Gary, you are absolutely correct. I brought my Son and we had a great time with the Pro-Second Amendment Supporters. We must fight to keep our Rights, we already lost our Right to take our kids hunting with us, thanks to the IDNR Hunter Safety Program, not allowing anbody under 12 to even accompany an adult on a hunt.

What I am imagining is that people were organized and fighting against having any kind of reasonable conversation about limiting gun-rights, which I doubt our founders would have thought extended to today's military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

And what I hear in the tone of your remark is exactly the kind of sneering disdain that doesn't belong in reasonable debate. This is the attitude that so many people bring to this issue, as if we have no common ground and no common interests. It is unhelpful to start from such a position, and we would all benefit greatly by taking a step back and considering the issue with a little more care and respect for each other.

I think we have limitations on many of our so-called "rights," including the right to assembly and the right of free speech. It is just possible that as a country, we may agree to more limitations on guns. Or not--but we should be able to discuss it with some measure of rationality!

I don't have a problem with guns for sport--or even self-protection, though I am dubious about their efficacy in the hands of poorly trained amateurs--but I do wonder if maybe we should limit military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. We might decide not to limit these things, but I think we can have a reasonable conversation about it without demonizing those who disagree with us. Can't we?

Glad you were there too, Rabbi Cheerio! Feel free to upload any photos that you may have - I was standing in the back, so I couldn't get anything too great!

Paula where did u go?

Hi Stevie! I'm now covering the New Trier township sites — Winnetka-Glencoe and Wilmette-Kenilworth — so I moved just a little south of Lake Forest-Lake Bluff.

Hi Paula, sorry no pictures but the JPFO has a great new handbill you can print and distribute.

http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130122.htm

I am Jewish and I absolutely detest the argument that if only the Jews had had guns they would somehow have stopped Hitler and his evil crew from killing six million of them. Nonsense. For so many reasons, gun ownership would NOT have helped them. Think it through. A silly and offensive premise. If the government comes after you, and you can't leave the country, you are going to get got, as they say.

Amy, I am Jewish and I disagree. History shows countless times that you are wrong. 6 million is a lot of people and if there was organized resistance, the story might have been different. Read the stories about the courageous few that did put up armed resistance in the ghettos. They made an impact with very few numbers.

to Ronnie the Limo Driver:
All the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto died. They organized, they rebelled, and they were wiped out. A determined government will kill you if it wants to.

Amy, your facts are not quite correct. First off all the Jews from the Warsaw ghetto did not die, though darn near enough of them did that I consider that nit picking. However, second, and more important, the resistance in Warsaw numbered about 200-300 and did not start in earnest until late in 1942. If all the Jews had been armed and resisted, they would have had a chance. However, 200-300 of them certainly made in hard on the Nazis and delayed implementation of their murderous plans. For the rest of you that want to read more, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising .

A determined government may be able to kill you, but I would be one of the people defending folks like you. A determined resistance movement may be able to stop such a government. Ask Mr. Asad in Syria about that. His government seems pretty determined but the resistance seems just about to show him the door.

Dear Ronnie,
And I would appreciate your defense, truly I would. I agree--if only the Jews had been armed..... As a child, I used to ask my parents why the Jews did not fight back. Now, however, I see that it was much more complicated than that. First of all, many Germans--Jews and non-Jews-- simply did not understand the depth of the thuggery at the top of the National Socialist Party. Part of the reason for that was the way media were controlled. The trend toward scapegoating Jews happened sort of gradually over many years. Lots of families saw what was coming and got out, but so many could not or chose not to see what was coming. No one predicted the death camps, and millions of Germans and Poles looked the other way even when they knew what was happening. People were rewarded for ratting out their neighbors, Jews lost their lives by degrees. First they couldn't send their kids to public schools, then they couldn't have businesses, then the government started seizing their property....I don't think you can compare that time to this. For one thing, the way we communicate is completely different. Yes, governments squash citizens--I see what you mean about Syria, which is awful. But I have trouble comparing America today with Syria today, and I really don't see any parallels with Germany of the 30s and 40s. Gun ownership is OK with me, really! But can't we re-examine the law and find out if public safety can be increased without such vitriol?

rabbi cheerio, How do we teach the children and the adults about this issue and what the Second Amendment really means? So many people today are unknowledgable about this and are fed by media non sense or so called teachers that omit information from school teachings, to suit their agenda. We have a generation of people, who think more government is always the solution.

I attended the meeting with my Son, D.J.(8) and we had a great time. The people from Illinois State Rifle Association were so warm and kind to my Son and I, that I really enjoyed being there and D.J. says he wants to go to the next one! My Son, learned how to fight for his Constitutional rights and he is going to be Pro-Gun, because he has learned about how the Anti-Second Amendment people work and also, how mean they can be, to an 8 Year old, no less. A Second Grader, just like other kids, just one that believes in getting involved and loves to go shooting with his Family. He has taken and passed a gun safety class and soon will be hunting in Wisconsin. We can not hunt in Illinois, the Anti-Gun Lobby had laws passed, that will not let him hunt in Illinois, until he is 12. D,J. is really upset with them for that!

Sorry, but I think this is another example of the distorted thinking on the issue of gun-rights. No one is talking about "taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."

This is an important conversation to have. Should people have almost unlimited access to all kinds of guns and ammo, or should there be some reasonable limits? Maybe not everyone is qualified to own military-style guns and high-capacity magazines. I like huge trucks, but I'm not qualified to drive one.

Which freedoms are under attack on a daily basis? It seems to me that you have vastly overstated the matter. America is a great country, and I love it too. Luckily, I have the freedom to point out that hysterical overstatement is not a useful tool in reasoned argument. I wasn't at the forum, though I did show up. I was one of the people who was shut out, but I would be very interested in hearing what everyone ON BOTH SIDES of the issue had to say, as long as they didn't throw around a bunch of inflammatory language in the process.

We all need to remember that we do not have unlimited freedom in this country to do anything. For the greater good, we agree to limits on all sorts of things--and even speech is limited (one cannot yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater), as is driving, smoking, and the right to assemble.

There is no reason that we cannot have a discussion about whether to put some limits on dangerous weapons.

Amy-
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do nothing. How do you not see this? It has done nothing in Chicago, it has done nothing in New York. In fact, I dare you to find one place where safety has increased due to gun control legislation.

Criminals will do criminal things to commit crimes. Taking away the right of a person to defend themselves will only increase violent crimes as it has in Britain and Austrailia.

A legal, law abiding firearm owner is nothing like yelling fire in an crowded theater. That presents a danger to everyone, whereas a firearm owner only presents a danger to the criminals that try to hurt him. In addition to that, there is no license for any other ammendment in Illinois, only the second. In a case like this, where a disgusting man tries to spew hate speech relating gun owners to Baby killers, there probably should be.

The "discussions" that the VP has to curtail violence are with all anti gun groups. Pro gun people were not even invited. A second meeting was in place for them and the topic was not controlling violence, but all about gun control. The legislation they are planning to put in place bans virtually all semi-auto firearms which limits a persons ability to defend his self, and his country.

We should have a topic on how to control violence, gangs, and improve the mental health system long before a talk on gun control.

Well, as someone who has a pretty solid understanding of journalism, I think the "headline" ("title" refers to something else) is fairly accurate. A group of people who are interested in having a discussion about whether gun rights should or should not be unlimited set up a panel to talk about it. Another group of people deliberately showed up with the express intention of excluding the intended audience and then proceeded to heckle panel members. This is, in fact, what happened and the reporter told the story fairly accurately. All media have bias, because humans inherently bring bias with them when they report stories. However, if you are going to criticize with such a broad brush, I suggest you bring some actual knowledge with you in the future. Not all media is "liberal," and that which is doesn't pretend to be something else. The term "fair and balanced" comes to mind.

The assumption that the US Constitution somehow guarantees UNLIMITED rights to gun owners is about to be tested. The rule of law is dictated, in part, by the social compact; sometimes "rights" are limited for the greater good. Surely we can have a reasonable debate about this without throwing around inaccurate and inflammatory terms like "liberal bias of the media." If you read widely and listen broadly, you will see a clearer picture of media. There are many fine journalists out there just trying to tell the story.

Sorry, but I don't get the whole Pledge of Allegiance thing. This was supposed to be a panel discussion, was not a publicly elected body doing the peoples' business, and there was absolutely no need to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I was one of the people shut out of the meeting, but I imagine that someone in the audience started a Pledge recitation to shame the panel, which would explain the eye-rolling. Are you familiar with the term "Passive-Agressive"? Might want to look that one up.

And just to re-state an oft-quoted point: There are not many people who are gun-savvy enough, or well-enough trained, or who have reflexes that are fast enough to halt a violent crime by using a gun. Even that nut in Arizona who shot Gabby Giffords and all those other people was wrestled to the ground by non-gun-toting bystanders. And this was in Arizona, where lots of people carry guns.

I totally support the use of guns in sport. No problem. But I think it's time for our country to have a reasonable discussion about whether or not some kinds of guns should not be widely available for civilian use. And we are fully capable of doing that if we don't get sidetracked by the unprofitable habit we seem to have cultivated whereby we categorize people and discount them based on a bunch of irrelevant biases--like whether or not "they" recited the Pledge of Allegiance when goaded by a crowd of people who were intent on shaming, rather than discussing.

Excellent point. Well said. I think we are all entitled to state our opinions, but no one listens when they are talked down to or offended with inflammatory slogans. We all deserve to be heard, and we owe each other the courtesy of listening and speaking in earnest and without malice. We have to try to nurture healthy debate on this important issue, and your comment leads by example. Kudos and thank you. Wish I had been able to get in!

I agree, but wish to add a little tid bit, if I may... Killers-not shooters, Murder-not shooting, Gang Violence-Not gun violence, Criminal- not person in possession of gun, Rape- not sexual assault. I go shooting, I am a shooter of many legally owned guns. Those guns do not commit one act of violence and I would be happy to assault any Rapist, that I came into contact with.

Actually, media are frequently mentioned. You are, I believe, referring to local news media, which does indeed sensationalize violent crime. But other forms of media are equally guilty: video games, movies, and television programming are also ridiculously and often gratuitously violent.

Just as the second amendment can be construed to allow everyone access to almost any kind of gun, the first amendment has been interpreted to allow almost any kind of
speech.

Begging the question, would limits on one have any impact at all on the other?

One of the true conundrums of modern life, isn't it.

Wait, you are a policeman? The media says all police want to take guns away from private citizens, this can't be true??? I thought the police were supposed to back gun controllers unconditionally. Oh wait, that is only in Chicago.

My, my. Very macho-sounding. I'm so glad we have dedicated police officers who work so hard to serve and protect the public. But I'm also very glad that we live in a country where it is possible to have a reasonable debate about issues that affect all citizens, not just people who own guns. We DO, in fact, need to have a discussion about this matter. It's not necessarily true that the second amendment intended for Joe and Jane Citizen to own military-style weapons and have access to high-capacity magazines. And if it did, then maybe we should also have our own rocket launchers, just in case. I mean, where do we draw the line? I don't personally own a gun or want one, but I don't have a problem with someone who enjoys them for sport. I just don't see why anyone other than the police or the military needs high-capacity magazines and the semi-automatic weapons that go with them. It is not unreasonable to have some limits on gun ownership, given the dangerous nature of both guns and humans. None of us have unlimited rights, ever. And gun-owners should not be an exception. Sorry.

Amy, you need to get educated on this topic since you are so passionate about it. I have no problem with differing views, as long as they are based in fact. Pretty much all handguns produced these days are semi-automatic. That means for 1 pull of the trigger, 1 bullet. It shoots as fast as you pull the trigger. No different than a revolver, which also shoots as fast as you pull the trigger in modern firearms. If you have a problem with full auto weapons, don't worry, those are already illegal in Illinois. Now that you understand that, please tell me why you think semi automatic firearms need to be banned.

Dear Ronnie:
Thanks for the clarification. I admit to knowing little about actual weaponry, mainly because it doesn't interest me that much. However, I did not expressly say anything should be banned. I merely raised the question about whether or not we "need" weapons that use high-capacity magazines, whatever they are called. It seems to me that this may be a question we can debate with some measure of civility, since a fairly large swath of the population seems to be worried about it. I am wondering if it is really OK to let just anyone play with what is essentially a very dangerous toy if it can readily be used to harm other people. I don't want to carry a gun and don't want to be around anyone else who is. But I'm not stating equivocally that we have to have a ban on anything. Jeez, people really have their hackles up about this, don't they.

Amy, I would be happy to educate you more on this topic. I like your passion and I like that you actually seem to be listening to others.

However a few other things I would like to clarify. No responsible firearm owner refers to their guns as toys. They are not toys. They are not for play. They may be for enjoyment, but not play. Attitude and intent matter around firearms. Safety first.

Im glad we agree on semi automatic weapons. On the topic of high capacity magazines, sure I'm open to a discussion that. What do you define as high capacity? 10? 20? 30? 50? 100? So lets pick an arbitrary limit. Since you do not know much about actual weapons, let me tell you very few magazines (that is the proper name for what you hear called "Clips") hold 50 or 100 rounds. A few enthusiasts buy those, but they are basically garbage, cost a lot of money, and jam a lot. 30 and 20 round magazines are certainly very common with rifles. Most modern handguns hold 20 rounds. Some people like to make the argument that by forcing the bad guy to reload, that will show how help the good guys in mass shooting incidents. A person who is competent with their firearm should be able to switch magazines in 1-2 seconds. If nobody else has a gun, please tell me what you are going to do. If something is in common use, and there is no benefit to banning it, then it should stay legal. The other issue is magazines have no serial #s. So its impossible to determine when they were purchased.

You say you do not want to be around concealed guns. Have you traveled outside of Illinois? If so you have likely been in a place full of people with guns, and you never knew. One of my family members is a police officer. Another one of my family members is very anti-gun. The anti-gun family member was shocked (and unhappy) to learn they had been sitting next to a gun in the PO pocket for many thanksgivings, all the while unaware. Guns just don't go off. When you hear of an accidental shooting, you are really hearing about a negligent shooting. Modern firearms do not discharge unless the trigger is pulled.

On to your last point. Yep, people do get pretty emotional when they feel their rights and way of life is threatened. The 2nd amendment is just as important now as it was in the 1700s. The "Military Style" muskets those colonists owned provided food, protection, and a check and balance against the government. My grandfather and father went to war to protect that constitution and our way of life. Nobody is forcing you to buy guns or shoot them. Im pretty sure if we started seeing calls for serious restrictions on freedom of speech or freedom of the press or freedom of religion people would get pretty P.O. This is no different. G-d Bless America.

The Supreme Court says you can have guns and that the Government can regulate them. See Heller. So, don't keep your panties in a bunch, the Government is not coming for your pistols and hunting rifles! The 2nd Ammendment is alive and well. A case for regulation? How about this one....?
Christian Oberender, now 32, killed his mother in the family's home with five shots from a shotgun in 1995, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He was 14-years-old at the time and was eventually committed to a hospital for being mentally ill and dangerous. Despite this, Oberender was able to obtain a gun permit last May and has since amassed an arsenal of 13 guns, including semi-automatic rifles, an AK-47, a Tommy gun, assorted shotguns and a .50-caliber Desert Eagle.

Hold the phone. Your story, as you depict it, conveniently leaves out the real problem. It's the problem that you turn your head at every time it is mentioned. The one the President cares not to deal with either. Why was this guy released from wherever to repeat behavior? As I already said, it's all about politics for you and your king.

You start out by accusing us of being violent xenophobic racists, and then you try to convince us that we should negotiate with you in good faith because you mean us no harm. Do you read what you write?

We have no intention of negotiating with people who accuse us of being baby killers. There is no middle ground with them. Those people simply have to be defeated.

Right on--I posted almost the same points before I noticed your comment. Thanks for staying reasonable. I'm so put off by hysterical ranting by people who act like there's no possible justification for some modest limitations on gun ownership. I don't have a problem with anyone who loves guns and hunting and target-shooting, but every society on the planet has rules and limitations and ours is no exception. Under the rule of law, we must collectively determine what is in the interest of the "greater good." We can certainly find it within ourselves to have a reasoned debate with less hysteria and inflammatory language. What are people so afraid of?

"I'm so put off by hysterical ranting by people who act like there's no possible justification for some modest limitations on gun ownership. "

I'm so put off by hysterical ranting by people who pretend like "modest" is all they're asking for, and who pretend to know what gun owners want (or don't want), and who feign open-mindedness but who immediately resort to pious broad-brushing when faced with anyone who disagrees with them...

"hysterical ranting" here seems to be a synonym for "alternative points of view."

To Carl:
It is off-putting when people rant and use inflammatory language. How do you know what I'm asking for? Maybe it is, in fact, modest. I don't actually know what is possible or reasonable in terms of gun control. There is justification for some kind of limits on guns. That's because a lot of people want limits. In a shared society, the general idea is that we go with the majority. So all I am saying is that it is reasonable to want to have a debate about guns and that we should do so in good faith and without ranting. I'm sorry you perceived me as painting with a broad brush; certainly not my intention. I'm trying very hard not to do that. But gun violence worries me. Random accidents and vicious attacks with weapons that are meant to kill living things feel upsetting to me, as they do to others, including many gun owners who have written publicly to say so. I am not going to apologize for those feelings. I also understand that many people do not feel safe without their guns. What I think we need to do is find a happy medium--not take away all guns (impossible anyway) or curtail all gun-owners rights. People make the mistake of thinking every hot-button issue is a zero sum game: Win All or Lose All. This is seldom the case. We operate best on compromise, which is what I hope we can do on this matter.

This is not a sacred concept. Please, please, be careful of inflammatory language in this debate. No problem with owning guns--but army-style weapons with high capacity magazines might legitimately considered a little excessive for average civilians. Who would we be protecting ourselves against with weapons like that? Armies? And if we are faced with some military threat--say, from our own government--don't you think we'd be outgunned anyway? Gosh, have fun, shoot at targets, go hunting--but can't you do that without military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines? And please, use reasonable terminology as this argument moves forward! People are much more likely to listen to reasoned arguments than propagandistic rants.

"but can't you do that without military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines"

No, we can't. Less than 2% of those weapons are used in crimes, so those aren't really the problem.

Get rid of guns, and you still have a violence problem. Get rid of the violent crazies, and you don't have to worry about guns...

By the way, it is uninformed to assume that US military personnel would obey orders to fire on their own citizens. In the event of such a dystopian scenario, many would cross over...

Sorry, I don't understand. You can't go out and play with guns unless they are military style weapons? Why not?

Dori, YES, They are the best Pro-Second Amendment Group in america.

An unproductive way unless you agree with Amy. Part of living in a free society is safety from criminals who have used guns for bad reasons. Many of these people walk freely out of jail, only to use guns again for bad reasons, Until someone puts a lid on the repeat gun offender, all of the registration, database, restrictions, marches, tracking are useless. These concepts are not new, and show clearly no affect on guns and murder. But it sounds productive and reasonable, as long as you agree with Amy.

Amy, I don't think you understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights. They were written to tell the government what they CANNOT do, that is, restrict THEIR behavior. Gun ownership"back then" was on the same par as owning a rake or a plow. The beauty of the 2A is that it automatically keeps up with advances in weapons so the citizenry can fend off a tyrannical government.

"that guns can be very dangerous in the wrong hands"

So can gasoline, fertilizer, a host of common household chemicals, knives, bats, cars, rocks, airplanes, etc.

Get rid of guns, and you still have "the wrong hands" out there. Get rid of "the wrong hands", and you don't have to worry about guns.

Let us know, Amy Parker, when you are actually ready to have a productive discussion about this subject. So far, the self-righteous tone of your posts indicate otherwise...

Amy Parker, You come like a Wolf, in Sheeps clothing, but fooling no one. "They came for my neighbor and I said nothing, who will speak up, when they come for me?" SB2899, Sponsored by Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and ready to proceed with a Gun Ban and confiscation plan. 1/6/13 This Gun-Ban was stopped by the same people who Raided your Party! Patriots, like myself.

Amy you are wanted - IN THE KITCHEN>

Come on Roy. Your sexists comments do the rest of us no good. You can see I disagree pretty strong with Ms. Parker but please show her some respect. Assuming you are pro-2nd amendment, you demean the many other women who have been so critical in the fight to preserve our rights.

ok, sorry. anyway, her husband is a lucky guy.

The problem with Amy and people of her ilk is that they see guns and gun owners as the real enemies, not the criminals and sociopaths.

Policeman, I know it. My post was written tongue and cheek. Every cop I have ever talked to feels the same way. Its only the top brass in a few criminal enclaves that are against law abiding citizens being armed. A police officer has nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen.

Jane, Thank You!

Hey Jane,, like your comment. As Alan Keyes said ... If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself…. By disarming, we will confess to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty, and wish our rulers to take up this burden in our stead. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves — and slaves, at least, we will soon become.”

Dear Jane,
I am fine with what you have to say. I don't agree with all of it, but at least you're not sneering. True. We do have serious problems with untreated mental illness. I don't have answers for that, other than to say it's a shame the State of Illinois (never mind Connecticut!) is too broke to help families take care of their more dangerous members. I don't think everyone who carries a gun is a dangerous lunatic. I'm sure you are not. That's really not my point. From my weapons-ignorant perspective (other than marksmanship at a Y camp as a kid), it feels like we aren't all that safe when access to guns is so easy, and so many people seem inclined toward keeping automatic or semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines. I don't know the answers, but I think the questions are legitimate and am unconvinced that the second amendment somehow "grows" with technological advances in weaponry. Do we need rocket launchers and armored tanks too? Seriously, I can't really imagine all that much effective armed resistance if the government suddenly turned on its citizens.... I think it's fine for people to own (some) guns, but maybe not arsenals. Or maybe not high-capacity clips. I don't know. I hope there is a way to compromise--but we won't get there by assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot or a sanctimonious jerk. I don't think asking for reasonable debate is all that out of line.

So, is that a "RESPONSIBILTY" issue? Yes. the Law as you have it right now, is not being enforced, against Gang Banger Offenders, but you want more and more laws... to what end. Please read the article in the Chicago Sun Times 1/23/13, on page 20 by Jack Sullum. It is a great piece of work, that disspells this Gun-Control Non Sense.

Thank you so much, Jane!

I carry while in Wisconsin, Open Carry and sometimes Concealed Carry. It is such a rush of FREEDOM! It is like being able to take the shackles off of your body and walk free. Those who have not owned a gun and been able to defend yourself, will never understand. It is like a virgin, trying to imagine sex, imposible to describe the feelings of Constitutional Freedom! Break Free of the chains, that Illinois has bound us with and be a Free Man!

There is a 40 times greater chance that a gun will injure or kill a family member than it will be used for self defense. Hate to bust your bubble, tiger.

But there are so many things in our lives against which we have little or no defense. And I assure you that if I were carrying a gun, sitting in a movie theater, and some maniac opened fire, I would be the one under the seats, probably peeing my pants in fear (because I am a giant wimp), and utterly incapable of shooting back. So I, for one, would be utterly worthless in that situation, whether or not I carried a gun. Who's to say that others like me wouldn't get hurt in the crossfire anyway? I just don't see the point. I have a lot of respect for the kind of people who would be able to keep cool in a situation like that, but I have real doubts (no research to back myself up) about just how many average folks, unaccustomed to violent interactions, could really perform in a crunch.

As for the Nazis: Please remember that most of Europe couldn't defeat them, and even after the Americans showed up it was a dicey thing. What makes you think a few Jews with guns would have made any difference? Sure, they kicked a few asses in Warsaw, but then they all got killed in the end.

There is absolutely no comparison between Nazis and today's American government. None. We are not under attack from our government. Who would benefit from such an attack? Why would it be necessary? This is not a rational basis for argument in favor of loose limits on gun ownership in my view. I just don't see it!

And we have come a long, long way from the days of Brown Besses.

Ha,, Ha! Yes, I'd like to see that statistic too.

Amy, I've been known to overly assert myself on these boards at times, but I do know when certain posters are not worth it. Case in point- Roy. You gave the neanderthal exactly what he wanted!