Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl says she backs a new assault weapons ban bill introduced by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

The bill would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

“We have too many guns in our communities and we must work together to get them off the streets,” Tisdahl said.

“I am grateful to see that Sen. Feinstein is introducing this bill not too long after the president and vice-president announced their simple solutions to this issue, which would require a background check for all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines; and placing additional resources in our schools and towards our mental health services.”

“This legislation will address two of the White House’s solutions to gun violence and I wholeheartedly support it,” Tisdahl said, adding that the new regulations, if adopted, would help keep communities like Evanston safe.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 120 specifically-named firearms and certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns;
  • Ban large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, capable of accepting more than ten rounds;
  • Strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans;
  • Protect legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment and exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting and antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons; and
  • Require that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act; ban the transfer of grandfathered large-capacity ammunition feeding devices; establish a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices; and impose a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms.

The mayor also suggested residents participate in a social media campaign organized by the U.S. Conference of Mayors to support the bill by tweeting a message along the lines of: “I Stand with @usmayors and @SenFeinstein. Support the Ban on Assault Weapons Bill NOW! #MayorsStandWithFeinstein.”

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation


  1. What does the evidence illustrate?

    According to Wikipedia:

    "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[8]

    "A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…."[9]

    "In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[10]"

    What have we learned?

    -The previous weapons ban could not measurably prove that it was effective in reducing gun-related crime and/or violent crime.  That being the case, why is "government" pushing this agenda so aggressively?

    Lest we doom ourselves to repeat the lessons history has already offered, I'll end this post with a few memorable quotes:

    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”-Benjamin Franklin

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

    "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."-Thomas Jefferson



  2. Misdirection does not solve problems

    Gun control and the intent of the second amendment is by far a more complex issue than this response will allow, however I must take issue with Mayor Tisdahl's statement that new gun control measures will make Evanston safer.

    Our recent gun violence and spate of deaths have not been due to an abundance of assault weapons on our streets. 

    Evanston, like so many affluent communities is becoming more and more polarized by economics. As we continue to marginalize those who are not college bound, career tracked, but instead are diminished to service at minimum wage with minimal advancement. This marginalization leads to a greater tendancy towards extreme behavior and actions.

    Our social network is collapsing and government is failing us on the fronts that truly matter. As parents we insulate our children socially, overscheduling them into socially desirable groups and activities that discriminate by fees levied,  adding to the polarization of the community.

    Our police force is relegated to response activity rather than community building. It is hard to get to know the kids in a neighborhood if you drive by them at 50 mph in a patrol car or only interact with them during tense police calls.

    There is little to no effort to build community, to reach out and incorporate all of Evanston, build relationships and bridges. Our children are either headed to college or to McDonalds – where is the middle ground?

    We need community. We need beat cops who know the people, the families, the individuals and the businesses where they walk the beat. We need organized efforts by the schools, the city, the parks district to bring people of all economic situations together – celebrating cutures rather than concepts. We need places where teens can collect in mutual goals – from music to athletics for the purpose of community, not just athletic swagger. We need our local businesses to provide alternative pathways to success through internships and apprentice programs rather than relying on college tracks.

    If we want to truly stop gun violence, we need to create an atmosphere where it has no place. Attempting to eradicate guns is like the war on drugs – expensive, divisive and ultimately futile. 


  3. Don’t be so quick to give up your rights

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                                                           -2nd Amendment of The U.S. Constitution

  4. Guns don’t kill people, the mentally ill do

    Someone please inform Mayor Tisdahl and all other Democrats that guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do. Evanston has its share of mentally ill folks – the 417-bed Albany Care at Main and Ridge houses the chronic mentally ill. Thankfully, they are being treated for their problems.


    Seung-Hui Cho who massacred dozens of college students in 2007 at Virginia Tech had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment. While attending Virginia Tech, he was so deranged that he " was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history."

    Jared Loughner, the shopping mall shooter who killed a half dozen people, was so deranged  that one of his teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. Loughner's classmates  emailed her friends, writing "We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon." After his arrest, two medical evaluations diagnosed him as paranoid schizophrenic and incompetent to stand trial.  Loughner's former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views as "left wing, quite liberal, radical." Zane Gutierrez, a Loughner friend, later told the New York Times that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush." Oh the dripping irony.

    James Holmes who shot and killed about a dozen people at a Colorado movie theatre "was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater." According to news reports and court filings, Holmes told his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," but she refused law enforcement's offer to place Holmes under confinement for 72 hours….Fenton did drop Holmes as a patient after he made threats against another school psychiatrist. And after Holmes made threats against a professor, he was asked to leave campus. "

    Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 children and six adults in a state with one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It was reported that Lanza's mother "was trying to have him involuntarily committed to a mental institution, triggering his rage. "Lanza's brother said Adam had a several personality disorder. Lanza tried but was turned down from buying a gun at a local store. An unarmed principal bravely lunged at Lanza but was shot and killed. Imagine if she only had a gun. 

    The Columbine shooting massacre ocurred when there was federal ban on assault weapons. Meanwhile, the State of Illinois and the federal government has recently cut spending on mental health programs. Innumerable studies have found a correlation between severe mental illness and violent behavior.

    I don't own a gun and I am OK with tightening some of our gun laws such as background checks and the requirement to file paperwork for private gun sales. I strongly disagree with banning handguns and semi-automatic guns. We should not punish the vast majority of law-abiding responsible gun owners.  A few years back, a Wilmette man was putting his children to sleep when a man broke into his house. The homeowner shot the intruder, probably saving his and his children's lives. The homeowner was ticketed by Wilmette police because he was not suppose to have a LEGALLY REGISTERED firearm in his home. That kind of ordinance is exacly where Democrat politicians want to take us. 

    Tisdahl and Democrats are intellectually dishonest and ignoring the real problem – the mentally ill and bad guys with guns, most of which are stolen. 

    We all know there is a gang element in Evanston. A few years back a three-year old Evanston child found his older brother's ILLEGAL gun and shot himself to death.The brother of course was in a gang. In the past six months three Evanston young men were shot to death – all gang related.

    Now imagine if an elementary school- aged child found a gun at home, puts it into a backpack and carries it to school and shoots someone.  Horrible as it may sound, there is a greater liklihood that would happen at an Evanston elementary public school than say at a Wilmette elementary school simply because there is a larger gang element in Evanston. Where you have gangs you have guns (most guns are not registered to the gangmember).

    BTW- elementary school aged children have been killed by knives and bombs. In fact, the most deadly massacre at a school in U.S. history was at an elementary school in Bath, Michigan in 1927. It was by a mentally disturbed man who killed 38 children and six adults. 

    I've mentioned gangs and the mentally ill but let's not forget about our violent culture supported by video games and Hollywood movies filled with gratutious violence. What are politicians doing about that?

    I love my children and want them and all kids to be safe everywhere, including school. We have to address the safety issue honestly. 

    Democratic politicans and most in the media have been extremely dishonest about this issue. It's shocking that we don't even talk about the truth – the irrefutable facts I've mentioned above. 

    A step in the right direction would be to increase jail sentences for illegal gun possession and gang involvement (a life sentence, first offense for a known gangmember found with a gun), make it easier to involuntarily commit someone with mental disorders, introduce incentives or penalties that will stymie the massive level of gratutious violence on TV and the big screen and introduce prayer and some religion back in the public school classroom.

    1. Here we go– it’s all about mental illness!

      What complete (to quote Joe Biden) malarkey.  It's all about mental illness and gangs.  And opinions are somehow given the status of "irrefutable facts".  Ha!

      Alcohol and drugs are much more significant contributors to violent crime than mental health status; consider this: you are three times more likely to be stuck by lightning than murdered by a person with schizophenia. Did I mention that half of police shootings involve mentally ill individuals, many of whom are killed after their families called for help because of lack of mental health services, or as a result of not understanding orders from police?  The data are clear: mentally ill people are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be the victim of a crime than a perpetrator of a crime.  This, by the way, IS an irrefutable fact

      The false linkage between violence and mental illness is damaging and stigmatizing for mentally ill people, in addition to being incorrect. It’s very troubling to see it coming up every time there are mass shootings by gun rights supporters, because it deftly avoids the really serious issue here. Innocent people are dying in the US not because the country is filled with crazed maniacs armed with assault weapons, but because of the free and poorly regulated ability of very dangerous weapons. It is this we need to focus on, rather than the distancing tactic of pretending that no one “normal” could do something this awful.  People who are otherwise "normal" kill all the time; highlighting a few cases where there was clear (or even not so clear) evidence of mental illness does not negate this fact.

      You must realize that perhaps as many as 25% of the country experiences mental health issues at any given time, right?  This means that the chances are high that someone around you has or will have a mental health condition or period of poor mental health. These people are not muderers in training.  But by placing the blame on this segment of our population, we make it even harder for mentally ill people to access the treatment and compassionate care they need and deserve.

      1. Agree with your response to

        Agree with your response to that ignorant original post, but the fact remains that guns are not the causal factor in any of this… it's about dysfunctional cultures of violence, not mental illness or anything else.

    2. Chuck and anonymous live in bliss

      Interesting. Neither anonymous or Chuck addressed the FACTS regarding the shooters I outlined in four  recent mass shootings that has caused Democrat politicians to ban guns.

      Nope. According to these silly folks, the mental illness of Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza had no bearing on their mass shooting sprees. There is an estimated 300 million guns in America. 300 million. The clear majority of gun owners are responsible. Remember, 38 school children were killed in 1927 by a crazed man who blew up the school with dynamite.

      Of course, anonymous would deny that gangs have little bearing on the 500 Chicago murders last year and three shooting deaths in Evanstons in the past several months. He also claims mental illness has no bearing in gun violence, despite the crazies I mentioned above.

      No. Chuck would have you think that it's only "about dysfunctional cultures of violence." Yes we have a violent culture due partly to the non-stop violence we see on TV and the big screen. But it's way more than that.  Does anyone argue that Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza did not suffer from severe mental illness? Anyone?

      Of course, anonymous and Chuck ignored those prominent facts I laid out for them.

      Chuck and anonymous never addressed the mental condition of these shooters as they called my post "malarkey" and "ignorant." 

      Sad and pathetic.

      1. Mass shootings are less threatening than lightning

        You are correct that mass shooters almost always exhibit some sign of mental illness. That is also almost totally irrelevant to public safety in this country.

        Over 8,000 people were killed in shootings in 2011.  The plurality of those murder victims were black males in urban areas. Effectively zero people were killed in mass shootings by mentally ill people. To say that "mental illness is the problem" is to totally miss the forest for the trees.

  5. Has an assault-style weapon ever been used in an Evanston crime?

    I doubt it.

    What passes for progressivism in this town is absurd. The mayor condemns scary-looking "assault rifles" that are basically an insignificant factor in crime… yet she's apparently fine with the police breaking down doors and killing dogs to recover a piddling amount of drugs. And how are the Bamberg/Davis murder investigations going?

    What a joke.

  6. Gun Control

    I support Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control initiative and I am glad that Mayer Tisdahl supports it also.  Opponents of sensible gun control have the unfortunate habit of only quoting the second part of the 2nd admendment.  The complete wording is,

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It seems to me that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is qualified by the needs of a "well regulated militia".  In regard to a militia what does "well-regulated" mean?  I assume it means that there is a  military organization in which there is a well defined chain of command, which drills on a regular basis, has uniformity of dress and uniformity of weapons and where the weapons may be kept in a central location such as an armory. 

    The fact is that most gun owners are not members of such an organization.  However such an organization exists.  It is called the Illinois National Gaurd.  This is the implimentation of the 2nd Admendent.

    There is no particular reason why individual citizens need military style weapons or high capacity magazines.  They are not necessary for hunting and for personal defense an ordinary pistol is more than sufficient.  Better yet call 911.



    1. The Supreme Court disagrees

      The Supreme Court disagrees with you, which is why our city council had to tuck tail and repeal our unconstitutional gun ban after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

      As for your second point, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the right to possess guns for self-defense against hostile individuals or a tyrannical government. If you think we live in such a halcyon age that those are obsolete concerns, advocate for repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that.

      1. Supreme Court and Second Amendment

        The Supreme Court has never…never…said that the 'right to bear arms' is unlimited, or that no limits on the type,size, or power of the arms may be introduced.  The Court has never addressed this particular question.

        In fact, crazy right-wing ideologue  Antonin Scalia hints that limits may be acceptable:

        Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.

        "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.

        Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.

        Source :  Business Insider

        1. Dangerous and unusual

          I've read the decisions. They also imply that bans on guns in sensitive places and bans on felons possessing guns are acceptable. 

          Leaving aside "dangerous" for now, since talking about dangerous guns is somewhat like talking about wet water, look at unusual… so what do liberals who know nothing about guns or the link between guns and crime want to do? Apparently ban "assault" weapons.

          The problem is, "assault" style weapons and semiautomatics with 10+ round magazines are not unusual by any definition. In fact, they are some of the most popular guns in this country. So under the "dangerous and unusual" test, an assault weapons ban would appear to be unconstitutional. This issue is pending right now in the Illinois couts.

          1. Do we need more than 10 shots?

            Hi Chuck:

            Suppose we banned magazines with greater than 10 rounds.  What harm would it do?  All this would mean is that you would have to reload after 10 shots,  wouldn't?  At worst this would be a mere inconvience and  wouldn't seriously impact anyones appility to hunt or to provide for their personal self defence?

            Just curious. 


          2. Why not?

            By that logic, why not only allow fire extinguishers that are only able to put out small fires? Let's make regular-sized fire extinguishers illegal.

            I'll be keeping my "high-capacity" magazines just in case I need to kill *many things* before reloading.

            A firearm is like a fire extinguisher; you pray to God you never need it, but happy to know it's there just in case you do.

          3. How about Stinger missiles?

            I just wonder how our 2nd Amendment absolutists feel about stinger surface to air missiles.  Should law abiding citizens be allowed to possess these?  When the black helicopters come, we might need them.

            Scalia has suggested that the 'bear'  part of the 2nd Amendment would limit weapons to those which you can carry….thus depriving me of my right to own a hydrogen bomb.  But since the stinger is a portable weapon, I see no reason why it should not be allowed.

            I also wonder if plutonium-tipped arrows would be acceptable to everyone.

          4. Go ask the CIA, they are selling them like hot cakes


             Go ask the CIA- They sell them to just about anyone these days including the SYrian rebels(who may be al queda), south KOrea, just to name a few.

             I'm sure you or anyone could get your hands on one on the black market if you're willing to pay upwards of $60K and grease a few dirty politician hands.

            So whether or not they are "legal" is a bit irrelevant.


          5. Who are you planning to kill, exactly
            Simon what or who are you planning to kill, exactly? Who do you think is coming to get you? Do you fantasize about these sorts of “end of days” scenarios often?

            Oh and fire extinguishers are not designed to kill so I don’t quite see the parallel.

      2. More on gun control

        Hi Chuck:

        I didn't say that the 2nd admendment was about hunting.  My understanding is that there was some concern among the founders about whether or not we should have a standing army that was under control of the federal government or whether the defense of the country should be in the hands of "well regulated militias" organized by the states.  We ended up with both.  There is a standing army and the states have national guards.

        You are right in that the Supreme court does not seem to agree with my interpretation.  Also President Obama does not agree with me either.  He states that he believes that the 2nd admendment includes the right of an individual to own a gun for personal self defense.  However, as far as I can tell, this right is not unrestricted and is subject to regulation. 

        For example we could regulate who owns a gun.  No convicted felons for instance.  We could regulate the types of guns people can own.  No military style weapons or high capacity magazines, for example.  We could insist that all guns be registered and gun purchasers undergo background checks. 

        I should also like to mention that even though I have great respect for the constitution and the founders of our Republic the fact is that the country was founded over 240 years ago and some of the original concerns are no longer relevent.  Remember that we were the first democratic government since ancient times.  There was no assurance at the time that democracies could be stable and would not easily revert back to dictatorships.  However we now know of scores of democracies around the world, in addition to ours, that are quite stable and in no danger of turning into a dictatorship.  Most of these countries have gun laws which our much more restrictive than ours.  So this concern of the founders that led to the 2nd admentment is unfounded.  However if you are still worried about this each state has a "well regulated militia" in the form of the National Guard which is available to defend the constitution if required.

    2. Common sense

      My family fought in the American Revolution and every war since then.  We have proudly owned guns for generations in this country and have fought for the freedom of others to do so.  I am equally proud of my family's membership in the Sons and Daughters of the Revolution.

      That said, a part of being an American is engaging in common sense, an attribute that founding fathers on down have touted.

      Of course assault weapons should be banned, as should  bombs, chemical weapons, and other ridiculous arms that are unnecessary in taking down a deer, a turkey, or a home invader.  My ancestors were not defending anyone's right to own an a assault rifle today, just as they were not defending their own right to own or operate a cannon on their farms in South Carolina.

      1. Coming from the mouths of your forefathers, you are incorrect

        I think your forefathers might disagree with your logic.

        "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
        –Thomas Jefferson, (1764).

        "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
        – George Mason 

        Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
        – James Madison

        Note that thesemen are not arguing against arms only for protection against other citizens- but for protection against the government.  If you think that our government engages in common sense laws for the 99%, you have your head in the sand.

        Doesn't anyone remember that Dianne Feinstein's husband made billions of tax dollars off war profiteering while Diane gave him contracts while sitting on the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee?  Unfortunately, that money was also supposed to help soldiers, and it didn't.   Apparently, as long as your own family makes bilions off war in other places, it's a good idea to disarm your own citizens.

        And Tisdahl trusts the leadership of this woman to do the right thing?!

        1. We are not our forefathers–we have evolved

          Anonymous1, I think I must be misunderstanding your post. True, for a period of time our earliest forefathers did encourage militia activity to fight for liberty against the British and these militias were armed with guns more sophisticated than a hunting rifle, but I can't imagine that you are arguing that the average citizen today should arm her or himself with assault weapons and similar arms to do battle with the United States government. If this is indeed what you are saying we have a "right" to do, then we need to start stocking up on nuclear weaponry, rocket launchers, and weapons of mass destruction. And if the average citizen is taking on the U.S. armed forces, they'd better be stockpiling those weapons of mass destruction. This is not the spirit of the original law. Again, common sense must prevail–just as it did when it overturned slavery and any number of other arcane "rights" that seemed like a good idea 220 years ago.

          1. National Defense Authorization Act

            Yes, Protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government was one of the intents of the forefathers. 

            ANd yes, you read my post correctly. Look back to what Hitler did. THe Nazi party did not rise overnight. IT was a gradual take away of people's rights. ONe of his first acts was to disarm his citizens, especially the Jews.  "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty"  ADolf HItler, 1942

            Most Americans would say, well that's nuts- We're AMERICA, we are free people. There is no parallel from AMerica to Nazi Germany . 

            To that I say…

            Do you know about the National Defense Authorization ACT and National Defence Resources ACT

            You tell me why a free country would need these executive orders to imprison citizens with no lawyer and no trial, to put military law over the citizens, and to take away any natural resource deemed necessary by the government- Essentially, with these executive orders, Obama has placed the American homeland in a state of war- .

            SInce we're talking intent of forefathers, you tell me if you think that these acts are the common sense ideas that they believed in?

            DO you feel safer from terrorists due to all these "protections" of our government?

            “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
            ? James Madison 








          2. Another Anonymous1 and reasoned discussion on guns

            It appears that someone else is using Anonymous1 that I had been using when posting.  I will abandon use of Anonymous1 to avoid confusion and use TheOriginalAnonymous1.

            On the gun issue — I recognize the importance of the 2nd Amendment.  But, because I think that we all agree that killing dozens of 1st graders and their teachers is bad, what can we agree on to reduce the chances that this will happen again? 

            This is not a rhetorical question.  Let's look for reasonable points of agreement so that we can make progress on this issue.  Relying on the arguments "let's take away guns because they can hurt people" versus "the 2nd Amendment says that there can be no restrictions on any weapon that can be considered a gun" will not get us anywhere. 

            Other countries allow their citizens to have guns and I have not seen in the news the escalation in mass shootings (I would call them executions because one person decides to murder dozens of defenseless innocents) that we have here.  Why the difference?  I don't know but does someone else? 

            Please spare me the attacks because I am not on one side of the other — really.  I am asking for a reasoned discussion of options so that progress is possible.  This appears to be a lost art in this country.  Let's work at bringing it back.


          3. Detering criminals at least for home robbery

            i don't like the idea or wisdom of every 'lawbiding' citizen having a gun at home for protection.

            But there may be an alternative.  If EVERY 'lawbididing' citizens gets a FIREARM OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION CARD then criminals 'may' think twice about breaking into a house or threathing people in those homes.

            This does not mean the people have guns—only they have done the paper work to buy them.  Of course the only way criminals would know this is if they have a way to get state records of such registration.

            Criminal might break into to steal guns but they don't seem to lack easier access to guns.

            Not perfect, but maybe would help.

          4. Anonymity rules

                 You do realize that Lanza only used 4 handguns for the shooting spree. He left the Assault rifle in the car- at least according to NBC:

            So even if the new regulations. passed it would not have stopped the shooting.

               Whenever there is a moment of crisis, the knee jerk reaction is to ask the government to put in more laws to protect the people- look no further than all the restrictions and laws created after 9/11.  As Rahm Emmanuel said, never let a moment of crisis go to waste.

          5. Bushmaster M4

            The medical examiner found that all of the victims were shot multiple times with high velocity .223 caliber bullets, most likely fired by the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle found with the shooter.  The police also recovered at least three empty 30 round magazines, taped together for maximum reloading speed.  That style of firearm has one purpose: military style ground assault, as it is based on the same weapon design used by US military forces for over 30 years.  An assault weapons / high capacity magazine ban may not have prevented this tragedy, but it certainly could have reduced the body count.  Ironically, the sales of these kinds of weapons increased in the weeks after the shooting, as red blooded Americans feared that their government would lash out and pull these offensive tools of destruction out of reach.  I guess that Zombie invasion could still be out there somewhere.

          6. No knee jerk here

            I didn't say anything about government action or more laws.  I didn't suggest anything about assault weapons or any other weapons.  Stretch your mind and think big picture.

            Crisis needs action but not necessarily by government.  What do you suggest that businesses, other organizations, individuals and society in general do about gun violence?

          7. Tyranny
            How does your right to bear arms protect you from a tyrannical government in this day and age, honestly?

            Are you going to take down an unmanned drone with your Bushmaster?

            And congrats on bringing up Hitler so early in the conversation- Godwin’s law proven true once again.

          8. Katrina

            LOok up how police officials confiscated guns during the Katrina disaster, and the results of this on inividuals as the lawlessness after the disaster proceeded.

            YOu are thinking I mean taking on the US army to wage war, and this is incorrect.

            However, there is very real threat of an economic collapse headed to America.   If/when this collapse happens, there will be temporary chaos as the markets realign. IMagine that suddenly credit cards don't work. YOu can't withdraw money from ATMs because OBama declares an extended bank holiday(Obama talked about putting on bank holidays several times already during his first term).  PEople will panic.  They may raid the grocery store. SOme may riot and use it as an opportunity to steal.

              My hunch is that the government wants to disarm citizens now so that the government can come in and put in controls until financial order is returned IF this happens.

            The military is already running military drills over major US citiies in preparation for martial law.  OBama and his executive orders have already put into place controls to take over the control via martial law.

            LIke any good american, I hope that this will not happen, but I do think it is a real possibility.

            I guess it depends on who you trust- Do you trust the US government to protect you, or do you want to have the ability to protect your own family in an emergency?  IT's really as simple as that.  YOu appear to trust the government, but many do not so they want to keep a gun.


          9. Our founding fathers and Hitler? Not quite true.

            There are a couple of errors in your statements.

            The forefathers enacted tough laws that were not what we would consider "common sense" and did remove the rights of citizens. And the narrative of Nazi gun control is not quite accurate.

            The United States imprisoned U.S. citizens through the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by founding father Pres. John Adams in Jul. 1798 and supported by Alex. Hamilton. This law defined conspiracy as anyone who spoke against the government and its actions and forbade citizens from criticizing the government, president or Congress. James Madison and Thos. Jefferson opposed the measures.


            The Germany army was severely weakened through the Treaty of Versailles.

            Limited to only 4,000 officers and about 100,000 men, the German military also had limits placed on weapons, both type and number. In response to the draconian rules imposed on its military the Weimar Republic Reichstag in Jan. 1919 passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership and the Aug. 1920 Law on the Disarmament of the People.

            In 1928 the government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which relaxed a number of the provisions in the earlier laws. Although individuals could now have guns, strict licensing was required under the new law.

            The Nazi regime did enact some gun restrictions of its own. In 1938, laws requiring licensing and reporting of acquisition, transfer, carrying and manufacturing of guns passed. These new gun laws were less restrictive than those passed in the Weimar Republic in regard to the possession of arms, with the exception of restrictions being placed on Jews. They did tighten manufacturing of guns and banned Jews from the gun industry.

            The 1938 law completely deregulated the acquisition of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. The Nazis did legalize the disarmament of the Jewish population in Nov. 1938. The law prevented the German Jews from owing any dangerous weapon, not just guns. However, the German people were never disarmed during the Nazi regime.




        2. Thomas Jefferson
          Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy, but did he have any statistics to back up his opinion in this particular instance? Or was he just talking out of his ass? Just because he was a great man in general doesn’t mean that he was always right.

          Centuries from now our current politicians will become the “forefathers” of future generations and lord knows these stooges don’t know what they’re talking about half the time.

    3. The meaning of “well-regulated”

      In this context, "well-regulated" means "disciplined" and/or "trained". It has nothing to do with regulations or chain-of-command as you are imagining.

  7. Switzerland, gun ownership, drugs, and Crime

    Tisdhal and others pushing a no-gun agenda must not know about the country of Switzerland. 

    In lieu of an army, the Swiss arm and train most men age 20-30. The men store the military weapons in their homes, making Switzerland have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the entire world.

    Surprisingly, with all these guns available, the rates of gun crime is also some of the lowest in the world. For example, in 2010, there were 40 gun crimes, in the entire country.  

    Switzerland does require gun owners attain a permit, and they disqualify those with mental illnesses or past criminal records- This does seem logical.

     Compare that with CHicago where gun sales are illegal, yet there were 500 gun crimes committed just this past year alone- Swizterland and CHicago population numbers being roughly equal. 

    I'd say that no one arguing against these new bans is pro-violence- but we have to be realistic.  Gun laws are not the reason that we have crime in America.  YOu could blame economic inequality and a sense of rising desperation at lack of opportunities among the poor. YOu could blame drug laws that discriminate and disproportionately criminalize the black man. Or you could look and see that the American government is the number one arms dealer in the entire world.  

    Hypocrisy.  If any of you want real laws for peace, how about telling Obama to put back in place gun sale restrictions.  Surprisingly, with all his talk about peace, he lowered gun sale export regulations, making arms deals under his leadership triple.  Many of these guns are ending up in the hands of criminals- take for example the Fast and Furious bungled operation that put American weapons in the hands of the MExican Zeta Cartel,  responsibe for much of the violent crime in northern Mexico.  According to Obama, gun sales abroad help our national security and are good for our economy.

    Tell Obama to  legalize certain drugs, at a federal level. He said he would do it, but surprise like so many things he has not acted on his hope and change promises. Whites, blacks, latinos purchase proportionally roughly the same amounts of drugs. But the black man is placed in jail and remains in jail at a disproportiate rate.  Make them criminals and then act surprised when they act like them?! 

    How about making the FDA funded solely by tax payer dollars again, making them more accountable for prescription drug safety and side effects considering so many of these recent mass killings have been conducted by people on prescription medication?  As of 1992, the Prescription Drug USer Fee Act indicated that companies awaiting FDA drug approval must pay user fees.  These fees account currently account for 40% of the FDA's budget.  Seems like a conflict of interest to be in charge of regulating the same companies that pay your bills.  

    Personally, I think it's a bit nuts that citizens can currently have semi-automatic weapons, and I don't own any guns.  However, I'm pro-gun LEGAL owner in this instance as I'm wary of losing more constiutional freedoms under executive orders. THe National Defense Authorization signed last year can put any citizens who is suspected of being a terrorist in jail, indefintely, with no lawyer. The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16, 2012 gives the president and his secretaries authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense."  Unable to attain a cybersecurity law through the congress in accordance with your constitution, Obama is now talking of drafting an executive order aimed at cybersecurity. IF anything like the failed CISPA Act, this would give the government to monitor any and all content on the web, and shut down sites that they deem a threat to national security.

    How many promises must Obama break and how many freedoms must he take away with executive order before people wake up!!  Watch what this man DOES and stop listening to his pretty words. He is a a wolf in sheep's clothing, much like Bush was a puppet idiot in a smart man suit.

    Great quotes by JOhn D. above. Where have the great leaders gone?  



  8. the facts

    As usual, our mayor is talking before she has studyed the issue.

    Over the last 20  years, the number of guns in our country have nearly tripled and the number of crimes committed with guns have fell nearly 50%. Much of this is attributed to conceal and carry plus more firearm training.

    Almost all of the weapons on the ban list have one or more sister weapons with the the same or greater capabilities that will not be banned. The ban list primarily consists of rifles with pistol hand grips or adjustable stocks. Ironically, both of these cosmedic differences make the gun safer to use.

    Feinstein's bill has little chance of making it to the floor of the senate. While there may be one or two positive points in the bill, as a whole, it would only punish responsible gun owners and encourage the criminals with the illegal guns.

    1. Agree but now suspicious

      I can agree that an assult weapon ban and limit on the size of magazine are a good idea but when the mayor [Council?] like the idea, it makes me think that given the judgement they have shown in running the city, is there something wrong with what they propose.  I.e. when they propose something that I like already, it makes me wonder if there is something really wrong and my original opinion was wrong.

      Like many I question if this will solve the problem [I assume it will decrease the number killed at a time unless they move to bombs].  The NRA, some Republicans and it seems a number of Democrats will oppose this.  However until the liberals decide that something has to be done to deal with criminals from the start—petty crimes upward like NYC did—and the mentally ill that are dangerous [may or may not be how to determine] and stop giving excuses little will probably change.  After each rampage we see copy cat crimes—not completely independent crimes done because they reached their 'boiling point' but because they are already ill and now decide—with purpose— to kill.

  9. Mayor Tisdahl and Wally misusing our tax dollars!

    The story on Mayor Tisdahl's support of this national political item, was put on the city web site.  This is a misuse of our local tax dollars, by a individual who is only interested in her own political agendas. 

    Mayor Tisdahl time and time again has shown  us her lack of leadership on real city issues, and only her ability to parrot, political nonsense of her friends.

    The story on the city web is typcial of city staff's interested in wiping the Mayor rear end, so to speak.  This story has nothing to do with official city business.  No ordinance or resolution was passed by the council on this matter. So her support of this item is her own view and not an official position of the city.

    The Mayor has continued to violate speakers rights at the council, with silly interruptions when they speak. So not suprisingly she might be interested in this issue. Ofcourse the last time she wanted to get involved in this issue, she backed down she wanted to pass an ordinance on gun control, I think the NRA would have sued the city, so they backed down.  Maybe she even realized the city law department was no match for the NRA's lawyers.

    Maybe some of us should ask the NRA to come in here and sue the city and Mayor for misuse of our tax dollars in regards to their posting on the city web site in support of gun control.

    Mayor Tisdahl likes to stop speakers from expressing their views at council, but we have to now listen to her silly  views of the world on the city web site, wonder if they will give us equal time?


  10. “Discipline” and the Second Amendment

    Perhaps a balance can be struck and the Second Amendment upheld if laws are passed that hold the owners of guns to the level of self "discipline" (if this is what "well regulated" means) that the ownership of an inherently dangerous instrumentality often means in our society.  Accordingly, gun possession might require (1) ownership; (2) training and testing (roles the NRA might perform); (3) licensing (with background checks); and, (4) security in the form of safes and locking mechanisms, with criminal and civil liability for those who fail to meet the laws requirements.  Then we can all own the guns and ammunition we can qualify for and care for safely.  I understand that this works to hold down accidental and criminal shootings in Canada and Australia.  Over time it might do so in the U.S.    

  11. Hollywood?

    How come this legislation does not identify Hollywood?  The movies, cable shows, tv shows that protray horrific acts of violence, carnage and use of guns? 

    I wonder?

    Because we all know that Hollywood is a cash cow for campaign contributions to the Obama presidency and Democrats alike.

    Hypocricy at its finest.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *