Illinois gun BAN???????

JoeinNY wrote: It is january 3rd today, was the credible source right? Are they coming to get your guns? Did you read the law? Including all the exceptions? Or are you letting someone else read it for you

i did, did you? it's crap, trying to push it through during lame duck.

"One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. People who currently own such weapons could keep them but would have to register them. The bill would allow semiautomatic weapons to be used at shooting ranges, but those facilities would be regulated.

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told lawmakers the bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of long guns in circulation today. He also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals, and is in conflict with Second Amendment rights upheld by the courts."

from here;
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/03/illinois-pushes-for-gun-ban/

ononewheel wrote: 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. 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. 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.

seth, I agree totally.

We have had guns in our family as long as I can remember (early 60's). Some of my guns were my grandfathers.

Question: Why are we seeing all these crazies today?

I dont remember shootings like this when I was growing up. I have the same guns in my home now as my parents/grandparents had then, the guns have not changed.... Why are we seeing all the criminal activity (at this level) today?

i read an article that actually shows that there are less violent crimes being commited per capita today than ever before. it's the 24 hour news, social media that brings the doom and gloom to the forfront. that's what sells.

i'll try and find it.

illinois gun ban vote scrapped, not enough votes to pass.







Vote Scrapped

give an inch the true extreme anti's will take a mile that is not even arguable . I have seen more bad inaccurate information from the press lately than i have ever noticed.. why dont you people that believe there should be more gun control spend some of your energy and time finding some social service ideas to help the mentally ill people that commit these crimes or is that just much harder than taking the guns away from law abiding people .. seems like there would be more accomplished with that

jbach wrote: peter1234 wrote: I have seen more bad inaccurate information from the press lately than i have ever noticed.. amen, i bet this will shock a few people. this is the type of crap that makes me want to wear a tin foil hat. the media should be ashamed. you don't think they have an agenda. NO AR15 USED AT SANDY HOOK

The real shocking thing is they actually aired that information. Just makes me want to vomit. Same crap happened down here with the Trayvon Martin case. The media convicted George Zimmerman before all the evidence even surfaced.

I think you all make some valid points, but I'll post another wall of text and address a few things.You can thank me later

   Currently, it is already illegal to purchase a firearm if you have a mental illness. Problem is, the method for enforcing it sucks. You basically self advocate on the background check form and if there is no recorded evidence about you, all you have to do is lie.

   Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns to commit this crime, however they were not purchased legally by him. His access to those items was a complete failure on his mother's part and she paid the ultimate price. There are currently laws in place to punish people who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately lives are usually lost before that happens.


Assault rifles have select fire capability. AR-15's do not. AR-15s are not assault rifles. Please stop calling them assault rifles.AR stands for "Armalite", not "assault rifle".

They are called "magazines". High capacity "clips" do not exist.

The media is as much to blame for this stuff as anyone. I can name dozens of people who can tell you the Newtown shooter's name, the Columbine Shooters' names, The Aurora shooter's name, and the Virginia Tec shooter's name and not one of those people (including myself) can give you one name in all of those tragic events combined of an actual VICTIM. The wrong people get the attention in these events because the media sensationalizes everything. An analyst said after the Oregon Mall shooting that the most fearful thing about that event was that within two weeks someone else who was watching the media coverage would get the idea that he could top that and go on a spree himself. Three days later we had Newtown.

We may regulate box trucks, fertlizer, gas etc.but I gotta feel pretty confident that if I had the knowledge and the where-with-all to build a bomb, that I could source the necessary items under the radar and make it happen. My sister in law would rent me a box truck without even asking for my ID .Not that I'd ever even consider that.

   And this is very real. While the gun ban in Illinois was shot down, it was voted thru two commities last night and passed and was sent to the floor.Today, a democratic rep from Colorado introduced a magazine ban in the House. Ct and Ny are working on enormous gun legislation pieces right now. Anti gun legislators have been waiting for a chance to get their agenda thru and although they have been trying desperately for years unsuccessfully they finally have a *************** ton of support due to Newtown.

A pump shotgun is a devastating weapon. Seth's post "It's not like he used a pump shotgun" was alittle absurd. A pump shotgun with a 5-7 round tube and someone who knows how to load it can do a miriad of damage in a very short amount of time.

On a more somber note: Adam Lanza shot those children multiple times with that "high capacity magazine." Over 100 rounds for 26 people. He did not have to do that. The grotesque facts are that he could have killed those kids with one shot each, out of a 10 round magazine in a handgun and reloaded it 5 times in less than 90 seconds. The fact that he shot some of them several times, just shows you what his mental capacity was at the time. The first shot killed, the rest were just rage.

I believe The gun used in Newtown was an AR15, I think that video is old and was wrong information.I'll have to look into that.

I find it interesting that the President thinks schools should be gun free zones, yet he chooses to send his children to a private school that employs 11 armed security guards. So guns are good enough to protect his children, but not ours? Why is it that the govt can illegally traffic guns over the Mexican border and said guns can be used to kill hundreds of people including a US Border patrol agent and when it is brought to fruition it is swept under the rug and the likes of AHoles like Eric Holder are all but pardoned by our politicians? Hypocrisy Much?

The problem here is the individuals. The shooter in NY who killed those firemen was previously paroled from prison on a murder charge. Brilliant. Don't know how he got a gun.Felons are prohibited by law from even holding a gun. No self respecting felon would ever be caught breaking a gun law....oh wait a minute.

I am not a tinfoil hat wearer, but I simply can not understand how some people can look at the facts and say that they think more restrictions on rifle styles and magazine capacity are the answer. It' s all feel good bull***************. For the record, I am all for closing the gunshow loophole.

If some *************** crashed his 60 MPH skiboat into a float full of schoolkids and they perished, would you want the government passing legislation to ban all 60mph ski boats? Joe? I mean, no one really needs a 60 mph ski boat, do they? Who skies at those speeds? I realize that a bit of a stretch lol, but u get where I'm coming from I hope.


"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"   Benjamin Franklin   

   
Mike


   




    

peter1234 wrote: if you look at the pics released it was an a/r 15 variant in 22 rimefire and he killed his mom with it then put it in his trunk i believe. did anyone see the stamford connecticut advocate . it might have been today or yesterday . it was a half page on the updated school the kids are using on the right half is a fine firearms show being held... thats some good editing...... my dad was a 40 yr pulitzer prize winning writer for the boston globe . He told me enough times it doesnt matter what they write its only to sell papers. he would probably still roll over on that one .

Having grown up in Stamford and an Advocate paperboy circa 1972 I had to look it up. Google Stamford Advocate Newtown and there it is.....yikes....

On the plus side..violent crime in the tri-state area continues to drop. The 2012 NYC murder rate is the lowest since 1963. Go Bloomberg.

ononewheel wrote: Call it a magazine or clip, you are parsing words. I'm not impressed. Your gun knowledge might be impressive to some be me,   YAWN. Give it up.    A pump shot gun can cause alot of damage, and there might be someone who could fire off 30 rounds with a 5-7 shot tube as fast as some one with a 30 round MAGAZINE in an AR-10 or 15, but I don't know any. Considering as well the distance capabilities between the two, and you really are comparing two different weapons. Ninjas, could kill many with a simple blade if they wanted to, but that takes training, and usually that training leads to a higher, disciplined individual who wouldn't kill needlessly.   In the Newton case you have neither, training or discipline.    So I find it understandable why you cannot understand why the Presidents children might need a little more protection than the average Joe. Maybe he should fly his Cessna to Hawaii too? Besides trained security guards of the caliber that protect the Presidents children are a far far different matter than a principal with a gun, and maybe even a police officer.    You are not in reality on this one.

I am not trying to impress you with gun knowledge. I am simply stating facts so that you can talk without sounding uneductated when it comes to this stuff. Magazines and clips are not the same thing.Period

I also did not say someone could fire the same amount of rounds out of a pump as a 30 round mag in the same amount of time. Again, that is not what I said, so please don't turn my words around.

In your rush to try to shrug off the facts, you completely missed the point about the presidents kids. The armed guards at that school are not there because of his kids. His kids obviously are going to need more protection than other kids. Again, I Never said they didn't. The point is, he could have sent his kids to a school without armed security and they still would have been protected by the secret service. Those 11 armed guards are at that school whether his kids attend or not, and they are not "highly trained security" they are regular security guards. Oddly enough, He has openly stated that more guns aren't the answer to keeping our kids safe (I actually agree with that, but less guns isn't he answer either)

You seem to be taking this all so personal. I am not attacking you, I was simply correcting some errors, so that people can make decisions based on facts, not emotion. The very problem with gun regulations is that all of the laws are written by people who really have no understanding of firearms and their beliefs are based solely on fear. Dianne Feinstein doesn't even know what half of the stuff is on guns that she's been fighting to ban for years.

   How is it a good thing to have someone pushing to ban long guns with barrel shrouds, when they don't even know what a barrel shroud is? That's a very dangerous line to be walking and it applies to everything they could possibly legislate, not just guns.

Mike

bhectus wrote: ononewheel wrote: 05 210 wrote: They are called "magazines". High capacity "clips" do not exist.     A pump shotgun is a devastating weapon. Seth's post "It's not like he used a pump shotgun" was alittle absurd. A pump shotgun with a 5-7 round tube and someone who knows how to load it can do a miriad of damage in a very short amount of time.    I find it interesting that the President thinks schools should be gun free zones, yet he chooses to send his children to a private school that employs 11 armed security guards. So guns are good enough to protect his children, but not ours? Call it a magazine or clip, you are parsing words. I'm not impressed. Your gun knowledge might be impressive to some be me,   YAWN. Give it up.    A pump shot gun can cause alot of damage, and there might be someone who could fire off 30 rounds with a 5-7 shot tube as fast as some one with a 30 round MAGAZINE in an AR-10 or 15, but I don't know any. Considering as well the distance capabilities between the two, and you really are comparing two different weapons. Ninjas, could kill many with a simple blade if they wanted to, but that takes training, and usually that training leads to a higher, disciplined individual who wouldn't kill needlessly.   In the Newton case you have neither, training or discipline.    So I find it understandable why you cannot understand why the Presidents children might need a little more protection than the average Joe. Maybe he should fly his Cessna to Hawaii too? Besides trained security guards of the caliber that protect the Presidents children are a far far different matter than a principal with a gun, and maybe even a police officer.    You are not in reality on this one. After reading your numerous posts in these off-topic threads I'm starting to think that you just like to post for the sake of argument. I think the masses are really missing the point of these threads. The government over the years has increasingly tried and been successful at taking things away from the general public because they deem these inanimate objects "unsafe". Who are they to decide what is unsafe for me? I grew up riding 3-wheelers. A bunch of people got hurt on them and the govt banned them. I flipped mine a few times and every time it was my fault. Vans skate park just closed here in Orlando. It was a great place for kids to go after school and on weekends to do something constructive with their time, stay out of trouble, stay in shape, be social with peers. They shut it down due to increased liability insurance making it no longer a profitable business venture. Seems as though when some kids get hurt, their parents like to sue the facility for damages and our f'd up legal system allows it even after those parents signed the waiver releasing the facility from liability. An idiot can sue McD's for serving them coffee that was too hot at the drive-thru. How much did they get from that lawsuit? Our society continues to allow all this b.s. to happen and things are going to continue to only get more restricted.    What are you all going to do when the govt tries to take our boats away because they aren't fuel efficient enough? It could happen.

When inboards are outlawed, only outlaws will have inboards...

Easy Dave, clearly Seth was not saying that, simply that the presidents kids are more likely to be in the crosshairs of some maniac then the average student is. If I was the president I would want my kids to have EVERY means of protection possible.

Nice posts Mikey!!

Nautiquehunter wrote: Why is it that the states with the most restrictive gun laws seem to have the most gun violence?

just think how bad it would be with out them...

05 210 wrote: How is it a good thing to have someone pushing to ban long guns with barrel shrouds, when they don't even know what a barrel shroud is? That's a very dangerous line to be walking and it applies to everything they could possibly legislate, not just guns. Mike

Great post Mike It ought to really scare people when a politician says we have to pass a bill to find out whats in it.

Cars only have to be registered and insured if operated on a public road and anyone can buy one without a background check or any type of special permission. People can collect as many as they want without anyone elses permission. Car ownership really isn't a good analogy to gun ownership.

So far no one has stated how the kid got the guns, whether his mother allowed access to them or he somehow he obtained the key or combo, or if he broke into where ever it was stored. Certainly the mother bears responsibility for the kid getting the guns for just about any way it was obtained. I don't know how the woman became a bored housewife or how that plays into her owning a legal product, but there has been so much bogus info put out by the press from the time this event happened all due to all of the media being anti gun biased. Bob Sheafer from Texas on the Sunday after the shooting happened was incredulous that the woman owned 4 guns. As if a guy from Texas doesn't know that 4 guns is not very many guns for just about anyone that owns guns.

Not one proposal put forth that involves gun control since Newtown happened would have stopped it from happening.

The guns are out there and you can't legislate the genie back into the bottle.
As so many of you pointed out in earlier threads, freedom is not free. Murders by firearms of all kinds is the price you pay for allowing citizens to own guns. The majority of murders are by handguns, not rifles. Chicago is unique in many ways, gun violence is only one of them (lets not even touch on our politics).
During the 2011-2012 school year, the last full school year, 319 Chicago students were wounded by firearms and 24 were killed. The recent school shooting was tragic, but overall children are pretty safe in our schools.
I am happy to see the discussion on firearms, as that is the first step to a solution for any problem, but in this case I don't believe there is a solution, only incremental improvement.

Can someone tell me, what is the purpose of high capacity magazines other than killing people? We have 30 round mags in the AR15s in our squad cars and we did a lot of training with them. Like military weapons, their only purpose is to kill people. Is there something I am missing? I will readily admit, the 223s are a very fun weapon to shoot targets and plink with, but a 10 round mag is just as much fun.

I think Illinois has a pretty good system for screening gun owners despite the very high level of gun crime. The Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) is issued after you pass a background check by the Illinois State Police. You do not register your individual guns or tell anyone how many or what type you own. You must present it when buying a firearm or ammunition. Most shootings and murders that I have investigated involved someone who did not have a FOID. One problem with the law is that guns are freely sold at swap meets, and most Illinois residents, living in the Chicago area, can take a short drive out of state and buy guns and ammunition without this restriction.

I have seen many people convicted of gun crimes that serve little or no time, that must change as well. Here is one personal example of what's wrong.

"Back in the day" (late 90s), I had a gang member come out to supposedly do a drug deal and sell me a bunch of dope, but he intended to rob me of the buy money instead. Something didn't look right to me as he approached my car, because he was wearing different gang colors than the gang I was buying from. I drove away as reached for my door handle to get in. A short time later ater a minor car chase he was arrested with the three other gang members in his car by my surveillance team and two guns were recovered. The gun on the guy who was going to rob me was a five shot S&W with a spent shell in one chamber. The spent round was there because he did a drive by in Aurora IL on the way to the deal. He spent one night in jail TOTAL and took a felony conviction. No FOID, did a drive by on the way, admitted in the arrest interview that he was going to shoot me and take the money, and he spent ONE NIGHT in jail, and that was only because he had to wait for a bond hearing the next morning.
He was charged with:
1.   Attempt armed robbery
2. Unlawful use of weapon (concealed weapon)
3. Possession of a firearm without requisite FOID
4. Possession of ammunition without requisite FOID
5. Attempted acquisition of a controlled substance

The S/A accepted a plea of attempt armed robbery and a felony conviction with no jail time because they were so overwhelmed by caseload and the lack of jail space.

Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. Until we enforce the laws we have on the books there is no reason to waste more ink.