Quote of the Day: One Size Fits All Edition

“There seems to be an unwillingness to recognize that Chicago and its dense urban suburbs are different in character. The one-size-fits-all solution may have intellectual appeal, but it doesn’t work without some flexibility.” – Illinois State Senator Don Harmon in Illinois Lawmakers Race for Compromise on Guns [at nytimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar tom rkba says:

    After all, the citizens of Illinois live in their state and shall do as they are told! Apparently, this guy only understands the “subject to the police power” clause of the right to keep and bear arms of the Illinois constitution. The rest of it may be conveniently ignored.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      The qualifying phrase basically negates the entire “right to bear arms” in the Illinois Constitution. It was added in 1970 when the then Governor of Illinois insisted upon removing an “unlimited” right to bear arms in the state constitution so he could disarm undesirables. It was no secret at all the all the undesirables happened to be urban black males who might riot due to various civil rights violations.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        +1

  2. avatar CPO15 says:

    Isn’t “one size fits all” just what Chi-town imposed on the rest of the state?

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Ironic, ain’t it?

    2. avatar C says:

      They love home rule when they’re losing.

    3. avatar Aharon says:

      #1

  3. avatar Jon says:

    Definition of his use of the word “flexibility” : If I deem it necessary, I can infringe on your 2A right.

  4. avatar A-Rod says:

    My understanding of the new legalization and regulation of MJ in Colorado means $40 million is projected to be headed to the school system of Colo. Maybe Illinois could do the same, have more money for the schools, create a bunch of new jobs and businesses and reduce gun crime in the process. Nah, that would be too easy.

    1. avatar LongBeach says:

      Whoa, man… You’re dangerously close to making sense. Better cut that out.

  5. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Sorry sir, you will have no flexibility when it comes to my constitutional rights. You have wiped your ass with the bill of rights long enough.

  6. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    Standing in the middle of it and telling me it don’t stink!

  7. avatar BLAMMO says:

    The nature of government, in general, is that they provide one size fits all solutions to the population, as a whole. They cannot and should not attempt to cater to individual wants or needs. That is what the free market and the private sector are for.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      That’s the problem, there hasn’t been a free market since 1913 with the spawning of the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt established by misusing the commerce clause, with a compliant USSC; that there is nothing in the private sector that is not under the control of the government.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The Federal Reserve wan’t created under the Commerce Clause. Article I Section VIII paragraph 5 — the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof — is sufficient to authorize a central bank. Please don’t get into semantics because you would just be playing the same word games that gun grabbers do with Second Amendment. The “power to coin money” isn’t just about minting coins.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Mmmm, Roosevelt wasn’t president in 1913; he came later during the great depression when he used the commerce clause to stop people from growing wheat for their personal consumption, as an example.

          The Federal Reserve isn’t a government run entity, it’s a privately owned banking system with part of it’s original chartuer that the governments had no right to audit it’s books.

          So a for profit banking group controlling our money supply has no need for transparency in the way it manipulates our economy and our lives.

          Is that in the commerce clause as well?

  8. avatar Nigil says:

    Dense urban suburb = non sequitor
    And though densely populated areas do have much different issues than sparsely populated areas, and everything in between, EVERYONE has the right to self defense. It’s exactly what the courts have been telling DC, Chicago, and Illinois for the last several years.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    Typical tyrants. One size doesnt fit all unless it’s my size.
    Dont worry if it feels too loose or too tight on you. We have our own personal army of tailors who are chomping at the bit to make it fit. Or at least to make you stop complaining about the fit.

  10. avatar Dave357 says:

    OK, I have an idea of how they could have been flexible. The bill has 16 hours of training. They should have made it just eight for most of the State, but for those wanting to carry in dense urban areas, eight additional hours would provide the needed training and a special endorsement for “dense urban areas”. NYC cops might then be sent to IL to train on how not to shoot bystanders.

  11. avatar akira says:

    I didn’t hear him complaining when the “one size fits all” federal assault weapons ban was up for a vote…

  12. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Perhaps someone should suggest that Sen Harmon read the 7th Circuit’s decision in Ezell where they discussed the “balancing” argument with respect to constitutional rights and pointed out how people would have a hissy fit if the suggestion was made to exercise 1st Amendment rights elsewhere because it was not too much of a burden?

  13. avatar Ardent says:

    It comes as no surprise that those who cannot or will not understand the plain text of the constitution cannot understand the rulings of the court. Perhaps the solution to these sorts of conundrums is to seal off the major metropolitan areas until they have ben made safe enough for the constitution to apply there and allow the rest of the respective states to enjoy the liberties secured by it. However, one cannot help thinking that such are examples of the people getting that for which they have voted.
    There was a time in the 1960’s when there was a movement for various ‘hippies’ and such to take up residence in Wyoming, where just those who had attended the Woodstock concert would have constituted a majority vote. The idea was that they could then have it anyway they liked it. If those concerned with the liberties ensconced in the bill of rights were to do the same they would constitute a majority in any state in the union, or even any several states.
    Fighting the good fight is to be admired, as martyrdom often is and rightly so, however discretion is always the better part of valor, and we each have only the one life to live. I’m fortunate enough not to require relocation to enjoy much of the freedoms which we are promised, though like Chicago’s grip on Illinois and NYC on NYS I fear there will come a day when the cities of my state become sufficiently populous as to severely curtail those freedoms. There is no legal means of resisting this, and I’m always cognizant that a strategic retreat may eventually become necessary.
    However, if those disaffected in those states which are not now free would care to join me in mine I’m sure in time we would constitute such a majority that those who oppose liberty would find the state of Ohio intolerable and, lacking any legal recourse, move someplace more in line with their ethos, perhaps New York or California will suit them.
    The concept of states rights doesn’t exist for the benefit of the state but for the people of the state. The beauty of this and our liberty to relocate at will ensures that there will always be havens for those who love their liberty and address their own needs, and a place for those who are fearful of liberty and refuse to be accountable for themselves.

  14. avatar J- says:

    This is the same crap the NYT always puts out. The quote that stuck out at me was:

    “a culture clash that pits Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city and one familiar with the scourge of gun violence, against rural areas where rows of corn stretch on for miles.”

    Why not go all the way and just call everybody outside Cook County “backwood, cornpone, fly over, hillbillies” which is exactly what they think of us. The hate for the un-urban pours out of every word in the article.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    Sorry, Lord Harmon, but in my opinion, either one Constitution fits all or it fits none. If we do not have one Constitution for everyone, then we have no Constitution for anyone.

  16. avatar William says:

    The good, hard-working people of Illinois need to knock that hat off his smart-farty head and set it on fire. Or scoop horseshit with it.

  17. avatar Ropingdown says:

    “There seems to be an unwillingness to recognize that Chicago and its dense urban suburbs are different in character.”

    On the contrary, Mr. Harmon, that fact is exactly the one we all recognize.

  18. avatar Bob says:

    Our rights are God-given (human) rights, not government-granted (legal) rights. The Bill Of Rights was intended to prevent the government from violating those rights. It did not grant or establish those rights, because the rights existed before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. So, Sen. Harmon are you stating that God did not find the people in the cities worthy of those same rights, or even that they are not human?

  19. The problem with this statement is that it flies in the face of all the evidence.

    Does the dense urban nature of Miami cause problems with Florida’s carry law?

    How about Dallas? Seattle? Or Atlanta? Or New Orleans?

    It’s much like the conversations that happen every time that restaurant carry is discussed in a legislature. “There will be drunken bar fights that escalate into shootouts.” Except it never happened in all the other states that tried it. What makes you so special?

    The Chicago pols need to answer the question they have never answered. What about Chicago is so substantially different than every other big city in a shall issue state?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email