Gun ownership advocates intentionally packed Sunday’s gun control panel by the New Trier Democrats, as pro-gun advocates — who were encouraged to come from across the state in a mass email from the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) — argued and yelled at panelists throughout the program.
“Remember, this is our Lexington, this is our Concord,” the email read. “Be prepared to teach the gun controllers a lesson in liberty.”
The email also encouraged attendees to arrive between an hour and half an hour early, to “ensure that there are more of OUR people there than THEIR people,” according to the email. That resulted in venue at the Glenview Police Station auditorium filling up, with many would-be attendees turned away at the door.
The majority of the crowd — around 2/3 — were wearing NRA and ISRA paraphernalia, and holding American flags and signs, such as “Shall not be infringed” and “Pro-second amendment.”
While all of the speakers faced outrage and yelling from the crowd — with many being called a “liar” or “loser” as they spoke — none seemed to anger the crowd as much as Lee Goodman, of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition.
Goodman, who was booed as he came to the podium, started out on the wrong foot with the audience, commenting, “[The Illinois State Rifle Association] email said to dress nicely and be polite — and I’d like to say that you’re all dressed nicely.”
Goodman then read an op-ed piece he had written for an unnamed newspaper on concealed carry laws, noting that it was “about the babies.”
“It’s about babies,” Goodman read. “Dead babies and babies shot up so bad, they’ll live, but never like they would have. It’s about babies not kissing their moms goodnight anymore, babies not in any more class pictures. … It’s about tiny babies and babies all grown up. … It’s not about someone’s right to bear arms.”
The speech on babies especially riled up the crowd, with audience members yelling out about abortion and women’s rights.
“What about women’s rights to defend from being raped?” one audience member yelled out. “Are you for those women’s rights? No!”
Another member of the crowd yelled, “Has anyone in your family had an abortion? Because that’s murder!”
“No one cares what you think!” someone else added.
“The panel did a good job side-stepping the questions,” attendee Dan Heylin, of Chicago, who came to the event because he saw the ISRA email and wanted to support gun rights said. “They tried to manage the argument to be more emotional than fact-based.”
“It’s hard for people,” said Judy Mandel, New Trier Democrats membership chairwoman and moderator of the panel. “We’ll have that when you have a high emotional issue.”
Thanks! Paula
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh, and by the way, on the Warsaw ghetto: The Nazi's initially got their *sses handed to them. Then the Nazi's set fire to the ghetto. The Nazi's came for property, guns not-withstanding. The same thing is happening here now, where the government is coming for guns. Whether you see it or not...
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.
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.