Sangamon
County Rifle Association
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights
Springfield, Illinois
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights
Springfield, Illinois
|
|
Sangamon
County Rifle Association
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights Springfield, Illinois |
|
Readers favor concealed carry Illinois State Journal - Springfield - March 11, 2008 Anti-gun people always want guy with a gun near Interesting letter by Dave Lawless on Feb. 25 (“Just can’t picture guns in the classroom”). One could argue “there’s nothing like a good mass murder” to exploit the ignorance of the anti-gun crowd. Obviously, Lawless has more than one agenda; bringing Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident into this argument makes about as much sense as banning anyone who has been involved in a car accident from teaching driver’s ed. The funny thing about the anti-gun crowd is that the first thing they want to do when they get robbed, raped or mugged is call for a guy with a gun to come to their aid. My personal experience working with security and police officers is that most of them were firearm enthusiasts before they wore a badge and still are; therefore, they are relegated to the nut-with-a-gun category by Lawless. That is as unfair as jumping to prejudicial conclusions about the character of someone with a last name like Lawless. Lance Gilbert Sherman Illinois State Journal - Springfield - March 10, 2008 Crime rarely occurs right in front of the police Michael Becker recently ended a letter by stating he will leave his personal protection to the police ... this is, of course, relating to the concealed-weapon debate raging in Illinois. I have a quite different view on police ability to protect anyone at a moment’s notice. They’re at best an afterthought when a crime is being committed. Rarely does crime occur right in front of police; they’re usually called to the scene. Becker assumes highly skilled and trained officers are more qualified to protect than civilians. I beg to differ. There are some officers who struggle to meet qualification standards on the range; on the other hand, there are civilians who are precision shooters. Conceal carry is strictly for personal protection, not for someone to become a vigilante. Becker must also assume there aren’t requirements for carrying a weapon. Training definitively covers shoot/don’t shoot scenarios, when the law allows for a weapon to be displayed, drawn or ultimately, if necessary, fired. Besides the legal aspects, a person also must meet range proficiency requirements. If you know the law front-to-back, pass all the paperwork requirements and cannot safely and accurately hit a regulation silhouette target, you wouldn’t be able to carry a weapon under state law. The legislation to allow Illinois citizens to carry weapons for protection is not being allowed to come to the floor for a vote. Democrats controlling the Illinois General Assembly are too frightened of the electorate, the dumb people of Illinois, to allow a vote. We voters are too stupid to make our own decisions and need the nanny-state legislators to run our lives for us. No, thanks! Timothy J. Wright Rochester Illinois State Journal - Springfield - March 3, 2008 Our leaders don’t want us to defend ourselves With all the talk of banning weapons and not allowing Illinois citizens to carry firearms, I thought this was the time to bring up the following: Leaders in Illinois would like you to remain helpless and dependent on others for help in case you are attacked. We are constantly told to dial 911 for help. At NIU, the police were on scene in less than two minutes, which is a very good response time, but the violence was already done by then. So dialing 911 wasn’t able to prevent the attack. If you are old, out of shape or don’t practice a form of martial arts (or even if you do), you are subject to violence by the young, the strong and the mob. You are at the mercy of those who would take from you what they want and even after getting it, still might take everything you have (your life) for no other reason than they can. Illinois continues to ban the best tool (pistol) for protecting yourself from those who would hunt you like an animal, and yet the state can’t protect you from those same hunters. The bottom line, state leaders either don’t trust you or they want you depending on them for help. Either way is unacceptable. If you don’t believe that, why is it possible for citizens of Illinois to get legal, out-of-state, concealed-carry permits? Other states trust our citizens to carry firearms, why won’t our leaders do the same? Jon Purviance Auburn Concealed carry laws have positive results Illinois State Journal - Springfield - March 1, 2008 - I read with interest the near-daily debate about Illinois pursuing a concealed carry law in the SJ-R news and opinions sections. One letter cited “facts” about the shootings in Virginia and other states that currently have concealed carry laws. What was missing was the schools’ gun-free zones trumped the states’ concealed carry laws. I am concerned with comments by several people from the Virginia Tech shooting who possessed valid concealed carry permits but were not permitted to carry firearms on campus. Merely being armed does not translate into appropriate action … as many police departments will attest. Even professional law enforcement officers have been known to hesitate at the moment of decision. On the other hand, there is an indisputable truth that means, motive and opportunity to commit a felony are often thwarted by the knowledge that others might be armed and ready to protect themselves. Is it surprising the school shootings occurred either in gun-free zones or in a state that has no concealed carry law? The deterrent effect of properly armed and trained citizens has been borne out in countless statistics around the country. One in particular bears consideration: for each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by more than 2 percent (azccw.com under “facts and statistics”). The SJ-R opinion poll (currently running more than 90 percent in favor) clearly shows public sentiment and deserves careful consideration. The Supreme Court will soon consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s, ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. If the court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional. How much longer can Illinois’ lawmakers remain reticent if the high court reaffirms the Second Amendment? Corey Kirschner Chatham Writer responds to those against concealed carry Illinois State Journal - Springfield - March 1, 2008 - I knew when I expressed my opinion (“Law-abiding citizens would not abuse concealed carry,” Feb. 17) of my wish for conceal and carry permits there would be many opinions. Mr. Jon Edwards spoke of armed police officers being the first casualties and that makes sense because everyone could see they were law enforcement and armed. We probably cannot avoid the first shot or two from the armed maniac, but a regular person could get off a couple of shots while this guy was shooting the police. Mr. Robert W. Jackson was implying that any old crazy person would be able to pass a background check, structured official training class and professional psychiatric exam, possibly even a skill requirement test. Illinois would not take this procedure lightly. Then Mr. Dave Lawless gave an unreal scenario of a “pre-kindergarten teacher with a weapon strapped on.” I’m sure there would be rules in schools and other facilities to address this if it came to pass. I think he and others underestimate the ability of our law enforcement officials and others to create a program, as 48 other states have done. In his reference, “Every classroom deserves a nut with a gun,” he must realize not one of these nuts had a conceal and carry permit! Criminals will always have guns. A good citizen with a gun could have lessened our losses. Jody Grimmett Springfield Law-abiding citizens are left defenseless Illinois State Journal - Springfield - February 18, 2008 - After the Northern Illinois University shootings, Sen. Barack Obama has begun the call for more gun control. He says we need background checks. The shooter bought the guns legally with a FOID card, passing background checks and they did not stop him. Some will call for all-out bans. The university campus did not allow firearms so there was a ban. It does not work! A ban on alcohol made Al Capone rich and a ban on firearms makes law-abiding citizens defenseless. There were 167 people in that room at NIU, all law-abiding and disarmed. If only 1 percent of the population took the time to be trained and were allowed to carry a concealed handgun, then there would have been one or two trained persons to return fire as soon as the shooter presented himself. The Colorado church shooting proved that an armed citizen is the only way to stop an attack fast; the police cannot be everywhere. Yet we will have more Chicago liberals wishing to make the rest of our state as safe as Chicago with its handgun ban and soaring crime rate. No, thank you. I would rather they allow us to be as free as 48 other states and allow me to defend myself, and if I break the law then punish me to the fullest extent of the law. What we need is criminal control and government control. The gun is just a tool. By the way, think how many he could have killed with a tank of propane and a match, two items that are not banned on campus. End Illinois’ anti-gun policy now. Free people are allowed to bear arms. Phillip Davis Girard Return to SCRA Home Page |