 2026 seasons too.
Ouch.
Back when Yahoo chat rooms were a thing in the '90's, a bunch of NRA enthusiasts were asserting that we'd all be safer if there were more guns because, you know, "a good guy with a gun," blah, blah, blah. I asked, "Would we be safer if EVERYONE had a gun, or if no one did?" Not a single one of them answered, or even attempted to answer, the question. Since then every state has been forced to pass a concealed carry law (the "American tradition" that started around, what, the year 2000?). Now our streets are literally flooded with weapons and there really is no turning back. Too bad sleeping passengers and children in classrooms (or even hundreds of cops in Uvalde, Texas) can't actually stop a bad guy with a gun until the damage has been done.
Also consider that there are more gun deaths by suicide than by murder. It does not matter matter how "good" a person is if he struggles with mental health.
Cold comfort and often used as a deflection. Easier access to guns means greater likelihood of unnecessary death.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
Yeah. That was my point.
Really? In a response to criticism of the NRA wanting more guns on the street? If you really were agreeing with Mary Beth’s argument and adding the suicide info to further it, then my apologies in good faith. That plus the mental health comment, however, are regular defenses of not tightening gun laws.
Mental health problems leading to violence (including suicide) is clearly an argument in *favor* of regulating access to guns. In fact is is often found in city ordinances what a person with documented issues (mental health or intellectual disability) is not allowed to have a gun.
Yes I was adding more support to Mary Beth's conclusion. Arguing on the basis of "good guys vs bad guys" is not relevant to most of the gun deaths.
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
I know. My son was one of those who used a gun to kill himself. You are absolutely right, and it's terrifying, isn't it?
I am so sorry.
Thank you <3
Oh my. Awful. So sorry.
Thank you so much. His name was Erik and he was amazing. I hope your son, Ben's, wedding was a wonderful family celebration for all of you!
So, Eric, how many games of the No-No White Sox have you attended in peson this year? My count is 1.
Zero, but we're planning to go next week to witness a bit of potential history.
Hah! It’ll just be your luck that they’ll win that day.
They won the only game I went to this year, but that was back in June.