Don, the truth is the truth no matter who says it and we have to be intellectually honest enough to accept the truth and we should be able to speak the truth without it being totally misconstrued.
Certainly, I agree.
I have never once dismissed the need for self defense in the rest of the state, I have merely pointed out that this bill would deny effective means of self defense in the parts of the state where it is most needed.
And here you've lost me again. I quoted you dismissing the need for self defense in the rest of the state. I realize you don't actually think self-defense isn't important outside high-crime urban areas in Illinois, but it seems to me that your position led you to write that in an attempt to support it. Again, I'll let others decide whether I misconstrued your point or whether you wrote something you probably wouldn't write again in the heat of the moment.
Is that right? Is that fair? Is that a good compromise? Does it make the guy who has to drive his delivery truck to service the businesses on State Street in East St Louis any safer? Does it give the 38 year old woman who is trying to raise her grandchildren and has to shop on State Street any safer from the predators out there?
One at a time, in order:
1. The status quo is not right. What I propose is better than the status quo.
2. The status quo is not fair. What I propose is better than the status quo.
3. It is a large net gain for our side and a large step toward extending LTC into the home-rule areas. Yes, it is a good compromise.
4. No, it does not make her any safer, unless very indirectly. What your question fails to address is the fact that it doesn't make her any safer because it doesn't change the circumstances she already lives in today. If she deserves LTC to increase her safety (and she does) then why don't people in the rest of the state deserve it? For that matter, why should those elitists across the river in St. Louis get to have CCW when they didn't bring Illinois along with them so she could have it, too?
Yes, you are taking something from them. You are denying them the same right to effective self defense that you want for yourself and your family.
I am? OK, then let's make this easy. I'll just implement a LTC carry system in those urban areas, shall I? In fact, since I'm in charge, and I'm the one who's been denying them their rights all these years, I think I'll just go ahead and make it Vermont style. Since I can just have my druthers, I see no need for a permitting system.
I had been under the impression that it was the government of the state of Illinois that had been refusing to allow LTC, and that under STHR it would have to be their local legislators. I wish someone had told me sooner that it was actually me all along; this could have been a short movement.
Honestly, Jeff, I'd be happy to discuss all your procedural issues with the bill the NRA killed, but it's hard to see the point. You just stated flatly that the central concept of the bill is unacceptable and, in fact, that every intermediate step between total denial of the right to bear arms and statewide pre-emption is also unacceptable. But, briefly, it's my understanding that there was a lot of discussion of raising the fee. It apparently wasn't done because the sponsor wanted to wait and see how much of an increase was absolutely necessary before committing to anything. The training requirement is modeled on, to the best of my recollection, Florida, Texas and others. I'd have to look it up to be certain, but it was modeled on the existing language in several other successful states specifically to short-circuit criticism from the other side of the aisle. Again, though, should I take it that if these details are addressed, you will then be in favor of a similar bill? Or are these
You know, I just had a thought: it would be a lot more fair and even-handed if we all adopted Chicago's registration scheme/handgun ban for as long as it lasts. Actually, in the interest of fairness, we probably should have adopted it statewide years ago so as not to take away the rights of people in Chicago by allowing someone else to exercise the rights they were denied . . . because clearly, if Person A is denied the exercise of a right, and Person B is not, then it is Person B who is responsible for taking away Person A's right.
Well . . . . actually, I don't think I agree with that. Never mind.
As for your assessment of all the reasons nobody cares and it's impossible . . .I simply disagree. Either way, it's not going to become any more impossible because we try. If we fail, we fail.