peacefuljeffrey 0 #1 September 21, 2004 "Security" guard shot and killed in IL statehouse Perhaps Rod Blagojevich is to blame for this death. Apparently he thinks that because gun control is in place in his state, no one who shouldn't have a gun has one. He insists on keeping people in the state of IL disarmed -- right on up to the so-called "security guards" at the STATEHOUSE. And compounding that, he doesn't even have metal detectors to get into the building. WTF good are statehouse guards who are not armed? Apparently it doesn't suit the governor to have guns used to defend the good from the evil, and this is what you get. QuoteDeadly shooting at Illinois Capitol SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- A gunman walked into the state Capitol and shot an unarmed security guard to death Monday before stashing the weapon in the trunk of his car and driving way, authorities said. The officer was killed with one gunshot to the chest, said Col. Larry Schmidt, chief deputy director of the Secretary of State Police. Authorities did not immediately know the motive for the attack. Gov. Rod Blagojevich was not in the Capitol at the time, and the Legislature is not in session. The Capitol has no metal detectors, and its security guards are not armed. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #2 September 21, 2004 ...yet another reason I am glad to have left the People's Republic of Illinois. Let's commute all the death penalty cases to life, -AND- Take away everyone's legal guns, so we can be prey for outlaws and their guns... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 September 21, 2004 No - this event seems a bit random to blame on any sort of policy. An armed guard would have been just as dead. I'm a bit puzzled why he walked in to shoot a guard. Are we missing a connection between them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #4 September 21, 2004 QuoteAn armed guard would have been just as dead. Why do you say that? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #5 September 21, 2004 QuoteNo - this event seems a bit random to blame on any sort of policy. An armed guard would have been just as dead. Possibly, but in PJs vision of the world, everyone else present would have whipped out their weapons and the gunman would have been toast. Plus the gunman wouldn't have attempted it in the first place knowing that everyone else was armed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 September 21, 2004 Quote QuoteAn armed guard would have been just as dead. Why do you say that? It reads as an ambush. Given the generally calm nature of his work there, odds are low that he would have been able to identify the threat in time. Armed guards may have been able to respond after the fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #7 September 21, 2004 Quote...yet another reason I am glad to have left the People's Republic of Illinois. Let's commute all the death penalty cases to life, -AND- Take away everyone's legal guns, so we can be prey for outlaws and their guns... It's not a Republic, it's a monarchy. King Richard II reigns with Blago as his jester.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 September 21, 2004 I see from the article he was arrested without incident. I wonder what the odds are that the arresting officers were packing heat. Well, it is against policy to be armed, so my guess is the cops who arrested him just asked him to come with them very nicely. Only that way could the perp truly know the error of his ways. Edited to add - wait! The article also says they are lookign at installing metal detectors. I wonder if they'll arm the guards. "Sir, could you please step over here. You set off the detector. I hope you don't have a gun, because if you do, we won't be able to fight back. I hope you aren't a cold blooded killer." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #9 September 21, 2004 QuoteEdited to add - wait! The article also says they are lookign at installing metal detectors. Well that's just silly! Guns are illegal, there's no need for a metal detector. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #10 September 21, 2004 No metal detectors and no armed guards just seems like idiocy to me. So what if I decided that Gov Blagojevich needs to be bumped off in order for everyone to have all the guns they want? I can waltz on in fully armed with no opposition, shoot him, and walk out. That just doesn't make any sense. If he runs for president smack me silly if I decide to vote for him. Jen PS I have no homocidal tendencies so won't be shooting anyone. Except the fucking neighbor's cat that is always in my yard. I have very good aim with a pellet gun, as the cat is finally figuring out. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #11 September 21, 2004 I would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death.------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #12 September 21, 2004 Illinois is a haven for Brady Bill drones. I'd need to get a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) to even browse guns. If I want to own a handgun to protect myself, I'd have to not live in Chicago (the most dangerous part of IL), as they forbade any handgun registration after 1982. The FOID=an Illegal database of gun owners. Fuhrer Daley just enacted a law forbidding retired Chicago cops from carrying their firearms... There was recently a case in a suburb where a man shot an intruder. They were both arrested--the intruder for B&E, the homeowner for an illegal firearm...WTF?? In short, it's a criminal's paradise. An entire state of disarmed prey. I may have grown up there, but i've lived in other places too long to agree with their politics... Still love IL/Chicago...just couldn't take living there... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #13 September 21, 2004 Just as much as the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #14 September 21, 2004 > I would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death. Now, that's crazy talk! Everyone knows that it's not the criminal's fault - both he and the guard are victims of an anti-gun society. I mean, criminals don't kill people, gun shortages kill people! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #15 September 21, 2004 QuoteIllinois is a haven for Brady Bill drones. I'd need to get a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) to even browse guns. If I want to own a handgun to protect myself, I'd have to not live in Chicago (the most dangerous part of IL), as they forbade any handgun registration after 1982. .. Not true. I've browsed guns in IL without any such thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #16 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteIllinois is a haven for Brady Bill drones. I'd need to get a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) to even browse guns. If I want to own a handgun to protect myself, I'd have to not live in Chicago (the most dangerous part of IL), as they forbade any handgun registration after 1982. .. Not true. I've browsed guns in IL without any such thing. Huh...I guess the shops I went to had odd house rules. I could not even handle a firearm without a FOID... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #17 September 21, 2004 Quote***No - this event seems a bit random to blame on any sort of policy. An armed guard would have been just as dead ??? ??`?bly, but in PJs vision of the world, everyone else present would have whipped out their weapons and the gunman would have been toast. Plus the gunman wouldn't have attempted it in the first place knowing that everyone else was armed. He sure wouldn't have been as likely to have escaped and remained at large! Because the guard(s) were not equipped to fight back -- indeed to keep ANYONE "secure" and safe -- there is now a psychotic murderer roaming around unapprehended. You take that as a pro-disarmament argument? And you have the nerve to criticize my "vision of the world" with a vision like that of your own?? editor's note: When I posted this thread, the copy of the article in the link was NOT what appears there now. I copied and pasted the lead of the article. Now that the killer has been arrested, they have changed the article under the same link. That's why I was still writing that the killer was at large: I had not seen the NEW article. Blue skies, -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 September 21, 2004 QuoteI would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death. Then why do city mayors and state attorneys general keep suing gun manufacturers and distributors for the actions of criminals? Write your congressman and tell him/her you want protection for legal commerce in arms NOW! Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #19 September 21, 2004 Quote> I would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death. Now, that's crazy talk! Everyone knows that it's not the criminal's fault - both he and the guard are victims of an anti-gun society. I mean, criminals don't kill people, gun shortages kill people! Bill, don't you mean the gun manufacturers and distributors kill people? You know, just like the car makers are guilty of drunk driving and manslaughter. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteI would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death. Then why do city mayors and state attorneys general keep suing gun manufacturers and distributors for the actions of criminals? Sorry, Jeffrey, you can't use that as validation for your attempt to place blame on the governor. Esp without knowing the motivation behind the killer, who clearly is most responsible. Are you really saying society is responsible for this criminal act, not the criminal himself? This thread is as lame as the Brady types dancing on the bodies when it suits their political wishes. It's sad that residents of Chicago have limited means of self defense, but it's not terribly relevent here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #21 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI would say the person that shot the guard is responsible for guards death. Then why do city mayors and state attorneys general keep suing gun manufacturers and distributors for the actions of criminals? Sorry, Jeffrey, you can't use that as validation for your attempt to place blame on the governor. Esp without knowing the motivation behind the killer, who clearly is most responsible. Are you really saying society is responsible for this criminal act, not the criminal himself? This thread is as lame as the Brady types dancing on the bodies when it suits their political wishes. It's sad that residents of Chicago have limited means of self defense, but it's not terribly relevent here. Okay, here we go now, very slowly I... was... being... F-A-C-E-T-I-O-U-S... when... I... said... that... I blame no one but the killer for the shooting. I do blame the governor for the policy of leaving the defenders of the capitol defenseless, themselves. Dude, really, WHO THE FUCK EVER HEARD OF CAPITOL GUARDS BEING [B]UNARMED[/B]?!?! -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 September 21, 2004 Your subject thread and opening post suggest you think otherwise. If you're going to get less than peaceful every time someone on the other side uses exaggerrated wording or claims, you should expect to be held to the same standard. And stop dancing on the poor dead man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 September 21, 2004 QuoteYour subject thread and opening post suggest you think otherwise. If you're going to get less than peaceful every time someone on the other side uses exaggerrated wording or claims, you should expect to be held to the same standard. And stop dancing on the poor dead man. When the liberals stop dancing on the dead at Columbine. Your misinterpretation of the sarcasm and cynicism of my first post evidences a lack of comprehension. It's not my fault. If I'm going to what? You're the one who took me too seriously. If you've read my posts at all in the past, you should know that I have never supported the idea of holding third parties responsible for the actions of criminals, so what I said about Blagojevich (even his name sounds like vomit!) could not have been anything but facetiousness. But it's true, I do hold him responsible for a failed policy. That doesn't make him culpable in the murder, just responsible for a policy that facilitated both the murder and the subsequent escape. If it was well known that the guards there were well equipped with firearms, it is likely that the killer would never have approached to commit this murder. Blue skies, -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 September 22, 2004 Quote Your misinterpretation of the sarcasm and cynicism of my first post evidences a lack of comprehension. It's not my fault. If I'm going to what? You're the one who took me too seriously. If you've read my posts at all in the past, you should know that I have never supported the idea of holding third parties responsible for the actions of criminals, so what I said about Blagojevich (even his name sounds like vomit!) could not have been anything but facetiousness. Or the simpler explanation - you want to have your cake and eat it too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #25 September 22, 2004 QuoteOr the simpler explanation - you want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, I give up. No amount of me telling you honestly what I was about in that post is going to convince you that I'm being on the level with you. So fuck it. If you don't want to believe me when I tell you flat out what I meant, I'm not gonna give a shit and let it worry me. -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
