Will political pressure get Illinois to act responsibly w/ regard to firearms?

The cynic in me wants to dismiss the rhetoric being offered up by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, where he says the Legislature will begin this coming week to review a series of measures calling for responsible regulation of firearms.

Should it really be easier to purchase these ...

Largely because I’m used to the idea of a certain segment of our population being knuckleheads whenever the issue is firearms, and also because I’d have to wonder “Why now?”

COULD IT BE that after all these years, Madigan and the Democratic majority that runs the General Assembly FINALLY sees the error of its lax ways and realizes something needs to be done.

... than this?

Or is this just a matter of Madigan being sick and tired of all the focus being put on the fact his office took its sweet time in dealing with allegations of sexual harassment against certain female staffers? And the perception by some that Madigan is more interested in reducing the political fallout, rather than addressing the problems that many women have in the workplace.

Perhaps I should be thankful that people are willing to address firearms, and not worry so much about the “whys” of the matter. Because it is long overdue for us as a society to realize that nobody ever intended for everybody to own as many firearms as they desire, and for whatever reason.

MADIGAN: Why is he bringing issue up?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights isn’t written that broadly – no matter how much the conservative ideologues amongst us want to think it is.

WHICH IS WHY I find it interesting that Gov. Bruce Rauner in recent days keeps saying we need to be “respectful of our Constitution” whenever he’s asked about the need for laws regulating firearm ownership and use.

Considering the ideologues that Rauner will be trying to appeal to as he seeks re-election in the 2018 election cycle, I suspect that’s really his way of being coy and not coming right out and saying he’s prepared to use the “veto” pen to reject anything that Madigan and Democrats try to do on this issue.

Another reason, in my book, not to get all worked up over this issue and what might happen next week.

RAUNER: Constitutional 'respect' means veto?

For the record, Madigan issued a statement Friday saying the Illinois House of Representatives will take up several bills meant to address firearms.

THOSE INCLUDE REGULATION of gun dealers, restrictions on being able to purchase a military-style rifle and more laws making it clear that people with histories of mental illness probably shouldn’t be able to own such weapons.

They’re hoping that the recent string of incidents involving schools (including the one in Florida where 17 were killed, and it seems police at the scene hesitated before trying to enter) will provide the motivation to get political people to overwhelm the “gun nuts” who usually play too large a role in this debate.

My own belief on this issue (one that I know will p-o some individuals) is that owning a firearm ought to be like owning an automobile. We restrict who can have a driver’s license, how a car can be used, and always insist on saying that car ownership is a privilege – one that can be taken away from irresponsible people.

Will Illinois Statehouse become heated place we should keep our distance from next week?

Now before anyone sarcastically asks me if I ever have read the Second Amendment, I have. Personally, I think it is the part of the Constitution that has become obsolete in the 21^st Century.

BECAUSE IT MAKES mention of militias, which once were thought would be the way the national defense would be provided for without a large standing army, I believe that not restricting one’s firearm ownership ability was because one serving in a militia would be expected to provide their own weapon.

The gun-rights people claim militias and their role are now replaced by the National Guard. Yet I’ve never heard of any guardsman called to duty who had to arm himself.

As far as making it tougher to get a firearm, I’d say it ought to be more difficult to do so than to buy an automobile. So here’s hoping the General Assembly proceeds with its Friday partisan talk.

I’d feel safer on our roads coexisting with bad drivers than with the thought of people who think they’re exercising some “all-American” right by having a pistol tucked in their belt and who – on some level – are looking for the excuse to pull out their weapon and shoot another human being. Wouldn’t you?

  -30-