Jacobs supports citizens carrying hidden firearms, Beals offers unique stance on abortion

A piece by Scott Reeder, Springfield correspondent for the Dispatch/Argus reveals surprising views from both candidates for 36th District State Senate.

With three school murder sprees stunning our senses in only the past week, causing the rest of the world to wonder why we're so obsessed with guns and so violent, both Beals AND Jacobs want to give more citizens, who after all, have the chance of snapping mentally at any point, the increased ability to convert momentary emotional rage into instant death or injury.

While it might be expected that the Republican candidate would hold this view, it comes as a bit of a surprise that Democrat Jacobs takes the controversial position of supporting "concealed carry" legislation. I'm sure the gun guys will love that. I think it's nuts.

While I imagine I share the same views with Jacobs on most issues (though I have no way of knowing, since I'm not sure where he stands on much of anything) this really comes as a disappointment.

If you want a small arsenal in your home, fine. But do we need people carrying around hidden guns in public? I think we've gotten along just fine without it these past 200 or so years. I wonder what makes it so important that we change it now?

"I can think of plenty of instances where a store employee carrying a large amount of money to the bank or mother living in a rough neighborhood might want to carry a gun for protection," Mr. Jacobs said.

Jacobs also says he supports tougher penalties for those who use guns to commit crimes.

OK. So once the smoke clears and the crime scene is processed, the bodies photographed and taken away, we'll sort it out, try to find the bad guy and then if we do, REALLY throw the book at 'em. I get it. But isn't that kinda the way it works now?

Is there a guarantee that the person with the legal concealed weapon will always be the one in the right, and if so, will be the one who survives? That would be cool. Maybe he can write something into the bill to that effect.

Judging by Jacobs' and other's rationale, if only those Amish had hand cannons strapped to their calfs, those children would still be alive.

The solution for gun violence, they apparently feel, is more guns in more places. An arms race among Americans. I guess we won't be safe until everyone is armed. Kind of like Faluja.

And law enforcement will be happy to have to deal with more people who are carrying concealed deadly weapons too. It's got to make their job just that much easier, right? Maybe not.

Guess the polls and the NRA trumped common sense.

It'll sure be comforting to know that the juiced up weirdo who just staggered out of a bar could be packing a .357 hidden in a shoulder holster. Now if someone beats him at pool, instead of breaking a cue over their head, he can reach into his shoulder holster and shoot up the entire bar. Good leadership there Senator.

Apparently some polling and pressure from the gun lobby makes this position the safest to take. But since Jacobs essentially has the race won, it makes you wonder why he'd endorse a measure which is controversial at best and adds to gun proliferation and ensures that more guns will be present in nearly all social situations, including cars (road rage), domestic disputes, and on and on.

Yes, guns are already out there in ridiculous numbers, but the idea of the heroic citizen shooting it out with the bad guys is largely a myth exiating in some guys' macho hero fantasys.

It's very rare that you have the luxury of time to get out your gun and make a plan. If someone assaults you, they usually don't bother giving you a head's up before hand.

It takes zero courage or leadership to try to "out-gun" your opponent, and that's just what fear of the NRA has caused pols to do. The country is already swimming in guns and one wonders where it will all end. Certainly not while candidates are more than willing to roll over for the NRA and their gullible supporters who swallow the fantasy that the government will (or possibly could) somehow take away their precious guns and take the easy route, supporting whatever pro-gun legislation comes down the pike.

The NRA says that Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states who have managed to resist their vision of a heavily armed public, with anyone going through a process able to carry concealed weapons in grocery stores, restaurants, churches, and bars, and schools apparently.

As readers will see, the article also mentions Jacobs laughably huge 33 to 1 fundraising advantage over Beals ($301,756 vs. $9,009 over the year and a half ending June 30) as well as praise for Jacobs having been the "main sponsor" on 16 bills, though the content of the bills are not discussed.

I'm trying to figure out from this page just which 16 bills are the ones referred to in the article. I only see 3 senate bills which became law, and 15 more House bills which originated with Boland, Verschoore, or others which Jacobs sponsored on the senate side which were enacted. Is it now 18 bills?

Beals for his part comes up with an abortion stance that could be charitably be described as inventive.

He has come to the conclusion that girls under 18 years of age should be allowed to have abortions under any circumstances, as long as they have parental consent. If the woman happens to be a day over 18 or older however, they'd be forbidden to have an abortion, even if the pregnancy was the result of violent rape or incest.

The only exception Beals would allow would be if the pregnancy posed a grave threat to the health of the mother.

Wow.

I assume the thinking behind this is that the only justified abortions are if the woman is too young to properly raise a child. Well. Do women magically become responsible and mature the day of their 18th birthday? If so, I hadn't noticed.

And no exception for rape or incest is just cruel as well.

So... there you have 'em folks, your two choices for State Senator.

Aren't we lucky.

(note: all raging personal attacks will be unceremoniously dumped. If you can't make a rational and somewhat civil comment, or have nothing to offer but cheap bluster, don't bother)