http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data

of the 364 Firearm Murders in Illinois in 2010 (data available) 355 were committed by "hand guns", not assault weapons...(total murders in Illinois by all means in 2010 was 453)

Wait, the do gooders ban drugs don't they? How's that working out???

Governor Quinn, thank you for your courage in standing up to protect ordinary citizens from wackos, nuts, and criminals who have easy access to assault weapons.

Why does any person need to have an assault weapon???????????? Ban the all the NRA needs to be abolished period. It is the worest thing that ever happened is this USA.

I agree with the gun nu- er gun enthusiasts in that you can't take a person's guns away ( except in the case of a felony conviction, perhaps) There really isn't any need. BUT, those high capacity magazines... they serve no peaceful purpose. Sorry if you like to go out to your freind's fame and fire off 100 round in a couple of minutes just for the thrill. I think the price is too high. Keep your guns, limit the clips.

Mr.PheaNiques-0000001 Why do you say he wants to ban all guns? He hasn't said that. He has said he agrees with your right to bear arms.

So Motz, what is really needed is a ban against wackos, nuts and criminals. Problem solved.

"There is no place in the state of Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range," said Quinn

That would be a revolver, or a pistol.

AR-15's are designed for use out to 550 meters (past 300 I recommend a scope of some type)
They can be used at close range, but are designed for long range.

Not a ban on assault weapons! It infringes on the rights of the Homicidal.

I wonder if his security carries guns? Does he plan on disarming the police?

After all:

There is no place in the state of Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range," said Quinn

I would imagine it would be in the Governor's power to demand the State Police disarm. I could be wrong of course, but for the sake of argument lets assume the State Police do fall under his authority and must follow his directions.

What possible use do the police have for weapons that is not shared by everyone else. The police after all enjoy no special rights (although they may have some delegated powers), it isn't like assault against someone who isn't a police officer is legal. So if no one needs a gun for use against human targets the police should disarm, today.

Let me know when Governor Quinn directs that to be done.

"trigger happy"assault weapons enthusiasts will react to this. I can see all the nonsense about "The right to bear arms"

IRESPOND-2315268, Let's see how an average gun enthusiast responds to this... I don't know about the "trigger happy" part of your pre-canned slam.

I don't need a so-called assault rifle. At least I don't at this time. I pray that never changes. All of my large and extended family owns guns and are proficient in the use therof. I think the craziest gun in the family is a 10 guage shotgun. (Better plant your feet firmly, son). We do however, have quite a few semi-automatic high powered deer rifles. We train our children in the safe and responsible use early and we have never had an accident even back to Great-Grandpappy on both sides of the family tree.

I don't think they should be banned. I do think they could be registered and titled somewhat like a car. Maybe a license to own? I could probably support the ban except for 2 things.

• I don't think the proposed limits are understood and defined. For example, assault rifle "style" .22's are little more than very inaccurate pea-shooters that look tough and do nothing. Banning that? Or banning .50 caliber bolt action single shot? These distinctions matter. And they also demonstrate the lack of knowledge in the anti-gun community.
• All my life as a proud American, I have believed that if we were invaded we would have superior tactical advantage. All over this country, fine upstanding citizens could put on their big boy and girl underwear, seek a defensible position and defend our homes, cut off supply lines and remove key opponents. Be kinda hard to do that without a little firepower. You have the American right to view that as "nonsense" if you like, but you are wrong. Should the need ever arise, it will be too late to fill out triplicate forms with a 24 hour waiting period. Having a citizen "militia" is my right, just as your opinion is yours.

Sounds like a perfectly sane and reasonable request, which of course means that the NRA will do every thing they can to oppose it. The NRA would garner a lot more respect if they would look at this as a reasonable compromise and throw their support behind it instead of looking at this as an infringement on their second amendment rights.

Ohh you want to ban guns? Tell me more about how criminals obey the law.

"Quinn, a Democrat, called himself a "strong supporter" of the constitutional right to bear arms,.."

The right to bear arms is the right to self defense. Self defense is an inalienable right, a human right.

Quinn wants to allow us to exercise our human rights, but only if it's in a manner he approves of.

"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell

Dandy416 well, most guns can "Rapidly" fire at humans, there are many non assult rifle guns that are semi automatic so if the shooter can rapidly pull the trigger than it can be rapily fired. why dont you learn anything about guns

Look its Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, now if he was talking honestly about political
corruption and cronyism I would say now there’s a man that knows what he's
talking about and I would be hanging on every word he said, but as far as assault
weapons.. He knows as much about assault weapons as he does personal accountability, honesty and integrity..Nothing!

Just another baker trying to tell us how to butcher a steer!

Saving the lives of innocent children is hardly an ideological position Phea, unless you're one of those in favor of killing innocent children in movie theaters. Yes, after a tragedy all you folks on the right want to say is that updating, increasing or otherwise improving our gun laws is taking political advantage of the tragedy, but what better time to have a conversation about the stupidity of allowing people to own semi-automatic assault weapons? If not now, when? If not us, who?

And don't give me this crap about the second amendment. We no longer need a citizen militia to rise up against a tyrannical government. We aren't allowing citizens to own tanks, or fighter jets, or nuclear weapons so why would we allow them to own assualt weapons; designed ONLY to kill humans?

You gunslingers want to go around shooting defenseless animals, I'm not here to stop you. I will be disgusted by you, but I won't try to stop you. I will however use my power at the ballot box to try to stop you from concealing and carrying handguns or any other weapons and from owning assualt weapons and massive canisters of ammunition. It's called a democracy where we each get a vote and a say in how our country is run. I know the NRA would prefer that we became an armed encampment and they're doing everything they can to destroy our democracy with their lobbying dollars and the fear they put into the electorate and anyone running for public office, but again, I will speak out now and forever about how foolish I think it is to allow people to own assualt weapons, most ammunition, hand guns and for conceal and carry laws.

And, how many of the guns that were used in murders in the last year were legally acquired or owned with proper licensing? If criminals want to break the law, they will do anything to try.

So, guess if they were banned that's going to prevent me from getting one. Righttttttttt.

I guess he must want to ban all semi-automatic hand guns as well since they clearly fit his description of the weapons that should be banned.

"... weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range ..."

In fact semi-automatic handguns fit the definition better than semi-automatic assault style rifles since assault style rifles are not really intended for use at close range. After all, semi-automatic weapons were specifically developed to allow for more rapid firing and handguns really have no purpose other than to shoot at someone at close range. Unlike rifles which are used for hunting, other than target practice, handguns really only have one purpose, shooting at people. And yes, I am being a little sarcastic here to show the fallacy in the governors reasoning and his definition of the weapons that should be banned. I do think that high capacity magazines should be outlawed since they serve absolutely no practical purpose in the civilian world.

Should the need ever arise, it will be too late to fill out triplicate forms with a 24 hour waiting period. Having a citizen "militia" is my right, just as your opinion is yours.

All militias will succumb to the military. You are talking about anarchy. If things get to that point, there is no reason why you and your militia friends will survive.

The Army will be on the side of logic and order. Do you really think that we are in danger of other countries attacking us? The only reason for you to have a militia is to fight other Americans that have different political ideas.

hs321....unfortunately, the right to defend myself could conceivably now extend to nuclear weapons. Are you advocating that I as a private citizen should have the right to own nuclear weapons simply because they exist? Or my own stealth fighter? While I know this is an extreme, the intent and thought process is exactly the same, but on a much smaller scale. There is no real need for assault weapons. Keep your handguns and your hunting rifles, but please try to understand the sanity involved in attempting to ban needless assault weapons.

Are people so foolish to think banning any type of weapon will stop people from getting shot or killed? I hope not. I am a firm believer the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first. If you allow the government to take your weapons you will allow them to take your freedom. The criminals will get theirs no matter what the law says. Better to have a few honest folks prepared to defend if need be.

@ Dandy and Hal

We play this game every time, when it is an assault weapon used in a high profile shooting...It is; Ban assault weapons, when there is a sniper weapon or large caliber weapon...it is; ban those...when it is a hand gun...it is, nobody hunts with a hand gun, Ban handguns...Do you think everyone just forgets what your goals were yesterday...

This is nothing but another gun grabbing ploy by the anti gun freaks. If the public would wake up and realize that it wasn't the AR-15 that did the most damage since it JAMMED, but was the popular bird hunting Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotgun that actually did the most damage then maybe they would quit being lead around like a bunch of sheep.

On the Second Amendment the fact is the reason the Founding Fathers wrote that was first and foremost so the citizens of the US would have a way to fight back against a tyrannical government and help in case of invasion and second was personal protection/hunting. If one would actually study the Second Amendment and take into account that when it was written not only did the average Joe have the exact same weapons as the military, individuals also had their own Armies. That's what the Founding Fathers intended but the poor sheep want's to bypass what they wanted and basically do away with the ability to fight back if it is ever needed.

denver bill 2,

I agree with your post ,

The description of so called "assault weopons" is really "how it looks", not on the action or mechanics or function . It's almost like saying that : "If it's all flat black in color and has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine ,,,then it's an assault weopon" ,,,and the ban would say no one should be allowed to have such a firearm ,,,,That's absurd to think this will keep the criminal element from aquiring them.

There is already regulations in place that restrict the "fully automatic" ,functioning firearms from the general public .

An "assault rifle" in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no risk.

Any weapon in the hands of a criminal is dangerous and deadly.

How about some statistics? From this weeks Time magazine - Aurora like "mass shootings" are plotted over time. The worst year (2003) had 30 with 135 deaths - vs. Chicago (the gun free zone) with 294 as of 7/23.

<1% of these crimes are committed with "assault rifles" (in fact recent reports suggest the Aurora CO shooter's "assault rifle" jammed and he used one of his other guns). The gun of choice? Handguns (80% of the time - and according to another Time articles the typical handgun of choice is the cheap, low capacity, small caliber variety - perfect for criminals), and who commits most the crimes? Criminals (95%) of the time. Where do they get their guns? Families/Friends (35% of the time). Average jail time for a felon? 16 months (US DOJ).

The answer isn't banning the gun it's getting the criminal off the street. Sometimes jail is just meant to separate the criminal from society.

With respect to comments on guns, and magazines, automatic vs. manual. Any gun in the hands of someone with average skill can be very deadly. We can be thankful that most criminals/sick individuals don't take that time.

But by all means disarm the 95% of the population than own guns (including over 4,000,000 "assault rifles") and go through each and every day without committing a crime.

p.s. I live in Denver, and this didn't get much airtime - but there was an earlier incident in Aurora - an armed criminal entered a church gathering and shot 1 person dead, before he could kill again a parishioner, legally carrying, shot him dead. Would the Theatre shooting turned out different if CCW permit holders were allowed to carry in there? Who knows, but at least it would have been an option. Naysayers say it would have turned into a bigger battle, but as a CCW permit holder 1/2 of our mandatory class is about making those decisions - and the decision not to use your gun is just as important as the decision to, the other half is demonstrating markmanship in rapid fire circumstances.

T_Bird....people who would like to see a few changes made to the Constitution are not sheep. They are realists that understand a few things that you apparently do not. The Constitution was written when men owned other human beings, women could not vote, and they occasionally burned people at the stake. The 'military grade' weapons that you speak of took 30 seconds to prepare to fire and were accurate at 50 yards. Our founding fathers could not possibly conceive the firepower that was born into this age, so we have to make the assumption that as times change, so must the rules by which we are governed. It's the neaderthals that feel that 'by gummit, nothing should ever change!' that fail to see that if we don't evolve our thinking to match our surroundings, we could be doomed to experience quite a radical type of life than we currently have. We have changed so much since the mid 1700's....what exactly is wrong with making a few adjustments as necessary?

All militias will succumb to the military. You are talking about anarchy

No, I am not talking about anarchy. Nor do you have any cause to accuse me of such. Do you think there are no precedents in history? Do you think that an armed populace will not submit to military command? Many of us have... and would again.

1.) When you attack the NRA remember you are attacking a group that is not a government organization, the NRA is made up of PRIVATE citizens who wish to protect the 2nd Amendment. You may disagree with them, but asking for them to be abolished is asking for the government to tell free, law abiding citizens they can not organize. DANGEROUS

2.) The Aurora gunmen used a Shotgun, a pistol, and a Rifle. Any assault weapon ban would not have stopped this from happening.

3.) The shotgun was the reason over 50 people were injured. The spraying of many small pellets in every round caused many people to be hit. The 100 round magazine int eh rifle actually jammed leaving him left with the pistol.

4.) You can change a clip in a pistol or rifle in a matter of seconds (less then 2). Any ban would not include already made and owned large magazines or rifles so you would still have millions on the market.

5.) Large M16 type assault weapons are not the idle gun for close range shooting. They are large which makes it more awkward to handle in close quarters. Hand guns are much easier and you could actually operate two at one time if you were skilled.

6.) As been repeated many times criminals don't care what laws you pass, if they want it they can get it and most of the time it's easier to get weapons illegaly then legally. Just ask yourself what is easier, buying illegal marijuana from your dealer, or spending money to go to a doctor who gives you a note that says you can apply for a medical marijuana card, spending money on that card and then going to a store to buy. You are now ON RECORD as having a medical marijuana card and any law changes could come back on you, or you can continue to stay off the books and save the doctor visits and get it from you co-worker or neighbor. Which is easier.

7.) We already have laws that make it so assault weapons can not be like those used in the military, and many of these weapons like the M16 can be used for hunting. M16's and other similar type weapons are actually not that large of a round and I would never try to use one for deer, but they are pretty good when shooting at unwanted skunks, racoons, and rabbits.

8.) Once you start limiting one amendment the others will become less solid as well. Freedom of speech already has limits as does your right to bear arms, how many more limits are you willing to take.

Take away guns and the nut job would have barrd the doors and started a fire.

you know what.. ban this gun ban that gun.. i guess we should ban forks and spoons because people are fat.. where does it stop.. ban bricks and bats and knifes.. dam if they would only make the system work for someone othe than the dam lawyers we might have something...send a message to the ones breaking the law.. go back to hanging about a dozen of them every saturday morning in the town square and i bet there would be a large difference in crime..

I would like to correct a misconception, the second amendment was put in to the constitution for the purpose of ensuring that force resided with the people. Government is force, this way the power resided with the populous. The exact reason was for the killing of other people, people who would corrupt a free nation and turn it into a tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms which can not be infringed (governments cannot regulate, ban, or in anyways legislate over this right) protects the people from the leaching members of society who will use governments to enslave and oppress the populous. The hireling police force and military seems to have turned their backs on the American people either because of fear over job security or from ignorance over financial and political matters but i do not think this ignorance will last forever.

ROTFLMAO!!! This is just too good:

The Deadliest Global City: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html#ixzz22IIjmkR4

How's that gun ban working out for you Rahm?

"The Army will be on the side of logic and order. Do you really think that we are in danger of other countries attacking us? The only reason for you to have a militia is to fight other Americans that have different political ideas." How do you arrive at that conclusion? Other Americans with different political ideas just forced the health care bill on us, why would I believe they could not force other legislation on us even more ominous. Don't forget Hitler was duly elected. His army was definitely on the side of logic and order. Wow...were they ever. I'm not that concerned with other countries attacking us, I'm more concerned about our own goverment, read that as a few ego-maniacs in power (one even has his own logo...just like Hitler had the Swastika, Mao had the Red Star, Lenin had the Hammer and Sickle...see a trend here?), undoing us. We already have a justice department that is deciding which laws they want to enforce rather than enforcing what they are sworn to enforce, and which officials they won't bother to prosecute because they are priviledged people. Maybe you ought to put down the prozac or whatever it is you're taking that's keeping you from seeing what's going on here. That the governor of Illinois wants to ban weapons is not today's big surprise story. They've been on the same path in that state for a long time now.

@Snarkqueen,

I bet you would change your tune if you were robbed, rapped or beaten at gun point. I've seen many a victim do exactly that. As soon as they are faced with a traumatic situation that involved getting a gun stuck in their face, then the next day they would run to their nearest gun store, purchase a weapon and sign up for self defense classes. People like you are what armed criminals call "useful idiots". You are just advancing their agenda of an unarmed society by bleating your sheep like anti gun rhetoric.

Another S for Brains politician who stands by and lets the crime and homicide rate go up because he can't deal with his citizens defending themselves!! Facts don't lie!! You take away guns and criminals no longer fear the citizens, they start robbing, raping and murdering!!! Maybe they would see it differently if it was thier wife or daughter being raped!! Oh I forgot the politicians have self defense weapons and permits or they have bodygaurds. Too bad the rest of the law abiding citizens of illinois don't have that luxury!!

T-Bird69 is right, we have to have weapons capable of fighting against a tyrannical gov't. Were already losing that battle. The more these greedy politicians take away the easier it is to control us! And you also have that fool in chicago who wants to tell the gangs to leave the children alone!!!!!!! If you sheep in illinois let these politicians have thier way the gangs will be running the state!!

Stevefoo..."There is no real need for assault weapons. Keep your handguns and your hunting rifles,.."

I understand fully what you're saying. It's not a black and white issue. Read up and down these comments. Many use your same logic to say all guns should be banned, and I could use the same logic to say baseball bats should be banned. They are used to kill people and "there is no real need for baseball bats" except in the hands of trained professionals.

It's a simple whittling away of rights. First you ban "assault style" weapons. Then you ban large magazines. Then you ban semi-automatics. Then you ban any multiple round gun. Then you ban guns all together.

You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell

stevef00hs321

....unfortunately, the right to defend myself could conceivably now extend to nuclear weapons

THAT BS again? We covered this in the other THREADS. To obtain nuclear materials you already have to be LICENSED. You don't even have a CLUE on how to do that and yet you lay claim that the "gun nuts" will be insisting on those next. It is statements like yours that make it IMPOSSIBLE to have a RATIONAL discussion on this topic. But sure lets include nukes in this argument... I'll let you restrict my ability to obtain a nuke... what are you going to compromise on?

Or my own stealth fighter?

Same argument different device. Stealth fighter would already be restricted as missiles and automatic weapons are restricted.. but I'll let you "ban" me from purchasing a 400MILLION dollar item if you give me what in return?

While I know this is an extreme, the intent and thought process is exactly the same, but on a much smaller scale

Hey you made the proposal what sort of response did you expect? Bring a VALID argument to the table and show us you are KNOWLEDGEABLE as to what is already on the books already.

There is no real need for assault weapons. Keep your handguns and your hunting rifles, but please try to understand the sanity involved in attempting to ban needless assault weapons.

ALREADY done unless you can redefine what an assault weapon IS. As I said before, and the previous ban that expired in 2004 did, define an assault weapon... characteristics not models or brands. don't play the California GAME. Don't play the "I'll know it when I see it".

To the best of my knowledge an AUTOMATIC weapon has not been used in a crime in the USA since the NFA was implemented. Not even a MODIFIED one. Besides automatic weapons require local police sign off to purchase one legally unless one has an FFL.

Bob-434277

So Motz, what is really needed is a ban against wackos, nuts and criminals. Problem solved.

They already are! I am an FFL and wackos, nuts and criminals already ARE banned from getting firearms.

Illinois wants a gun ban eventually, but how is that working for Chicago? Not very well....

The control freaks need to pay attention to that.

bagdadjoe-1347766

I believe you are trying to use fear to justify your position, A militia is the populous, it is separate from any government controlled entity, it is not the national guard, or reserves or any misguided notion of the such. Government is force, therefore if the power resides in the pople, and the authority resides with them then they have the power which is the right to keep and bear arms. The exact purpose is to remove a government no longer doing the will of the people. Have you ever read the reasons for the declaration of independence? You should read them because our constitution was designed for the purpose of stopping those grievances from happening in the US.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of
our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power.

Any seems a bit familiar today?

Read em all you will be suprised at similiarities to current events.

trust_verify

THAT BS again?

But of course, it is a slippery slope they hope people will believe in. And when you talk about the regulation of materials to make one they thing they have won, because if you are okay with regulating one then you should be fine with regulating the other.

Except the slope between the two does not exist.

Because the hope to confuse the term bearing arms with possessing any possible weapon. But that is not what it means.

To start the right in question protects the individual's right to bear arms.

An individual does not "bear" a nuclear weapon. They can deliver it, they may control it, but they do not bear it. Just as one does not bear a cruise missile, or a cannon, or any other such nonsense. You may bear a personal weapon, such as a handgun, rifle, pistol, etc...

But anti-gun folks will try and confuse the two, since they think it will achieve their goals. They preset a slippery slope which does not exist.

Hondaa: A better question would be "How many crimes committed with guns last year were committed with guns that were purchased legally then stolen from a gun owner who failed to properly secure their weapon?"

you CANNOT ban assault weapons due to the fact that you can still own prior to the law enacted and those people can probably sell or buy existing weapons.

Keep in mind the majority of gun deaths in Chicago is committed by criminal enterprises or gangs with ILLEGAL weapons....so at the least the bad guys will still have assault weapons.

Everyone jumps on the “gun” ban wagon from time to time, especially politicians. Does Governor Quinn know that weapons aren’t the problem, people are! Years of free for all behavior, lack of discipline, weak kneed politicians and lawmakers frightened to make tough decisions are the main problem.

In Switzerland, military weaponry (army-issued weapons) kept at home are common place. Swiss are using them to defend their country not to kill innocent ones. A recent comparison (6.27.2012) of gun related homicides show that in the USA, 9146 people died compared to Switzerland’s 40.

There is no need to say any more, draw your own conclusions.

It's funny how anti gun people are always so uneducated and stupid when it comes to guns. You idiots confuse semi automatic with fully automatic, seem to think all these weapons are .50 caliper, and have no clue what the conceal carry laws allow and don't allow.

Hea Quinn, how many people were killed in Illinois this year with assult rifles?

In the late 70's and early 80's many gun manufacturers marketed these weapons as assault rifles and many used the term parabellum to discribe the ammunition used for these weapons. They have since stopped using those terms but the damage has already been done.

the U.N. assault weapons ban, signed by this administration and pending ratification in the Senate, does in fact ban ALL, semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns; Harry Reid has not yet brought it up to vote, since they are about 6-8 votes short of passage. if passed it would limit the 2nd amendment rights of gun possession to a narrow range of weapons.(art. 6 Constitution of the United States,"treaty's are the supreme law of the land"

Other Americans with different political ideas just forced the health care bill on us, why would I believe they could not force other legislation on us even more ominous. Don't forget Hitler was duly elected

Most people without health insurance would disagree with you. If you start a revolution -even with a Republican President- who do you think the ARmy is going to defend?

You have NO RIGHT to start ANYTHING that will kill others that disagree with you. That is why we have a CONSTITUTION. You need to repeat 5th GRADE

Unfortunately I don't have the time (or do you) to write about the real problem in detail here, so here is the short version. Most of the anti gunners don't have the proper gun knowledge to make rational decisions about assault rifles. For instance, the gun the shooter used, IS BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME gun I use for deer hunting. Also, if you look back at any mass shooting in the last 25 years, look to see how many rounds the shooter got off with an assault rifle. The high capacity rifle mags really have not played a huge role in these. The high capacity handgun clips have done more damage. Now, do you ban those so only law enforcement can legally own? What about my home protection? I like the fact my 9mm ruger can hold 15rds, because I just might need them (I wish someone had one in that theater to end or slow down the killer). I think that theater had a no weapons rule. The only thing I can think of is the shooter didn't see the sign. Now, if we all had more time, I would teach you how anti depressant drugs, or A.D.D. drugs, have gotten into our society and are the real issue here. But another day. Oh, one last thing, ANYTHING political coming out of Illinois, I just can't take seriously, sorry, biggest joke in the union, bar none.

How many Mass shootings take place at schools, and theaters where you gun free zones compared with Mass Shootings in places where it is not a gun free zone. If you're a criminal wanting to shoot people you go to where they are not allowed to defend themselves and some of you people think the answer is to disarm more law abiding citizens?

Chicago has very tough gun laws and how is that working out for them?

California, New York, and New Jersey were also mentioned in the article as already having these laws, are you telling me it's safe in all L.A. Neighborhoods?

Chicago gangs and criminal enterprises have very loose gun laws, in fact they dont have any and probably have committed the most violence and killings with assault weapons ever. Lets make sure they have assault weapons and citizens dont...that makes sense.

brind back the death sentnce and give them 3 days to make peace with god, the guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Just here from the headline, but that will suffice, nicely, for this moment.

GO GOV!!! GO GOV!!!! GO!!! gO!!! Go!!!!!!!

Rushing to get some deadline "Constitutional" interpreting and asserting done this morning; BUT, I can't wait and hope to be able to get back here today to read the whole article. (there's my 2 cents worth, above, in case I don't get back :) AND, I'm really excited and interested in seeing what the "schematic" postings and comments "YIELD"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (if I am able to get back :)

Happy WEDNESDAY THE FIRST!!!! Early BIRTHDAY GREETINGS! to Obama!!! and Isn't there also a "Blue" Moon coming up?!?!!!!

Why is it the people who scream about the rights of non Americans in locked up in Guantanamo, also tend to be the people trying to infringe on my rights as a law abiding American?

So this guy wants to ban 'assault weapons'? He doesn't even seem to grasp what current regulations allow.

What he is describing is a fully automatic weapon - which are already illegal to own without a license. Not to mention most 'assault' weapons are not meant to fire rounds very quickly a close range - they are ranged weapons meant for firing at a optimum distance. These aren't carbines or SMG's we're talking about here.

Lets play with the carbine aspect for a second. Still, current regulations don't allow full auto weapons. So now we're talking about banning firearms that fire rounds as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. Sidearms are made for short distance shooting, along with shotguns. So this has nothing to do with banning 'assault weapons' but rather, banning all firearms.

The better option would be to limit magazine sizes. Though even that can easily be bypassed if one really desires to. The thing is - laws only work for those that obey them. How many criminals and murderers would think "oh s***, this firearm/magazine is illegal. Better not use it to kill people. I'll use the smaller capacity ones"

Just another chip at the rock and soon it will be a pebble. They want to ban assault weapons now who knows what it will be later. They already banned chemical weapons, nuclear arms, machine guns and anti aircraft weapons from citizens. Pretty soon you won't even be able to carry a gun to a Congressional hearing.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.

-Thomas Jefferson-

Remember the words of our fore fathers they still ring true today.

I would like to offer truly sincere condolences to the families of the hundreds of victims shot dead in Chicago every year. I know it must seem like you are forgotten and no on cares but there are many of us who pay attention, with sad hearts, when these senseless murders happen.

Another reason I'm glad to be gone from Illinois, poor bastards! On a positive note, you won't have to worry about legal or emotional issues from killing someone in self defense, you'll already be dead.

FASCISTS trying to seize our guns! If these liberals like Pat Quinn and politicians continue with anti-gun legislation, it's going to become very hard for any American citizen to obtain weapons. It will be as hard for Americans to obtain weapons as it was for Europeans under Adolf Hitler! Pat Quinn wants to ban all semi-automatic guns. Most shotguns used for hunting are semi-automatic they are not assult weapons! Pat Quinn is an IDIOT! The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Don't waste any time if you live in Illinois. Go out and buy the best handguns and weapons you can.

A simple question for those that want to ban guns: Do you really believe a ban will make any difference and that it will eliminate or reduce such tragedies in the future? I can't see how anyone can honestly answer that question "yes". Criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get their hands on whatever weapon they choose. That's why they are CRIMINALS. A ban changes nothing.

We already have "bans" on many things - drugs, murder, robbery, speeding (the list goes on) - and these "bans" serve no purpose, because some people will always ignore them. What makes you think a ban on guns would be any different?

IRESPOND-2315268

So do you. Obviously you forget that we disagreed with England and that's why we have America today. Also you must not have read the second amendment and the main reason it actually exists.

As far as who the Army will defend. Well, there are plenty of s**tbag soldiers who would fight for 'the winning side'. However, there are just as many, if not more, that will fight based on the oath taken at MEPS. That is, to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic. A soldiers duty lies with protection of the PEOPLE and the Constitution. Not government officials and the president. The government has tried to misconstrue this fact and the average person is to ignorant to know better. You obviously haven't served one day in the military or you'd understand this.

Double post

They never keep laws. They brake them. Sorry! Did he ever hear the black market? Hello! They going get guns without he knowing about it!

More Illinois Politics. From the state that sells Senators seats, from the state that bounces lottery checks. I could go on. Quinn just wants to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Focus on the REPEAT offenders Quinn, that will keep you busy the rest of your life.

Here we go again with the tired old liberal anti gun chant to BAN GUNS!!! Why don't you fools try to ban my Corvette since it will easily go well over 120mph and the speed limit is 70 on the interstate highway. That's about as stupid as banning high cap mags or "assault" rifles. Oh yeh, and don't forget to ban cars since some fool will drive drunk and kill somebody. You anti-gun nuts are clueless.

I don't like guns. I don't own guns. I don't feel comfortable in the same room as a gun. Guns scare me and I'd rather not be around them.

However -

The reason that the 2nd amendment exists is so that if the Government ever got hijacked by the corrupt and we the people had to resist by force we would be armed and prepared to do so. If we were not permitted to have guns, we would be at risk of any number of military coups, tyrranical governments, etc. that have plagued other nations.

We like to think that the US is immune from the political unrest that has dissolved other nations into civil war. We are not. We have been lucky. But as the economy becomes increasingly volitile and I see the unrest that crumbing economies have caused in Greece, Spain, Italy etc. and I wonder how long it might be before we are in a similar situation. Guns are not a solution, they won't stop it. I get that. But if it ever comes down to a complete breakdown of society, I think the people who have guns will be in a better position to provide and defend their families than those without them. And should we ever find ourselves in a position where we need to form a People's Army against a corrupt and abusive government we'll be better equipped if we already have guns of our own.

I'm not a crazy survivalist, I don't hoard canned food and water in a bunker waiting on Armaggeddon. But I do recognize what the intent was for the 2nd amendment. Just because we've been so blessed and lucky for the last 150 years or so doesn't mean we should take for granted that we will never be vulnerable to abusive government in another 150 years.

Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They already own illegal weapons as it is. If you want to cut down on the murder rate, we would all be better served if politicians focused on fixing the economy and bringing back good paying jobs for the low skilled, undereducated, low IQ individuals who are not capable of becoming a computer programmer or chemical engineer. When you do not have enough jobs for the lower classes, crime rises as people do what they feel they have to do to survive. That means more people selling drugs, which in turn leads to more gangs forming to organize. This leads to more turf wars and more gun violence. That's the real problem that Chicago, Detroit, and other cities are facing. Poverty breeds crime. Crime begets violence. Violence creates gun deaths. If the Governor of Illinois wants to end gun violence in his state he'd be better served to ban poverty than he would be to ban assault rifles.

@SnarkQueen.............You are pissing in the wind my dear.

How about he just balance the budget and shore up the pension issue. Oh wait it's better to distract than prioritize.

Lack of Logic,

the NRA is a militaristic right wing group that has put money into every election and threats into every camaign. It is now along the lines of the National Socialist movement! (Nazi!)

@ Mr. Phea.........1.28

In Illinois you can hunt with a handgun.No hunting with a rifle unless it's a .50 cal. muzzle loader.

I don't get why anyone would want a 100 or 200 round drum. Wouldn't the weight of the ammo make it too heavy tote ?

I don't believe this would be a smart move for we would be at ease as Al Qaeda attempts to kill us.

Okay, stupid governor, let's say you DO ban assault rifles. The bad/whacko people will use bolt -action rifles. You ban those. The whackos will use handguns. You ban those. The whackos will use baseball bats. You ban those. They will use a car,tire iron, axe, hammer, splitting maul, kitchen knives, every tool in the garage, meat cleavers, saws. You are really dumb, if you think banning ANY weapon will stop the killing. Spend your energy stopping the actual whackos, drug dealers, criminals. Oblabla also wants to "control" assault weapons (that's only to stop Americans from defending themselves from our own government).

If any of you know about the Second World War, when Japan attacked us, we couldn't respond, because we were caught with our pants down - America wasn't prepared for all - out war. And those of you that have your head in the sand, don't for a minute think we could not be attacked by another country. Heck, we have thousands of people right here in the US prepared for attacking us from within. There are millions of folks who believe they will go to Heaven by killing others (Second World War, Kamakazie warriors, now, suicide bombers). Thanks to our government and media for encouraging hyphenated Americans, who are not dedicated enough to just be an American - we have hundreds, maybe thousands of "little countries" living within the US. Having neighbors owning guns of any kind, makes me feel a little less vunerable.

You guys just flat out don't get it. The answer isn't more gun laws and it never will be. You guys on the Left scream that prohibition doesn't work for the War on Drugs, why do you think it will work for your War on Guns? Obviously, it won't. It hasn't in Chicago or DC, why would it work anywhere else?

There is a real answer though. The way to approach this is simple. Mandatory life in prison with no parole for any crime involving a gun. If an injury occurs, then that becomes mandatory death. Do that, and do it swiftly when convicted and you'll start to make a dent in the problem of gun violence.

Again, you guys just don't get it. It's not the guns that are the problem it is the disrespect that our legal system is held in. Why not be a criminal when there are no real severe penalties? A few years in prison? Well fed, well cared-for criminals are what you see there. The guys in prison are taken care of far better than the common people. When the criminals fear the law again, we might be on the way to a true solution. Make prison unpleasant and make gun crimes carry the above penalties.

@clwyd-2621393

Lack of Logic,

the NRA is a militaristic right wing group that has put money into every election and threats into every camaign. It is now along the lines of the National Socialist movement! (Nazi!)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject
races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is
a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have
any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole
responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied
Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to
cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler

Ban assault rifles!!! The whack job in Colorado did more damage with a 870 express shotgun than with his assault rifle....you pansies ready to ban those too?? You freaking tree huggers need to know what the hell your talking about before you go running your sucks!

@clwyd-2621393

Here is some more info regarding your statement on NRA being similar to Nazi Party.

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938

• Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
• All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to
  register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
• Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby
  exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
• Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds
  of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
• The types of ammunition that were legal were subject
  to control by bureaucrats.
• Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and
  ammunition.

The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage
against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the
confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times
reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews,"
explaining:

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that
as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish
population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand
weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in
possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest
punishment.

@ Henry Thinks well said about "in case" of being invaded.

I'm in Texas, we have our own army that answers ONLY to the Texas Governor. Plus with the number of red necks here, we have the ability to army 1 million+ people within 24 hours. LOL. I know there are more guns in the hands of civilians then all the military has, foreign or domestic.

A disarmed population is a peasant civilization.

Nobody had any problem with the assault weapons and large clip (magazine) ban that expired in 2004 except the NRA. The NRA represents weapons manufacturers and their 2nd Amendment, hunter rights advocacy is a guise. They are war profiteers, Nazi like vile people who profit from both sides of every war including the drug war. They view humans as their goyim and chattel. They are not happy with selling weapons to hunters and police forces. The weapons dealers are with the people referred to in the Bible under Revelations 2:9. Along with those who own the United States government with their Federal Reserve FIAT money scam, their love of war profits earns them the name ZIONAZI. Shame on the people that will label Pat Quinn a socialist, communist ect. attempting to brainwash republicans to get them to back up their evil Satan like folly. I am an atheist anarchist pagan socialist communist and yes we will no doubt need guns to over throw the ZioNazi monetary system manipulating war profiteering inhumane spawn that has taken over the United States so leave Pat Quinn alone. It is up to you yourself to read the entire Constitution and not just the 2nd Amendment. Realize that those behind the NRA are guilty of crimes against nation and humanity. Which side are you on?

It looks like the libtards are out in swing. another sign that the democratic power should be out of the WH, they only bring chaos pushing their own people to the edge.

guns don't killl people, weak minded people kill people.

What an embarrassing country this is to live in.

I can't believe we are arguing over something this obvious.

Maybe you teeny tiny little mouse people that have to have a gun to feel important could barricade yourselves inside your houses until the government comes to get you or you starve--whichever comes first.

Either way it's all good for the rest of us.

MNSlim: You don't really know what you really are, do you?

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.

-Thomas Jefferson-

Remember the words of our fore fathers they still ring true today

"A productive female slave will make me more money than my best worker slave by producing more slaves."

-Thomas Jefferson

@ Dick-2100935 list some kind of reference for your slave quote

And about the other Thomas Jefferson quote. FYI, he was quoting Cesare Beccaria about "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm", but still a good quote.

Its a very controversial subject when an Idea like Holmes comes into play,

Banning weapons would not do a thing but increase a Black market for them,

He was smart enough to make his own weapons and don't forget there were bombs in his apartment, he could of easily used one of them.

On the flip side when has a good guy ever needed a weapon like this, meaning ever used in a public situation where someone needed help..

Excellent. Finally a politician who knows what's best for me and my family. I am certain there are no hidden agendas either and he is only worried about my welfare. But please, don't stop there. Figure out what other inalienable rights I don't need and get rid of those too.

The world is becoming a better place everyday. I just know the criminals are shouting "curses, foiled again"

LookingForwardtotheFuture

@ Dick-2100935 list some kind of reference for your slave quote

Wasn't the exact quote but here goes. From 1861, Adam Goodheart, I don't have the letter.

"I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm"_— "what she produces is an additon to capital." From a letter to his son-in-law which also described in the same letter his lofty schemes for the University of Virginia.

Virginia ran out of good soil for tobacco and found producing slaves and selling them farther south more profitable anyway.

@ Dick-2100935

Thanks! Here is the full content.

"Minerva and Bagwell had nine children from 1787 to 1811, by which time they also had at least six grandchildren. The records shed little light on arrangements for infant care at Monticello. Jefferson was known to encourage his overseers to allow the slave women sufficient time to ensure the health of their infants. In 1820 he wrote to John Wayles Eppes: "I consider a woman who rings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption." Nursing mothers were allowed an extra quarter-peck of cornmeal in the weekly ration."

Don't see the reference though about him doing this to produce and sell slaves though.....

clwyd-2621393 and the rest of the anti - gun posters here:

This Quinn is just another politician using his own agenda and using a tragedy (typical) to take attention from the real problems of this country. Any nut job can use anything as a weapon. A moron with a few basic chemicals could gas an entire building through the HVAC. Lets ban any chemicals that can be mixed to create a noxious gas. Diesel fuel and fertilizer dropped a couple of buildings. Lets ban those. People are stabbed. Lets ban all sharp objects. The list goes on and on and on. Why not enforce the laws we have. Oh! Wait! Most of our government would be in jail! Another thing, I belong to the NRA. I am a Patriot who supports our troops and all those who have served in the past. Your are an idiot for comparing the NRA to the NAZI party. The NRA helps keep anti-constitutional @!$%#s from infringing on our rights. I believe in our form of goverment. The crooked scumbags in office are the real criminals. They break their oath to uphold the constitution. Can you imagine the uproar if the first amendment was under fire? Most of the people who want to take my weapons probably don't know any of the constitution. By the way. The 45 sitting on my nightstand hasn't gotten up and tried to shoot me. I don't think it ever will. You people hate guns so much that you are blind to the real issue. Crazy people can use anything as a weapon. You can't ban everything that can harm. What about that cast iron skillet..............? Morons!

Dear Dan & Dick

This quote is actualy Thomas Jefferson commenting on the writings of Cesare Bonesana The Marqui Beccaria who wrote of Crime and Punisment in 1764

The Quote

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those

only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to

prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the

most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will

respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of

which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the

execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear

to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent

to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?

It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the

assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it

requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.

-Thomas Jefferson-

Re

member the words of our fore fathers they still ring true today

"A productive female slave will make me more money than my best worker slave by producing more slaves."

-Thomas Jefferson

As for the second quote was this Before or after He fathered children with Sally Hemmings, since Dick you are such a scholar you must know?

Quinn, a Democrat, called himself a "strong supporter" of the constitutional right to bear arms, but said in a letter to state legislators that the proliferation of military-style assault weapons undermines public safety.

"There is no place in the state of Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range," said Quinn, who also proposed a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

He can call himself whatever he wants. You can call a pig a cow too. That doesn't make it so. He is no strong supporter of gun rights.

LookingForwardtotheFuture
Don't see the reference though about him doing this to produce and sell slaves though.....

I have no dirrect reference but if you consider the circumstances it reflects breeding for sale.

Jefferson supported the ban on importation of slaves which automatically increased the value. Most of his slaves were inherited and increased under his ownership. He also sold slaves and only freed some. The south was gearing up for, labor intensive, huge cotton production and needed many slaves creating even more value for each slave. Breeding slaves for sale was not uncommon in that period.

An 1857 Alabama property tax listed tax on slaves (white included) from $0.25 to $1.87 depending on age and sex. Considering slaves as property and their value the South was as rich or richer than the North up until the Civil War.

For the record, i support the 2nd amendment but do think some common sense remedies/controls wouldnt hurt. There was a post stating the" 2nd amendment used to protect the first" and another calling Liberals "sheep being led around" REALLY? I would beg to differ, The Republican government doesnt need a gun to 'lead their conservative sheep" all they need is some idiotic misinformation that they know their conserrvative voters are not bright enough to research...which is basically everything the GOP say today and their "sheepie followers" blindly follow at any cost. Its a damn shame what our country has turned into and the fact that people cant think for themselves. Now is not the time for any restrictions on firearms. And I lean with the crowd that actually knows how to think independantly and for themselves without towing and following a party line. You conservaturds should be ashamed of yourselves for letting yourselves get exploited in such a dumbfounded way. Check and see if your wing nut elected officials live up to any standards they want you to sink to..i would say not..they wont ever let themseleves sink to the level of pure ignorance to fact the way they get their base to. Thats the real shame and breaks my heart to see a grouo of people go down in such a manner. At the very least, make your own decisions based on some facts of your own and tell your people in washington to stop treating their base like idiots and stop proving them right by being "good sheepies" as they have been trying to cause unrest and ultimately a civil war based on lies and misinformation because they have been beat and cant face the truths of them tanking this country and selling you poor people out to the rich so they can live a better life..we need to address this issue before anything else as its much more important we get a handle on our govt and tame the hitler like GOP.

@mj145 #1.90 Since you are sooo embarrassed at living in this country you could always move...but just a suggestion, please gather atleast 10 other liberal nut jobs and take them with you..would be a start at getting our country back on track.

As for Pat Quinn..I am sure every time he failed a test he blamed the pencil...poor man

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/nra-supported-nfa34.htm

The above link gives some counter point information to all those uninitiated who think that the NRA supports anarchy. Quite the opposite is true and can be verified by some easy research such as the 5 minutes it took to come up with the above link. The NRA is for the responsible ownership of all varieties of firearms. The key word here is responsible! They are not beyond supporting certain restrictions which allow the second amendment to be honored, while helping to safe guard the population from violent acts.

I wish the anti gun crowd would become informed before they throw out comments concerning gun owners and firearms. They would certainly stand to gain from facing their irrational fear of an object that cannot move or act of its own accord.

rdoss70
As for the second quote was this Before or after He fathered children with Sally Hemmings, since Dick you are such a scholar you must know?

I'm sure it was after he fathered children with his wife's half sister.

Your praise does flatter me but I'm just a poor student of life.

Stevefoo: No matter if the times have changed the intent of the 2nd Amendment has not and that's to give the people the right to rise up against a tyrannical government or one trying to usurp power. If you want to change that then yes I'll call people like that sheep all day because they do not understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment nor do they care about the Constitution on which this country is founded. Remember a armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a subject and those that are wanting to change the Second Amendment are wanting to change everyone to subjects and get totally away from what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. I really have never like the following saying and I don't take this lightly but if you don't like what the Founding Fathers wrote or wanted for this country you know where the door is at and are free to leave at any time.

A few quotes from the Founding Fathers:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

@ noneyabiz btw maybe you should research the "The Night of the Broken Glass" . It was caused by groups alien to the locations they happened and the public by a very vast majority condemmed the attacks by these mysterious groups and supported their Jewish neighbors much in the same way Americans did with their japanese neighbors. Using an examle of something without research it is damgerous and ignorant.

trust_verify

stevef00hs321

|....unfortunately, the right to defend myself could conceivably now extend to nuclea weapons

THAT BS again? We covered this in the other THREADS. To obtain nuclear materials you already have to be LICENSED. You don't even have a CLUE on how to do that and yet you lay claim that the "gun nuts" will be insisting on those next.

Of course you seem to have missed the point of steve's post. It wasn't about nuclear weapons in the hands of the public, it was about, "where does the right to bear arms end"?

The question might be better posed by giving the following scenario: I am a citizen who is actually concerned that the government is a threat to my personal liberty. I have built a missile and armed it with a conventional warhead I personally designed to cause damage to a number targets several miles away in a single use. This is something a private citizen would actually be able to pull-off technologically if motivated.

Am I within my rights owning such a thing? The device would fall under the category of "arms", is it not my constitutional right have it and use it if I see fit?

I can own a private aircraft, can I not arm it with bombs? Its okay, the're not nuclear...

That is the real argument. If I can have a AK-47, why not even bigger more deadly things?

Discuss.

T_Bird69

Stevefoo: No matter if the times have changed the intent of the 2nd Amendment has not and that's to give the people the right to rise up against a tyrannical government or one trying to usurp power. If you want to change that then yes I'll call people like that sheep all day because they do not understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment nor do they care about the Constitution on which this country is founded

The only problem with that is ( and I am speaking as a person who is not in favor of disarming citizens) that it would not be a reasonable possibility in this day and age for a group of citizens to wrest power from a corrupt US government using their private weapons in the face of the military power possessed by our government. I can't imagine it being something that could happen. Maybe in a Hollywood movie. --Maybe...

@Hal-2824511

I think you would be surprised how much of the military would support the citizen and not the government , seeing they are public servants and our family members.

Hal-2824511

Am I within my rights owning such a thing? The device would fall under the category of "arms", is it not my constitutional right have it and use it if I see fit?

rockets are regulated by the FAA... Explosives are regulated by the BATFe. Again the banter of what about weapon XYZ when they are already REGULATED. Whether someone is AWARE of the law doesn't negate the fact that regulations exist. Whether regulations exist doesn't mean that criminals are going to abide by those laws.

I ask ALL parties to write their scenario then research regulations that already exist. I was reading the other day and learned something new, something I try to do on a regular basis. There is a FEDERAL law that mandates notification of the government of ANYONE who purchases more than one gun in a specific time frame. That doesn't PREVENT the purchase only flags it.

I can own a private aircraft, can I not arm it with bombs? Its okay, the're not nuclear...

again regulated. while it is LEGAL to drop something from an aircraft it is illegal to do so in a manner that would cause injury or death to a person or damage to property. Again a bomb requires an FFL for explosives. Would any current or past laws PREVENT 9/11? Answer: only the secured cockpit doors are a true deterrent. Criminals don't obey the law. The fear mongers proclaim what about a bomb(conventional or other), a rocket, a this or that. There are ALREADY regulations and controls in place. Problem is the average person doesn't know they even exist unless they choose to research them OR someone who honestly wants to do ABC runs afoul of those regulations. Find a loophole and we can plug it... fertilizer and diesel in OK city ring any bells? Sucks to be a farmer these days because they use BOTH to grow the food you eat but every time they want to buy those items in quantity now they have to EXPLAIN why they need so much of both.

Sorry for being long winded but feel free to provide a short list of what you can dream up and I'm sure I can list who regulates or what law controls it. Even bows, crossbows, pellet guns are currently regulated. There is a federal law regulating TOY weapons even.

Trust_verify - That is a good response to my given examples. I would still like to see people speculate on the limits of the amendment too, though.

Like I mentioned, I do support the 2nd ammendment but I also think we should give more thought to what is and should be applicable under the constitution.

ban all assault weapons(anything that can be picked up and used for a weapon,stones, sticks,stop the production of baseball bats,golf clubs,rope,or anything else that cause bodily harm,cars,hands,feet)The sullivan law in NY was dreamed up by a gangster that wanted his gang to be the only ones to get gun permits,(paid off the mayor for that privalege, the other gangs couldn't buy that protection so they got jail time if they had a gun or if police planted one on them.)

Get the criminals to agree to the ban.

Hal: Yes it is very reasonable to expect the average citizens to be able to rise up against a tyrannical US Government if the military honor their oath they take. We did't take the oath to protect and defend the US, President, Congress or anybody else when one takes the Oath it's to protect and defend the Constitution. No serviceman in worth their weight would defend the President over the Constitution. On the flip side look at what poorly armed nomads can and have done to the military with things like ied's and some simple things like that yea I'd say the average populace would have a very good chance of standing up and removing a tyrannical government.

The Army will be on the side of logic and order.

Go tell that to Syria, Libya and Iraq just to name a few.

Do you really think that we are in danger of other countries attacking us? The only reason for you to have a militia is to fight other Americans that have different political ideas.

9/11 never happened but that was minor compared to the subversive attack that is being waged on this country. Which Americans are speaking of the successful ones or the entitled ones. The -ed ones. or the regular Americans.

@Will-1866747

@ noneyabiz btw maybe you should research the "The Night of the Broken Glass" . It was caused by groups alien to the locations they happened and the public by a very vast majority condemmed the attacks by these mysterious groups and supported their Jewish neighbors much in the same way Americans did with their japanese neighbors. Using an examle of something without research it is damgerous and ignorant.

"Although the pogrom that Goebbels set in motion on the night of November 9, 1938
was later hailed as a "spontaneous wave of righteous indignation," the Sturm
Abteilung (SA, "storm trooper unit") and the Schutzstaffel (SS,
"protective corps") were actually in charge of the violent action. Their mission
was explicit: preserve Aryan property, isolate the main Jewish institutions and
seize their archives before they were destroyed, and arrest approximately 30,000
Jewish men (later to be herded into concentration camps); such were the duties
of the SA and the SS, according to the instructions issued by Goebbels, Reinhard
Heydrich, Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS, and the chief of the Gestapo in Berlin."

Perhaps you need to expand your "damgerous and ignorant" research beyond the basics. Heck even Google "Sturm Abteilung, Schutzstaffel, Kristallnacht". And in no way did I implicate the non-jews in the neighborhood in the attacks of that night (I did say that it was initiated by the Nazi Party).

Dear Big Al, I spoke to the wind today and said "blow me".

sam adams

Cars are purchased with the intent to drive. ...guns are purchased with the intent to kill.

Fallacy: False analogy. Your bias would not be so apparent if you had stated

"Cars are purchased with the intent to drive. Guns are purchased with the intent to shoot.", or

"Cars are purchased with the intent to run over things. Guns are purchased with the intent to kill."

Sam Adams,

Your hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous and based in flawed thinking so engaging in a debate with someone posing such an idiotic idea is simply a waste of time. So the 5 million firearms sold in the US last month are intended to kill 5 million individuals in the near future? By the way, firearms are used in other pursuits, not simple blind killing. There is the idea of self defense which many people purchase firearms with that intent and they never kill anyone, thank god, but they had the ability to defend themselves if the need arose. God, I am doing it, I said I wouldn't waste my time with such an idiotic post and yet I am making valid points to someone who has no interest in logic, all this person is interested in is putting forth an absolutely ludicrous statement.

Big Al, if you prefer to be a victim (of a criminal or a tyrannical government) that's your choice, but don't try to force your illusion of a peaceful utopia without guns on the rest of us! "Gun owners are time bombs"? Is it hard for you to breath with your head up your a$$?

What kind of logic can one expect from somebody that names themselves after a beer?

Dude, be serious. You lose what little credibility you have painting all gun owners with the same brush.

Yeah right...just like me owning my 700 hp Dodge Viper. I'm just a time bomb waiting to kill everyone on the road. GMAFB. I guess with your logic, we should all just drive eco crap cars since there is no rational need to drive anything else. Human creativity (and likewise mankinds inherent desire to do evil) can create both beauty and unbelievable ugliness from the same pallet. You can't have one without the other.

First of all, as a Democrat, I disagree. I like the hunting weapons I have. I need them where I live, even if for no reason other than to scare something off. It's not about the Second Amendment, which will never be repealed so long as the South, the Rocky Mountain States and Alaska still exist in this country- it simply won't happen, and shouldn't. What this is about is allowing the manufacture of weapons that CAN ONLY be used to kill humans. That is what needs to end, and has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Big Al...With a small mind.

Bob -

For someone who so worships the 2nd amendment, you are surprisingly ignorant of our founding fathers. Try googling Samuel Adams - it's more than the name of a beer.

Your challenge is accepted. Please post something you claim is (1) a lie, and (2) told by an NRA spokesperson, and let us reason about it.

Hey troll, "idiots...not capable of reasoning of any kind...."? You are displaying such intellectual prowess. It's a shame that our mental health institutions are letting people like you back out among the sane populace. I think that you may have forgotten your morning meds. If not, please call your doctor immediately! You need help.

Troll...Its people with reasoning like you that keeps the gun shops busy, everytime you spew your lunacy, we (gun nuts) go buy more guns and ammo, because if the day comes when your leading the pack and coming down my driveway.....well, you better not be carrying a knife....

Thankfully, the American people are ignoring the gun control idiots and voting with their dollars - after Democrats took over the House in 2006, gun sales took off. Then, the first year of Obama's administration, sales soared by over 40%, and continue at a fast pace. As a firearm instructor, I can verify the most of the rise in gun buying is due to NEW people who never owned a gun before. And they are from across the spectrum - Democrat, Republican, Independent, men, women, black, white, brown, gay, straight - I've had them all in my classes. And women, especially young women, are really getting on the bandwagon.

So, keep it up, Mr. Quinn (and Mr. Obama) - with everything else that the voters have to hold against you, now you want to threaten their guns? PLEASE keep it up...:)

And what automatic weapons are you talking about? The one that wasn't used in Colorado or the ones that are never used in crimes?

Automatic weapons are already banned so that kind of proves the OP's point.

However Dandy assault rifles and large magazines are allowed, thats what the governor is trying to stop the sale of, only reason for these types of weapons and magazines is to kill large amounts of people not for home defense.

Ignorance is Rampant on this commentary, No Automatics are not banned, it just takes a little more Red Tape and Approval, They are Legal. The First Go at an Assault Weapon Ban was really productive, it won't work, didn't work and doesn't work. Enforce the existing laws on the books, actively report those who are having mental stability issues, Geesh, we have enough regulation already. You can't legislate away Evil, by the very nature of the Ban you disarm the very Citizenry that may need it. We are Politically Correcting Ourselves to Mirror the Former Soviet Union, Comrade Quinn.

I only wish more americans could see this issue as well as you do. A lot of our citizens are wanting to have the same laws as oppressed country's do and they're nuts.

Sashalee...obviously a well uninformed person like you knows that unless you have all the proper documents and are willing to pay for the permit, you can own fully automatic weapons...however the next hurdle is the cost of automatic weapons...they are usually 8-10 times the cost of a regular SEMI-automatic weapon...then you have the ammunition costs....As by the border states...there are hundreds of existing gun laws, but the politicians and lawyers don't enforce the ones we have so how is having another one gonna help...