A ‘real’ national emergency is seen in cinematic home town of Stan Mikita’s Donuts -- not along U.S./Mexico border

A real 'national emergency'

Maybe it’s evidence that a deity is watching over us, and that he had nothing to do with Donald Trump becoming president – the way some of the more religiously overzealous ideologues amongst us like to claim.

But on the day Friday when Trump tried to claim that conditions along the U.S./Mexico border are so violent and drug-infested that they constitute a “national emergency,” we got to see an incident that truly qualifies.

BY THAT, I’M referring to the shooting incident in Aurora, Ill., on Friday, the one that gained national attention as the latest of public outbursts that wind up with multiple casualties.

In this case, we’re talking about the “stressed out” factory worker whose reaction to learning he was “fired” from the job was to pull out a pistol he was carrying (illegally) and start shooting.

Police ultimately killed the man in question, but five other people were killed and wounded – including a few police officers themselves. 

Who thinks more alongside mindset … 

The sad aspect of this incident is that the details of all these public outbursts usually wind up becoming so similar that they all become intertwined in the public mindset. This particular moment happened in the unfortunately-named city in west suburban Chicago – since there also was the 2012 incident at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

HOW MUCH YOU want to bet some people won’t be able to keep the two incidents straight?

To me, the notion that we have so much violence occurring in parts of the country that would like to think they’re isolated from conditions that would cause such incidents in the first place is the real “national emergency.”

… of the American people? It ain't Trump!

It ought to be the evidence needed to show that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is correct when she claims a future Democratic president could easily use the concept of a “national emergency” to push for the stricter gun control laws that conservative ideologues claim are essential to the “American way” of life.

Although that threat didn’t particularly sway Trump away from using “national emergency” from trying to force funding for a U.S./Mexico border barricade.

PROBABLY BECAUSE HE realizes that the bulk of Democratic political professionals, and even many Republican types, have too much respect for the ideals of democracy and what really is the “American way” to try anything so rash and irresponsible.

Twisted sense of amendment's purpose

In short, Trump counts on the fact that the bulk of us aren’t as absurd as he is.

In fact, many were trying to score political points against Trump by dinging the president for not speaking out vociferously enough about the incident – with some saying they wonder if he’d have been willing to use the incident to his advantage if it had somehow involved a Latino gunman

Because then, it would have fit into his line of thinking about all those foreigners coming here to kill people.

JUST LIKE HOW on Friday morning he was eager to claim “emergency” conditions about all the illicit narcotics being brought into this country – even though the reality is they’re being brought here because there’s a market for them amongst the U.S. populace – many of whom probably voted for Trump in the first place.

If it were real, it could comfort us from Friday's violent outburst

I’m not trying to downplay violence across the nation, much of which comes about due to the ease by which many can obtain firearms. It’s just a sad reality that conditions aren’t going to chance until we come to the realization that our overly-loose interpretation of the Second Amendment to have open use of firearms is going to have to be adapted.

That amendment, after all, says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but also cadges it with rhetoric about “well-regulated militias” and “state security” that too many “gun nuts” prefer to ignore.

One other reality of Friday’s incident – Aurora, Ill., won’t just be in the public’s minds as the home town of “Wayne’s World.” I’m sure many Aurora-types would just as soon go back to the days of people showing up and asking for the location of the mythical “Stan Mikita’s Donuts” shop.

  -30-

Pritzker already upsets Ill. ideologues

J.B. Pritzker is still in the first couple of days of his term as Illinois governor, and he’s already managing to tick off the sensibilities of those people who have a conservative social bent on the way they want to view our society.

PRITZKER: Offends gun-rights advocates

Specifically, Pritzker signed into law Thursday a measure that sets state guidelines that firearms dealers would have to comply with in order to legitimately do business in Illinois.

THE CONSERVATIVE TYPES who believe its their “God-given” right to own as many firearms as they wish are all upset. They’re outraged! They probably, deep-down in their wildest fantasies, probably wish they could respond by going out and shooting up everybody who disagrees with them.

Illinois State Rifle Association officials went so far as to say that federal law already adequately regulates gun dealers. Nobody needs the individual states to get involved.

Although none other than mayoral hopeful Toni Preckwinkle said she thinks federal law has loopholes and that the new state regulations are meant to plug those exceptions. Thereby ensuring that people are following safety-motivated regulations when they go about selling pistols to people.

Of course, the part about this that amuses me is that Pritzker chose this to be amongst the first issues he dealt with as governor – albeit not the absolute first.

PRECKWINKLE: Says federal loopholes plugged

THAT APPEARS TO be the measure involving pay raises for state government employees that Pritzker approved, while claiming that such raises should have been provided in recent years but were denied by now-former Gov. Bruce Rauner.

A politically-partisan pot shot – further differentiating himself from his predecessor who didn’t exactly leave public life on the best of terms with those who work in government.

Now, he’s willing to take on the so-called “gun nuts” who, in fact, were claiming that Rauner would have used his veto powers to kill off this very measure.

Except that the General Assembly that approved this gun-related measure deliberately held off on sending the approved bill to the governor for consideration – UNTIL they had a more favorable governor.

RAUNER: Denied last chance to use 'veto' power

STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION President Richard Pearson went so far as to call it “political gamesmanship” and to say he was “deeply disappointed” but “certainly not surprised.”

Admittedly, there was a certain gamesmanship involved. Had the Legislature rushed the bill over to the governor immediately upon his approval, he would have used his “veto” power, while likely issuing some high-minded rhetorical statement about the redundancy of the state’s actions to federal law.

But it’s also likely he would have waited until it would have been too late for the General Assembly to come back into session during its final days last week to vote to over-ride the gubernatorial veto.

In such cases, what happens when the session ends is that the bill dies with the governor’s veto standing with no chance of being overridden.

MEANING WE’D HAVE the newly-elected General Assembly having to repeat the process of approving a bill this spring so that Pritzker could sign it into law some time during the summer months. 

MADIGAN: Cunning kept bill alive?

We’d still have the State Rifle Association, along with all the other gun groups, issuing their pompous statements in opposition. Which means their real objection is that they don’t have someone with the political cunning of House Speaker Michael Madigan on their side.

So we now have new laws in Illinois giving local law enforcement more authority to inspect gun dealers and their records, and also to keep copies of a gun-buyers’ firearms permits or other identification. It won’t be just a matter for federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents to deal with.

And perhaps the ideologues who think President Trump is justified in thinking that conditions along the U.S./Mexico border are worthy of an “emergency order” ought to keep in mind that many people in our society would have an easier time regarding the proliferation of firearms amongst the public as the real “emergency.”

  -30-

EXTRA: Political strategist Madigan vs. amateur-hour gov Rauner

Gov. Bruce Rauner concocted a scheme to try to get himself some more votes come Election Day by trying to appear to be the guy who wants to bring back the death penalty to Illinois.

Will Rauner's death penalty fantasy ...

Yet in the ultimate evidence that when it comes to politics, Rauner is a rank amateur, it would seem to be that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to wind up using the issue to take him down.

RAUNER’S METHOD OF bringing the issue up was by using his amendatory veto powers to attach the issue to a separate measure – one that would impose a series of restrictions in Illinois on firearms usage and purchase.

In short, legislators who desire to have those restrictions take effect would have to go along with his death penalty plan for people who kill law enforcement officers or large numbers of people in one fell swoop.

So what does Madigan, the man who’s been a part of the legislative process in Illinois for nearly a half-century, do?

He introduced an amendment Thursday to an Illinois Senate bill now pending in the House of Representatives, with the amendment being “the exact language the governor suggested” to bring back capital punishment.

THAT BILL WILL have a committee hearing come Monday. Legislators will have their say on the matter at that time. As Madigan put it, “we look forward to continuing our effort to keep our children, our schools and our communities safe from senseless gun violence.”

More likely, it will give the Democratic Party majority that controls the Illinois House a chance to beat up on Bruce Rauner, knock about his bill, denounce him for trying political tactics meant to impede firearms restrictions that many of them previously voted for, and pretty much go out of their way to make Monday a very unpleasant day for the governor.

Eventually, they’ll probably take some sort of vote on Rauner’s suggestion, and put the spin on it by saying it was evidence that “the people” didn’t like the governor’s ideal.

... be killed off by Madigan's political skill?

It kind of reminds me of a moment some two decades ago – back when then-Gov. Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard M. Daley came up with a proposal related to a new Chicago-area airport.

THE TWO OF them made a public announcement about what they wanted to happen, and implied the General Assembly would follow suit in coming months. Yet then-state Senate President James “Pate” Philip didn’t think much of the idea, and really was bothered by the fact he wasn’t consulted as part of negotiations.

Which resulted in Philip having the Edgar/Daley proposal written up as a bill for the Senate to consider. They wound up rejecting it outright (literally, nobody voted for it), and Philip forevermore would say of that issue, “we voted for it, nobody liked it.”

Now I know some are saying that this may be a tactic by which Madigan ensures Rauner takes full blame for trying to bring back a capital crimes statute – an issue for which the state went to lengthy extremes to abolish in past years.

Which would wind up costing him many votes in Illinois – even though Rauner is looking solely at the ideologically-inclined who might get worked up over this single issue.

BUT I SEE it more as a way of killing the Rauner plan off, while possibly trying to save the separate issues related to firearms ownership.

Reminiscent of Pate tactic

Regardless, it makes Monday’s debate more about partisan politicking rather than about any criminal justice issue.

If you want to be honest, if this gets reduced to an issue of political gamesmanship, it’s most likely that Madigan will prevail.

For Madigan just comprehends the political process and how it can be used to get things done far better than Rauner with his anti-union dreams that he tries to pass off under the label of “reform.”

  -30-

Rauner wants to undo Illinois’ death penalty reforms to get himself votes

I think former Gov. George Ryan deserves praise for the way he effectively ended capital punishment in Illinois, and former Gov. Pat Quinn ought to get credit for formally ending the practice of committing homicide in the name of “Justice” in our state.

Is Gov. Bruce Rauner really trying to undo ...

But I also realize there are some people living in this state who have ideological hang-ups that cause them to despise the notion that we in Illinois no longer puts people to death as a form of criminal punishment. Which is what I suspect is Gov. Bruce Rauner’s motivation for actions Monday meant to try to bring back capital punishment.

RAUNER WANTS THE people who ridiculously think he’s some form of social liberal to actually be inclined to vote for him come Nov. 6 – instead of desperately searching for a third-party gubernatorial candidate.

Because the way things are shaping up, the number of people who’d be willing to vote for Bruce will wind up being smaller than the Democrats who will eagerly vote for J.B. Pritzker for governor out of the idea of snatching back the post from the GOP.

Rauner stirred up the death penalty pot on Monday when he used his amendatory veto powers to alter a bill that was intended to impose various restrictions on firearms ownership.

That measure included an extension of a three-day waiting period for someone to actually obtain the firearm they want to buy, a ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks that turn regular firearms into higher-powered weapons of destruction and allowing judges to issue restraining orders to disarm people considered dangerous.

... the actions of Pat Quinn ... 

ALL ARE IDEAS the conservative ideologues hate because they see them as restrictions on what they want to believe is a Constitutionally-issued right of all people to own firearms.

So Rauner will score bonus points with the ideologues if his politicking manages to make a mess of this proposal that was approved this spring by the General Assembly.

And if, by chance, Rauner were to actually get the state Legislature to accept his addition of a capital crimes statute for people convicted of murder against multiple people and against police officers, he’d be giving the ideologues something they fantasize about.

Which is why we’re now going to go through a partisan political mess in the near future over what will become of this measure that was one of several the Democratic-run Legislature approved as a reaction to incidents of mass violence occurring across the nation.

... and George Ryan, or just trying  ...

IT MAY BE the big ideological difference between the political partisans – the more liberal-minded want measures they think will reduce the violence, while the conservative-leaning amongst us want to have tougher penalties for those who commit such acts.

Like I already wrote, I supported the past measures that eliminated capital punishment in Illinois. Largely because it became blatantly obvious that our system was more than capable of issuing ultimate (and irrevocable) penalty to people who didn’t commit the crime.

Rauner claims he’s going to get around this by requiring cases where the death penalty is sought to be held to the standard of “guilty beyond all doubt,” rather than the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” legal standard that is required for a criminal conviction for any other offense.

Which sounds cute. It sounds nice. But it is a ridiculous notion to think we can achieve. For as long as we have human involvement in the criminal justice system, there are going to be screw-ups.

THERE’S JUST NO way we can ever have an absolute truth within our system. Anybody who says we can is either lying to us or is seriously delusional. Neither of which ought to be trusted.

... to Dump Madigan! come November?

So if I view this effort as a political maneuver by Rauner, it makes sense.

He’s tossing out some rhetoric meant to appease the ideologues inclined to think he’s wrong on abortion, immigration and equality for gay people, hoping that it might get them to vote for him.

And if in the process, he manages to derail a firearms-related bill that they despise they’ll love him – even if, in the end, they wind up sitting on their hands and doing nothing come Election Day.

  -30-

What’s so sensible about police dog, gun sanctuary political policies?

I remember once talking with someone of a social conservative ideological bent who seriously perceives conservatives as merely being people who view their ideas as “common sense” principles that we all ought to be eager to follow.

Is this canine the victim of  possible drug law?

I remember laughing in his face at the thought of some of the extremist thought being perceived as logical by any means, and some of the ideas cropping up in Illinois these days in the name of sane social policy are equally ridiculous.

MUCH OF THIS comes from the regional split between urban vs. rural – with many of those in less-populated places being (in my opinion) too isolated from the real world to fully appreciate what goes on amongst the majority of us.

Take marijuana use.

That drug oft inhaled in the form of handmade cigarettes (although I’m sure some are making jokes about brownies) is the focus of proposals that could come before the General Assembly in the near future as to legalization. Some see the logic in legitimizing the substance, with the product being produced under regulated conditions and taxed.

Boy, do some government officials want to tax it! While some are so determined to keep the taint of illegitimacy attached that they’re going to come up with lame arguments as to why its use ought to remain some sort of criminal act (mostly because they think it’s people NOT like themselves who are using it – which is itself absurd).

WHICH IS WHY some law enforcement types are now spewing out an argument against legalization – it would reduce their need for those police dogs whose principal purpose is to use their strong sense of smell to detect the presence of pot.

One thing about the dogs used by police is that they are trained intensely to serve a sole purpose. The idea of retraining those animals likely is not practical – and they’re certainly not of any use as house pets.

The Herald & Review newspaper of Decatur reported about how law enforcement officials are saying their dogs would all have to be retired, and in many cases euthanized, since the one task they were trained to do would now be something no longer needed by police.

The real target of those 'sanctuary' gun communities

Maybe they think they’re going to get all the animal rights activists on their side because of the very thought of all those dead dogs piling up somewhere.

THE THOUGHT THAT a change in law would mean there would be no more need for such dogs in police work is just too radical a thought for those people determined to keep pot criminal.

Although the more absurd line of logic being peddled by ideologues involves another measure being pushed in certain counties of rural Illinois where the gun rights activists are determined to think their firearms are some sort of moral right – just like they want to think only “hippie freaks” use marijuana.

These are the counties following the lead of officials near Effingham that have declared themselves to be “sanctuary” spaces for people with firearms.

As in the local law enforcement officials will not feel compelled to assist with enforcement of firearms restrictions that local officials deem to be intrusive on their idea of what are our “rights.”

MUCH OF THIS thought ties into the ongoing debate over federal immigration policy and those who want to alter laws so as to boost deportations from this country. These ideologues are offended at the thought that some cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” or “welcoming cities” where local cops let federal immigration officials do their own work – rather than offering any unasked-for cooperation.

So now they think they’re “mocking” those who want serious reform of immigration policy, while also strengthening the position of political partisans who are obsessed with firearms and who think that singer/songwriter John Lennon got one thing right in his life when he wrote, “Happiness is a Warm Gun.”

Beatles' parody of gun magazine that parodied Peanuts

Of course, I feel like I’d get the last laugh when somebody who doesn’t fit into their idea of a “real” person winds up showing in their isolated communities bearing arms. How quickly would they cooperate with prosecution of an "undesirable?" And would that person be able to use the idea of inconsistent application of the law to “beat the rap,” so to speak.

Just like I’m sure the same ideologues suddenly become rational about drug laws when it’s their own kids who get caught taking a toke and trying to figure out if Bill Clinton wasn’t totally full of it when he said he, “didn’t inhale.”

  -30-

EXTRA: Rauner wins! (for now)

Gov. Bruce Rauner has a political victory, for the time being. Albeit one that I’m sure his political opponents will want to use to beat him repeatedly over the head with as we come closer and closer to the November general elections.

RAUNER: The ultimate loser?

Rauner used his “veto” power to reject a measure the General Assembly approved this spring – one that would have put state government into the business of licensing firearms dealers operating anywhere in Illinois.

HE CLAIMED THAT was too much regulation, and that there already were other entities providing sufficient regulation of such businesses.

That rejection was permitted to stand when, earlier this week, the Illinois Senate decided not to even try to overturn the governor – which they could have done if they had come up with a 60 percent united front. Something that Democrats do have it in their power to do.

But they’re not going to try. So Rauner’s veto will remain in place, and the measure that was part of a series of bills approved by the Illinois Legislature in the weeks following that school shooting incident in Florida earlier this year will not take effect anytime soon.

It’s always possible the Democratic-led Legislature can try again, and perhaps get it though the governmental process in the future to become law.

CULLERTON: Not challenging veto

BUT FOR NOW, it’s going to serve as a partisan club that can be applied upside Rauner’s head as Democrat J.B. Pritzker challenges him for the governor’s post in this year’s election cycle.

You can already hear the partisan rhetoric – legislators tried to pass a new law meant to protect the public from acts of violence, yet Governor Rauner decided to side with the National Rifle Association and the other conservative ideologues inclined to reject firearms restrictions of any type.

It makes me wonder if Democrats are actually happier with the governor’s veto than they’d be if they could pass the bill into law. A partisan weapon for a future Election Day always has value to political operatives.

PRITZKER: Gains a weapon against Rauner

Now I’m sure the ideologically-inclined of you who are willing to support Rauner’s re-election bid are claiming this is a cheap shot and that nobody of any sense would give such a charge any credence.

BUT KEEP IN mind the level of cheap partisan rhetoric the Rauner camp is spewing, and will continue to spew, in their efforts to get people to cast symbolic votes against Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, by casting actual ballots against Pritzker.

Just this morning, I received an e-mail from the Rauner camp telling me, “Pritzker and Madigan aren’t interested in fixing our state – their only concern is maintaining their own corruption.”

Of course, then the Rauner camp proceeded to solicit donations so they could afford to keep spreading their message.

Which means they want us to pay so they can continue to bombard us with nonsense-talk – an act I think actually shows a lot of nerve and one that makes him worthy of all the headaches he will suffer as he defends himself against allegations that he “sold out Illinois” to the NRA.

  -30-

Some school officials were too anxious to control student dissent at walkouts

I have a nephew who attends Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the suburbs, and he was among the participants in that school’s attempt to participate in the national walkout of high school students desiring more stringent gun laws.

Not all high schools were as photogenic in their activity as these on Walkout day. Photo by Gregory Tejeda

Although to listen to his account of the school’s activity this week, it most definitely seems that some people have no clue of what a real “walkout” consists of.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIALS did not make an effort to stop students from voicing their concerns; all students were told they could partake in such events.

But students at the south suburban high school were given various sites both inside the school building and outside on school property where they could gather to express themselves.

“Express themselves” meant conducting 17-minute moments of silence to pay tribute to the high school students who died in the Parkland, Fla., high school incident that had occurred one month earlier.

But as my nephew explained it, students had been told that while they were excused from class to participate, they were expected to do so in a respectful manner.

SOMETHING ALONG THE lines of go outside, do your moment of silence, then get back to class. Students were informed that disrespectful behavior WOULD be grounds for detention.

Downers Grove detention won't look like this

For what it’s worth, the number of students who got punished by the school for their behavior Wednesday morning wasn’t any higher than it would have been on any given school day. The school pulled off the illusion of protest without having any of the ugliness of students feeling compelled to speak out.

There certainly wasn’t any of the kind of activity of students marching through the streets of their surrounding neighborhood, yelling and screaming and demanding that our government officials take their heads out of their behinds and quit acting as those individuals in our society paranoid enough to feel the need to own an AK-47 or some other high-powered semi-automatic rifle are somehow expressing their “American-ness” in such actions.

It definitely isn’t the most controlling behavior I have heard of from school officials this week.

THAT COULD POSSIBLY go to the administrators of Downers Grove North and South high schools. There, students were told that participation in such activity would be regarded as a disruption of school and would be punishable by an hour’s detention.

The Chicago Tribune reported that some 3,900 students went to class, but another 1,100 engaged in a walkout. Perhaps we should complain about all the paper wasted due to all the detention slips written up – except that in today’s day and age, the students probably got detention e-mails informing them of their punishment.

It would be a crowded detention hall, except that school officials say they’re splitting the students up and having them serve their “time” either before, of after, school. Or even on Saturday.

As though they’re creating a real-life version of “The Breakfast Club.” Only no Molly Ringwald-like cutie hanging around, in all likelihood.

I NOTICED THE Chicago Public Schools administration put some organization into the marches that their students made so as to express themselves.

To the point where Illinois Attorney General candidate Pat Quinn felt compelled to show up at such a march – the one done by students at Benito Juarez High School.

At Benito Juarez, was it about Quinn?

Quinn even made a point of issuing a statement calling for, “common-sense solutions to end gun violence” – and a plea for donations, “if you can.” Although I suspect his real intent is less to pocket a few bucks, but to try to sway some of the Benito Juarez parents into casting votes for his political comeback dreams come Tuesday.

Making the student expression of political views nothing more than a political campaign stunt – just the type of activity that ought to warrant students rising up in protest against someone trying to steal their political voice.

  -30-

Rauner won't get pressured to sign proposed gun legislation into Ill. law

Gov. Bruce Rauner will be most remembered for his willingness to go two full years without a budget for Illinois government (causing many of the financial problems the state has today), but he’s also a governor who signed into law measures viewed as supportive of progressive views on abortion, immigration and transgender rights.

RAUNER: What will he do?

In each of those cases, Rauner put his signature of approval on measures the Democratic-majority General Assembly enacted with overwhelming approval – which means Rauner most likely felt pressured into signing off on issues he would have preferred to ignore.

AS THINGS TURNED out, Rauner refused to feel similar pressure in acting Tuesday on a measure the state Legislature approved to require retailers who sell firearms to be licensed by the state. Rauner dug out the "veto" pen in rejecting the idea -- saying he thought it excessive business regulation.

Rauner's rejection came one day after he was confronted with questions about his intentions on the bill, with the governor trying to repeat a stock answer that “a comprehensive solution is what I’m advocating for.”

He also talks of “work(ing) with our members of the General Assembly on a bipartisan basis to come up with real solutions on a bipartisan basis.” Apparently, it was clear enough for him to act.

IVES: Can't add gun control to rant list

He saw how signing off on the measure would have brought additional political heat onto himself. With just six days remaining until the primary Election Day in which he's seeking nomination for re-election, the last thing he wanted to give his ideologue critics (and they are an outspoken bunch) is another issue with which to smack him about.

RAUNER FOLLOWED UP his “none of your business”-type answers with a "drop dead" action to those people concerned about the growing access of firearms in our society -- particularly amongst some individuals who probably shouldn't have the ability to bear arms. That is what will appease the people whom Rauner wants to think of being his political backers; as in the ones who will view any efforts to enact new laws that restrict firearm access as being repulsive.

If Rauner had signed this newest bill into law, the kind of people openly campaigning against his re-election would have added “gun control” to the list of other sins they perceive the governor has committed against conservative-oriented people.

Will Rauner add to 'ideologue' reputation?

The last thing the governor wanted to do in this final week before Tuesday’s primary election is give GOP opponent Jeanne Ives yet another issue with which to bash him about.

Hence, we got the generic double-talk that says as little as possible, but which can be spun in interpretation as calling for a grand overall solution to the problem of too many firearms in our society – and way too many in the hands of people who probably shouldn’t be allowed to have them at all.

BUT THIS STILL is Illinois, the hard-core “blue” state of the Midwest (Indiana being the hard-core “red” state and many of the others being blue-leaning, but capable of being flipped in individual Elections day).

And with the mood of the nation making gun control a hot button issue, Rauner is now going to get a whack upside his head on a national scale.

I’m sure Rauner thinks he’s “damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.” Which is why his vagueness was all too understandable. He probably thinks by acting now, he can minimize the damage.

It can't be used against him in next week's primary, and perhaps he thinks that by the time the Nov. 6 general election comes around, it will be a long-forgotten issue. Perhaps he thinks it will be like all the people who ranted about Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and the "pop tax" who now don't say much about it.

NOT THAT IT will succeed. For anything related to firearms or violence is going to get an intense amount of attention. It is, after all, the political “flavor of the month.”

Why else would high school students across the nation, including in Chicago, be planning a walkout from class Wednesday as a way of urging political people to take action on this issue -- it has been one month since the Florida school incident that triggered much of the recent rhetoric.

How will student outpour influence firearms debate?

And yes, I find it humorous to read the line in a Chicago Tribune report that says school officials are cooperating with organizers to plan walkouts that are “nonpolitical.”

I’m not sure how that’s possible. Too many people of both sides will want to politicize what happens Wednesday, along with Rauner's veto. I'm sure the Democratic majority of the Legislature will take pride in overriding Rauner later this year, probably as much joy as many of the students who participate Wednesday will be doing so just for the joy of cutting class!

  -30-

Dick’s firearms restrictions sound nice, but will they really make a difference?

When I woke up Wednesday morning, I found a statement from Dick’s Sporting Goods in my e-mail box – the one telling me they’re going to stop sales of assault-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines at the stores the company controls.

One less place selling assault-style rifles

Pretty soon, that statement had been turned into a story that was showing up on news organizations across the nation – heck, it was the lede story for the Chicago Sun-Times’ website for part of the day.

SOMEWHERE, THERE’S A public relations executive who earned their money for the day – they got Dick’s corporate name into the public eye, and in a way that will be viewed sympathetically by the general public.

A good day, I suppose.

Except that I’m not the least bit convinced this move will make any dent whatsoever in the flow of firearms that exist amongst the public – and are what causes the threat of violence that exists these days in our society.

Because I’m not convinced that the kind of people who are obtaining firearms for violent purposes who really have no business thinking of themselves as gun owners are those who go to big, public shopping centers when they seek out their weapons.

I WRITE THAT knowing full well that Dick’s officials admitted that one of the weapons used in that Parkland, Fla., school shooting that left 17 dead last month was a shotgun that had been purchased from a Dick’s store.

That was truly the fluke.

Perhaps I’ve been influenced too much by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other activists who get worked up over gun violence. As a reporter-type person, I have seen them do many protests at gun shops that usually are in isolated locations. A place like Dick’s would be far too public for the kind of people actually having thoughts of large-scale violence for whatever foul reason they concoct in their minds.

And I’m not about to blame places like Chuck’s Gun Shop, located in suburban Riverdale just a few blocks across from the Chicago city limits. Although Jackson and the Rev. Michael Pfleger have often said they think Chuck’s sells many of the weapons that eventually wind up being used for nefarious purposes, even that store in a decaying suburb (one I lived in for a few years back when I was a young child) may be too out-in-the-open for conspiracy types.

WHAT ALWAYS ASTOUNDS me is the trail a weapon can take from the time it was legally sold to the point when someone decided to enrich themselves by selling it to someone whose intent is some sort of foul play.

It’s certainly not anything that would involve Dick’s.

Heck, Dick’s itself actually cut off sales of automatic rifles several years ago following another school shooting incident in Connecticut – one that involved children far younger than the teenagers who perished in Florida. What this act involves is cutting off sales of such weapons at the Field & Stream stores that also are a part of the corporate family.

Obviously, cutting off the sales at Dick’s proper several years ago didn’t prevent this incident from occurring. In fact, it makes me agree with a television-type pundit I heard recently who said that if the incident at the Sandy Hook Elementary School (where very young children were killed) didn’t motivate political people to act, then likely nothing would.

I DID FIND it interesting to see Dick’s says it will no longer sell firearms of any type to anyone under 21, which is a step in the right direction.

Particularly since it is an idea being contemplated by the Illinois General Assembly, where on Wednesday the Illinois House of Representatives approved an identical age limit, while taking up the enactment of several firearms-related restrictions that allegedly will make the public feel more secure.

Seeing a business voluntarily take on such a restriction is more likely to work than a state law that, I’m sure, ideologues will claim is another unfair regulation meant to hem in business.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that this move by Dick’s is but a tiny piece of the overall solution. Just as I’m sure our state Legislature’s actions are motivated in part by their desire that we quit focusing attention on other issues (sexual harassment, anyone?) they’d prefer we ignore.

  -30-

Armed school teachers – a warped idea whose time has arrived? Let’s hope not!

As one who follows political debate, one of the realities is that ideas once considered absolutely ludicrous can eventually become a part of law. Which is why people opposing nonsense have to be vigilant and never presume they’ve “won” a fight.

Nonsense image is some peoples' reality

That is the thought popping into my head as I hear the continued debate in the wake of the school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead.

BECAUSE SOME OF the people feeling the need to argue against sensible regulation of firearms are pushing a line of thought that strikes me as blatantly absurd – arming the school teachers.

The premise being that when someone comes into a classroom or other situation in the presence of school children to pose a threat, the teacher can whip out their pistol and kill the s-o-b. Thereby saving children’s lives.

The part that amazes me are those individuals who think this is some new concept – an original idea that must now be imposed for our overall protection.

Which, of course, it isn’t. This idea gets brought up following every incident involving school children; as thought its proponents are hoping we’ll now be inclined to see life in their own loopy way of viewing things.

PERSONALLY, THE FIRST time I ever recall someone suggesting the arming of school children was nearly 30 years ago.

It was following the 1988 incident in the North Shore suburbs involving Laurie Dann, a mentally unstable woman who had her own little rampage that included – at one point – entering an elementary school classroom while armed with a pistol.

The crackpots of three decades ago argued that Dann’s rampage could have been brought to a quicker end if the teacher had been armed and merely shot her dead.

Armed faculty idea as old as Laurie Dann

Actually, the teacher in that particular incident did try to defend her students, and in fact managed to disarm Dann of one of her weapons – which may have lessened the eventual body count (one dead, five wounded). The idea of a gunfight involving a teacher wasn’t necessary.

PERSONALLY, I WISH I hadn’t had to recall the Dann debacle – which later was found to include attempts to poison people across the North Shore. She was a mentally disturbed person in her own right.

Although I wonder if the people who seriously talk about wanting to provide school teachers with firearms are even more twisted.

That includes President Donald J. Trump, who this week said he would want teachers with military or special training backgrounds to be armed and prepared to shoot back in such incidents.

I think all that would accomplish is having even more bullets flying through the air in a crisis situation – and the likelihood that one of the teacher’s stray bullets would wind up taking out a student.

TRUMP TRIES ARGUING that “sicko shooters” would be deterred from attacking school situations because they’re “cowards.”

I’d argue that anybody inclined to bring a firearm into such a situation most likely is mentally unstable and isn’t going to be deterred by anything or anyone. Which means they’re situations where the “cowboy” mentality is the one most likely to cause a situation to escalate into a bloodbath.

TRUMP: Probably thinks he originated idea

But this idea is one that doesn’t seem to want to go away. The knuckleheads amongst the ideologues in our society seem determined to cling to this concept of a pistol-packing school teacher hoping the day comes when they’ll be capable of pushing it through from a fantasy into reality.

Those of us with sense need to maintain a vigilance against the idea; if we’re going to truly maintain a semblance of a safe and sane society.

  -30-