Skip to main content

Gun drawing in Etch-a-Sketch
Quick backstory: We have a special election at the end of the month in the Indigo-Blue, Chicago-based Illinois 2nd Congressional District. Despite Chicago's soaring gun violence, two of the three serious Democrats in the race have received "A" ratings from the NRA, while we have endorsed the one who got the "F"—Robin Kelly.

Goal ThermometerThe NRA is certainly excited about getting a potential "1/435th" of a House vote from this district, and they should be. No way in hell should a gun-zealot Democrat be elected here. And at least one of those two candidates, Toi Hutchison, has realized it. Now, she's trying to pull a Mitt Romney.

Hutchinson maintained that Kelly was running "a single-issue campaign" and trying to score "more political points" marketing the state senator's gun-rights positions "as though they're the positions that I have right now. And, I'm saying very clearly I'm moderating my positions."
She now brags about co-sponsoring two key gun control bills in the state legislature, so when did this actually happen? Thanks to Illinois blogger Archpundit, we know exactly when: Jan. 29, 2013.

As in last week.

Last session–nada. Kotowski had bills up to require all private sales with family exceptions have to undergo a background check, make it illegal to purchase a 50 caliber rifle, and make it illegal to sell a gun to a gang member. Munoz had the assault weapons ban last session as well.

Evolving views happen, but some are just too convenient especially when Hutchinson was so absent on even basic common sense changes. Hutchinson saying she is doing something now is nothing more than looking around and realizing she is toast with the NRA hung around her neck.

Robin Kelly
Robin Kelly
Exactly. You don't claim a conversion when as recently as last year you refused to sign on to legislation banning the sale of .50 caliber weapons for chrissakes (much less arming gang members)! Hutchison was proud to fill out NRA endorsement questionnaires and take their money when it was convenient for her to do so. She claims Sandy Hook changed her mind, but she ignored the 500 killed in her own backyard in 2012 alone. Unconscionable.

Join the nearly 2,500 Daily Kos community members who have already given to Robin Kelly, the only serious candidate in this race to have gotten an "F" rating from the NRA, because that's who should be rewarded.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Universal Background Checks! (11+ / 0-)

    Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com. Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

    by DemSign on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:34:31 AM PST

    •  I doubt Mr. LaPierre ever believed a (0+ / 0-)

      reliable, workable background check apparatus could be put in place or that it would be used.  And so far that supposition has turned out to be correct.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:06:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm more cynical than that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Faito, SueDe

        I think he believes it CAN work, but that if he supports universal background checks, he will lose his job.

        There's a nutty theory out there that UBCs will create a de facto registry that will lead to confiscation and tyranny. The people who believe this nutty theory are probably ready to mount a challenge to the NRA leadership, either at the next election or by doing away with the NRA entirely in favor of the GOA or similar groups.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:42:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SueDe

          It's not the nuttiest conspiracy theory out there.  The United Kingdom started on its long path towards outlawing guns right after World War I, and one of the first things they did is to require gun certificates in 1920, thus establishing a de facto national registry, which they used over the subsequent decades to aid confiscation of specific firearms as they were made illegal in turn.

          It's not 9/11-truther or Roswell abduction level if it's actually happened before, is all I'm saying.

  •  what happened to politicians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    litho, JML9999

    being scared to stand up to the NRA? To NRA being able to get their members out to defeat the anti-gun candidate?

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:35:48 AM PST

    •  It's all about the money. But we REFUSE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago

      to put due pressure on our federal politicians for proper election finance reform...and we allowed the 'corporations are people' precedent to stay long enough that it established Citizen's United...a not-awesome but correctly-decided case.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We "allowed" corporations being people? How? (0+ / 0-)

        Citizen's United was a reach. It was a case easily resolved on narrower grounds. A fragile and zealous SCOTUS majority labored hard to decide that case as it did, convoluting its reasoning to reach the biggest possible question and in the process, arrogating to itself legislative powers.

        We the people didn't have anything to do with that reprehensible decision or the grounds for it.

        Election finance reform, like other important election- and campaign-oriented issues, touches The Elected like live wires. Public financing - with expenditures ostensibly limited to the raid on the public trough - is a chimera. Meaningful reform in this polarized climate, such as a legislative reversal of Citizens United without a Democratic House majority is highly unlikely.

        As for the NRA, don't bet for a moment that it has been weakened, or that the tide has turned on pols changing their minds on gun issues. A majority of states are Red and a majority of districts are Red. The NRA and its handmaidens know very well how to get the attention of Senators and congresspeople in those areas.

        What can We the People do on gun controls? Pile on people from back home - constituents, perhaps accompanied by luminary advocates like Mark Kelly - who can show constituent support for gun regulation. Nothing else is going to get us meaningful gun reform legislation.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:44:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Beyond that (0+ / 0-)

      the implied threat that displeasing the NRA (or other avowed gun distribution proponents) increases one's risk of being targeted for gun violence.

      •  I think that's FUD (0+ / 0-)

        Undeniably there's crazy idiots out there, but it's a stretch to say that they're part of the NRA's message to politicians.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:55:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL! It's the whole message (0+ / 0-)

          "keep tyranny at bay"....how do you parse that?

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:39:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And it doesn't help when GOP House & Senate (0+ / 0-)

            leaders are echoing the panicky call to arms that 'Obama is coming to take your guns away! And prevent you from defending yourselves against tyranny!' in their frequent mass media statements.  

            They are also pushing the meme that people are now on their own to be their own first line of defence, to defend themselves against armed criminals who don't care about gun laws or the thinned police force.  What's curious to me is how law enforcement seems lately to be folding in their messages along with this. The expectation being set seems to be that 'everyone' has to prepare for lawlessness in society to break out anywhere, anytime, and that we cannot presume we are ever truly safe, or that this could possibly improve anytime soon.

            In Wisconsin, we have the now controversial head of Milwaukee's Police Ed Flynn telling people to go out and buy guns to protect themselves and their homes because the city police just aren't likely to ever get there in time. And there's been increasing citizen complaints about long to never 911 response times to theft, robbery (where perp is already fled, etc.).  To be fair, he also has made some sensible observations and complaints about WI Concealed Carry laws being too liberal. He pointed out that carrying a gun without the CCL never seems to rise above a misdemeanor in WI or Milwaukee, and he partly blames on how the justice system is handling things (very high use of plea deals) along with the lack of follow-through by the state legislature to tighten the laws to prevent gun ownership for those charged with felonies but who plea out. No one will argue that trying to make do with less than 2,000 police officers for a city of 600,000 isn an easy job. But funding for beat officers who respond to 911 calls seems to be getting reduced, rather than increased, especially where the GOP controls the purse strings.

            In parallel to Milwauke, we see Chicago's police chief has indicated they are now focusing on patrols, and aren't going to respond to 911 calls where there isn't an active criminal posing a threat on the scene. I guess you can still run down to the local cop shop to file a complaint if someone is available to take it. In other news, the Chicago police union is seeking a 12% raise and other benefit improvements. (We'll see how Mayor Rahm Emanuel deals with this, versus, for instance, his handling of the city's school teachers.)

            So the public is feeling lots of pressure to arm themselves against random threats, which their police departments confirm as very real, and they are confirming that they cannot hope to respond in real time.

            I don't hear the police and politicians also pushing for all these new gun owners to get safety & maintenance training, along with the training and practice to develop competancy with the weapon, or pass any certification tests. (Or perhaps do something truly productive longterm and working with City Council alderman, and Neighborhood Watch programs, and state representatives--fat chance with GOP control--to get the resources in place that would better help to deter people taking up a life of crime in the first place.  If there were enough full-time jobs, let alone better living-wage jobs, perhaps we'd have a good deal less people taking on the risks of burglary, home invasions, robbery, theft, prostitution, or trying to escape reality via drugs, etc.)

            I have a real concern above about these people being scared into purchasing handguns not being encouraged enough to seek instruction and good training with their new deadly weapons, especially after visiting a gun range this month.  I was seeing a lot of people with their new easily concealed 9mm and .380 semi-automatic handguns eagerly trying them out, apparently without benefit of basic instruction. It was dismaying to see these novice shooters run their large people ('perp') sized paper targets out to 5 meters (16 feet away, in good lighting, non-moving targets), and see lots of rapid firing (easily blowing through $30 to $100 of ammo), and then see them reel in the results--tattered targets coming back in covered edge to edge with non-clustered holes, not necessarily with enough holes to account for total shots fired--clear indications of lack of training, lack of a good gun hold, lack of disciplined aim. To me it looked like they are acting like the heros they see in movie and TV shows--blasting away to vanquish their foes.  And these are the new gun owners who were convinced it's a good idea to do the 'responsible thing' and come in and practice once or twice.  These are the people likely to get their Concealed Carry licenses where they'll fire 100 rounds in the course of their training...sounds like a lot, but that's no where near enough to reliably put shots inside the lowest scoring rings of their targets.

            Personally, I don't feel even the strongest gun ownership advocates should want these new citizen armies of novice shooters, obviously lacking the basics of good aim control, lacking the training to exercise good judgment or evem tp understand their own flaws, and now packing concealed weapons in their public places, especially schools and churches. If they have trouble even hitting the paper with a human shaped target on it at 15 feet, no one should want them drawing their gun to fend off any criminal, especially if other humans are around.  If any of these ill-trained citizen warriors were to draw and fire at an armed criminal from within a group, that criminal will likely not be disabled or taken down, butt instead will be provoked to fire hastily back in the direction of that group where those shots came from, perhaps while fleeing--and such 'fire fights' wll endanger the surrounding public even more.

            When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

            by antirove on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:17:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  That's an amazing Etch-A-Sketch! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thomask, vcmvo2

    says someone who was happy he figured out how to draw a curve on one when he was a kid...

    Oh, yeah... Go Robin Kelly!

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:41:07 AM PST

  •  The .50 cal thing is kind of a red herring. (8+ / 0-)

    I have a .50 caliber handgun. It's pretty much useless for anything but hunting large game and it's a safe queen. And if you're talking about the .50BMG cartridge only, then wouldn't you also need to worry about the .416 Barret or the .408 Cheytac? Banning one specific caliber or one specific cartridge means you get the .499BMG.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:42:02 AM PST

    •  Agree that the 50 cal legislation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter

      is kind of a red herring. But that doesn't change the fact that she voted against it and arming gang members also. But, as ridiculous as it is, it will nevertheless serve to significantly reduce her chances at winning this election.

      •  Well, if the legislation is bad, why (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai, meagert, VectorScalar, FrankRose

        would voting against it BE bad?

        I'm talking specifically about the .50 cal legislation. Who wants to arm gang members?

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:03:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is a vote against gun control (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          that I don't think the besieged people of that Chicago district are going to parse very carefully.  Agree that it is a narrow and mostly useless bill but the people in general, will not care about the specifics.

          The author of the diary puts the following in block quotes:

          Last session–nada. Kotowski had bills up to require all private sales with family exceptions have to undergo a background check, make it illegal to purchase a 50 caliber rifle, and make it illegal to sell a gun to a gang member. Munoz had the assault weapons ban last session as well.
          My emphasis with the bold text.  

          The diarist seems to imply that Hutchinson voted against the "50 cal bill" but it is not really clear from the diary as I read it whether Hutchinson actually voted against the "gang" bill.

          •  One has to keep in mind (0+ / 0-)

            It's nearly impossible to win an office in Chicago without a demonstrated record of being rabidly anti-gun. Even if the legislation is complete garbage, it helps your case.

            Yes, this is stupid.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:57:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Banning sales to gang members? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            meagert, FrankRose, happymisanthropy

            If that is really the way that legislation is worded, I have huge problems with it.  How do you define a "gang member"?  Do motorcycle clubs count?  What if it's a group that doesn't have gang in the name of it?  What if "gang" is defined as a group of people engaged in illegal activities -- in which case you couldn't sell to any employees of most nationwide banks?

            The point is, it's already illegal to sell to a felon.  It's already illegal to buy a gun for someone else.  Both of these acts are felonies and already have strict consequences.  What's the point of adding a stupidly worded law on top of it?

            And you just know that "gang member" is going to be interpreted in the most racist way possible by police, and in practice will generally just mean anyone of color living in the hood.

            •  Which is the reason GC started (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CydeWeys, happymisanthropy

              Keep arms away from the African American man.

              "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

              by meagert on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:15:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  More Complicated (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PsychoSavannah

              "Course or pattern of criminal activity" means 2 or more gang-related criminal offenses committed in whole or in part within this State when:
                      (1) at least one such offense was committed after the

              effective date of this Act;
                      (2) both offenses were committed within 5 years of

              each other; and
                      (3) at least one offense involved the solicitation to

              commit, conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or commission of any offense defined as a felony or forcible felony under the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012.
                  "Course or pattern of criminal activity" also means one or more acts of criminal defacement of property under Section 21-1.3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, if the defacement includes a sign or other symbol intended to identify the streetgang.
                  "Designee of State's Attorney" or "designee" means any attorney for a public authority who has received written permission from the State's Attorney to file or join in a civil action authorized by this Act.
                  "Public authority" means any unit of local government or school district created or established under the Constitution or laws of this State.
                  "State's Attorney" means the State's Attorney of any county where an offense constituting a part of a course or pattern of gang-related criminal activity has occurred or has been committed.
                  "Streetgang" or "gang" or "organized gang" or "criminal street gang" means any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or other similar conjoining, in law or in fact, of 3 or more persons with an established hierarchy that, through its membership or through the agency of any member engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity.
                  For purposes of this Act, it shall not be necessary to show that a particular conspiracy, combination, or conjoining of persons possesses, acknowledges, or is known by any common name, insignia, flag, means of recognition, secret signal or code, creed, belief, structure, leadership or command structure, method of operation or criminal enterprise, concentration or specialty, membership, age, or other qualifications, initiation rites, geographical or territorial situs or boundary or location, or other unifying mark, manner, protocol or method of expressing or indicating membership when the conspiracy's existence, in law or in fact, can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other competent evidence. However, any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate, in law or in fact, the existence of or membership in any conspiracy, confederation, or other association described herein, or probative of the existence of or membership in any such association, shall be admissible in any action or proceeding brought under this Act.
                  "Streetgang member" or "gang member" means any person who actually and in fact belongs to a gang, and any person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with a course or pattern of gang-related criminal activity, whether in a preparatory, executory, or cover-up phase of any activity, or who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity.
                  "Streetgang related" or "gang-related" means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit, or undertaking directed by, ordered by, authorized by, consented to, agreed to, requested by, acquiesced in, or ratified by any gang leader, officer, or governing or policy-making person or authority, or by any agent, representative, or deputy of any such officer, person, or authority:
                      (1) with the intent to increase the gang's size,

              membership, prestige, dominance, or control in any geographical area; or
                      (2) with the intent to provide the gang with any

              advantage in, or any control or dominance over any criminal market sector, including but not limited to, the manufacture, delivery, or sale of controlled substances or cannabis; arson or arson-for-hire; traffic in stolen property or stolen credit cards; traffic in prostitution, obscenity, or pornography; or that involves robbery, burglary, or theft; or
                      (3) with the intent to exact revenge or retribution

              for the gang or any member of the gang; or
                      (4) with the intent to obstruct justice, or

              intimidate or eliminate any witness against the gang or any member of the gang; or
                      (5) with the intent to otherwise directly or

              indirectly cause any benefit, aggrandizement, gain, profit or other advantage whatsoever to or for the gang, its reputation, influence, or membership.
              (Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

            •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

              didn't we just denounce Wayne for saying gang members ought to be locked up?

              the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

              by happymisanthropy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:17:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  We'll do anything except fix the problems (5+ / 0-)

       Inner city poverty, Drug wars,and crime, Single Payer/Mental Health, and suicide, inadequately funded legislation, and Government agencies,etc.
       The real issues are too hard to address. Much easier and cheaper to push  Laws that have little chance of doing what they are supposedly designed for, little chance of passing in the current political reality, and pushing away those single issue voters in tossup districts that we need to increase our Democratic numbers. Running on a gun control platform in an already blue district does not increase Democratic influence in the House. It only makes for a contested Primary fight.
       As a side note, Markos should give some consultation to his candidate. A diary posted by her yesterday was basically a one issue diary, and she did not participate in the comment threads. Drive-by diaries are fine according to the rules, but without participation, I wonder how effective they are. Not to mention a diary in support of the candidate has been up for several hours now, with no comments. I'm not sure what that says.
       

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:02:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's not what gun control is about (9+ / 0-)

      Gun control isn't truly about preventing gun violence, it's about banning guns.  The only good gun to some folk is a banned gun.  First they'll come for the easy ones to ban (like "assault weapons" or ones chambered in large-caliber cartridges), then once those are banned, they'll continue on.  They're just going for the low-hanging fruit first to establish a pattern that banning certain kinds is OK, which then makes it easier to ban certain other kinds farther down the road.

      This site has become really hard for me to stomach reading in the past two months because of this trend, even though I hew to the party line in every other regard.

      •  And hey, no one can say you JUST joined (5+ / 0-)

        because of the gun control push...

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:04:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're wrong about support for gun control (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        being about banning guns rather than preventing - or at least minimizing - gun violence.  The NRA (not necessarily individual gun owners) have pushed reasonable gun regulation completely out of the picture over the past few decades.  There is no argument that this country is swimming in guns - unregistered, unregulated, untrackable and unexamined for use in general society.

        You can blame the people now seeking regulation on the sale of guns if you're of a mind to, but the true culprits are the people gun owners have allowed to speak for them over the years - people who have completely gutted any firearm regulation at all.  Indeed those who claim to speak for gun owners have championed the  arming of the paranoid and anti-social among us so they may finally have a feeling of power by wielding as many firearms as they can buy or steal - while the carnage continues.

        You can't reasonably accuse those who favor gun regulation now of being extremists while the real extremists have controlled the gun debate in this country for decades.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:39:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, so why isn't there a push for a ban (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, FrankRose

          on the firearms which are used in the most homicides by a vast margin (handguns) instead of 'assault weapons' [rifles] which is a very very very small amount of homicides?

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:41:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heller and McDonald... (5+ / 0-)

            ...make a handgun ban impossible, that's why.

            Not that it matters. Chicago had a handgun ban on the books for decades. Fat lot of good it did.

            What we really need are universal background checks and other mechanisms to slow down the movement of guns into the hands of gangbangers. The gang members who end up with these guns are by and large either kids or convicted criminals, prohibited from owning guns either way. If you have gun trafficking laws with teeth and enforce them, you can have a huge impact on violent crime in Chicago.

            I think this effort of Kos to stick it in the NRA's eye is counterproductive. What would be better is to pressure all three candidates to endorse universal background checks and anti-trafficking laws

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:05:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Its politics (0+ / 0-)

              The NRA for years has (for obvious reasons) opposed many Democratic legislators.

              People, see Sandy Hook as an opportunity to damage a political opponent and are doing so as best they can.

              "Never let a good crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

              •  Congratulations. (0+ / 0-)

                Their membership and monies have grown.
                I would desperately love for a Democratic rival to come into being to supplant their influence. Mr Soros, are you listening?

                "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                by meagert on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:37:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I just read an NRA "alert" that (0+ / 0-)

        said the exact same thing, almost word for word.

        Man.

        David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

        by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:02:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  .50 caliber weapons? (9+ / 0-)
    You don't claim a conversion when as recently as last year you refused to sign on to legislation banning the sale of .50 caliber weapons for chrissakes (much less arming gang members)!
    What exactly is the point of a ban on .50 caliber weapons?  Can you even point to one crime committed with them?  Gun control policy is so nonsensical nowadays -- and you wonder why it doesn't have broad and deep support?
    •  I was wondering when I read that; did someone (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, meagert, VectorScalar

      commandeer (sp?) a humvee with mounted gun and start blasting someone?

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:01:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because snipers can take out someone at 1 mile (0+ / 0-)

      M107 .50 Caliber Long Range Sniper Rifle (LRSR)
      Maximum Effective Range: 2,000 yd = 1 mile+

    •  What is the point to opposing it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter

      Can you point to one gun death from a gun that was not there to be used? True gun control can not be achieved if we always focus on reasons not to do it.

      Gun control does have deep and broad support.

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter, Inland

      Here

      There are several.  

      •  Fair enough (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        meagert, KVoimakas, CydeWeys, FrankRose

        So we ban .50 BMG and other calibers are still used.

        Ban those as well?

        Or do we write a more effective law classifying anything that can blow through a manhole cover as a Class III firearm?

        This is why not knowing how guns work is detrimental. You end up writing silly, stupid laws that have nowhere near the intended effect.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:08:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  At least ban (0+ / 0-)

          Those calibers based off the 50 caliber and specifically designed for sniper use.  

          •  Too vague (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, FrankRose

            This is another thing that pisses me off about falsely so called "common sense gun legislation."

            I can't quantify "designed for sniper use." It's so vague and broad that it could apply to any common hunting arm.

            "Blows through a manhole cover" OTOH can be translated into clear, quantifiable, measurable criteria: Joules, Newton-meters, Pascals, at a given distance. The NRA's base may not like it, but there's no question that the law will do exactly as it is intended to do.

            Again: not knowing what we're talking about leads to silly and stupid.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:32:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun Nerdgasm (0+ / 0-)

              There's nothing that pisses me off more than little boys thinking guns are fun toys they get exclusive province over them because of their obsession with them.

              Use muzzle velocity.  Use range.  Use whatever--just stop pretending that it's unreasonable to restrict firearms that have two uses--killing people and giving nerds something to salivate over.  

              •  What I'm hearing is: (4+ / 0-)

                ...that you're not interested in feedback to make better laws, because "fuck you."

                This is precisely why there's very little common ground to be reached.

                ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                My Blog
                My wife's woodblock prints

                by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:48:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hear whatever you want (0+ / 0-)

                  But what I'm saying is that people who are gun nerds have no special province over the regulation of them. Because you get off on them doesn't mean everyone else has to cater to your hobby.  

                  •  Is everything sexual with you? (5+ / 0-)
                    Because you get off on them
                    Because something gives you a stiffy
                    specifics to get off on

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:55:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So... (4+ / 0-)

                    ...if that's your attitude about it, why on Earth should I or anyone else who knows better respect your opinion on the matter? Just because you're Internet Famous and happen to have an opinion that is fashionable to express at the time? Please.

                    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                    My Blog
                    My wife's woodblock prints

                    by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:55:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why Should I Respect Your Opinion? (0+ / 0-)

                      Because you have a weird obsession and thinks it makes everyone else's opinion worthless?

                      Gun nuts dismiss everyone else by trying to get technical on every bit of firearm trivia and make people feel stupid for not knowing everything about a firearm--something that's kind of ridiculous to insist on given guns aren't an everyday tool for anyone, but the military and police.  

                      I've suggested other measures and no one responded--the only defense of 50 calibers are

                      A) other guns are similar
                      B) they are just hunting rifles
                      C) they are fun

                      We restrict many kinds of firearms already.  Why not long range sniper rifles above 3000 ft/second?  Or some other rate.  You aren't serious about a discussion of anything that might make sense-- you just want to play with your toys and make fun of those not gun nerds as being simpleminded fools.  

                      It's a bad strategy because that is how far more restrictive laws will eventually come down.  

                      •  Because they, like 'assault weapons' are used in (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        happymisanthropy, andalusi

                        an extremely small fraction of shootings.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:04:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Reading is fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                        You might want to look back up this thread. I proposed a perfectly reasonable set of criteria for banning rifles that might be considered too powerful for civilian use. At first I thought you were pissed off because you were ignorant. Now I'm seeing that you're pissed off because I bruised your ego.

                        Again, not impressive.

                        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                        My Blog
                        My wife's woodblock prints

                        by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:11:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Except (0+ / 0-)

                          I argued muzzle velocity was another way as well.  My ego isn't bruised.  I'm just baffled by the nerdgasm you all have over firearms.  You aren't trying to help everyone come up with better laws, you are belittling them and acting like they are beneath you because they don't know  every technical detail of a firearm.  

                          That's a problem for you, not me.

                      •  Still no sensible way to ban "sniping" (4+ / 0-)
                        Gun nuts dismiss everyone else by trying to get technical on every bit of firearm trivia and make people feel stupid for not knowing everything about a firearm--something that's kind of ridiculous to insist on given guns aren't an everyday tool for anyone, but the military and police.  
                        No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.
                        Why not long range sniper rifles above 3000 ft/second?
                        You don't seem to understand what makes a sniper rifle a sniper rifle.  It's the accuracy.  Sniper rifles do not inherently have higher velocities than "other" kinds of rifles.  Hell, the .50 BMG, which is a very popular bogeyman of the anti-gun crowd, only has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps, which makes it very pedestrian, and comparable with most hunting rounds except the magnum rounds, which completely outclass it in terms of velocity.

                        What are you going to do, ban well-made rifles that are accurate?  You realize that's what every hunting rifle aspires to be as well?  Are you also going to ban people who "shoot too well"?  Acquiring a good rifle is the easy part.  The hard part is knowing how to shoot it, especially at long range.  A good shooter with a mediocre gun is much more effective than a mediocre shooter with the best gun imaginable.  It's the training and experience, more than anything else, that count.  And your common thugs that are the cause of most gun violence do not have said training.

                        •  Nerdgasms are Unattractive (0+ / 0-)

                          ===No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.

                          And once again, the gun nerds only get to make the rules.  You are making my point perfectly.  Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  

                          You are arguing against strawmen arguments and then expect your critiques to be taken seriously.  The thing is, you aren't serious about making good regulations, you just want to whine about how cool guns are and anyone who disagrees is an idiot not worthy of the discussion.  

                          •  haha. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CydeWeys, andalusi
                            Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  
                            Especially deadly firearms that aren't used to kill people at any appreciable rate. Yes, let's limit them now! You do realize you look kinda silly on this point right? It's like someone saying "Let's ban especially fast cars that never get driven!"

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:28:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            That's the principal thing I've been arguing with him about, and he Just Doesn't Get It.  He's focusing on all the wrong things.  Maybe if he focused on things that are actually being used to commit crimes in any appreciable numbers then I'd be able to take him more seriously, but he's not.

                          •  I Have To Go (0+ / 0-)

                            But let's leave the three of you with something--notice that everyone just left and ignored you?  Why do you think that is?

                            Your super intellects won the argument and everyone shut-up?  

                            Or you started hounding people and so they had better things to do than listen to fanboys talk about their guns?

                            This is a pretty classic interaction with the average gun nerd.  Gun nerds come in and talk down to everyone--no one listens to them, and they go on about their business while the gun nerds puff out their chest about how stupid everyone is, but them.

                            Is that effective?  

                          •  Guess you should ignore us from now on then? nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            meagert

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:31:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You were the one who took up everyone's time (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            Your flurry of comments were designed to be responded to. You just don't like the responses.
                             We were concentrating on the Diarists points concerning the candidate. You on the other hand wanted to distract from that conversation. Well done, again.
                             

                            "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                            by meagert on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:34:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't need to understand the difference (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          meagert

                          if you intend to come back and ban the rest of them later.

                          the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                          by happymisanthropy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Lots more misunderstandings here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                You seem to be under the misunderstanding that military-purpose firearms are in general more powerful than civilian-purpose firearms.  This is not true.  Military firearms are only designed for shooting man-sized animals.  Some hunting rifles are designed for shooting at much larger animals, and are correspondingly more powerful.  Some of the big magnum hunting rounds have very high muzzle velocities, very long ranges, etc., and are yet absolutely necessary for certain hunting purposes like taking brown/grizzly bears.

                If you banned cartridges above a certain velocity you'd be banning mostly varmint cartridges anyway (such as .204 Ruger, .22-250 Remington, or .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum).  Varmint cartridges need to be extremely high velocity because you're shooting at very small, easily-frightened targets (pest animals such as prarie dogs, ground hogs, nutria, etc.) at long range, and the quicker your round gets there the less it will be deflected by wind and gravity, so the more accurate the shot.

                Extremely high velocity rounds aren't nearly as useful against human-sized targets because human-sized targets are much larger, and there are lots of drawbacks to extremely high velocity rounds that make them unsuitable for many other situations, such as short barrel life.

                Long story short, you would propose to ban or set regulations on something without knowing the first thing about it.  You wouldn't let Republicans get away with it when they try to make the day-after pill unobtainable because it's "abortion", so why should we let you get away with it in this situation?

                Exactly how many lives would your purported "sniper" ban save anyway?  Do you have any idea how few people are killed in truly sniper situations outside of warfare?  Even the DC Beltway "sniper" was just using a regular AR-15, at ranges much less than what every single soldier and marine routinely train at -- and the common rifleman is not a sniper, and does not have a sniper rifle.

          •  Arch - they will say ANYTHING to (0+ / 0-)

            keep anything from ever happening.  While rkba members on this site swear up and down that they are not "NRA-types", every single one of their talking points shows up in the NRA "alerts" that are sent out....almost word for word too.  Uncanny!  Give it up and just work around them.  There are a lot more people who want something done than don't.

            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

            by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:05:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wonder if any of the people reccing your comment (0+ / 0-)

          would actually say "yes" to this question:

          Or do we write a more effective law classifying anything that can blow through a manhole cover as a Class III firearm?
          There's probably destructive capacities that can be objectively measured, but the problem is, it's the destructive capacities that give gun enthusiasts the thrill and make them refuse to agree to limit them.

          Not to mention the people who insist that they are members of a (very disorganized) militia or need firepower to battle the federal government's potential tyranny.  Why would they give up a weapon just because it can down an attack helicopter?  That's why they would want it.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:51:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kinda (0+ / 0-)

            Your second paragraph is more accurate than the first. Then again, I don't get much of a thrill from guns. To me, they're useful tools.

            Also, I wouldn't choose a .50 BMG rifle to stop an aircraft. A machine gun, yes, but not a semiautomatic rifle, regardless of the power of that round. The use case for something like that is to blow a hole through an engine block or a tank tread.

            They might not like the idea of turning such devices into Class III firearms, but IMO the case to do so is compelling. If they want to own one, they can go through the paperwork and get their $200 tax stamp. I doubt you'll see too many people push back. The case to do this is, IMO, much more compelling than the case for Feinstein's bill.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:17:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not the best list (4+ / 0-)

        The vast majority of those aren't .50 caliber firearms being used in a crime, they just happened to be contraband.  Yes, .50 caliber guns can be stolen and sold just like any other kind of gun, or they can be owned by people that then go on to commit other crimes that makes them ineligible to own guns (just like any other kind of gun).  Nothing there is making a case to specifically target those guns for a ban.

        Anyway, the Barrett M82, the .50 caliber rifle most commonly targeted by legislation, weighs 30 pounds unloaded and unscoped, is nearly five feet long, and each loaded magazine weighs an additional 4 pounds.  It's unwieldy to a degree that you won't even understand until you hold one (or try to; most people aren't physically strong enough to wield one).  And it costs $10,000.  It's simply not useful in crime.  It's the Lamborghini of the firearms world.  Anyone trying to ban them has a serious case of misplaced priorities.  You know what would save more lives than banning .50 caliber guns?  Donating $50 to purchase malaria nets in Africa.

        •  So why ban an RPG (0+ / 0-)

          They are expensive, would be a lot of fun to shoot, and are often contraband?

          Because something gives you a stiffy isn't an excuse for keeping it legal.  We restrict all sorts of weapons that are military grade not because they would be used often, but because they achieve a level of dangerousness with very little other use other than 'having fun.'

  •  One issue alone doesn't warrant an endorsement (4+ / 0-)

    or a donation.

    But that's just me.

  •  About "illegal to sell to a gang member" (7+ / 0-)

    I would like to know how this policy could ever be enforced without being blatent racial discrimination.

    First, if a person was accused and convicted of a felony, and confessed gang affiliation at that time, then that information can be put into a background check database.  But then the ban on a gun purchase would be for the felony conviction, not just the gang affiliation.

    But for those not convicted of any crime, how does one prove with certainty that person is a gang member?  Because they live in the wrong neighborhood?  Because the shop owner doesn't like the way they dress or speak?  Because they have black or brown skin?

    And what is the statue of limitations on being a gang member?  Once a gang member, always a gang member?  Does falling in with the wrong crowd but then leaving that crowd strip us of our Constitutional rights forever?

    I would really like to know how "illegal to sell to a gang member" won't simply translate to "illegal to sell to minorities".

  •  Chicago area being bombarded with anti-Halvorson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, VectorScalar

    ads in recent weeks.

    Supposedly these are being paid for by Bloomberg's super PAC.

    Halvorson is now making a stink about NY City Mayor Bloomberg wanting to buy an election in Illinois.  

    You can't really argue with that logic, especially if you think the NRA is trying to do exactly the same thing.

    Halvorson's "beware of meddling outsiders" tactic may work, especially considering it is from New York City.  Bloomberg's NY City nanny-state antics are a joke here in Illinois.

    This race could get interesting, considering at last count there were 17 people running in the Dem primary.

    I don't live in the 2nd District, but I would have to say Halvorson will probably win this, given her name recognition and the crowded field.  Kelly has no one of note backing her.  Hutchinson has Cook County President Preckwinkle behind her and dozens of pastors on the south side.  And if the African American vote is split, Halvorson will get the win.

    Like I said.. should be interesting!

  •  Good! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArchPundit

    Out the two-face.  We do NOT need any more crappy gun lobby hacks in office.

    Slightly ot/:

    Sen. Dan Kotowski rocks!  There are many reasons he became active in public life and sought to become a public servant.  Supporting common sense gun control legislation is one of those reasons.  So, if you're an Illinoisan, give him a look and give him your support.

    /ot

    :)

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:19:08 AM PST

  •  It makes no difference. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skookum

    Give it .5 seconds and the gun zealots here will be here cherry picking every argument to get the results they want anyway.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:13:39 AM PST

  •  In stock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meagert

    THis reminds me, local gun shop finally got some AR-15s in stock, I 'm gonna go get one.

  •  She signed on to gun control bills way earlier... (0+ / 0-)

    ...than you say.

    She signed on to HB 815 (assault weapons) on 1/7/2013 in the previous General Assembly. See the version as it was amended in Senate Amendment 1.

    http://www.ilga.gov/...

    Likewise HB1263 (high capacity and high caliber clips):

    http://www.ilga.gov/...

    As amended in Senate Amendment 7.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site