Join the fight

[labrat]

As you just stated that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Banning any gun won't do any good.Criminals don't obey laws.Mentally ill people don't consider laws when they snap.Law abiding citizens that own guns don't kill people.My choice is to keep my guns loaded because you can't tell a intruder with a gun "wait a minute i have to load my gun" . I'm thinking logically and your thinking emotionally.Not saying i'm right,but i'll bet i live longer if a armed intruder breaks into my house.You will have to load your gun after you unlock two separate safes.Good luck!As for gun laws Chicago has some of the strictest laws in the nation.They have already had nearly 100 gun related crimes this year and we haven't even seen a month go by.People will never agree on this subject so we each do what we think is best.I prefer to have equal or greater force than what i'm threatened with.

Do you have grandkids who are adventurous. IMO weapons that are not secured by lock and key should be if kids are around. If weapons are secure it is your choice whether to have them loaded or not. I am 35+ miles from the City. We periodically have gun crimes in the suburbs but not usually related to burglaries or home invasions. It is usually a husband or boyfriend who went out of control due to mental stability.

[labrat]

Is it the overwhelming opinion on this forum that any Gun that fires a bullet should be legal to sell irregardless of caliber, range and cyclic tic rate?

Is the opinion of the majority of this thread that tighter controls and background checks are needed and that a waiting period of 3 days should be sufficient to deter at least the buyers who may or may not have mental health problems? It will not deter the criminal but could help with estranged individuals.

Should the illegal ownership/possession of an unlicensed firearm of any type be just a misdemeanor?

Should a firearm type and the licensee to carry it have restrictions based on age? As an example should a 17 year old be able to purchase and licensee a 22 caliber Saturday Night Special or a 9mm Glock? Based on various opinions re weapons, Would say a 50 caliber weapon be legal to own it only fired in a semi-automatic?

Are our current policies sufficient? If you thing they need changes what would you recommend?

IMO we have both a gun problem as well as a people problem. Background checks as they exist catch some potential buyers but some disorders will be missed. One of them is depression that builds up over time.

Should background checks only be done when a weapon is purchased? Should background checks be done every couple of years to possibly detect an issue after a sale?

Should we require gun dealers at gun shows to require background checks and in Illinois a valid FireArm Owners ID (FOID Card)?

Since it appears that the majority of respondents do not want to see tighter controls on so called assault weapons then it make very little sense to limit the magazine size to 10 rounds as proposed by some. In the military and sportsmen tape two magazines together so it would be a very quick change to get 20 rounds chamber in a small amount of time.

In some areas of the country tighter restrictions, tougher penalties and screening is drastically needed. Chicago proper has I think the highest murder rate in history in less than 1 month in comparison to other Januaries. One woman on the South Side of the City had four sons. All 4 sons and husband have perished from a person discharging a firearm.

This does not seem to be a rural problem but one of large cities where social economic issues are related to gun violence. Chicago tried stiffening the ban and the IL Supreme court deemed it unconstitutional.

The metaphors re: vaccination and OTC medicines valid but these exist for the greater good and it has been rationalized that the risk is worth it.

I believe the 2nd amendment is for the greater good! But I also believe a better background check, tighter licensee's for concealed weapons, an age limit for teenagers and follow up background checks are needed. I also think we should still look at assault weapons that have a main focus to just kill 2 legged critters in volume and that gun owners and the NRA review which assault weapons are more prevalent and have a higher kill ration as compared to other weapons in that class of weapons.

Tonight new highlighted a problem with low cost knockoff's sold in this country. Recently the Chinese came up with another AK47 knockoff that is cheaper and from what I have gathered easier to convert to fully automatic.

Just for my sanity what would a user use a AR15 or AK47 for. Shooting a few hundred rounds in a legitimate firing range is one that comes to mind but other than 2 legged critters what other positive purposes do they have. Firing an of these weapons indoors say at a burglar and the home owner was firing at the burglar how many rounds could land up going thru drywall and hollow core doors in either Semi or auto modes of operation?

As I have said before I am for the second amendment. I currently own 2 12 guage Remington shotguns, 1 Ithaca 20 guage side by side, A single shot lever action Ithaca, a 4 round Ruger Bolt action 30-06 a Remington 597 rimfire 10 cartridge magazine and a Winchester 30 30 lever action.

[robert theisen]

Do you have grandkids who are adventurous. IMO weapons that are not secured by lock and key should be if kids are around. If weapons are secure it is your choice whether to have them loaded or not. I am 35+ miles from the City. We periodically have gun crimes in the suburbs but not usually related to burglaries or home invasions. It is usually a husband or boyfriend who went out of control due to mental stability.

We don't have any children,but if we did they make gun safes with a combination lock to give you quick access to your loaded gun.Why own a gun for self defense if it's not loaded?As for Shotguns they make combination lock safes for them too.

[Nobody]

Is it the overwhelming opinion on this forum that any Gun that fires a bullet should be legal to sell irregardless of caliber, range and cyclic tic rate?

Is the opinion of the majority of this thread that tighter controls and background checks are needed and that a waiting period of 3 days should be sufficient to deter at least the buyers who may or may not have mental health problems? It will not deter the criminal but could help with estranged individuals.

Should the illegal ownership/possession of an unlicensed firearm of any type be just a misdemeanor?

Should a firearm type and the licensee to carry it have restrictions based on age? As an example should a 17 year old be able to purchase and licensee a 22 caliber Saturday Night Special or a 9mm Glock? Based on various opinions re weapons, Would say a 50 caliber weapon be legal to own it only fired in a semi-automatic?

Are our current policies sufficient? If you thing they need changes what would you recommend?

IMO we have both a gun problem as well as a people problem. Background checks as they exist catch some potential buyers but some disorders will be missed. One of them is depression that builds up over time.

Should background checks only be done when a weapon is purchased? Should background checks be done every couple of years to possibly detect an issue after a sale?

Should we require gun dealers at gun shows to require background checks and in Illinois a valid FireArm Owners ID (FOID Card)?

Since it appears that the majority of respondents do not want to see tighter controls on so called assault weapons then it make very little sense to limit the magazine size to 10 rounds as proposed by some. In the military and sportsmen tape two magazines together so it would be a very quick change to get 20 rounds chamber in a small amount of time.

In some areas of the country tighter restrictions, tougher penalties and screening is drastically needed. Chicago proper has I think the highest murder rate in history in less than 1 month in comparison to other Januaries. One woman on the South Side of the City had four sons. All 4 sons and husband have perished from a person discharging a firearm.

This does not seem to be a rural problem but one of large cities where social economic issues are related to gun violence. Chicago tried stiffening the ban and the IL Supreme court deemed it unconstitutional.

The metaphors re: vaccination and OTC medicines valid but these exist for the greater good and it has been rationalized that the risk is worth it.

I believe the 2nd amendment is for the greater good! But I also believe a better background check, tighter licensee's for concealed weapons, an age limit for teenagers and follow up background checks are needed. I also think we should still look at assault weapons that have a main focus to just kill 2 legged critters in volume and that gun owners and the NRA review which assault weapons are more prevalent and have a higher kill ration as compared to other weapons in that class of weapons.

Tonight new highlighted a problem with low cost knockoff's sold in this country. Recently the Chinese came up with another AK47 knockoff that is cheaper and from what I have gathered easier to convert to fully automatic.

Just for my sanity what would a user use a AR15 or AK47 for. Shooting a few hundred rounds in a legitimate firing range is one that comes to mind but other than 2 legged critters what other positive purposes do they have. Firing an of these weapons indoors say at a burglar and the home owner was firing at the burglar how many rounds could land up going thru drywall and hollow core doors in either Semi or auto modes of operation?

As I have said before I am for the second amendment. I currently own 2 12 guage Remington shotguns, 1 Ithaca 20 guage side by side, A single shot lever action Ithaca, a 4 round Ruger Bolt action 30-06 a Remington 597 rimfire 10 cartridge magazine and a Winchester 30 30 lever action.

I own nothing and I hope the ban on assault weapons prevails as they serves absolutely NO purpose in a civilized society/ It would be nice to leave the world a better place, that being without firearms much like Japan, but few have ever seen a peaceful society without out of control violence as we have here in the US. It still boils down to selfish, self centered individuals who's only concern is their own. Some here have a David Koresh mentality and can't be reasoned with under any terms. Why is it that idiots have to revert to name calling in the face of adversity? This I'll never understand.

[dom w. forte]

Yes Dom, that must be all I do. At least I'm not fear based worried about a military or government coup coming to take me away.

As always this is what you resort to when you have nothing of value to state, I have no desire to infringe on any of your freedoms of choice, I dont see why you think its ok to infringe on mine or anybody else, with that said I will leave this topic for I am tired of debating with an unarmed person ( no pun intended ).

[IDBoating]

That is, indeed, the bottom line: I should not have to give up my choice so that others can have theirs. And vice versa.

The proper role of government is to preserve each individual's ability to choose for themselves. But it seems that some people believe the proper role of government is to impose their standards upon everyone else, usually (in their minds) "for their own good". No thanks! I promise they do not want my standards imposed upon them, and I am certain the opposite is also true.

[Ewok]

The Japanese argument is a terrible example. The reason there are no guns in Japan is because we disarmed the entire country after they surrendered and kept that country under martial law, military control for 7 years after the end of the war. We were much harder on the Japanese than we were on the Iraqis or Afganis today. After the hostilities ended the majority of the Japanese people felt dishonorable about what their country did and wanted nothing to do with guns. The Japanese Defense Force isn't even allowed to arm their air to air fighters. This quote is from Wikipedia so take that for what it's with but it's a section of their constitution:

In theory, Japan's rearmament is prohibited by Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which states:

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."

[Nobody]

The Japanese argument is a terrible example. The reason there are no guns in Japan is because we disarmed the entire country after they surrendered and kept that country under martial law, military control for 7 years after the end of the war. We were much harder on the Japanese than we were on the Iraqis or Afganis today. After the hostilities ended the majority of the Japanese people felt dishonorable about what their country did and wanted nothing to do with guns. The Japanese Defense Force isn't even allowed to arm their air to air fighters. This quote is from Wikipedia so take that for what it's with but it's a section of their constitution:

In theory, Japan's rearmament is prohibited by Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which states:

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."

Sure is nice to stroll Tokyo all hours of the night and not worry about being jumped, mugged, stabbed, or shot 40 times with an assault rifle. Don't know how many of you have been overseas but its sure an eye opener. Also, if you see an officer with a baton, it's because he's either a rookie or not fully trained. (at least this is what I am told by my clients)

All of my conservative (republican) friends and acquaintanceship's that own guns do not see the need to have assault weapons. This give me some peace knowing that the hell bent constitution radicals around here are rare.

Lastly, why doesn't this thread get moved to OFF TOPIC??

[jmoore15]

Ever been to São Paulo or Rio? Same concept on gun control as Japan but drastically different outcome. Only the gangs have guns and they rule everyone including law enforcement.

[robert theisen]

Sure is nice to stroll Tokyo all hours of the night and not worry about being jumped, mugged, stabbed, or shot 40 times with an assault rifle. Don't know how many of you have been overseas but its sure an eye opener. Also, if you see an officer with a baton, it's because he's either a rookie or not fully trained. (at least this is what I am told by my clients)

All of my conservative (republican) friends and acquaintanceship's that own guns do not see the need to have assault weapons. This give me some peace knowing that the hell bent constitution radicals around here are rare.

Lastly, why doesn't this thread get moved to OFF TOPIC??

The thread is still here because Nobody is in it.Nobody has said anything worthwhile.And as you know Nobdy believes everything their clients tell them.

[laserfish]

Constitution radicals?????? Now there is a clever concept. Since when did enforcing the laws based on the Constitution become radical??? Seems to me that the removal of RIGHTS outlined in the BILL OF RIGHTS is the radical idea. Remember, this is the bill of rights, not the bill of needs and as such, these rights should be respected and not infringed on.

[IDBoating]

Constitution radicals?????? Now there is a clever concept. Since when did enforcing the laws based on the Constitution become radical??? Seems to me that the removal of RIGHTS outlined in the BILL OF RIGHTS is the radical idea. Remember, this is the bill of rights, not the bill of needs and as such, these rights should be respected and not infringed on.

Those who seek to impose their choices upon others always view "rights" as troublesome annoyances that get in the way of their plans.

...until, of course, someone wants to infringe on THEIR rights.

[Wakeman22]

Those who seek to impose their choices upon others always view "rights" as troublesome annoyances that get in the way of their plans.

...until, of course, someone wants to infringe on THEIR rights.

We said.

[Nobody]

Constitution radicals?????? Now there is a clever concept. Since when did enforcing the laws based on the Constitution become radical??? Seems to me that the removal of RIGHTS outlined in the BILL OF RIGHTS is the radical idea. Remember, this is the bill of rights, not the bill of needs and as such, these rights should be respected and not infringed on.

To say it's your "RIGHT" is about as lame as saying, "because I said so?"

The second amendment argument is invalid with the fact that it is currently illegal to own a nuclear warhead or rocket launcher. Why isn't the NRA and right wing wackjobs crying foul about that? All I want is for someone to raise a valid argument detailing why they need an assault rifle and then I can take the matter under advisement and better understand their point of view.

Please, no paranoid conspiratorial nutjob reply's.

[Nobody]

We said.

We said what??