Illinois gun BAN???????

Good luck with that.

62 wood wrote: Anyone hear or know about IL Senate president Cullerton trying to ban nearly all guns in IL? Sounds like it would include semi-automatics and even Pump Shotguns!!!!! Ilinois State Rifle Association article...

Steve.....Chicago's gun bans have worked so well, maybe the pols are going to institute it statewide.

    I was just reading about this. I do not normally post in gun threads on non gun forums because it can create too much controversy, but you guys are pretty level headed so I'll throw this out there....And I'LL ATTEMPT TO DO IT WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE A RIGHT WING NUTJOB :)

    I am an avid shooter,I have enough "scary looking" military rifles, ammo and high capacity magazines to make the evening news. I am also a law abiding citizen who preaches firearms safety and responsibilty. My children, ages 14 & 15 are proficient with firearms, and enjoy going to the range. My guns are locked in a safe when not in use and I am the only one with the combination.

    I do not hunt. I have heard alot of my "hunting" type buddies since the Ct school shooting say maybe its time to let that stuff go away. As long as I can still have my hunting guns etc,blah blah blah.

    This stuff in Illinois is exactly why tactical gun owners, handgun owners, hunters and "non" gun owners need to stand beside each other. Gun control does not prevent these tragedies from happening and it never will. Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun and he killed 168 people, 19 of them were children under 6 years old. Gun ownership is a guaranteed right of every US citizen and that right WAS NOT guaranteed to you so you could hunt! It was guaranteed by our forefathers so you could protect yourself from tyranny. It is also the only ammendment to the Constitution that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". If the state and federal governments are willing to try to do this anyway, don't think they won't try to take other things from you down the road. We as citizens of the US shouldn't be divided over gun control, we should be united in a fight fought for a freedom guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution.

    I almost lost my daughter a year and a half ago. I still cannot even begin to imagine how the parents of those kids must feel. I hope I never know that feeling. I also know that we can't regulate these tragic events out of society. Laws only work on people who abide by them. If you're reading this and you think you may support more gun legislation, I ask you to please put your "emotion" aside and base your decision on intelligence and facts. Whether you own a firearm or not, your voice needs to be heard. Contact your reps and let them know you are not going to support your rights being taken away. Do it now. It only takes a few minutes.

   Mike

Is anyone following the story of the New York paper that published a map of addresses of all the licensed gun owners in their area? A blogger in the do unto others spirit posted the addresses of the 50 journalists that worked on the map. The Paper now feels threatened and has hired ARMED guards for their property. Lets recap. The paper, so offended by people who wish to protect themselves with guns that they printed their addressees now feels they need guns to protect themselves, but this is OK. The Irony is just too much. I hope they put themselves on the map!

Of course the paper failed to consider how many of the gun owners whose addresses they printed were subscribers, and is now experiencing massive cancellations of subscriptions, and their competitor a massive jump in new subscribers.

A bit of a threadjack from the Illinois gun story, but, an interesting story you probably haven't heard about that relates to the whole gun control issue. Its about a shooting in San Antonio in December that was similar to the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado last July. You may not have heard about this shooting on the national news. Give it a read to find out why.....

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora , CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

Article on Shooting in San Antonio

It's painful.   

I cannot imagine the the "forefathers" thought it (2nd amendment) should trump the lives of innocent Americans.   Get real guys.



Range shooting is a far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far different case than firing when fired upon.




Your second amendment was written to protect yourself from tyranny from the GOVERNMENT.

I ask you, what is your semi- auto assult rifle going to do against a drone, or a tank.    Nothing, right, so why have it?



2 Marines would extinguish all your arsenals in a second, and you wouldn't be able to even think about protecting your toilet before you were 86'ed, whatever size your arsenal was.


Get real.

ononewheel wrote: It's painful.    I cannot imagine the the "forefathers" thought it (2nd amendment) should trump the lives of innocent Americans.   Get real guys.

The for fathers did not think we would use gun bans to set up "slaughter houses" of helpless sheep in which wolves could freely roam. They envisioned the second amendment would create a level playing field. Almost all these incidents end when and only when armed confrontation arrives.

On an individual basis, If you want to protect you self from a guy with a 10 round clip, you should probably have a 10 or better yet 30 round clip yourself. That is what our police and military do.

Remember the story about the new york paper. Actions speak louder than words. When the paper felt threatened they hired armed guards. That says more about what they believe than a 10,000 word editorial.

ononewheel wrote: Your second amendment was written to protect yourself from tyranny from the GOVERNMENT. I ask you, what is your semi- auto assult rifle going to do against a drone, or a tank.    Nothing, right, so why have it? 2 Marines would extinguish all your arsenals in a second, and you wouldn't be able to even think about protecting your toilet before you were 86'ed, whatever size your arsenal was. Get real.

Seth, your ideology seems to have overridden your common sense. Our armed forces are incredibly effective when motivated to fight a centrally controlled uniformed opposition. We can take out planes and tanks better than anyone. Where our military stumbles is when they face a loosely organized gorilla force that is highly mobile and has the support/appearance of the local population. I would say a tyrannical government would have more to fear from 10 million people able and motivated to take one shot each than a 100,000 man well armed military unit.

That is real.

Your second amendment argument actually indicates we should allow our citizens more arms than less, unless you believe in government tyranny.

and on that note . supposedly since its inception in 1968 not one felony has been commited by a legal holder of a full auto weapon.

ononewheel wrote: It's painful.    I cannot imagine the the "forefathers" thought it (2nd amendment) should trump the lives of innocent Americans.   Get real guys. I ask you, what is your semi- auto assult rifle going to do against a drone, or a tank.    Nothing, right, so why have it?

So, my Ruger 22 cal. SEMI automatic is considered an assult weapon... geee, didnt realize SWAT teams used them.

Do you REALLY think taking away every law abiding citizens gun would stop the senseless killings? YOU my friend need to "Get Real"

WHY have them? Because the LAW says I CAN.

Screw it, why have speed limits then?

62 wood wrote: ononewheel wrote: It's painful.    I cannot imagine the the "forefathers" thought it (2nd amendment) should trump the lives of innocent Americans.   Get real guys. I ask you, what is your semi- auto assult rifle going to do against a drone, or a tank.    Nothing, right, so why have it? So, my Ruger 22 cal. SEMI automatic is considered an assult weapon... geee, didnt realize SWAT teams used them. Do you REALLY think taking away every law abiding citizens gun would stop the senseless killings? YOU my friend need to "Get Real" WHY have them? Because the LAW says I CAN.

Yeah, get real.


I never said "take away every law abiding citizens guns",   quite the opposite my friend. But if you think your Ruger .22 is going to do much of anything in the face of a tyrannical government you shouldn't own a gun.    

OverMyHead wrote: ononewheel wrote: It's painful.    I cannot imagine the the "forefathers" thought it (2nd amendment) should trump the lives of innocent Americans.   Get real guys. The for fathers did not think we would use gun bans to set up "slaughter houses" of helpless sheep in which wolves could freely roam. They envisioned the second amendment would create a level playing field. Almost all these incidents end when and only when armed confrontation arrives. On an individual basis, If you want to protect you self from a guy with a 10 round clip, you should probably have a 10 or better yet 30 round clip yourself. That is what our police and military do. Remember the story about the new york paper. Actions speak louder than words. When the paper felt threatened they hired armed guards. That says more about what they believe than a 10,000 word editorial. ononewheel wrote: Your second amendment was written to protect yourself from tyranny from the GOVERNMENT. I ask you, what is your semi- auto assult rifle going to do against a drone, or a tank.    Nothing, right, so why have it? 2 Marines would extinguish all your arsenals in a second, and you wouldn't be able to even think about protecting your toilet before you were 86'ed, whatever size your arsenal was. Get real. Seth, your ideology seems to have overridden your common sense. Our armed forces are incredibly effective when motivated to fight a centrally controlled uniformed opposition. We can take out planes and tanks better than anyone. Where our military stumbles is when they face a loosely organized gorilla force that is highly mobile and has the support/appearance of the local population. I would say a tyrannical government would have more to fear from 10 million people able and motivated to take one shot each than a 100,000 man well armed military unit. That is real. Your second amendment argument actually indicates we should allow our citizens more arms than less, unless you believe in government tyranny.

How many shots will it take you, or anyone on this forum to take out a Predator drone?

Life is different these days my friend.


With your logic about clip sizes, it then should be allowed to posses nukes.

C-Bass wrote: Seems that Joe has already addressed my comment before I even sent it. I wouldn't see any issue adding more "hoops" to jump through to for getting weapons. I do not agree with any sort of ban though.

Thank you for the bit of sanity, I agree with you. I am a gun owner and shooter.

I want to ban guns, but only from the mentally ill, and those wishing to harm another. That though is the challenge, finding just those types of folks.

JoeinNY wrote: 62 wood wrote: ononewheel, And they are threatening to take it away from a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Who is this they and are they really doing that? Or does someone else (possibly also a they) want to get you fired up to send them some money so that they can take your money and your good name and apply it in the service of some gun manufacturer's agenda? (Well the part they dont get to keep for themselves anyway).

The "THEY" is Senate president John Cullerton.. In the past I wouldnt worry too much about something like this, but today, who knows?

here is part of the copy from the link in my first post...

CULLERTON TO INTRODUCE NEAR TOTAL GUN BAN ON JANUARY 2ND

The ISRA has learned from a credible source that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton will introduce a so called “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its “lame duck” session. Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday. If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.

Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.

62 wood wrote: ononewheel, I never bought my 22 with the intention of stopping a tyrannical government. If I thought that, I would own a much larger arsenal. I use it for varmints and plinking. And they are threatening to take it away from a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

So then you cannot stand behind the 2nd amendment anymore, since it was written to protect yourself from the gov.

I still think you should have the .22 2nd amendment or not.


I agree with Joe here, don't let some article get your pants in a bunch. There is attempted legislation all the time.



But it really does come down to this.

The shooter in CN, should not be able to trump the lives of people, just because of the 2nd amendment. He did after all use legal guns, that for the most part were designed to kill PEOPLE. It isn't like he used a pump shotgun.

Guys can say, oh he'd use a box cutter, knife, etc., but that just is not the same.


We just need to ban guns from these guys, and it is long past the time we get serious, and make that happen. I don't know the answer.