Steve Chapmen, writing in his Chicago Tribune column, called Gov. Pat Quinn's amendatory veto "a pointless gesture."
If allowing these guns stimulated more killing, the national murder rate wouldn't have declined by 13 percent after the ban expired. But that's what happened.The Chicago Sun-Times, by contrast, is happy that Gov. Quinn is exploiting the shootings in Aurora. When Illinois State Sen. David Luechtefeld (R-Okawville) accused Quinn of exploiting the tragedy, the Sun-Times said, "Damn right he is — and good for him."
Prohibiting "assault weapons" is a pointless gesture. Those who propose a ban are only proving they don't understand basic facts about guns and violence or don't care.
Showing that they really don't understand the bill and just how extreme the restrictions that would be imposed if the Illinois General Assembly concurs with Quinn's amendatory veto, they say the veto won't limit handguns. Then they make the nonsensical suggestion to single out only AR-15s.
Quinn didn’t dilute his moral argument by calling for any other form of gun control, such as new limits on handguns.The problem with their argument is that as the veto reads firearms such as the Glock pistol would end up being banned due to the existence of the Glock 18. Read the amendatory veto here and see if you don't agree. See Sec. 24-1.9 (a)(1)(C)(vi).
But let’s go the governor one better. How about we agree to ban only assault weapons, putting off for another day the debate over high-round magazines?
Better yet, let’s ban only certain assault weapons, such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle used in the Colorado theater rampage. The AR-15 can rattle off 30 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Let’s bang the drum for a ban on just these extreme weapons of slaughter to make the point, if nothing else, that even the most conservative gun control proposal will always be shot down by one extremist organization, the National Rifle Association.
The Sun-Times editorial tries to make the NRA the whipping boy in this matter and accuses them of being the extremists for sticking up for the Second Amendment and constitutional rights. What if a bill was passed that said newspapers were restricted to letter presses such as Ben Franklin used that could only print a page at a time. Those high capacity web presses would be forbidden as they were never imagined by the Founding Fathers when they passed the First Amendment. This is analogous to their arguments and just as ridiculous.