October 2, 2006

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.


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)


At 10/02/2006 11:47 PM, Anonymous PROLAWENFORCEMENT said...

Currently, 48 U.S. states allow adults to carry concealed weapons provided they have no criminal record and meet training requirements where required.

In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has since become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and media elites predicted vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner. The predictions proved false. Through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 19%. Thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida. Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted that “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”5 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.”

All of the major law-enforcement groups in Florida (Florida Sheriffs
Association, Florida Police Chiefs Association, Florida Police
Benevolent Association, Florida Peace Officers Association, Florida
Fraternal Order of Police, and the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement) supported passage of the law. None of the law enforcement
groups have either altered or withdrawn their support.

In May 2004, as Texas observed nine years of concealed carry by its residents, things seemed pretty tame down in the Lone Star State. By then, more than 280,000 Texans had been licensed to carry, and according to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, they were "far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen."

As NCPA senior policy analyst H. Sterling Burnett noted, "Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong."

In November 2005, the National Association of Chiefs of Police released a survey showing that more than 66% of the nation's sheriffs and police chiefs support concealed carry by private citizens. That survey polled more than 26,000 top cops, asking this question: "Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states already reflected?"

Sixty-six percent of the respondents said "yes," according to the association report.

By 2006, street cops have figured out that armed criminals don't get gun permits. They just carry illegally, as they are doing right now. Adding legally armed citizens to the mix doesn't make things worse because they aren't in the habit of shooting police officers. There are documented cases where armed citizens have come to the aid of police or other crime victims.

From all accounts it appears that the two candidates are right in the middle on this issues, and you are on the lunatic fringe.

At 10/03/2006 12:38 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks for sharing that.
It appears you cut and pasted some document provided you by the NRA.

It really takes a lot of guts to follow some polls rather than common sense.

I don't think those who want to reduce gun violence and the availablity and profliferation of handguns are "lunatics".

The devastated family members of all the dead children this past week, and the thousands of victims of gun violence by LEGAL owners might think your tireless effort to put more guns in more people's hands is a bit lunatic, ya think maybe?

At 10/03/2006 12:39 AM, Anonymous clyde barrow said...

Dopeless, you never cease to lead with your chin. Nothing but sour grapes on this. Dismiss facts as boilerplate simply because you will never be able to get a CHL. You are the poster child for all the pathetic morons that insist on keeping the QC's in the dark ages.

Too bad you don't have the sack to post this!

At 10/03/2006 12:40 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Clyde, you can hug your guns all you want and talk about having the "sack" and make the absolutely dumbass assumption that everyone would just LOVE to get a permit to be able to walk around with some piece of substitute manhood hiding somewhere on their body.

What a laugh. wow.

If it wasn't for people trying like hell to turn the country into an armed camp, people wouldn't feel the need to carry around the ability to commit murder in a split second.

I don't want a gun, I don't want a concealed carry permit, and I don't want whacko guys who are insecure about their masculinity walking around like cowboys putting everyone, including children, at increased risk.


At 10/03/2006 2:27 PM, Blogger demgorilla said...

Let me quote Scott Reeder's article, as he quotes Charles Wheeler, the Dean of Illinois government and media for the past 20 years (and a former Chicago Sun Times statehouse bureau chief): "That's remarkable (speaking of Mike Jacobs' sponsoring 16 bills during his freshman year) -- something that would make people take notice. It is not at all what one would expect of a freshman lawmaker."

Focusing on one or two issues is one thing, but to provide a fair and balanced view of Mike Jacobs you have to include this fact that is the clear difference in this race for State Senate.

Thanks for allowing me to provide this much-needed information that will help voters make an informed decision on election day.

At 10/03/2006 2:49 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Apparently you think readers don't follow the links and read the articles discussed in the posts themselves.
I think most do and can make up their own minds.

As a matter of fact, I'm trying to compile a list of these 16 bills that are mentioned in the piece, but it's very confusing.

There's only 3 senate bills listed where Jacobs was primary sponsor which eventually passed. And there are 15 more House bills sponsored by Verschoore, Boland and others which Jacobs signed onto as sponsor on the Senate side.

Apparently those are counted as bills Jacobs sponsored?

I hope to post this list along with their short descriptions so that people can judge by what they accomplished, rather than simply their number.

At 10/03/2006 5:11 PM, Anonymous historystudent said...

Imagine how difficult it must have been for Sen. Mike Jacobs to accomplish this amazing feat? Anytime someone as respected and jadded as state House veterans Charlie Wheeler says a politcans actions are "remarkable," you can take that to the bank.

What's most impressive is that Jacobs accomplished this amazing feat during a hot primary election battle. As well, Jacobs also found time to raise $300,000 for the campaign at hand. Compare Jacobs ability to multi-task with the Dope's inability to track bills, one quickly realizes how "amazing" this fact is.

For the unedcuated a bill must pass both the Senate and the House before it becomes law. Simply passing a bill through one chamber is no gaurantee that the bill will survive scrutiny in the other chamber and the Governor's veto pen.

It's no wonder those in the know in Illinois is talking about Senator Jacobs' incredible accomplishment. According to the Illinois Senate Historian, Sen. Mike Jacobs passed more bills in his first term than any other legisltor in Illinois entire history. Including, but not limited to ginats such as: Lincoln, Douglas, Straton, Stevenson, Dirkesn, Madigan, Simon and Durbin.

Did you catch Sen. Jacobs talking with Brian Williams on the National News yesterday? Williams featured Jacobs plan to market Asian Carp to China and beyond. It was about two mintues long and was way cool!

Watch this kid, he's going places. Maybe he will be President of the United States someday? Who knows?

At 10/03/2006 6:14 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I was trying to ignore the anti-gun diatribe because I get so carried away on the issue. I am a certified school administrator and an NRA member too, so I know a little bit about school safety and gun control as well.

We already have gun control laws on the books. The best known are the Brady Bill that requires background checks and waiting periods. There was also the Assault Weapons Ban which is based on semi-automatic guns that simply "look" scary but do not have anymore magazine capacity or firepower than a common rifle.

The school shooters and people who went on murderous rampages all had commonplace firearms (shotguns, rifles, pistols) these are weapons in which you need to pull the trigger each time to shoot. If you want to talk about banning all of these firearms, then you are talking CONFISCATION (not regulation) so let's be real honest on that point because that is what many liberals want.

The confiscation of guns is unconstiutional and will not happen in a free society. And if it did, good luck enforcing it because law-abiding citizens are never going to give up their rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Gun control (i.e. strict regulations) is based on the premise that lunatics and thugs
play by the same rules that the rest of us do. Well wake up because I have news for you -criminals don't follow the law. And chances are they won't buy their guns legally.

Cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. have strict gun control laws, but you know what? They still have lots of gun-related violence!

I haven't read up on the profiles of these school shooters, the sick bastards they are. But if the killer seemed "normal" and just snapped one day, then he/she did not have a criminal past. If that is true, so much for background checks.

Some will say "oh yeah, shotguns and rifles are okay, but not fully automatic guns like Uzis and Mac-10s". You are right, and you can sleep better knowing that fully automatic guns have been illegal since the 1930s. It is federal law. Please remind the violent street gangs who sometimes use them.

Concealed carry legislation is based on the studies that show that responsible, armed citizens are a deterrent to crime. The fact is that guns save lives and every day there are cases across the country where this happens and would-be victims defend themselves- ranging from shopkeepers to people protecting themselves from home invasion. (The media plays down these stories of course, lest people actually feel empowered) Indeed, criminals prefer unarmed victims.

I am glad that Jacobs has taken this old position on behalf of gun owners. If only there were more Democrats like him! It is a rare thing. There is some speculation that Phil Hare sees the sense in this issue too, and that Phil may actually abandon the deplorable anti-gun position taken by Lane Evans. Time will tell.

Finally, it is a fallacy that all law enforcement supports gun control. The leadership of the police unions might, but they only speak for themselves, NOT the entire law enforcement community. Many cops, both active and retired, are proud gun owners and NRA members.

End of rant.

At 10/03/2006 6:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Mark Foley will be president before Jacobs.

And you sound like some 10 yr old girl writing in to "Teen Beat" more than a rational person.

Thanks for sharing your crush note with us.

At 10/03/2006 7:19 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks Nico. I'd only point out that there are an equal number of studies that "prove" that armed citizens increase gun violence. So....?

I don't know if I'd trust NRA paid for and produced "studies" or polls myself.

And cops being NRA members does NOT mean they approve of all the extreme gun measures pushed by the NRA.

Hell, George Bush senior quit the NRA over their leader Wayne LaPierre calling federal law enforcement agents "Jack-booted thugs" and their insane promotion of cop-killer bullets.

At 10/03/2006 8:36 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

We sometimes hear talk that social issues like guns and abortion are "wedge issues" that Republicans use to "divide" the blue collar Democratic voters and drive them into the Republican camp. I disagree.

It used to be that Democrats who favored gun control and legal abortion, which is most of them ... DOWNPLAYED their position and it just wasn't looked at as closely. Then at some point, in the 90s, the Democratic Party got more vocal on these issues and even to the point of being obnoxious.

For example- On the night Dick Durbin got elected in 1996 he took great pride is bashing the NRA. I'll bet he didn't talk that way when he ran for Congress in Central Illinois in 1982!! In other words, in the old days, anti-gun Democrats had sense to keep their mouth shut. Now today, it is the pro-gun Democrats who are expected to keep their mouth shut.

The liberal Dems' increasingly loud position on social issues like guns and abortion alienated a lot of Democrats, especially those in rural America. And we basically said: "I'm not going to look the other way any more. I'm outta here." Call us "old-school" or "right-wing" , but politics is about ADDITION.
And Democrats would've had a lot more votes if they would've stuck to economic issues exclusively and stayed away from guns.
We need "More Poshard and a lot less Pelosi !!"

I look forward to seeing the NRA's scorecard this month. If Phil Hare is a C or better then I will consider it a small victory. Maybe now that Phil has this thing sewn up and he can raise local money, he figures he doesn't have to pander to the anti-gun kooks.

At 10/04/2006 6:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried to find something about Jacobs talking to Brian Williams. There is nothing about any appearance by Jacobs or of any story on carp on the NBC news site, Google, or anywhere else.

Did this actually happen, or is it another Jacobs fantasy?

Qas his carp scheme featured on NBC's "The Fleecing of America" ?

At 10/04/2006 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google: Senator Mike Jacobs, asian carp.

The sheer volumne of stories Jacobs generated with this issue is "amazing." Covergae around the worl!


At 10/04/2006 3:55 PM, Anonymous havinfun said...

NIco - atta boy!

Dope, read a few books that are pro-NRA and learn a few things. There is nothing wrong with getting educated on an issue before spouting off. Learn the other sides thoughts and see if they make sense - clearly you will learn something on the gun-issue.

Absolute proven fact...states with concea-carry laws have fewer gun related incidents (as you never know who may or may not be carrying!).

At 10/04/2006 5:56 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Your boneheaded comment strikes me for a couple reasons.

Number one, I AM well aware of the pro-gun arguments, and other more rational commenters have provided quite a bit here besides.

Secondly, if your supposed "absolute proven fact" is an absolute proven fact, then WHY IN THE HELL didn't you provide a citation or source?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

When are you going to learn that you can't say, "X is a FACT, JACK!" and think you've either proven the other side wrong or won the debate?


And even if you could back up your supposed "absolute proven fact", the source is critical to it's veracity.

Just because you heard some gun loon on Hannity say it was a fact doesn't make it so. Who paid for the "study"? What organization is making the claim?

Or are you that gullable and naive that you swallow what you want to believe whole and are so stupid as to truly believe it's unasailable, uncontrovertable, rock solid, indisputable fact?

If so, you're stupider than I thought, and it explains a lot of your so-called, "arguments".

At 10/04/2006 8:10 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anonymous 15:42

Hoping to find "The sheer volumne of stories Jacobs generated with this issue is "amazing." Covergae around the worl!" I followed your suggestion to google "Senator Mike Jacobs Asian Carp".

But I'm afraid I didn't find much to "enjoy".

As a matter of fact, looking through the first 100 responses on your Google search, I found the "sheer volumne [sic]" of stories mentioning Sen. Jacobs and asian carp to be about 15.

Nor did I see any mention of any supposed appearance with Brian Williams. I'm beginning to think that only happened in your mind.

As a matter of fact, out of the paltry 15 Google results, seven of them were from area blogs including this one, and none of them major media.

What's up with that?

You should have learned from Gary Hart that when you challenge people to check something out, they just might and find that you're full of it.

At 10/04/2006 9:48 PM, Anonymous Jameesmilt said...

Historystudent needs another history class to learn about how the real world works!

At 10/05/2006 12:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just put in mike jacobs asian carp and got 71 hits. Incuded were stories from around the world.

jimmysmilt, you might find these articles infromative as well.

At 10/05/2006 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought this story was more about Beals and his weird opinion about abortion. It's okay if you area under 18, but the minute you reach that golden age you must have that baby regardless. Pretty odd thoughts. Wonder how it's okay up till you're 18? Why isn't it at 18 and over?

This would be a huge step back for women. If Beals was to be elected, which I didn't think he would be but now think it will be even more of a Jacobs win due to this subject, backroom abortions would be back in business. Unsterile. No doctor. What a horrible picture. As a nurse it makes me sick.

At 10/05/2006 7:43 PM, Blogger rope-a-dope said...

I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Nurse ANON 13:04 - Do you really think that abortion is THE issue in the 36th district, because I sure don't think so.

Health care for all (available on demand) is much more important than the right to abortion on demand, don't you think?

At 10/06/2006 9:29 AM, Anonymous nurse judy said...

The article in the paper was primarily about Beals and his opinion on abortion. I didn't say it was the most important issue. Abortion and guns were the two issues discussed in the article by Scott Reeder.

At 10/08/2006 7:47 AM, Blogger rope-a-dope said...

I worry that the wrong issues are often focused on, not only by the media, but, also by what some refer to as "one issue voters". So, I am sorry if I seemed to put words in your mouth nurse judy. Please accept my apology!

Sometimes in the BLOG medium I make quick offhand comments, and perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough.

To better state my feelings, let me begin with the statement, “To me the question of access to health care on demand is a significantly bigger question than the right to abortion on demand.”

Everyone needs health care. With the wide availability of birth control, and, additional options such as the "morning after pill", I see no reason why the actual need for abortion should not be VERY rare.

I agree with the concept of a "woman's right to choose", even though I personally find the prospect of abortion abhorrent. I don't feel comfortable pushing my own morality onto the individuals who have to make the choice.

There are tens of millions of Americans without proper access to health care at the moment, and I believe they have a human right to have that need filled. I do not believe there are tens of millions of unwanted pregnancies waiting to be aborted at this moment, hence my request that we do not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

At 10/09/2006 9:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am so glad that we have two great candidates to choose from that both understand the need for all Americans to bear arms.
What a joy for the people.

At 10/09/2006 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You're one sick puppy if you think "joy" is the ability to carry a deadly weapon hidden under your clothing.

And if you think that anyone is trying to take away your right to own a gun, you're freaking nuts.

This is the idiocy that has all gun loons willing to agree to ANY stupid measure which endangers us all. They think if there's a law to prevent someone from using submachine guns or bazookas, that somehow the government will come take their precious guns away.

What an amazing myth that is.

So you realy think the government could take about 50 million guns away from everyone?

That's about as stupid as saying that you need guns to stand up against the government. Yeah.. .I can see a bunch of people with shotguns facing down a stealth bomber or a helicopter which can kill thousands from miles away.

The entire gun mentality is simply nuttier than a fruitcake.

And so glad you can feel "joy" that this measure will lead to more people being shot, wounded, or killed.

If people got any dumber, I'm not sure they could figure out how to breath.

At 10/09/2006 5:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First off genius. Guns dont kill people people do!
Your genius is overwhelming anon. You say "That's about as stupid as saying that you need guns to stand up against the government. Yeah.. .I can see a bunch of people with shotguns facing down a stealth bomber or a helicopter which can kill thousands from miles away."
I do believe they are doing just that in Iraq. The last time I checked Iraq was plum out of stealth bombers. I bet those people are glad that they never gave their right to bear arms away to the wacky safty patrol.

At 10/09/2006 6:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 17:41.

Hope your guns keep you warm at night, but saying the Iraqi's are fighting us off using handguns shows how uninformed and willing to lie you are.

I'd wager that the number of troops killed with rifles or pistols is about 1%, IF that.

The rest are with rockets, grenades, and the vast majority with IEDs or roadside bombs.

If you think a bunch of yahoos with their little rifles can fight off the U.S. military.... you need help.

And if you're taking up arms and killing U.S. troops fighting the U.S. government, wouldn't that then make you one of the "evil-doers"? Wouldn't you then automatically be a evil scum terrorist??

At 10/11/2006 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, If the government was ever to turn on it's people, the reason that the rights to bear arm is valued by me, then they would be the evil-doers. People like you would be the evil scum turncoats. If you don't think that we the people could win a war with our government then you are sadly mistaken. Governments have turned on their own people all through history and to blindly think that it can not happen to you shows your ignorance.

At 10/11/2006 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good to hear that you fully support the right of the Iraqi insurgents to defend their soverign territory from invaders.

And I'm sorry, but any asshole that turns his gun on the United States is the "turncoat" in anyone's view.

Keep burying guns in your back yard.

Good luck with the revolution, comrade.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home