“Fake U.S. marshal convicted after pulling gun in Chicago theater”
“A Will County man who drew his concealed handgun and announced he was a deputy U.S. marshal after an annoyed Chicago movie audience told him to stop talking on his phone was convicted Wednesday of impersonating a federal agent.”
I will stipulate that in this case, the weapon was “concealed.” But since words have meaning, why was the word “concealed” used instead of perhaps, “hidden”, “unseen” or even “the handgun that he was illegally carrying.”
I will admit that when I first read the print article, I thought right away that this was a case of an person in Illinois that had a CCL and did something incredibly stupid. (Those are the kind of CCL carriers that should have NEVER got it.)
Try as I might, I was unable to find any mention of the suspect having a CCl in Illinois. I did find a person with the same name in Illinois that lost his credentials for TRAINING CCL’s.
Highly trained and professional journalists go to school to learn how to write news. Surely they must be educated in proper word usage.
Was “concealed” deliberately used to conflate shootings with people that lawfully carry?
Was it ignorance??? Is it possible there are professional journalists that presume that anyone that has a gun on them can carry? Two people collaborated on this news story and I can only presume it went past at least one proofreader and hopefully an editor?? How would it be possible that all those would think that “concealed” was the correct word.
Words mean things.
Text of email sent to the less than honorable Senator Kirk of the People’s Republic of Illinoisitan:
I am appalled, disgusted and revolted at the fact that you voted for passage of legislation (TPA) that not a single one of your constituents was able to either review or discuss with you before you voted for it. Having a lawless president conspire with Congress to ram through secretive and unknown legislation is not how our representative republic works.
There is no acceptable excuse or reason for you to have voted for this legislation.
If you continue your public service by seeking re-election, I can guarantee that I will never vote for you again. I can’t trust you to do the right thing anymore.
Just one vote, but it’s mine
1) It’s Illinois
2) It’s winter
3) It snows in winter
4) Combining 1, 2 and 3, the reasonable conclusion is that it snows in Illinois in winter.
If then number 4 above is correct and:
A) You are afraid to drive in snow
B) You are not capable of driving in snow
THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF THE ROADS !!!!
I don’t approve of driving unsafely or recklessly in adverse weather conditions, but just because there is snow on the road doesn’t mean you have to slow down to 10 miles an hour.
The state of Illinois would have to allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons under a federal appeals court ruling issued today, but the judges also gave lawmakers 180 days to put their own version of the law in place.
In a 2-1 decision that is a major victory for the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the state’s ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.
No, this is not a victory for the NRA, this is a victory for all of the citizens of Illinois that need to protect themselves from the criminals that Liberal judges let loose on us.
“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” the judges ruled.
Good call !!
Amazing how smart those guys were way back when.
David Sigale, an attorney who represented the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, called the decision by the appeals court in Chicago “historic.”
“What we are most pleased about is how the court has recognized that the Second Amendment is just as, if not at times more, important in public as it is in the home,” he said. “The right of self-defense doesn’t end at your front door.”
“The right of self-defense doesn’t end at your front door.”
Amen to that brother !!!
Illinois drops two places in consumption of beer
Your beer consumption is slipping, Illinoisans. So says a Washington-based industry group, the Beer Institute.
The state’s over-21 population consumed 28.9 gallons of beer per capita in 2011, the group reported, down from 30 gallons the year before. That ranks 28th among the states, down two spots from 2010.
“We’re all aware of it, but I don’t know if there is any one factor to explain it,” Bill Olson, president of the Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois told the Bloomington Pantagraph.
However, Illinois still ranks sixth among states in total beer shipments received, which are not measured per capita. That’s the same rank as in 2010, but down from the No. 5 spot the state held from 2004 to 2009.
The top five states in per capita consumption last year were: New Hampshire (43 gallons), North Dakota (42.2), Montana (40.6), South Dakota (38) and Nevada (36.5), according to Beer Institute data.
“Beer Institute” (gonna have to look into that!!)
I’m doing my part for Illinois, I’m drinking for 3, maybe 4 other people to get the numbers back up.