“With all due respect to my gun-toting friends and all of those who choose to bear arms, I philosophically don’t believe in allowing concealed carry of firearms by private citizens. It’s always been my feeling that privilege should go to law enforcement personnel. That said, it’s probably time — or at least, inevitable — that Illinois pass a sensible concealed-carry program.” – Jay Redfern, assistant editor, galesburg.com
Ummm, Jay, exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
This guy must have read the 2nd Amendment like this.
“An unregulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be outweighed by the privilege of the Militia.”
He’s the type that believes that he gets to choose which amendments he wants out of the Bill of Rights and tossing out the rest. No surprise he’s in IL.
Privilege? Bet you he’s a Democrat
Hey man, don’t hate. I’m still registered as a Democrat in GA. And a republican in PA. If a my formerly crazy leftist youthful self could jump across the party line than maybe this guy could also.
So I assume, you’ll be voting for Obama in GA and Romney in PA. Will those both be mail-in / absentee ballots?
I really don’t think many police understand the whole “public servant” thing. The citizenry has every right to *demand* that our police force go about their jobs unarmed if we wish, while they have no say in the matter regarding the citizenry.
Alas, though, public servant has come to mean public master, for most of the servants, and much of the citizenry.
No really Jay, keep supporting unconstitutional bullshit laws. We’ll be able to fund the next fifty years of pro gun information from all the lawsuits. Don’t forget to whine about “blood in the streets”!
It’s inevitable because the SCOTUS would rule the bear arms ban unconstitutional and give the Land of Lincoln an Arizona style carry.
The devil is in the details about a “sensible concealed-carry program”. What does that mean? Like only if chi-town’s top cop Garry McCarthy approves it, and then only a single shot black powder antique like what the founding fathers would approve of and then only if you were in a militia?
Like only if chi-town’s top cop Garry McCarthy approves it
That’s actually in their Constitution.
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This guy apparently thinks right and privilege are interchangeable terms.
In all seriousness, it is a good sign when voices within Illinois begin to recognize the inevitability of people grasping and endorsing the reason behind an armed and educated citizenry, even if they personally don’t. I would rather Mr. Redfern say something along the line about how mistaken he had been about 2A rights and how he’ll be buying a XD(m) tomorrow. But hey, a step is a step.
He’s a member of the “ruling class.” He probably already has a permit and weapon. When he says “law enforcement personnel” he means people with political connections.
“Ruling class”? Unless you know differently, it looks like he is simply the assitant editor of some formerly unheard of newspaper in some formerly unheard of podunk town, to me. Reading his blog on that newspaper’s website it looks like he mopsty writes about local eating establishments. I wouldn’t ascribe more power or prominence to this person than that.
Why are we even discussing this nobody? I could Google up a more interesting article in like 30 seconds. This site did not become the world’s most popular blog with posts like this, did it?
The above poster was not far off in calling Redfern a member of the ruling class.
“Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.”
From Angelo M. Codevilla, “America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution”, American Spectator,” July – August 2010, pg. 1.
Codevilla’s article is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the cultural war (Kulturkampf) waged by the ruling class against guns owners, who, for the most part (but with exceptions) are members a group Codevilla calls the “country class.”
“Describing America’s country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and haughty. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers’ defining ideas and proclivities — e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life largely superseded. Demographically, the country class is the other side of the ruling class’s coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members’ yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.”
The article is readily available on the net via google. It is certainly not the answer to life, the universe, and everything, but I found it fairly illuminating. .
Anyway, based on Codevilla’s criteria, Mr. Redfen’s attitude, or philosophy, is that of the ruling class, and its propaganda arm, our hopelessly corrupt fourth estate, who endlessly disseminates the social cannon of the ruling class, i.e., no guns for the serfs. Like any loyal servant, in return for his service, he has been rewarded. In Mr. Redfern’s case, a sinecure as an Assistant Editor” in an industry, that, even its death throes, ceaselessly propagates the ideology of the ruling class and through demonization seeks to silence and destroy those who espouse ideas that run counter to ruling class ideology.
Of course, despite the last gasps of the fourth estate most days I’m pretty sure were doomed, too much damage has been done. However, the fact that member of, or fellow traveller if you will, of the ruling class has cried “uncle” does give one reason to hope.
I think that we are overlooking a very important point here. While he personally does not agree with the principle that ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry guns, he has conceded that its time for Illinois to pass a concealed carry law. If every gun grabber had the same perspective – “I may not like it, but my opinion doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” we would have more gun rights than we do right now. While I don’t agree with Jay’s philosophy, at least he is reasonable to concede that there are other points of view and perhaps those views should dominate.
#1
Um, that’s the same argument they use against us, Jim.
Anti-gunner: “We know you guys love your guns but at least some of you have conceded that there should be some restrictions. Therefore it is inevitable that all of your gun rights will dissapear.”
That’s not the game we want to play. We need to fight to the death to restore our rights and concede nothing the way the founding fathers did. Gun rights are a black and white issue (not referring to race). A little grey is NOT okay.
I would be happy to go back to the status quo of the 19th Century where open carry was the normal state of affairs and concealed carry was either outlawed or highly restricted.
“It’s always been my feeling that privilege should go to law enforcement personnel.”
Huh. Well, at least he admits to being an elitist.
Of course privilege should go to law enforcement. Everyone know cops are better than the rest of us. And they are never involved in anything illegal or immoral. Just look at the ATF.
Cops like this one?
http://wtop.com/?nid=58&sid=2642811
Jay is entitled to his opinion as much as you are. It only becomes a problem when he decides to dictate what you do contrary to the supreme law of the land. I’ve never expected anti-gun people to change their minds, if they don’t like guns then don’t buy one, it’s the attempt to change our minds and use law to do it that is the problem.
Exactly. My opinion doesn’t make him buy a gun, but his opinion might cost me the ability to own mine.
The great part about rights is every Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn’t have to “agree” with them, they just have to deal with it.
There were similar people who decried every civil rights movement. History has painted them all as backward-thinking bigots.
At least he said it was his “feeling” that concealed carry should be for law enforcement only. He didn’t say his inflexibly correct interpetation of the law was “blah blah blah,, like it or tough cookies!”. And that he sees it is “probably time” that Illinois needs a reasonable carry law means we are WINNING! It’s not a time to moan and groan, but to rejoice, welcome a new convert to the team.
We are not “winning”. There is no “winning”. You eather have your rights or you don’t. If any right has been taken away from you, you’ve lost. If anything, the fact that we’ve lost some of our rights already means that we’re “losing”. We should not have to fight to restore RIGHTS!
Anyone who believes that you and I don’t have a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary is your opponent.
from the link to the news story itself:
“Where we once adamantly opposed it as counterintuitive to its proponents’ goal of greater public safety, we now see it as inevitable. With 49 states allowing concealed carry in some form and no Wild West shootouts to show for it, our greatest longstanding fear has proved unfounded.”
“I philosophically don’t believe in allowing concealed carry of firearms by private citizens”
— The man is not addressing the issue of our legal rights to own or carry guns. He has perhaps intentionally and knowingly maneuvered around that important issue. He has a right (1st Amendment), legally and morally, to publicly state his philosophical belief about guns as long as in real-world application those views don’t oppress the rights of others (2nd Amendment).
I give him credit for being honest in acknowledging the stats or facts about cc and lack of shootouts. Most anti-gunners just keep rationalizing truth, living in denial, and often knowingly telling more lies. The man admitted that he and those who are or have been in support of gun control on banning cc have been wrong. Give him a break.
With all due respect to my pen-toting friends and all of those who choose to write stupid sh!t, I philosophically don’t believe in allowing published communications by private citizens. It’s always been my feeling that privilege should go to the government. And TTAG.
Ralph, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute
I would obey their stupid morality statutes for one day if someone would just teach me how to use the damn seashells!
Ahhh Demolition Man, great reference sir.
Wow Ralph, now that was excellent and helps re-frame things so that even a Chicago Jury would side with you. I propose that Robert give you a free annual subscription to TTAG. Oh, wait a minute…
It’s not a privilege; it’s a right. I fail to see what’s so hard about that.
I don’t understand…he’s against the “privilege” but thinks Illinois should pass a conceal carry program? Which one is it? Could it be he’s one of these rare antis who can separate what should be legally right from what he THINKS should be law?
Or is that too optimistic?
I read the whole article to see the rest of what Jay had to say. While he doesn’t personally like the idea and is scepticle about the results, he does still stick to what people’s rights are. He finished with the below which is kind of a back handed statement. Apparently all the studies and facts are good enough for everyone else, but not good enough to convince him.
“Admittedly, Illinois does look silly being the lone state not to have a concealed-carry law. But while the numbers prove it, I’m not sure I’ll ever be convinced more guns equal more safety.”
That’s pretty much warped anti mentality wrapped up in one blurb. “Even though all the numbers and facts prove it to be truth, I still don’t accept it.” If that isn’t insanity, what is?
After thinking about this for a while, I’ll give Jay credit for admitting that when it comes to how the gun grabbers/haters/hoplophobes regard gun owners and gun rights as laid out in the Second Amendment, it’s about feelings over facts. The ones I have encountered seem to be SO disappointed that none of their “blood in the streets” and “wild west shootouts” predictions have come to pass as a result of relaxed carry laws.
Does that mean that they actually wish for innocent blood to be spilled so they can be proven right?
I could barely follow many of the comments. Many were simply personal attacks on the author. But it is all black and white, isn’t it? Guess it’s not since everyone would be allowed to carry right now and there would be no need for this discussion. Since the Constitution ( by many people’s interpretation) grants these unfettered rights, I am headed to a crowded movie theatre right now know where I will stand naked, yell “fire”, and obscene remarks towards all religions, genders, races and sexual orientations. Because the Constitution and 1st amendment grants me that right. I will then resist any search or seizure because the 4th amendment guarantees the right against such an unreasonable search. How could it be unreasonable if I was only expressing my right to constitutional freedom of speech? Every right has boundaries.
I could barely follow many of the comments. Many were simply personal attacks on the author. But it is all black and white, isn’t it? Guess it’s not since everyone would be allowed to carry right now and there would be no need for this discussion. Since the Constitution ( by many people’s interpretation) grants these unfettered rights, I am headed to a crowded movie theatre right now where I will stand naked, yell “fire”, and obscene remarks towards all religions, genders, races and sexual orientations. Because the Constitution and 1st amendment grants me that right. I will then resist any search or seizure because the 4th amendment guarantees the right against such an unreasonable search. How could it be unreasonable if I was only expressing my right to constitutional freedom of speech? Every right granted by the Constitution has boundaries.
Everyone should go to the link and read the article. There were four opinions presented, including this one by the Local News editor: “If it fails, criminals will still be using guns for criminal purposes. If it passes, law-abiding citizens will be able to use them legally as the Constitution guarantees.” — Rob Buck, local news editor
I read the main opinion referenced as saying that this gentleman is uncomfortable with people other than LEO running around with guns. Fact is, probably 40% of the population feels the same way. We have been conditioned by the past 80 or 90 years of history–ever since the end of prohibition–that only cops and gangsters carry guns and regular people keep guns for hunting and for defense of home in their nightstand. In a post-war era where people didn’t lock their houses and left their car keys in the ignition in the driveway, such a belief system is not unreasonable. when people feel “safe” guns are “unnecessary.”
“It’s always been my feeling that privilege should go to law enforcement personell.”
P-p-p-p…. PRIVILEGE!?! My outrage meter just broke. My inner Nuge is struggling to come out. I need to step away from the keyboard for a while.
Comments are closed.