County Board's vote to back gun rights not without controversy

This has got to be giving the usual Chicago suspects hissyfits.

82 out of 102 counties...

It just never fails.

In chicago, its always somebody elses fault that thier laws just aren't working.

In D.C., its always somebody elses fault.

In Philly, its always somebody elses fault.

How many times do I have to say it...

Maybe, just maybe, these places that are always pointing the finger and passing the buck, ought to iether do whats necessary to make thier own rules work, or be honest with themselves and everyone else and admit it when its just not possible. And heck, even try something other than the same thing that doesn't work over and over and over expecting a different result every time, instead of blaming thier neighbor.


But that doesn't include going after guns, so its never on the table.

you could sit in your yard bailing out the sewage flowing into it from your neighbour's cesspool all day and all night, and still have crap floating in your goldfish pond.

You'd at least have the practical option of pumping it into your neighbour's basement.

I'll bet Chicago and Philly and the rest wish they could do that. Should they give it a try?

Every firearm seized from someone who commits a crime in Chicago that is traced to a vendor or owner in another part of Illinois gets handed over to a parolee in its home county. How would that be?

A lump of coal, that is.




Maybe, just maybe, if random people were carrying a bucket at a time of sewage and dumping it in my yard, and if said sewage was accepted in yards all across america and possession of said sewage was constitutionally protected, and my yard wasn't private property, you'd have made an honest and valid comparison. You didn't though.



Right, because everyone outside Chicago and Philly and the rest is taking every firearm seized from someone who commits a crime outside Chicago and Philly and the rest and handing it over to a parolee in Chicago or Philly or the rest?


Give me a fucking break.

What I said stands. If Chicago wants to be that different than its neighbors, it should iether do whatever it takes to make what its doing work, or admit that it isn't going to work and try something else, instead of blaming its neighbors.


Arguments like yours contribute to things like interfering with other countries business in the name of the war on drugs, and are in fact quite parallel to the justifications I have seen made for the DEA to go far outside its jurisdiction and poke its nose in places where it has no business being.

If the US doesn't wan't marijuana coming into its jurisdiction from say CANADA, do what it takes in its own jurisdiction to make that happen, or admit that it just doesn't work.

Or do you think the US should blame Canada, eh?

Same shit, just drugs instead of guns, and canada vs US instead of Chicago and Philly and the rest versus esentially everywhere else in the US.

If the US doesn't wan't marijuana coming into its jurisdiction from say CANADA, do what it takes in its own jurisdiction to make that happen, or admit that it just doesn't work.

And what in fact has to be done is for the US to adopt firearms control measures equivalent to Canada's.

That's not me saying that. That's you.

Because firearms are one of the most significant forms of payment for Canada's marijuana crop in the US.

No firearms available to pot purchasers in the US to trade for the pot, a lot less pot getting into the US.

It might make more sense for both sides to legalize pot. We're willing anytime you are. As long as you aren't, stop extraditing Canadians to the US and trying to put them in prison for life for selling mail-order seeds to people in the US, would you?

All you have to do is get yourselves some gun control, and you'll have a whole lot of fewer problems of all sorts.

Like I said, a gem in the rough.

If canada doesn't want firearms coming in from the US, do what it takes to make it happen, or admit if can't be done, and try something else.

If the US doesn't want MJ coming in from Canada, do what it takes to make it happen, or admit if can't be done, and try something else.



Legalizing MJ would qualify as something I meant when I said "try something else", and for what its worth, I am 100% with you about marc emery. If the US wants to be that different than its neighbors, the onus is on them to make it so, or admit they can't and try something else, rather than extraditing Canadians to the US and trying to put them in prison for life for selling mail-order seeds to people in the US.


Its not a matter of a place restricting what they or thier neighbors have going out. Its a matter of that place that wants to be different than thier neighbors doing what it takes to make sure that whatever that thing is that they don't want thier people to have access to doesn't come in, or admit it can't be done, and try something else.

You said: If the US doesn't wan't marijuana coming into its jurisdiction from say CANADA, do what it takes in its own jurisdiction to make that happen, or admit that it just doesn't work.

I said: ... No firearms available to pot purchasers in the US to trade for the pot, a lot less pot getting into the US. ...


Absofuckinglutely nothing to do with who wants what getting into Canada.

So why are you saying: If canada doesn't want firearms coming in from the US yada yada?

Nobody's talking about Canada wanting or not wanting firearms coming in from the US or anywhere else.

We're talking about the US not wanting marijuana coming in from Canada. Is your attention span really this short?



You may not be completely 100% with me on Marc Emery. I regard him as a total asshole. ;)
(My little brother knows him quite well, and shares that opinion based on actual personal knowledge.)

But rights are for assholes too, yessirreee. Which doesn't mean that exercising certain rights in certain ways doesn't make one an asshole, of course!

Maybe I didn't make my meaning plain....

I mean strictly in the direct sense. That was implied in my mind but I admit I never spelled it out. Now I have.


That indirect stuff far too often is too exploitable, for example things like "No firearms available to pot purchasers in the US to trade for the pot, a lot less pot getting into the US" in the name of the drug war.

Me, Id say that if someplace like the US can't keep pot out directly, that they should definitely stop blaming thier neighbors and try something else.

"You may not be completely 100% with me on Marc Emery. I regard him as a total asshole. ;) (My little brother knows him quite well, and shares that opinion based on actual personal knowledge.)"

Fair enough, but that still does not excuse the actions of the US, and I'm not saying you said it does.

Emery is a total asshole, but the behaviour of the various US govts / agencies involved was completely beyond the pale.

I would say the behaviour of my govt was, but it didn't get a chance. If it had, it would undoubtedly have thrown him to the wolves; we'll never know whether the Supreme Court would have let it. You probably know, but Emery cut a deal for 5 years so that the attempt to extradite his two friends/associates would be dropped.


You very much need to go out and buy this on dvd:

http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2005/11/28/1326840.html



The DEA and the FBI and the CIA ply their trade in Vancouver, while US corps go after Cdn water, with Jimmy the Weed King and Mary the Mountie joining forces to keep them all out. Oh, and it has Max Headroom as an ambivalent/ambiguous double agent. Right up top of the heap with the BBC's Inside the Line, and if I'd been able to tolerate The Sopranos or The Shield, I'd make that comparison; some do, some in Intelligence's favour.

There's a theory that some Conservative govt conspiracy has resulted in it being cancelled ... Oh. Looks like they were right, at least about it's being cancelled. Apparently Fox may pick it up. Oh well. Back to 24 ...

"Emery is a total asshole, but the behaviour of the various US govts / agencies involved was completely beyond the pale."

I don't know emery from the corn planted in my garden, other what I have read about the interaction between him and my government.



But I agree completely with you about the behavior various US govts / agencies , and I think your being charitable, no, kind - and polite, calling it beyond the pale.

How I'd describe it...well, I am not going to say those words on this forum, lest everyone consider me far too angry a fella to be touching a firearm. :argh:


At any rate, I think that might be the first thing I have ever agreed with you 100% on in 5-ish years.

The end of the world as we know it...


Ill have to check out "Intelligence". From the description at your link, it appears interesting, and entertaining.

I wonder if it can be watched online like so many shows nowdays. I'll just bet it could be found on a torrent site. Bah. A quick perusal of the internet leaves me emptyhanded for online viewing.

I'll have to try to snipe it off ebay when opportunity arises.

Furthermore, an innocent bystander getting a whiff of someone's spliff is nothing like the annoying inconvenience of becoming collateral damage in a shooting.

Let's not act like them!

If the US doesn't wan't marijuana coming into its jurisdiction from say CANADA, do what it takes in its own jurisdiction to make that happen, or admit that it just doesn't work.

isn't comparing anything to anything. It's an analogy based on the characteristic two things share, consisting of their being "something somebody doesn't want".

I didn't compare guns to sewage, either. ;)

Really!

"You do MJ a terrible injustice when you compare it to the scourge of guns."

I think you must have me confused with another poster, since I never did anything of the sort.

why don't you track down some data on how often innocent bystanders are hit in shootings. I mean someone who was not the intended target. If you could get it broken down into categories by shooter or by situation that would be great too.

Otherwise I'm gonna have to call BS on your post, because it seems like you are posting with some perception that innocent people are shot regularly on accident by law-abiding citizens.

"Every firearm seized from someone who commits a crime in Chicago that is traced to a vendor or owner in another part of Illinois gets handed over to a parolee in its home county. How would that be?"

Free guns? Sign me up!

by keeping their violent offenders and gang-affiliated prisoners locked up, no chance for parole, sure some of them turn their lives around after a stint in the slammer but most come out worse than they went in. That's why it is called clown college.

82 out of 102 counties...


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/illinois.html

In 2005, 92% of Illinois counties had no abortion provider. 34% of Illinois women lived in these counties. In the Midwest census region, where Illinois is located, 19% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 9% traveled more than 100 miles.

• In Illinois, 5 metropolitan areas lack an abortion provider: Danville; Decatur; Kankakee-Bradley; Bloomington-Normal; Springfield

I wonder what the correlation would be ...

1 out of five women in Illinois had to travel almost an hour to get to the clinic.
Is that supposed to show how unenlightened and backwards those areas are? Maybe there just isn't a need for every ER in Illinois to have an attached abortion clinic?


Whatever.

You could infer that I was implying something, if you like.

Is that supposed to show how unenlightened and backwards those areas are?

You seem to be on the right track. Of course, you've chosen to pretend the evidence is something other than the obvious evidence, but whatever.

More accurate might be: viciously stupid and right-wing, at least in sufficient proportions to produce the results observed.

"Local" gun control is obviously about as effective as "local" fire ant control ...

we won't need to worry about some kind of nationalized scheme promoted from Philadelphia, D.C., New York City, Chicago, etc.

All's I know is you'll never hear anything about "local gun control" from me.

Gun free zone signs don't work, whether it's on a building, or at the city limits.

Otherwise, I'd have to think that you were just making some fresh false statement ...

Some evidence that people in rural Illinois are "stupid and viciously right-wing", because I am not aware of any "obvious evidence" that shows that people in Illinois are either of those two things.

And since you tried to use their lack of saturation of abortion clinics, why don't you show some proof that abortions are in such great demand that there SHOULD be abortion clinics every fifty miles, since you feel it is such a travesty that one in five Illinois women travel about an hour to get to their abortion appointments.