EMANUEL: The 'face' of gun control? |
Which
means we now need a new “issue” that divides us as a society and gets everybody
all ticked off into a frenzy. A new dividing line that cannot be crossed!
AND
I’M SUSPECTING that it’s going to be firearms and gun control.
I
look at the situation in my home state of Illinois, which is the only state
that tries to completely restrict the ability of people to carry firearms in
public. Some other states have such harsh restrictions on who can get the
permits letting themselves carry a firearm that they might as well just ban
them like we do.
But
the ideologues always like to claim Illinois is the exception. And now, they
have a federal Appeals Court panel saying that Illinois’ restrictions are too
harsh.
They
have to go!
THE
ILLINOIS GENERAL Assembly has six months to figure out a new law that will let
people have permits allowing people to pack a pistol in a shoulder holster, or
a purse, for their personal protection.
The
firearms proponents are taking this as justification that they were right all
along, and that Illinois is going to have to start doing away with its
restrictive attitude – brought on largely by city officials in Chicago.
These
NRA-types were the ones who were constantly demonizing former Mayor Richard M.
Daley and weren’t the least bit sorry to see him go.
And
I’m sure they’re equally appalled by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Who is turning out to
be equally hard-headed with regards to the issue.
HE’S
MADE IT clear the city will cooperate with any effort by the state Attorney
General’s office to appeal the Appeals Court ruling – even though Attorney
General Lisa Madigan herself has been reluctant to say she would take such
action.
And
on Monday, Emanuel took aim (yes, it’s a tacky use of cliché) at the NRA types. Speaking to the new
graduating class of the Police Academy, Emanuel said he wants both state and
federal laws banning assault weapons.
He
also said he wants a “vote of conscience” by the Congress on some sort of
action in response to the shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut.
He’s
out for the kill against the weapons with their large magazines that are
capable of taking out dozens of people in a matter of seconds! He’s looking to
assess blame against people for the rising level of violence in our society.
AND
HE’S POINTING the finger at the very people who last week probably thought they
were getting a legal victory that would let them start chipping away at gun
control measures in general!
It
isn’t going to be that simple.
The
firearms proponents (who like to think they’re portraying the views of hunters
and ‘sportsmen’ who enjoy the technical abilities of certain firearms) are
going to find a stone wall more impenetrable than the one many of them probably
fantasize about building along the U.S./Mexico border when it comes to this
issue.
Much
of the opposition isn’t going to die down.
I’M
ALSO NOT convinced that in six months, Illinois will be in contempt of a
federal appeals court for not being able to come to some conclusion on what
should be done with the “concealed carry” aspect of the whole firearms debate.
A
part of me wonders if the tactic by which the entire 7th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals (based in Chicago) could be asked to review the opinion
reached by a three-member panel – of whom two agreed and one dissented – could wind
up turning back this fight.
Or
are we destined to have a new issue that will arouse the anger of just about everybody
– albeit in differing fashions – whenever it is brought up for discussion?
And if the ideologues can come up with a catch phrase anything along the lines of "Adam and Steve" in terms of complete vapidity when they talk about firearms?
And if the ideologues can come up with a catch phrase anything along the lines of "Adam and Steve" in terms of complete vapidity when they talk about firearms?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment