you remove them from thier cold dead hands

"...because of the fear"
"...people fear Obama will try and take them"

Fear is the crux of every single 'argument' you are making.

Why aren't you afraid that you can't buy nerve gas? Is it because it is an irrational fear?

So, why is that fear irrational, but yours aren't?
What factual occurrence in the United States makes your fear seem rational to you?

In what professional field is making decisions based on fear considered to be an asset?

Would your fear of losing your house because you can't afford it, make you go out and buy another house?
I hope, for your own sake and emotional well-being, that you start to understand why making decisions based on fear is counter-productive to your own stated interests.

Town publishes gun owners addresses...Criminals say thanks....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/?intcmp=trending

Fear nope I was only scared of one man and I called him dad...not scared of anything...did not say I went and bought a gun now did I...my comment was said because everyone tries to defend Obama by saying he has not passed any gun
laws and that's why people are getting more guns and it is not.People are afraid that with all of the shootings put into the media everyday where there are more hit and runs with car than shootings that the media is trying to guide people into being against guns...most of your tv shows make a comment about people shouldn't own guns..well with this propaganda comes fear that sooner or later people might not be able to buy a gun..and are stock piling them because of this...Just look at CSI miami every incident with a gun in it someone says a comment against guns.." And she thought she was safe being a gun owner" is what was said on an episode about a bullet that was picked up by a hurricane winds...get it...look at Breaking bad putting a Ron Paul sticker in one of the Meth lab operators notebooks..lol..you just keep on thinking people are buying more guns just for fun...to play with...everyone else knows its because people think that one day with all the " Gun control" laws that are asked to be put into place,you might not be able to get a gun...

What happens when we take all the guns and the statistics involving stabbings,baseball bat assaults,tire iron assaults, shoot up?...what then?..do we ban knives,bats,tire irons,? What do we do then?..most people who are against guns do not ask themselves this...There are more people dying of Hit & Run than being shot..where do we draw e line and say look you can be killed with anything...is it after we leave ourselves defenseless?with no weapons at all..then we pick up a stick to assault someone...Then what? Chop down all the trees...Maybe lock everyone up for having a car,a bat,a knife,a tire iron,a car jack in their posession..and how will we do this....More violence..People think I am way off on this but I am not one restriction that can not be enforced will create more restrictions....So how do we stop people from killing others with knives,bats,or a stick at that?...answer....you never will..only self defense will stop it...and not even then..but at least with self defense you had a chance

We can't solve the Pension Crisis and you goobers think they can agree to ban guns.
God, you are stupid.

This is to be taken up again during the spring session.

Maybe they will also try to ban hammers, as the FBI says that more are killed with hammers than rifles each year.

Hammers were not designed with the intent to kill people. The only purpose of guns is to kill.

@Logansdad. No, rifles were designed for hunting.

Not sure i get your point. If more people were killed with hammers than rifles, is it the loss of human life you are concerned about? If so, why not move to ban hammers also?

Because Logan's dad does not understand common sense..the whole hammer thing was already explained...Well logansdad maybe we should ban knives they are used to slash the throats of animals to feed your ass,..no one says you have to fire a shot and kill someone...go a head and take a look at the town that published gun owners addresses..first thing that happened was so called Ex-criminals said thanks..the paper just made robbery and home evasion easier..one said to have a list of gun owners houses is like a " golden Ticket" "why rob a house where they have a gun and not the house next door where they do not" as he said it...how many officers pull their weapons and the criminal complies?..most do....you obviously do not understand what restrictions cause or what part they play for government to use against its people as far as trying to stop the violence caused from restriction....you had better take a look at who the U.S. has been arming the past 50 years and wake the hell up...

Dan: Muskets were mainly to kill people because their inaccuracy made them poor hunting tools. Rifles WERE finally developed to kill people in the 1700s. They simply also proved useful for hunting. True rifles were advanced due to military investment. To kill people.

Listen to you people...ban a gun because it can be used to kill...anything and everything can be used to kill people.there is nothing made by man no nature that can not be abused...you can not remove a persons liberty nor freedom under the assumption a crime might be commited or a liberty abused...it will not work...soon we would just have to wait at home for our daily orders bud...maybe a phone call to tell you where to work or what your daily schedualed is..you know under the pretense you might commit a crime...we live in a world where people kill for fun,race,religion,political stance,personal gain..so yeah in this world that we live in we need something to say ..yep your ass will be dead as a door nail messing with me...something needs to say "I got your home invasion right here waiting for ya" I got your rape right here in the purse"I got your robbery right here in my pocket" ....no criminal likes a confident,straight shooting,gun toting victim..bottom line...argue all ya want...that's why your house light is lit up,motion sensors,alarms set,windows locked..because you are trying to protect you and your family from criminals what else is all the security for? You set up security to protect your property but do not want security for yourself? Yeah property is way more important right?

Tom you do realize after next week, Illinois will be a super majority of Democrats right?

Dan,Lets see 500 + people were killed in Chicago last year with guns.No hammers mentioned.If you read these charts you will see most homicides are caused by guns.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm
The restrictions that most people are calling for are bans on assault type rifles and mega clips.Yes it doesn't take long to reload with a regular 9 bullet clip.However sometimes seconds as in Gabby Giffords case matter. Guns should not be allowed to be purchased in gun shows. Background checks need to be done 100% of the time and not have 40% of gun buyers purchase guns without one.
I don't think most people object to keeping your guns for hunting or if you want a pistol for protection in your home.

Russ,
You have a problem with logic. Those homicides were not "caused" by guns. They were caused by the violent criminals using them.

If you want to blame homicides on guns, then you have to acknoledge that most violent criminals who were stopped, were stopped by GUNS (whether wielded by civilans or police).

Ernie,
really think about what you just said."Those homicides were not "caused" by guns. They were caused by the violent criminals using them."
How did violent criminals get the guns? " I want to keep weapons out of the wrong hands.Background checks need to be done 100% of the time and not have 40% of gun buyers purchase guns without one.
I don't think most people object to keeping your guns for hunting or if you want a pistol for protection in your home."

Russ,
Exactly how is a background check on every legal purchase going to prevent the ILLEGAL acquisition of firearms by violent criminals?

Suddenly all criminals will decide to obey the law? Right.

No Ernie,
criminals will never suddenly obey any law because after all they are criminals. I don't think you or any person with any decency would allow a violent criminal, a person with drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual predator, wife abuser or mental problems, to legally be able to walk in to any gun store or gun show and buy a gun, of any kind.
We want to make it harder for those people to buy or obtain guns.
If a person is driving a getaway car for a bank robbery he gets the same sentence as the guy that held up the bank or killed someone in the process.
If that law were also applied to gun mules(legal people that obtain firearms for illegals) or any gun shop or show that illegally sold guns to to a known criminal etc. that was able to commit a violent gun crime because of the illegal firearm purchase, gun violence would definitely decrease.

Russ,
You are apparently referring to straw purchasers. Straw purchases have been a felony for decades. Check the law.

Luther,

How original. Someday maybe you will advance into the 70's.

you better stop children whats that sound everybody knows whats goin down

Luther - great song.

Any relation to Carl Sagan? i didn't think so.

That was my exact thought too. I read through both bills, and both amendments. Nowhere in it does it give the impression that this letter writer came away with.

I would be curious if they could point to which EXACT clause supports the claims being made, because I sure can't find it anywhere. There certainly is no requirement to register all guns.

What a bunch of paranoid nonsense.
"Just because you are an adult, does not mean that you aren't a child"

Most obviously you did not read the bill, OakLawnBill. Take a look again, because your assumptions are completely wrong. You were led to believe this by the media as I had seen the same comments made on Fox Chicago and had already read the bill which stated otherwise. Do you have any idea how long it takes to change a magazine? Answer: Half a second to 1 second for an untrained individual and less for the trained. Educate yourself before you make any sort of misinformed comment that lashes out at anyone. How logical is it to ban a magazine for a half second?

"...as I had seen..."
"Educate yourself..."

Indeed.

HAHA!!!! Take a look at your own wording, you are a disgrace to humanity. Your only objective argument is....grammar LMFAO!!!! I didn't know this was an English class!!!! You have no logical argument against reality...

Seriously, if it only takes that split second, why are you even complaining? It should make NO difference to you whatsoever.
These guns were designed to kill, kill fast, and keep killing until the trigger stops being pulled.
Did you hear about that mass-murder at the mall with a knife last year? How about the one with a shotgun? The forty people 'arrowed' down with a crossbow outside of a park? NO?! Oh wait, because NONE of those things happened. People with not guns go crazy too, yes, but they don't get to kill dozens of people before they are stopped.
Conceal and Carry didn't stop Columbine OR Aurora Colorado, OR Arizona, OR NewTown Mass., or the college campus rampage in Virginia.
All these arguments are just red herrings for people who really just want to have guns and be able to shoot stuff. Just admit it. We understand it...we do. Lot os us liked blowing off fireworks when we were kids, and many of us still do now...but killing children has to stop. I have a young child, about the age of those kids in Sandy Hook. You think if something happens to his school, to him, and it could have been prevented by the type of gun used being illegal that I will care about your Constitutional right? My kid, or his classmates are DEAD, so YOU can go shoot your big gun on the weekend? That is NOT equivalent exchange, not ever. You are not 'less free' because you don't have an ASSAULT rifle, but those kids are very dead because you and your type's mentality think you need one.

Dave W., simple logic would reveal that banning the number of rounds a magazine can hold and/or banning any "type" of firearm would not limit the mentally ill's (including all criminals) ability to prey on the weak. It makes a difference to me because it infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens. Chicago currently prosecutes 1/28 individuals who commit gun crimes (where the most stringent gun laws are in the country). Why not punish the criminals first before you limit the rights of people who live their lives legally?

Also, please do some researching on mass knifings massacres before you bequeath such a statement. I also welcome you to do your own research on how many individuals are stopped from committing crimes when a good guy with a gun is on scene.

An ar-15 fires a .22 caliber bullet that weighs 40 grains to 77 grains (military standard for a M4 Carbine/M16 Rifle is 62-63 grains and typical citizen use from an ar-15 is 55 grains). The rounds used are about as small as you can get in a rifle minus the .17hmr or .22lr which are not centerfire cartridges and a few other non-typical cartridges. So when you say "go shoot your big gun on the weekend" I can't help but LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"Conceal and Carry didn't stop Columbine OR Aurora Colorado, OR Arizona, OR NewTown Mass., or the college campus rampage in Virginia."

It has already been pointed out all of those horrible tragedies you cited occurred in what are called "Gun Free Zones" and that "Gun Free Zones" are sought out by mass murderers specifically because no one will be shooting back. I would be happy to cite, chapter and verse, shootings cut short by armed, law abiding citizens, but who wants to hear about that?

Here is a retired Marine general's opinion of if the common citizen should be allowed to carry an assault (,223 caliber type) weapon:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

Out of curiosity, where do you live? Have you or your relatives been the victims of a violent crime? Have you ever called the police as a violent offender was trying to gain access to your home and the homes of your neighbors and then waited over 30 mins for them to get there? Once that happens to you, you might feel differently about firearm ownership. It changed my mind. Oh, and my wife reports all my appendages are satisfactory.

When the Durbin hits the fan I am sure you will enjoy watching your family be raped and salughtered in front of you while you protect them with your Liberal warm hugs. I am sure that will do the job - Idiot.

People like you are anti American. what is your real agenda? Some facts

Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a
shot in protest, were rounded up and killed

Flamethrowers are outlawed... seems to do a pretty good job on cutting down the number of flamethrower murders.

Serin nerve gas is outlawed... which seems to do a pretty good job on cutting out the number of nerve gas murders.

We outlaw these things, because of the amount of people they can kill. There is absolutely no reason to own a 50 round magazine/clip other than sheer laziness. Reloading is too hard for you? I'm sorry, but the rest of society is not concerned with making allowances for your personal laziness.

MOST mass shooters, that haven't killed themselves, have been taken down in the period they are reloading. Guns are still going to kill people, but this is a direct way to limit how many of them get killed at any one time. When some kid takes his mothers legally purchased weapons, he isn't going out of his way to arm himself like a swat team. If there were no high-capacity magazines, he wouldn't have been strolling down to the national guard armory to get what he wanted. He would have just taken what was most easily available. This directly addresses that issue.

Are mafia/drug kingpins/paramilitary cults going to be effected by this law? No, but not a single one of them is going into malls/schools and killing people either. To argue otherwise is to be confused about the intricacies of the world you actually live in.(not the paranoid nightmare world that you think you live in)

So the well regulated part of the 2nd. amendment doesn't count or are you just choosing which part you wish to follow.

Since Patch workers have deemed this worthy of their official input, perhaps they can realize that there are all types of restrictions within the amendments...all of them. The former federal assault weapons ban expired, it was never declared unconstituional. Whether it was a great law or not is a different debate. Also, there are restrictions ON the second amendment already, as noted by Tim above. The government doesn't allow private ownership of stealth fighters, missiles...many things that are really, just glorified guns. We KNOW there are people that want them, and some even have the money.
Also, the Constitution gives liberty up to the point where said liberty interferes with other people's life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Guess what? Twenty kids died and the whole school of them will never know the same pursuit of happiness because some people find it inconvenient to change a clip. Extra cost of a clip versus children? ONE child? One of them might have grown up to cure cancer, or just have a kid of their own. You owning a virtual machine gun is NOT more important, ever. The Constitution was written at a time when muskets were the norm. The Founding Fathers could never have forseen tanks, let alone flight. It was a time when farmers with muskets could fight a guerilla war against an army unable to adapt. There is nothing a civilian could stockpile that would not be defeated by the local Army Reserve unit at most. You want to defend your home, get a good shotgun.

For the record, I am not a Patch worker and never have been. People that have posted blogs on here used to be assigned that logo. I had no control over it being put there - it was done by the former manager of this site. I also, for reasons unknown to me, was suspended from the Patch. I have yet to be informed as to why I was suspended from the Patch. At no point did I violate any rules on this site, as none of us have in this debate.

I don't think you understand what the word 'most' means. For that matter, you don't seem to understand what the word 'and' means either.

Not one single Baretta retail hand gun currently sold would be banned.

Since you made the claim that 'most' firearms would be banned, why don't you give an actual list. Something specific, instead of random hysterical nonsense. I think it would give a wonderful insight for everyone else as to your ability to correctly comprehend what you are reading.

Wrong, Tim.... (C-2) a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.... A *Beretta handgun would accept a detachable magazine. FAIL

You understand that you are quoting from the 'Definitions' part of the bill, right? This is the section where the words used in the REST of the bill are defined.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you are claiming.

Out of curiosity, what is the highest level of education you completed?

I guess I forgot to click on reply, Tim; please forgive me.

"That has absolutely nothing to do with what you are claiming." FAIL

C-2 (the section you quoted) pertains to Sections C, which CLEARLY states;

11 (C) a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to
12 accept a detachable magazine and has any of the
13 following:
AND

Please, pay attention to the words being used. When someone uses the word 'and' it means both conditions MUST be met to match the definition. C-2 is just a subsection of C, that has the added conditions of;
i, ii, iii, iv
Which you failed to post, for some reason. Probably because it completely invalidates your entire attempt to make a point.

Example:
'Seriously?' must have power AND an internet connection to post to this website. Without both of the AND conditions, you won't be posting to this website.
If you have power, but no internet - you wont be posting to this website.
If you have internet, but no power - you wont be posting to this website.

If you have a handgun that takes detachable magazines AND a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will be in violation.
If you have a handgun, but no 10+ round magazine - you are not in violation.

Thus, every single handgun sold currently, will not be banned(unless it comes with a 10+ magazine, and even then only the magazine is banned, not the gun itself).

You are claiming most handguns will be banned under these bills, which is absolutely NOWHERE in them. Trying to take a line from the definition part of the bill as 'proof', while amusing, is not valid.

*If you don't understand why you need to shift the tense one degree, that is your problem.
It doesn't change the fact that it is true.
Just like if you don't understand how logical operations work in the English language, doesn't change the fact that they are true.

Obviously you have no clue. Section C alone covers pistols, which includes AR and AK type pistols in this sub section of the “semi-automatic assault weapons” definition. Section C2 covers all pistols that have detachable magazines (not limited). But, I suppose your ignorance to firearms and reality would belate you. Great attempt to construe what is directly in front of you though.

Please do some research before you comment on topics like this. You are correct that most people who hunt or protect their home don't want true assault weapons because they are already illegal, as a true assault weapon is full auto. However, semi-auto AR15s which is what this "Assault Weapons ban" is all about, have been the most popular rifle sold for at least the last 5 years, so your statement that most gun owners don't want them just doesn't hold water. AR15 are extremely popular for people that hunt wild pigs down south, where they are a real problem. Some deer hunters also use AR15s but its less common, because, wait, the weapons are not powerful enough to give a "clean kill" for a deer sized animal. Last time I went to a rifle range, I would say 9/10 rifles being used would be classified as "Assault Weapons" under this biill. Majority were AR15s, but I also saw AK47s and a few older SKS and other relics from WWII days. Columbine occurred during the Assault Weapons ban just as a reference for you as to how well these laws worked last time.

"see what they look like, what they can do, how fast they can actually fire"???? Shoot bullets like any other firearm but are typically black in color with the ability to accept more accessories without the use of a gunsmith? What is a "barrell clip?" Outlaw "clips" all together for all I care personally but there is no reason to do so. Do you even know what a clip is? Not for home defense? Interesting conceptual falsified assumption! Not for hunting? Guess you don't know anyone who hunts too much because an ar-15 is a very popular hunting rifle in the U.S. for various small game animals. Not for sport? I suppose you have never heard of a shooting competition? Nor heard of a (3) gun competition? Never heard of a long range rifle competition? Never heard of a shooting range or typical target shooting? An ar-15 is one of the most popular firearms used in all these types of sporting events including individual target sport shooting.

I completely agree, people do need to go look at these firearms in action. Educate yourself. Semi-Autos fire 1 round for every time the trigger is pulled. They can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Interestingly enough, revolvers work the same way. You can fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger. The media and some of the public seem to think that AR15s can shoot faster because they look like military weapons but this is jut not the case.

I've been to a gun range. The vast majority of gun shooters were pretty darn bad. But, you wouldn't know from their "talk". They all sounded like you, Tom. Stick to the gun range, having you in public with a C & C would be dangerous to society.

Banning is not the answer... better control... better laws... there are many countires that do not have the gun violence issues that we do.

So the reason that all police carry more than 10 rounds would be?

Since when does 10 rounds hitting a target guarantee the threat will stop? Back in the 80's the Illinois State Police were in a shootout with an armed criminal. ISP shot him more than 25 times and he continued to fire back.

Your training was lacking.

CoB, notice that Brad took down the "Patch" logo after getting called out that he looked liked he represented them with his extreme views?
Interesting...

It seems to me that the Supreme Court has sided with an idiotic opinion here in Chicago about conceal carry. I don't see any politicians lining up to add another amendment to over-ride the 2nd Amendment. So this proves that the majority of lawmakers and justices must agree with my idiotic opinion. Obviously people sharing your opinion are in the minority and are pretty limited to states like Illinois, New York, and only a few others.

I will refrain from calling you a name, though, because that is what children do.

Dave, I posted up the page here about that. I never put that Patch picture up there, the manager of this site had done it. I was also, for no reason whatsoever, suspended from this site since yesterday morning.

Thats why i said better laws and better controls... that completely agrees with your argument ... so how does it not make sense? If it is the triggee puller... and it is not the gun or the fun maker then the controls have to be in place to curb who gets them and how. That has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment

Tired, I guess we'll take this to another thread. You are absolutely right, it is the person behind the gun that is doing the killing. But if he didn't have a gun that shoots 1,000,000 rounds per minute, it's unlikely he will be able to kill 1,000,000 people in a minute.

McVeigh is a fine example of another method of mass killing. Since that terrible day in Oklahoma City, how many times has that happened? In that same time period, how many mass killings have we had with assault type/high capacity guns? One of either is too many.

A million rounds a minute, huh?

What alternative reality are you in?

Hey COB, we do agree, I was just saying that those who don't think we should have guns will never agree to what you propose. The only solution that will work for them is to ban guns.
Now if you look at what Stones has said, you will see what I'm talking about. His only solution is to ban. Telling him how I could use my speedloaders or extra 10 round clips and still shoot as much as fast as somebody with a 30 round clip doesn't matter. His idea is to ban whatever is doing the killing, as long as it is guns.
Stones, to answer your question, we have not had any killings with assault weapons in America. This includes the terrible crime committed in Connecticut. The killings were done with a gun that LOOKS like an assault weapon but since the gun used was not capable of automatic fire (1 pull of the trigger can shoot all the bullets in the clip) it was not an assault weapon.
As far as your question about bombs killing, it happens every day, just ask our troops in Afghanistan. Ask the people in London (where guns are highly restricted) how their day was on July 7, 2005. Ask the people in Madrid about bombings (another place where there is very strict gun control) or does that not count because it didn't happen in the USA?

Ernie Knight,
I was only using the 1,000,000 rounds a minute as an extreme example to show that it doesn't matter how many rounds a gun can fire if there is not a person that decides to fire it.
As to what alternative reality I live in, may I suggest that you look into a weapon called "metalstorm" which the U.S. military has in development. I saw a program on The History Channel that featured this gun and it is capable of 1,000,000 a minute and probably more. Here is the link I found on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso

Tired, Just to be clear, I thought we were talking about here in the States, not Afghanistan, London or Madrid.

Can the guns that LOOK like assault weapons use larger clips holding maaisve amounts of ammo? If so, that seems more dangerous than you with your speedloaders, at least there's a pause of some sort. Maybe enough where an armed security gaurd can react oor maybe someone with CC.

Also to be clear, I don't want all of your guns or anyone elses. I just want society to be safe from these crazed killers that seem to have the ability to kill more people with whatever dangerous weapons they seem to get their hands on.

I believe that you should be able to have a gun as the it is a right I have thanks to the 2nd amendment. While I am not a member of the NRA, I do agree with some of their stances on gun ownership.
I can also be very polite and even without an Assault rifle, at 6'4" and 250 lbs, believe me when I say that I would most likely be much more than you could dream of handling.

Who wants to 'unarm' people who can legally own a gun? There's just a sensible large base of the population that believes the violence brought about by people and assault type weapons is too great to ignore. Keep your pistol or hunting rifles(if you can legally own one) they are not going to come bust your door in and take them.

So, John Roberts, it really helped that at a time in this country when anybody who wanted to own a gun just had to buy one and clould wear it around their hip if they wanted everywhere they went, the government didn't commit genocide against the native Americans, or impose systemic, government sanctioned and institutionalized slavery of blacks? (Yes, that is a very long sentence.) Did the 'citizens' being armed stop bloody Kansas? What about the fact it helped defend the Alamo? Nice black eye on American history that actually is...all because the 'citizens' all get to carry guns...no level of arming a private citizen could ever do will come remotely close to the weakest link of the military. It is a constant red herring to say that any gun I could buy would equate to a tank or stealth bomber. Pure idiocy. ARM the masses? With what? Jet fighters? Nuclear Subs? ICBMs? You might start to make a dent. Yes we won the Revolution because our weapons were apples to...pears with the British. (They also were stretched razor thin holding together a global empire and could not bring their full might to bear.) Now it is more like apples to...ICBMs. Not really going to work out for your even above average armed citizen, or even his whole town.
So just stop the nonsense and speak the truth. You want to blow stuff up real good. Go buy some fireworks, and stop acting like a child is less important than you shooting at a sheet of paper this weekend. It never EVER will be.

Dave W.,
If you're interested in history, America's gun-control movement began with attempts after the Civil War to disarm blacks. Interestingly, firearms were an excellent defense to lynchings.

That's a ridiculous argument.

Actually, the outrage should be escalated, since Obama makes all of us pay for them in his health care bill. He lied to the Michigan rep by telling him it would be extracted for his vote by executive order, but never did.

Tom, it's interesting to note that the highest rate of abortions is in the black community and the highest rate of gun violence is in the black community.

So basically, we aren't allowed to talk about this because of misguided political correctness. Non issue. Move along.

Wrong again McCloud

Just like everything else with this President, the devil is in the details.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/04/Dem-Congressman-Obamas-HHS-Mandate-llegal

Fetuses aren't children.

Breitbart? thats where you get your news? no wonder you're such a right wing zealot. Someone does not have to have abortion coverage....at an individual level and if desired at a State level.
And here you go again, a thread about misinformation regarding banning firearms and you write about Abortion. The Republican way....fire up the base about unrelated topics.

In fact, the policy does not require anyone who does not want abortion coverage to pay for it. Under the law, states have to offer at least one health plan on their insurance exchanges that doesn't cover abortion services at all. If a state decides it does want to have health plans that cover abortion services on its exchange, and if a woman chooses one of those plans, then she has to pay a separate fee of at least $1 to a separate account for that coverage in order to make sure no federal dollars are used to support abortion services.

Tom, I don't agree with your position on this issue, AT ALL, but for the people saying this is a redicilous argument to make, I say Why? Tom's feelings on this issue are no less valid than your opinions on firearms. And to the person who says a Fetus is not a baby or child, I say, according to who? That is certainly a matter of your own personal opinion. Big difference between these two issues is that firearm ownership is SPECIFICALLY protected in the constitution and happens to be the second thing mention in the bill of rights.

The cut and paste from liberalworld.com doesn't make your point. Reread it, and listen to the Democrat who was the useful idiot for Obama. Perhaps that explains why the Catholic church is fighting this in court. The more you circle the wagons for this failure/liar in chief, the more effective my point becomes.

Yes, and having the ability to hold 19 bullets in a magazine, will protect you from a F-22 Raptor flying by at 20,000ft dropping bombs on you.
Where is your 'outrage' that you can not own a SAM missile battery?

Get a grip.

Tim,
What does it take to keep you on topic? This is about semi-automatic firearms. Not nerve gas, missiles, bombs, or anything else your fertile imagination can irrelevantly bring up.

Ernie,
Johns 'argument' hinges on the fact that governments can attack their own population with just a word, or command.

His 'argument' against banning large capacity magazines(not handguns), is that it is their right under the constitution of the united states in case the government issues this 'command'.

Bombs, missiles, a SAM battery, and flamethrowers are all arms as well.

You don't want to address the obvious contradiction in the statement that John made, and are instead trying to marginalize it by calling it 'irrelevant'. The fact, is that those arms are all illegal for a citizen to possess, which for some reason doesn't seem to bother the 'its my right' types of people. Otherwise, they would have to say such things as; 'the founding fathers never knew about any of those things', and destroy their own argument. They don't even realize how silly they currently sound saying how fast they can reload their own guns, while at the same time claiming it is some kind of problem that they will have to reload more often. It either matters, or it doesn't. It doesn't simply change based on which argument is being made, without destroying your own credibility. (this is what happens when you just repeat what you heard, instead of thinking)

When the rational world looks in at the obvious contradiction in these 'principles', they see a pick-and-choose attitude that closely fits the behavior of a child throwing a tantrum.

Tim you should read about Egypt, Syria, and the rest of these middle-eastern countries who have risen up against their oppressors. They took on very powerful militaries with just small arms (at first) and then used these arms in combination with popular outrage to gradually take over countries and in the process get more powerful weapons. History is full of stories like this. Our own colonists were out gunned at first, but they captured British military weapons using their own less powerful weapons and then turned those weapons on the british.

Excellent point, they view passing legislation much like an assembly line, the more passed the more they think they've done something. We are the ones left bearing the cost of higher taxes, more regulations, complaince nightmares, unemployment, ...

" What do those guns really represent to them? "

Penises.

What is Cheryl secretly obsessed with?

Judging by her post, Penises

Cheryl, I was thinking more along the line of testicles but I certainly wouldn't argue with your assessment.

Colic C.
False information? I don't think so. As the first sentence in your post says, according to Dan and the FBI, more people are killed with hammers than are killed with RIFLES.
Your attempt to discredit Dan takes the FBI stats for all killed with FIREARMS. While rifles are firearms, they are not the only ones. I have handguns, they are not rifles. I have shotguns, they may look like rifles, but they are not rifles either.
So when Dan said more are killed by hammers than killed by rifles, he was correct.
You are the one that has tried to misrepresent the facts by combining rifles, handguns, and shotguns into your statistic.
As a retired psychotherapist, I would think that your reading comprehension skills would be, at least, above average. Apparently not. I guess it is a good thing that you are retired.

Colin - take your post and replace "guns" with "free speech".

It's the Bill of Rights - not the Bill of Privileges. Even the rights that make you uncomfortable.

and now we know what Colin C. is obsessed with.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

C R A Z Y !
A prime example of why we need to ban Assault Weapons.

RB,
There is already a ban on assault weapons.
As you seem to be a little slow, I will try to explain it to you.
An assault weapon is a weapon that fires over and over with one pull of the trigger. You may also know them by the name machine gun.
The guns you want to ban now are not able to fire like that. You pull the trigger and it will shoot once. You are probably confused because you don't know much about guns. You are like most and just want to follow along with what the min stream media tells you.
So remember, assault weapon, like a machine gun and already banned.
Guns you want to ban now, not assault weapons.

*main

Well, I may be slow....but not stupid. The Assault Weapon Ban was in place for years. It was called the assault weapon ban and included automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons. You choose to not call semi-automatic guns assault weapons and I disagree along with a lot of other people, and the Federal Government....

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

RB,
Great cut and paste from Wikipedia! It was so great, you seem to feel that it needed to be said twice!
If you had done some more research, you would have seen that the U.S. government had banned assault weapons in 1934 with the National Firearms Act.
That is why you can't have a Tommy Gun like Al Capone.
The government decided to use the term Assault Weapon in their 1994 bill, I believe, to start this whole gun control idea.
Here is some of the same Wikipedia definition that you seem to have overlooked, I will only copy and paste it once:
Original definitions and uses of the term for such assault rifles in German, Sturmgewehr, literally storm (or assault) rifle, included capability of fully automatic function. Later definitions from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban specified semi-automatic weapons, only. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon.
So you see, they changed the definition to include weapon that merely looked like a true assault weapon. I can buy a kit that makes a Pontiac Fiero look like a Ferrari, but that does not mean that I now own a Ferrari, merely a car that looks like one.
Ask any soldier if he would give up his assault rifle and instead take a rifle that looks like an assault rifle into combat, I think you may already know the answer.

June, just what color is the sky in your world? Shadow government? Wow!

Personally, I don't call the mentally ill crazy. I call what that woman said crazy. "Shadow Government" that's crazy.

June, I will have to agree with you, drugs are a part of these murders in 75% of the cases. The inject our children, drug our children, and control our children all in the name of big brother knows best. Liberals are the same they are nothing but drones flying for big government, many on the government dole. Government no longer has the people best interest at heart, there are a few exceptions,but damn few.

Psychologist Jean Twenge, the lead author of the analysis, is also the author study showing that the tendency toward narcissism in students is up 30 percent in the last thirty-odd years.
This data is not unexpected. I have been writing a great deal over the past few years about the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults, particularly as it regards turning them into faux celebrities—the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists/#ixzz2HQwxIhoz

Why would I cheer when you disappear? It worries me when people like you want to taken arms and become a militia because of some perceived threat by what you call a shadow government. Tim McVay comes to mind. I don't want you or any other civilian to be able to buy assault weapons. Conspiracy theorist's can be dangerous, entertaining or obsessive. You may or may not be, but when you believe the Government is this Giant conspiracy I'm certainly more comfortable if you can't buy assault weapons.

RB,
It is funny that you mentioned Tim McVeigh.
I was wondering if you could tell us what kind of gun he used when he killed 168 people, including 19 children? Which of the scary "assault weapons" was his choice of gun? What was the capacity of the clips in his assault weapon? Which gun needs to be banned to prevent another mass killing like the one he is responsible for?
I will wait patiently for your answer, although I don't think you will have one.

" Well regulated"= gun control.

RB, the Supreme Court does not agree with you.

Inner Federal Government Control? What the heck is that? Another conspiracy that justifies assault weapons in the hands of the unbalanced. The Supreme Laws of the United States? Do you vote?

RB ..............what was and is the 2nd Amendment for?

I'm waiting!

I didn't put all these guns in the hands of criminals. Loose gun laws and unlimited manufacturing, distribution and gun show loopholes did it. you solve it, and the answer cant be more guns. I'm trying to keep them out of the hands of these militia type people who are not doing your case for guns any favors. Some real nutty postings here that further the cause for fewer guns not more.

The laws against flame-throwers and nerve gas seem to have worked quite well.
Next.

RB,
If, as you say" you solve it, and the answer cant be more guns." could you please pass that logic along to our government.
They seem to think that the way to solve trillions of dollars in debt is to spend more money.
Off topic, I know, but too good to pass up.

Tim,

For the most part flamethrowers are completely unregulated. There are no federal laws regulating flame throwers. 40 states have no laws regulating flamethrowers. No big outbreak of flamethrower killings show up in those 40 states. Flamethrowers have real uses in civilized society.

Farmers in rural areas use them to do controlled burns of small brush to prevent larger fires later on.

The railroads use them to thaw out frozen switches in rural areas where the switches are not heated.

Just a guess, you really didn't know if flamethrowers were regulated, did you?

Barry,
Did you read what you copy/pasted?
You just pasted that they are restricted in 10 states, and there have been no attacks using them. The ammunition of choice(Napalm) is completely restricted for private ownership by Federal law. See how restricting the ammunition makes a difference?

Now, go ahead and copy/paste the laws for owning Serin nerve gas...

Tim, wrong again. I've got some experience with the railroad's use of flamethrowers. Modern commercial flamethrowers do not use napalm. Most use propane. Some use a liquid such as kerosene propelled by a separate tank containing propane as the propellant.

My point was that flamethrowers are, for the most part, uncontrolled ... to counter your implication that they are banned.

My point is still that flamethrowers are, for the most part, uncontrolled AND the fuel (which is NOT napalm) for commercially produced flamethrowers is also uncontrolled.

Do you make this stuff up as you go?

Tired...I think it is clear that there are fair arguments on both sides to be made...I personally have stated numerous times that while I think some things can be done to tighten existing laws or certainly make sure laws work for the locality they are aimed at, I have to say that this tack is a bit of a non-starter...let us, JUST HYPOTHETICALLY say this was about something else, but something far worse, deadlier, etc. Something nobody disputed was bad. Would it still be okay to talk about jobs lost? Would making the economy better be a justifiable reason to bring back...polio, if making it was big business and would add jobs? I don't think you think so. To be clear, I'm NOT equating guns with polio (when that killed lots of people, we stopped it, too bad polio didn't have an amendment protecting it...or lobbyists).
I'm merely saying that using the economy as a basis for doing something that may or MAY NOT be deemed dangerous or immoral by a society is NOT the way to go. You know who made a really big deal about how the economy would be hurt if something that WAS/IS immoral was forced to stop? The South...they got into a little skirmish over it even. Killed more Americans (not all with guns, either) than any other war we have been in. So think twice before you put yourself in the (possibly) bad things for good money camp.

I think that the best argument against gun control is that it has already been tried on a large scale in both Chicago (ALL guns were illegal in Chicago for 28 years) and Washington D.C. (no handguns in D.C. for 32 years from 1975 to 2007, D.C. was the "murder capital" in 1991), and it did not work.
Think about that for just a minute. Washington D.C., our nation's capital, with probably the most law enforcement, the most military presence, and the most armed guards of any city in America, with some of the strictest gun laws of all, and still they managed to have the highest rate of murders in the country.

How can anybody with any common sense think that banning guns would work now?

I guess I forgot that this topic is not one where common sense rules. What does rule is uninformed people driven by the main stream media.

Well said,many people today are never taught to think in abstract terms,they are products of our liberal leaning school system .

SoJ, I'm always intrigued by that notion, that the schools indoctrinate, or are so liberal. I grew up saying the pledge with under god in it, sang Christmas songs, was never told that guns were bad, heck, was even allowed to bring in toy guns on show and tell day (clearly a different world). I was, in fact, wrongly educated about what e did to blacks and native Americans; Christopher Columbus and other early explorers, the reality of how we acheived 'Manifest Destiny'...of course, they also tried 'new math' and that wasn't so good either, but I digress.
My first grade teacher would rail against Jimmy Carter, even though none of us knew what he stood for or against. My sixth grade teacher was a Republican who had a picture of Reagan in the room, even though no other classroom had a picture of the president. Seventh grade English teacher talked about him like he was going to lift us all up to heaven on his mighty hand. All the way through high school, in fact there were usually a some. The thing is, I cannot remember a Democrayic, let alone 'liberal' teacher ever saying or doing anything that even in hindsight, if I LOOK for it, was like that. I'm sure there WERE some, but I certainly wasn't 'indoctrinated' and I'm a pretty centrist guy now. I like aspects of both parties, dislike some also.
I'm going back to college now, to become a HS history teacher, and I do not plan on using my personal politics at all. I will, however, use facts, regardless of who doesn't like them.

Dave W... To answer yo i will say this,Academicians

Today liberal and leftist viewpoints have dominated higher education faculties since the 1970s, according to many studies if you would take the time to research them. Conservatives are well represented in policy-oriented Think tanks.

Surveys conducted in the last 10 years indicate that between 44%-62% faculty self-identify as liberal, while 9%-18% self-identify as conservative. Conservative self-identification is higher in two-year colleges than other categories of higher education but has been declining overall. A 2005 study found that liberal views had increased compared to the older studies. No to the results D.W.,15% in the survey described themselves as right of center. While the humanities and the social sciences are still the most left leaning, 67% of those in other fields combined described themselves as left of center. In business and engineering, liberals outnumber conservatives by a 2:1 ratio. I remember also, prayer in school, a balanced approach to teaching. This has changed in today's progressive,liberal system. Need facts I can list them, need proof, do your research.

Bob - video games do not cause violence. It's easy access to a weapon. Maybe gun owners should lock up their guns better so their children cannot get a hold of them.

@Sara, I agree and disagree with your post all at once. I am not so sure on video games and violence. Have you ever played Modern Warfare or some of these newer video games? I have. They are VERY realistic, almost scary.

However, your other point is spot on. When you decide to take possession of dangerous items, you also have responsibility for securing them. If you have a teenager, you make sure they dont get unauthorized access to the car and to booze, so same for guns. Since firearms are even more dangerous in the wrong hands, all firearm owners have a moral (it goes beyond legal) responsibility to do their very best to secure those firearms. Its up to the individual owner to determine what that means for them, but certainly firearms not in use at the very least should be kept in safe or secured in another fashion.

Ronnie - I do not play video games. However, people in Canada play video games and watch the same movies we do, yet they do not have a problem with violence we do.

Teaching your children to shoot a real gun at the range (which thankfully is going to be illegal) is problem number 1. Playing a game and holding a gun in your hand are two different things entirely.

The problem isn't games and movies, it's society. We glamorize the killers. Name the killers at Columbine. Now name one victim (without having to look it up)

@Sarah, and yet people in Canada also take the kids to shooting ranges, go hunting, and do all sorts of other things that we do, and they don't have the same problems.

I think you already have the answer though, it’s the differences in our society/culture, not the video games, the movies, the media, the guns, mental health care, etc all in one fell swoop. That is why this hysteria leading to gun bans will get us no where.

Ronnie - the difference in Canada are children are shooting rifles for hunting game, not people.

I think we can both agree the problem is lack of parenting in this country.

Sara,
A common element among school shooters, is in fact, the playing of violent video games. The Columbine shooters, among others, were avid players of violent video games. And their planting of bombs around the school argues against access to guns causing the problem.

Ernie - school age children playing violent video games, again comes down to lack of parenting. The video games, although I do not play, I know carry the age warning and a parent needs to purchase it.

Columbine shooters were also bullied by their peers. Video games didn't push them to the point of killing, it was being bullied by kids at school.

Sara,
What about the many bullied children who do not choose to shoot up their school?

In any case, access to weapons does not turn people evil.

Ernie - children who bully - again lack of parenting. In a lot of cases, it turns out the parents encourage the bullying. If a child cannot handle things anymore, cannot get access to weapons, guess what? they will end up in a old fashion fist fight to stand their ground. Just like we did back in the day. (Although, back in the day the bully just physically bullied you and not verbally as they do now) Everything comes down to lack of parenting and access to weapons.

The kids who are bullied most likely found a way to deal with it. Maybe they have thicker skin, or their bullying wasn't as severe. Or they sought help through the school and the school actually did something. I am not in those schools, so I cannot say what's going on. I do know a lot of children end up transferring or are home schooled due to bullying.

Access to weapons does not make people evil. Not military, not cops, not the 8 MILLION law-abiding trained licensed concealed carry permit holders across the country. Not the two armed civilian law students that stopped the Virginia school shooting years ago.

Again. Access to weapons does not turn people evil. Evil people are having too easy access to weapons. Legally. They are legally purchasing these weapons.

Interesting generalization. Not true of course. The vast majority of guns used criminally, were not legally purchased by the criminal. Straw purchases have been felonies for decades.

If I find out you did not lock your car door, and then your car gets stolen and is involved in an accident, or even a purposeful killing of a person, can I sue you? After all, you failed to secure your vehicle properly.

Maybe the answer is not more laws but personal / moral responsibility. If I owned firearms, and someone stole them and used them to commit a crime I would feel horrible. I don't need a law to tell me to do the right thing. I was raised right. Lets enforce the laws we have and get people to stop looking to the government for all the answers.

The main problem with your argument is the "licensing", of firearms), of something that is specifically a guarantted right, (shall not be infringed), under the US Constitution. A license is a priviledge granted by a sovereign, (city, state, country, king, tyrant, dictator), which is subject to the whim of said sovereign. To quote the late President Gerald Ford,; "Any government that is powerful enough to give you anything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."
For those who say that the US government would never do anything to hurt citizens under its' control, I would suggest you check with those Native Americans who are left.
Regarding the hysteria of "gun control" engendered by the Sandy Hook tragedy, take a look at the commercial currently being run by the State of Illinois regarding the number of people killed by drunk drivers. Cars are highly regulated and licensed. Legal penalties for driving drunk are severe, yet hundreds more folks are killed by this than are killed by firearms.
Finally, there were many more folks, (including children), killed by the actions of Federal ATF agents at the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas, (78 counting the two foetuses in the womb of their mothers), than were killed by the mad man at Sandy Hook.
The Judiciary committee of the Illinois legislature will be voting on the reanimation of these bills today. If, (probably when), passed they will do nothing but make law abiding citizens into felons.
Madness!

Pat,
By definition, Indians were not US citizens, and weren't considered such until 1924.
So, the US government still has not done anything to its own citizens.

You do understand that the government has F-22 raptors, yes? They fly tens of thousands of ft in the air, at speeds faster than sound, with laser guided bombs.
So, answer us all this... How is having a gun going to 'protect' you from said government?

I think the real issue is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I don't think we need to fear law abiding citizens who for whatever reasons feel threatened and need to protect themselves.

There are tens of millions of guns out there so I don't know if there is anything we can do to control this issue.

Doing some research I find that according to FBI figures for 2011, (last year figures are available), there were 8,583 deaths by firearms in the United States, so your figures are faulty to start. According to the National Highway Traffic Administration, in 2009, (the last year total figures are available), there were 38,836 deaths caused by motor vehicles. To quote your post; "Many of these people who harmed or killed are totally innocent of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of these incidents involve children."

The elephant in the room here is not fatalities, (either by motor vehicle or firearm). There are enough laws on the books currently to impact the number of deaths. The solution is multi-faceted with no single, simple answer. But a really good start would be the enforcement of current law and the removal of judicial discretion in sentencing. Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for 10 years, no exceptions, no parole, no court supervision, no "time off for good behavior"; Kill or injure somebody while driving drunk, go to jail for 10 years, no exceptions, no parole, no court supervision, no "time off for good behavior"

I can already hear the cries of; "How can we afford that?" My response is, if you are truly concerned about the loss of life, how can we not afford to do something that will stop the carnage?

Of course, it's easier to pass a "feel good" law so the politicians can say they "did something".

Colin,
The answer is simple to give, not so simple to execute. As another poster said, there are thousands of laws already on the books regulating firearms. The problem lies in application of existing law. Take the discretion in sentencing away from judges. A penalty for conviction should be swift and sure. Take the discretion in charging away from prosecutirs looking to run up a conviction rate through plea bargaining. Let the system of laws work without the political grease that ends up favoring the lawless at the expense of the law abiding.

Another part of the problem is believeing that we can civilize ourselves into utopia. It's not gonna happen. There always will be idiots and fools. There will always be self-destructive folks who will "off" themselves. Once again, it comes down to personal responsibility for behavior and sure and swift consequences for anti-social behavior.

Until more people realize that there is no "easier, softer way" ;that a sign saying "gun free zone" in actuality says; "victim rich target"; that some fuzzy brained politician passing an ill-concieved statute is nothing but a meaningless "feel good" action to make folks think something was actually done... until folks wake up, we will have this fruitless debate again and again.

You should really do your research before commenting on Arizona, a state you obviously know nothing about

rb,
You keep posting and you have not offered one solution other than ban the guns.
You make comments and when proven wrong you just make more.
Maybe you should be quiet until you actually learn about the topic at hand.
I am still waiting for your response to your earlier post and my question regarding Timothy McVeigh. I'll repost it here for your consideration:
It is funny that you mentioned Tim McVeigh.
I was wondering if you could tell us what kind of gun he used when he killed 168 people, including 19 children? Which of the scary "assault weapons" was his choice of gun? What was the capacity of the clips in his assault weapon? Which gun needs to be banned to prevent another mass killing like the one he is responsible for?

"Glock", From your post I'm not at all sure that you actually read or understood anything that I said. However, contrary to your opinion, most illegal guns on the street come from thefts of improperly secured weapons or guns that are purchased in ways that they can't be traced (gun shows, no restriction states, etc.) , transported to places like NYC and Chicago and sold on the street.

If all guns can be traced to their "legitimate" owners and these owners are held responsible for their security, the criminals will have a much harder time getting guns.

If the jail time for illegal possession or committing a crime with a gun is really stiff even criminals might just think twice about carrying one. Those who are stupid enough to violate that law will soon be off the streets and in prison.

Don't like that? Fine, let's see you come up with a rational, realistic approach to making a significant reduction in the nearly 100,000 gun deaths and injuries in America each year.

Instead of saying it can't be done, in the face of solid evidence that many "1st World" democracies have gun related deaths rates many magnitudes lower than we do, let's see you come up with some answers for a change. Just, please, try not to insult our intelligence too much,

Women's rights have dropped steadily in Arizona as well.

"Women's rights have dropped steadily in Arizona as well."

Examples ?

1) if a woman wants to take birth control (for any reason) she has to show proof to her employer it's to treat a medical condition in order for it to be covered by the insurance plan. Her employer holds the right to fire her for using birth control as well. (even if she's not using the insurance plan to cover it)

2) women are legally pregnant two weeks before conception. (making her pregnant immediately after each menstrual cycle) which could lead to laws banning women from doing every day type things.

3) Banning funding to Planned Parenthood. PP offers affordable health care to women who cannot afford it otherwise.

4) Mandates any female seeking an abortion needs to have an internal ultrasound performed with a 10' wand

5) Allows a doctor to not inform a woman her fetus has birth defects to avoid an abortion.

Hmmm.

The text of Arizona HB 2625: "Any group policy that provides coverage for prescription drugs shall also provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device that is approved by the United States food and drug administration for use as a contraceptive." became law in May 2012 and would seem to differ from your information.

The same law mandates much better coverage for maternity and child birth than is currently mandated in most states (including Illinois).

2) If you Google "Dr Jan Gunter" you can find the true info on your "two weeks before conception" issue. She has her own problems with Arizona and abortion, But as a practicing Obstetrician debunks the two week issue.

4) This gets crazy. A 10 foot internal wand? I hope that's a typo.

Sara. You can't just trust the Huffington post (or if you are on the other side Fox News). Before you get outraged read the real law, and check with folks who live there. A (female) friend I have in AZ had a good chuckle when I ran your examples by her ... and threw back a couple of backward examples she remembered from Illinois.

Bar - I think you could have figured out the ' was a typo. My shift key clearly didn't hold for the inches when performing trans-vaginal. I think your friend needs to watch and read the news with the bills that have been circulating in her state. It's not just Arizona. How about GA passing the "Livestock bill" or the other bill that was presented trying to make women eligible for the death penalty for having a miscarriage? It's not just what's being passed, it's what's being introduced. Our country needs to start worrying about every thing other than what's going on in a woman's uterus.

I just don't know what to "belive".

Brad; the definition of assault is In law, assault is a crime that involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. Under that definition, any object that causes a person to fear violence, (machine gun, pogo stick, stale twinkie, fist, hammer, RPG, baseball bat, finger moving toward your eye), is an assault weapon.
Most nations do not use the term “assault weapon” to classify civilian weaponry.The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.
Fully-automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully-automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.
In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles,;
•Telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Bayonet mount; Grenade launcher; Flash suppressor
For shotguns:
•Telescoping stock; Pistol grip; capacity of more than five rounds
For handguns:
•Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor; A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold; Weight oat least 50 oz. unloaded
So, it is, whatever the politicians say it is.

Make your own determination, everyone else has (including our legislators).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thank you for your service.

Not a problem... once we take away their guns.

colin, you were one of the luck ones. go to church tomorrow and say thanks. I drove a tow truck for one summer down in the hoods, got shot at once,never carried a gun but carried a fire extinguisher next to me. good deterrant, not necessarily a life saver. scared every minuit, won't do it again, worse now than then.

Why does someone need to go to church? You're claiming divine intervention in the fact that nothing ever happened to him? There's a difference between a delivery job and taking someone's car away from them. There's enough reality shows on television that show people who boot, ticket, tow, is dangerous no matter what the neighborhood is. People do not like their property being taken from them, they will fight for it.

sara, lighten up. I wasn't making a spiel for religion, just trying to make a point about luck. you're probably one of those people that have to raise a stink everytime a community puts up a CHRISTmas tree. I'm no bible thumper, but people like you irritate me.

^ Not the south side of Geneva, grandpa Colin

No, I don't care when people put up a holiday tree (which the origin is Pagan by the way) as I have a holiday tree. Which really has nothing to do with Jesus. The only thing that does would be a Nativity scene.

patty61, if I could have an officer sitting on my porch 24/7 I'd probably turn in my gun. I guess this twinkie'll take his chances that I won't shoot my cream puff neighbor. I never miss.

Patch61,
Professor Gary Kleck of the University of Florida has found that Americans use firearms millions of times each year to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. The media simply does not cover it.

The school shooting in Virginia which was stopped by students. Two of those civilian students were, in fact, armed. The vast majority of the media failed to report that.

Do your homework.

Hilarious stereotypes. Many firearms enthusiasts practice with their firearms 100s of hours more than your average policeman. If you think police are given months of firearms training, you are incorrect. We are talking about hours of range time, not weeks. Then, many of those police do not discharge their firearms except once a year for qualification. Of course, there are other police officers who are at the range every week. Similarly, there are lawful gun owners who go to the range every weekend and practice (for fun, imagine that!). Then there are other gun owners who may have zero training, and never have shot the gun they bought even once at the range. Personally, I think if you are going to possess a firearm, cop or civilian, you should practice and be able to use it safely. BTW, if you think that somehow the police are always responsible with their weapons, you can watch this officer shoot himself in the leg in a classroom if you want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0

Earlier, it was going to ban ALL modern guns.
Now it is down to 50% of rifles, and 80% of handguns.

Maybe in a few more days when you read the actual bill, you will realize it actually bans 0% of handguns.

Tim - if they read the actual amendments, then they would have nothing to complain about.

I think, above all, the biggest problem with the amendments to this bill are the fact that it is unclear and being tacked onto another bill for speedy legislation. The hearing is at 2pm today and will be voted on. A bill like this should be an independent bill and should be allowed more time to be discussed.

I personally do not agree with this bill and think it is a step back toward Brady Bill policies that were ineffective in preventing crime. I also feel it is an attack on personal liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. I have contacted my politicians with my thoughts, all of you should do the same no matter what side you are on.

So? Children died. Your priorities are simplistically transparent. You prefer your rhetoric to sanity. Hopefully we can "well regulate" your type out of existence.

"Those who would trade their liberty for temporary security deserve neither"

Our founding fathers understood the nature of man very well. They also understood the tendency for government to become despotic, either with a single ruler, or a class of rulers like we have allowed to come into existence. Those of you who willingly give up the rights set forth in the Constitution, even the 2nd amendment, are leading this nation down the path of despotism.

Those children did not die because of a firearm. Those children died because of a sick individual madman. Using those children as an excuse to strip the rights of millions of Americans is despicable. That sick individual would have used any tool at his reach to commit those acts. To say that he was able to do more damage due to a semi-automatic firearm is wrong. He had his mind made up to do damage and would have done everything he could to inflict the most casualties possible to fill his "need." This is a terrible tragedy done by a terrible human being. One should not use the blood of those children to push a political agenda.

So you're saying every gun crime committed with legally purchased guns are done so by criminals? Because those people didn't become criminals until the crime with their legally purchased gun was committed.

Also, gun shows, it's proven you can buy a gun without paperwork or even showing identification. Legally. Even criminals can do so. And it's legal.

No, I choose to live in reality, where bad people walk out of prison every day with convictions where a gun was involved. These people have a pattern or lifestyle conducive to using guns for bad reasons. Since humans can only be in one place at a time, they have less chance to commit more crimes using guns. Therefore, crimes where a gun is involved by definition diminishes. Go after the criminals and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

You missed the point entirely. A lot of these mass shootings the guns were purchased legally. By non criminals. Who in turn became a criminal.

Sorry, your dream of finding the pebble on the beach, the one who commits these horrible acts is better served with finding ways to help the mentally disturbed. I know it's difficult always being right, but these gun control nuts are all out of control these days. Lock up the criminal gun user, leave the law abiding alone.

Wanting people to be tested to for mental health problems prior to being approved the right to own a firearm is a form of gun control.

However, being able to walk into any gun show and purchase one legally without any background checks is easier....

So wanting gun shows to follow suit is a form of gun control.

How does one test for mental health?

For starters require anyone wanting to own a gun to see a psychologist. Then we can control how gun shows just hand over guns to anyone with cash no questions asked.

...and the State psychologist can determine whether each individual qualifies for his or her constitutional rights.

Maybe we can administer a battery of psychological tests to all schoolchildren to determine their proclivity to break the law and each child can qualify for different constitutional rights depending on test results.

Sara,
Your understanding of current firearms laws is completely erroneous. Gun shows are not law-free zones. All applicable laws outside of gun shows, apply at gun shows. No one can make purchases without showing ID. Look at Illinois law 430 ILCS 65. Go to ilga.gov and read for yourself.

There's a video one victim from Columbine taped and published showing him going to numerous gun shows and buying guns without showing id and without filling out paperwork. He bought an arsenal of guns. Each purchase, the seller told him to "have fun with that".

@Sarah, correct, but that was not in IL. In IL there is no gun show loop hole. FOIDs and background checks for everybody.

Why do people want to ignore the real problem with crime and guns. I think they dig marching and ranting about gun control. The solution, as stated above, is too easy for them?

So Sara,
Your conclusive proof that criminals legally buy their guns, is a propaganda video by someone with an axe to grind that lives half way across the country?

How convincing.

How about you see a psychologist. After all thewar on women has taken it;s toll on you.

Sara, do you blame spoons and forks for making people fat?

Sara,
If your video is so accurate, why did the Columbine killers get their guns through illegal straw purchases?

Ernie - Yes. Virginia Tech, Fort Bragg, Aurora CO, Newtown. All guns that were legal.

All of the assailants did not have prior criminal records.

Ernie - you misread my post. I wrote, one of the victims of Columbine shooting. The boy who was in Columbine (who lives to this day) 2 years later after he turned 18 wen to gun shows and legally purchased weapons without showing id and did not fill out paperwork.

Ram - no I do not blame spoons and forks for making people overweight. I blame 'food' makers. Companies make crap in a box and advertise it's ok to eat. It's not. People don't educate themselves on what's right to eat. Lack of nutrition education and the lack of desire to learn.

Sara,
You count Newtown as legally owned, despite the fact that he killed his mother to acquire them. Interesting.

How about your original statement regarding criminals getting guns legally? You list 3 examples out of tens of thousands. Not persuasive.

"WELL REGULATED" What part of that do you find unconstitutional? I said nothing about taking all guns, but of course, that's all that you heard. I simply want to stop the hype that your incomprehensibly illiterate brethren seem to feed on. The knee-jerk reaction of the insecure has amused and frightened most of us. If you decided to limit yourselves to weapons that were contemporary with the 2nd, you'd be more in line with the framers intent but that would be a logic that you'll refuse to consider. An amendment to the Constitution may be necessary. Don't fool yourself, it could happen.

Hey Olddeegee,
Rights don't only cover 1776 technology. The 1st Amendment applies on current technology. Just like the 4th regarding illegal searches, etc., etc.

Well-regulated applies to militia. It is not a reference to gun-control. You have no grasp of what the founding fathers intended.

The 2nd doesn't limit the level as to which gun owners may be regulated. I doubt your guns can protect you from a drone or a SWAT team. Keep fooling yourself as to how well protected you really are. See how it works out.

Tom also a good read for the socialists among us like olddeegee and others.

Hitler disarmed all people. History does repeat itself. I've gotten in on the tail end of these discussions. Interesting. I've called our senators, I suggest all of us that want to keep our 2nd amendment right do too. Illinois hasn't made good decisions for the people in years, our state of finance and crime rate is living proof. We have more on welfare then employed, and our population according the the last census has grown only 29,000 since 2010, that's the entire state. Things are really wrong in a city like Chicago that has some of the strictest gun laws and the highest crime rating. Call your senators!

Nancy, Hitler did not disarm all people, Look for the Truth posted this statement and link in the earlier discussion and it's pretty interesting:

8:54 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
You're Hitler quote is NRA folklore. The concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

This will also dispute concerned statement, which is also inacurate because Hitler was responsible for killing 13 million people, of which 6 million were Jewish. The others were from many other categories such as intellectuals, homosexuals, gypsies, Catholics and disenters of any type.

Stones,
I was going to post something similar, but decided against it.
People who use the term 'do your research' have usually never actually done any research, in the real definition of the term.
To them, 'research' means 'finding a blog that agrees with what I say'.

Instead, I tend to use it as a litmus test as to how high someone has achieved in their intellectual pursuits. It is usually pretty obvious by the statements used, when someone didn't make it any further than high school.

Stones,
So of the 13 million that were exterminated by Hitler, how many were armed?

I stand corrected he didn't disarm all.....

With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for......

And I'm not a leftist because I support the 2nd amendment.

Ernie, Would that really matter? If everyone on your block was armed to the teeth with whatever weaopns you want, would you be able to hold off the U.S Army or Marines? Your right to bear arms in that situation wouldn't help you. The same as it wouldn't have helped those that the Nazi's killed.

You know Stones,
I doubt whether any on those 13 million exterminated would agree with you.

Ernie, the unfortunate truth is, they would have been killed anyway. Government sponsores atrocities like that or what happened in the Balkans, are only stopped with intervention from outside military forces. In those situations, there was resistance but they were out-numbered with more troops and a heck of a lot more resources.

Sorry Stones,
I had no idea that you were omniscient.

Successful guerilla fighters apparently have not learned your vast lessons

Ernie, I'm pretty sure all those guerrilla warriors that were successful were armed and supported by outside forces. Including our founding fathers and patriots.

Didn't the US arm bin Laden and the Afghan resistance against the USSR?

Ah Stones,
So you're certain that if there were 13 million armed resisting Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc. no one would have supported them. Interesting the depth of your "knowledge".

The anti-gun people want to use a 'magic wand' to solve the problem. But they fail to recognize the root cause: violent movies & games, antiquated laws on mental illness, disintegration of families (read illegitimacy), poor education (see previous). Chicago has had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation since 1986. Yet they manage to kill 508 people a year. Please, some anti-gun person please tell me how that has worked.

Ernie,
So its not guns that kill people, it's violent video games?

1)Mississippi has the 4th least restrictive gun laws, and has the highest rate of fatalities caused by guns(18 per 100K). Yes, higher even than Illinois.(40 places higher, actually)
2)Arizona has the least restrictive gun laws, and ranks #2 in deaths caused by guns. (15 per 100K)

Illinois? Has the 6th most restrictive(yes there are 5 states with more restrictions), and ranks 5th from last for gun deaths(8 per 100K)

I can understand if math is not your strong point, but you need to take emotion out of your statements, and focus on the raw facts. Those raw facts are;

Most restrictive state laws=least deaths by guns.
Least restrictive state laws=most deaths by guns.

Look at todays Plainfield police report. You can see the firearms stolen in a home break-in. Did owning firearms 'help' that person defend against a burglary? Some 'pro-gun' fanatic went around bragging to anyone that would listen about the guns he owned, because his ego is more important than his responsibility), and it was promptly stolen right out form under him. If this person was more concerned about his responsibility, than bragging, he would have properly secured his weapon.

While it is perfectly legal to be an irresponsible gun owner and not properly secure your firearms when not in use, it certainly doesn't lend any credibility to your point.

disintegration of families (read illegitimacy)???? Wow.

Tim,
Interesting that you cite statistics, but no source. Wonder why? Wonder why Chicago had more murders than LA or New York, when both have larger populations (and concealed carry).

Incidentally regarding your assertion that it is legal to be an irresponsible gun owner, Illinois Statutes Chapter 720 5/24 directly contradict that. They cover storage, possession, use, etc. Do your homework, Tim.

"Chicago has had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation since 1986. Yet they manage to kill 508 people a year. Please, some anti-gun person please tell me how that has worked."

Illinois does did not have conceal carry and its second largest city had no murders in 2012.

Here is the source for gun deaths per 100K per state;
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
Here is the same information, presented in picture form for Ernie;
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Illinois has one of the lowest deaths by firearm in the country. (only 5 states are lower, and all of them have as strict or stricter gun laws)

You don't get to cherry pick to make your point. Mixing between the state laws, and city results, based only on what point you want to make only weakens your credibility. It makes it easier for you to dismiss the fact that tighter state gun laws do reduce deaths on a state level. Picking the outlier of a distribution is dishonest, at best. Why didn't you pick Morton Grove, who banned ALL handguns in 1981? What about the ban in Evanston? Would you like to guess how many gun deaths there were? I'll give you a hint and tell you it is just as far an outlier to the other side, as Chicago is to the side you are trying to portray. This is why no respectable argument uses outliers to 'prove' their point. On a state level, the data speaks for themselves.

Ernie, Here is the link(that you 'forgot' to include) for the Illinois Code that you brought up;
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+24&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=68200000&SeqEnd=71300000
It mentions nothing of what you claim. Is that why you 'forgot' to include the link?

Ah Tim,
You get to cherry-pick, but I don't. Sounds familiar.

Try READING the statutes. 24-9 specifically refers to storage. 24-1 refers to possession and carrying. 24-3 refers to sale and delivery. 24-3.2 refers to discharge. Shall I go on?

Yes Ernie, please do go on.
Post EXACTLY where it states that having a gun stolen out of your home is illegal, and you are responsible for any crimes committed with it.

You won't do it, because it is not in there.

The only thing in there deals with having a minor under 14yrs old, gaining possession of an unsecured gun in your home. It does not address at all what happens when it gets stolen by an adult. That is what is being discussed after all.

Oh Tim,
Now I see. It doesn't count unless it says what YOU want.

Your assertion was "it is perfectly legal to be an irresponsible gun owner and not properly secure your firearms when not in use". 24-9 directly addresses that.

You are wrong.

Parents always have the option of shutting off the television, not taking kids to violent movies (rated higher than their age) and not buying the music.

you're right. everybody keeps asking what we can do to solve this gun violence problem. banning guns ain't gonna happen, face it, between the constitution and the people we won't let it. but these people that are legally buying guns with the intent to resell and the gun shops themselves can be a start. if a weapon can be traced back to a shop or buyer, then lock them up and close the gun shop if it has a history of this. we need to bring back the death penalty next. if a weapon is used in a crime, any crime, then make the perp pay dearly. our current system is not detering bad behavior, it's promoting it. three hots and a cot and when they get out they're heroes. we have to start somewhere, and banning all guns will never happen, it won't change anything about thugs getting their guns and just make it difficult for the honest guy. remember prohibition? that worked.

You got it Patch... They always ignore similar, liberal, and democratic societies that get it done...

Straw buyers are definitely something that leglislation could tackle so I agree with you on that - there are sensible things that could be done to prevent this. But, why dont very restrictive gun laws in Mexico and Brazil work? You reference 'European' population - by that I assume you mean Western European correct? Why does the profliferation of guns in Sweden, etc. not increase crime in those nations? Why does a country like Germany still suffer from school shootings (last one in 2009)? You need to consider socioeconomic factors like the 'socialism' prevalent in France and Germany - there are far fewer poor people because they are much more socialist in nature. Does the gang culture and the prohibition of drugs perhaps have something to do with the homocide rate in this country? Would tackling that issue reduce the homocide rate via firearms to comparable levels with the handful of Western European countries you mention?

- Sincerely, NRA member with gall.

Straw buyers are definitely something that legislation could tackle so I agree with you on that - there are sensible things that could be done to prevent this. But, why don’t very restrictive gun laws in Mexico and Brazil work? You reference 'European' population - by that I assume you mean Western European correct? Why does the proliferation of guns in Sweden, etc. not increase crime in those nations? Why does a country like Germany still suffer from school shootings (last one in 2009)? You need to consider socioeconomic factors like the 'socialism' prevalent in France and Germany - there are far fewer poor people because they are much more socialist in nature. Does the gang culture and the prohibition of drugs perhaps have something to do with the homicide rate in this country? Would tackling that issue reduce the homicide rate via firearms to comparable levels with the handful of Western European countries you mention?

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

- Sincerely, NRA member with gall.

Patch61,
You are referring to FELONY straw purchases as legal purchases. They are not legal and haven't been at least for decades.

Do your homework.

Post of the year!

If John Lennon had a gun, he'd be alive today...Plain and simple

you live in a dream world

Abraham Lincoln had a gun...

The Ford theater was a gun free zone. :)

Kurt Cobain had a gun

JFK had a gun

Cesar had an AK, if only he used it... He's be great to hang out with.

Those are numbers from 1996. What possible point is there in posting numbers from almost 20 years ago? Is there a reason why you didn't post TODAY's numbers? Is it because the gun death rate in Austraillia is 1.04/100K people? Illinois is 700% higher, and Alabama(least restrictive gun laws in the country) is 1400% higher.
There also has not been a SINGLE mass shooting in Austraillia since their laws went into effect almost 20 years ago.

Don't believe me? Here are the current numbers form that radical liberal publication known as the 'Christian Science Monitor';
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

The only solace I take, is that much like religion, this gun-nuttery seems to find a home in the oldest of the population. The younger generation has for the most part thankfully thrown off the paranoid fantasies of their baby-boomer parents. In time, these ideas will die off with those that hold them.

Tim,
You forgot to metion that the RAPE RATE in Australia since the ban is 3 TIMES what the US rape rate is.

Tim, the "gun nuttery" that is creating the majority of the problem is the 15 to 22 year old gangbangers. that's where most of the fivehundred and some deaths in chicago came from. the last few tragedys were teen age or in thier twentys. what fantasies have they thrown off?

Ernie, I did not 'forget' to mention anything, especially things that are horribly incorrect.

AUS rate rape - 76 cases per 100K residents
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2D8A0E67E40926FECA257A150018FACA?opendocument
US rate rape - 40 cases per 100K residents
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

I know math is not your strong point, but 40 X 3(THREE TIMES) is not 76.
In fact, it isn't even TWICE the rate (40 X 2 =80)
It also doesn't come close to touching the US rate in the 80s of 240 per 100K residents.(which is actually 3X the AUS rate). The rates of rape in both countries have been going down overall, with AUS being slightly behind due to their slower implementation of the process that lowered the rate here in the US.(learning what that process is will be a good exercise for you)

You make the most amusingly incorrect claims, and then constantly tell posters they don't have sources. When not one single thing you say have you included sources of. I suppose it would be considerably less convincing if you had to say;
'source: pulled out of my rear'.

Tim,
I said, "SINCE THE BAN".

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Tim,
Including links that are neither authoritative, nor directly comparable is misleading. Different years of statistics. "Social Science Resource Network"? Is there something wrong with FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics?

So, give us some more links that are misleading, Tim.

The armed guard was on his lunch break and not in the school. He arrived and shot 4 shots at Eric Harris, missing all 4 times. Then Harris joined Klebold in the school where there were no guards and killed 11 more defenseless (unarmed) people.

Maybe there would never have been a plan put in place in the first place to exterminate them - 'the final solution of the Jewish question'. Maybe doing so would have weakened the German military to the point that the war would have ended much sooner. Maybe citizens of Germany would have become more aware of what was happening and joined in to help. We can hypothesize all we want but the reality is they were disarmed and they paid the price.

The Polish uprising was remarkably effective for a short period of time with only a handful of guns. Check your history.

Have you heard of something called guerrilla warfare? You really think that if those 13 million exterminated victims of Hitler had all been armed that things would have ended up the same way. You're hilarious.

She's expressing her opinions, whether you agree or not, just like you and everyone else here.

Your a dope for calling her a dope for stating her opinions.

Basically impossible to argue with morons like you... guerilla warfare? Are you f'in serious? Armed jews would have changed the war ?but the russian and french military couldnt? Im dumber for just reading what you idiots write... and yes, that is possible...

Yes Bob, you do sound quite dumb. You are the only one on this whole thread who resorts to calling people names.

This fantasyland that people like you and Tim live in is absolutely amazing. Have either of you ever been to another country, preferably a third world one? And I'm not talking about staying at a resort where the locals are kept away by walled fences and machine gun-wielding guards. There are a lot of extremists (as I've been labeled) and idiots (as I've also been labeled on this thread) who have been to these countries and have seen the atrocities done to people by unchecked governments and civilian victims that had no way to defend themselves. We extremists, and idiots, remember those experiences and will always do what we can to prevent something like that from happening here.

And as far as saying an AR-15 can do nothing against a tank, flamethrower, or a stealth bomber...you're right. It's a form of resistance, however, a check and balance. Do you know what usually happens though? Those driving the tank, flying the bomber, or handling the flamethrower usually end up defecting to the other side in high numbers. For example: PDPA Army in Afghanistan 1980s, Soviet Russia in 1991, Egyptian Resistance in 2011, Resistance Forces in Syria 2012.

The fact that Tim actually insulted someone based on schooling level again shows the desperate corner you people are backed into when you are wrong and your refusal to accept it. Now go ahead, call me a name.

Brad, did you miss the part when I mentioned I own firearms?
Yes, I have been to plenty of third world countries. You know what else they do when the resistance is armed? They kidnap children and use them as human shields until you disarm.

I would LOVE to see you make the decision to 'keep your rights' when someone is holding a gun to your childs head until you do.

But we don't live there. We also don't have to worry about parasites in our drinking water. So I'm not sure why you are comparing the US to a third world country? Do you live your life by what atrocities are happening in every other country than the one you live in on a regular basis?

Ok Bradley, per your request.
You play ball like a girl!

The point I'm making Tim is that people live with their heads in the sand if they don't think things like that could happen here.

Our forefathers saw this potential for disaster, hence why they gave us the ability to change our government at will and to defend ourselves. The best example I can give of radical transformation into autocracy is exactly what has happened to post-Soviet Russia since 1999, under Putin. When the Iron Curtain fell, Russia had the most open, free society on the planet. Now there is no longer freedom of press, journalists and anti-Putin figures are sent to prison, mysteriously die, or are flat out executed.

These types of things happen in advanced civilizations (see Germany, Italy, and Russia of the 20th Century) and are actually happening here with Executive Orders, the Patriot Act, and attempts by politicians to disarm the populace.

A last ditch defense against tyranny is the right to defend yourself with firearms...exactly WHY our forefathers put that in the Constitution. This is why myself and others scream like hell when lawmakers in Illinois try and pass any bill that infringes on our rights.

I feel sorry for others that are willing to give up their freedoms without a fight or are unwilling to fight for further freedoms.

Chronicles of Bob,
With regard to your apparent ignorance of guerilla warfare, perhaps you've heard of a place called Viet Nam?

For those still attempting to claim that Hitler took away all guns so it was easier for him, please stop spreading the BS, it isn't true, has never been true and will never be true! No such thing ever happened, and in fact he loosened gun restrictions, making it easier to own them and lowered the age in which people could own them.

really stupid people gave a mad man a little bit of power which he was quickly able to use to his advantage. Using Hitler to justify why you crazies need to own guns only suggests you need a mental health checkup! http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

New Lenox Mom,
You are wrong. Stop spreading the BS that you are trying to spread.
In 1938, Hitler did take away guns, but only from the Jews and others that he considered enemies of the state.
Maybe you should read a little more before you try to sound so smart.
By the way, how did that disarming of all Jews work out for them?

Mac...you're an idiot too... better laws.... better control is not banning... no part of the constituton is free from being examined. It always has been.

When a teen walks intopalos east and force feeds 30 1 st graders to death with xanax without a parents permission slip then yes il ban the drug...

Mac, xanax, valium, oxycontin, percocet, vocoden and other prescription drugs are used to treat patients with specific ailments. Guns, on the other hand, for the most part, are used specifically to kill other people. There is a bit of a difference there, don't you think?

Your argument is just another angle of the car, knife, bat, club or any other inantimate object that has been used to kill. All of these things have another, original inteded purpose.

The problem is that they DONT respect the 2nd amendment.
Instead, all the focus is on THEM and whet THEY want. No mention is made of the fact that they live within a society. If they lived in the middle of nowhere, where their inconsiderate actions would only affect them, I am perfectly fine with them doing whatever they want no matter the outcome.
However, MOST of these people are living in densely populated areas. An 'accident' likely leads to the death of other people unrelated to their decision to arm themselves like a doomsday cult.
Nobody wants to ban handguns(including this bill by the way, the submitter obviously didnt understand what he was reading when he wrote this 'article'). You own a handgun, you need to be responsible for it. If it gets stolen because of your carelessness, the law should state that YOU are responsible for it until it is recovered by the police.
If you so respect the 2nd amendment, you should FULLY support this. That is the definition of well-regulated, after all, just like it says in the amendment you ramble on about as if it is a natural law. If you are REALLY worried about your government turning into a third world country, and want large magazines, then LEARN how to make them. But no, that actually requires effort on your part, and it has been demonstrated throughout this thread, that ANY action required on the part of the gun owner is somehow 'infringing'.

You want the rights, but not the responsibility. The mindset of a child.

Tim,
Lots of hyperbole, little content.

Are car owners responsible for everything that happens with their car if it's stolen and used in the commission of a crime?

I support thought out measures that balance the right to bear arms and the intent of the 2nd amendment and public safety. I am not as hard line when it comes to that as other NRA members but to date I have seen none proposed that does nothing other than infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens with the exception of closing the gun show loop hole. Semi-automatic rifles most certainly have a purpose as I have been a victim of a home invasion when I was younger and it is not at all uncommon for these situations to involve multiple armed perpetrators. They sell frangible ammunition to make these weapons safer in highly populated areas as well. Anyway, I digress. Regarding the 2nd amendment, how much time do you have? My interpretation differs from your interpretation (and others) most likely as I see no reason why they would include an amendment in the Bill of Rights granting government sanctioned organizations the right to bear arms as if the people would someday attempt to disarm the government. I believe the statement is basically describing why well regulated militia exists and the existence of these organizations poses a threat to the average civilian so the right of the civilian to bear arms shall not be infringed. The same organizations existed (albeit they were British) in the colonies so there was a lot of apprehension about the creation of similar organizations in the US. That is why they also included the 3rd amendment - no quartering afterwards.

Yes Ernie, If your car is stolen, and there is property damage caused by the vehicle(even if you are not driving it) You are responsible for it. You insure the car, not the driver.

In this case, your insurance would pay out for the damage caused.

Didn't you ever read your insurance policy?

Tim,
If that stolen car is used to commit a reckless homicide, using your logic, the owner should go to prison. Isn't that what you're advocating for guns? Or are you just a shill for the insurance companies.

Actually, the 2nd amendment came from the existing laws in England.
Those laws were created to protect the protestants from having their guns taken away by the Catholics.

Do you think the 2nd amendment was invented in the US?

Why isn't this an American issue. Can't republicans and democrats be for gun control?

"Liberals and illegals come into this nation and bring their socialist view points with them"? No liberals were born here? Wow! So a person born here in the United States should leave because their political views don't match yours? You're a xenophobe on some pretty serious steroids.

watch this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

Funny that McChrystal states that the .223 round is effective and devastating!!!! In states where you can hunt with a rifle (cannot here in Illinois) most of those states outlaw the use of .223 on anything bigger than a coyote (sometimes a deer) because of its ineffectiveness and the round's inhumane killing aspects. To kill a deer or any other animal with a .223 you will have to have a precise shot in either the vitals or a direct headshot or you better shoot it more than once (otherwise the bullet will enter one end then exit the other end ineffectively).... Looks like he wants the round eliminated not only because of its effectiveness but its lack thereof; which is probably why SOCOM is attempting to replace the round with a more effective one.... i do value his opinion but he is speaking only his opinion

Seriously,
according to Mcchrystal the round and gun have devastating affects on humans. The general is highly respected and knowledgeable about that weapon and warfare. He admits that the gun should be for the military only. His opinion is the only one worth any weight here.

Knowing warfare does not mean that you know ballistics. You may wish to trust a clearly political statement, from one of Obama's retired generals. I'll trust the ballistics experts.

Russ, the general may be knowledgeable about warfare, but he is not highly respected. His comments in rolling stone took care of that. The idea of banning this round but allowing higher calibers is hilarious.

Ridiculous Ernie,
McChrytsal carried the weapon commanded the troops on the ground and witnessed the devastating affects that the weapon had on the enemy that he and our troops so bravely fought against. So don't try to discredit what he said with a talking points ballistic report from the NRA. Or Maybe, you can talk to the parents that couldn't identify their children at Sandy Hook, see if they think the .223 is a devastating round.
Ronnie,I don't think any of these conversations are hilarious.
Yes, McChrystal is a highly respected general by his troops, fellow commanders and the president. We all have our personal political opinions his fellow officers were stating there opinions while drinking with an embedded reporter that betrayed their trust in confidence. Sad but , that is what ultimately led to the general's resignation.

Sure Russ,
Why pay any attention to ballistics experts who have shot MANY weapons and determined SCIENTIFICALLY how destructive they are?

Better to listen to a discredited general who probably fired 1 or 2 different rifles in his military experience, huh Russ?

Ernie,
your comments and logic discredit you. Are you trying to say this gun is insignificant and not a dangerous weapon?Trying to discredit the general doesn't prove your point.
The general carried that weapon into combat.He actively went into combat with his troops. If that weapon was not affective why is it the weapon of choice for the military.

Russ,
In case you didn't grasp the logic. There is a difference between a weapon being effective for military use (causing battlefield casualties rather than immediate death), and a weapon being "devastating" and inappropriate for civilian use.

The fact is no ballistics expert is going to agree that the .223 is "devastating".

The laws and restrictions on Serin Nerve gas seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping it out of the hands of criminals.

I'm curious though...
I have not heard one single person mention the fact that machine guns are illegal(and have been for the entire life of most posters). Yet, for some reason, the government hasn't decided to kill its citizens because they are (and have been for an entire generation) at the disadvantage of armament.

Tim,
Get it right. Its S A R I N.

How many people do YOU know that can make Sarin, Tim? As soon as millions of people possess it and then you outlaw it, and no one can make it, AND the ban works, THEN you have an anology.

"I have not heard one single person mention the fact that machine guns are illegal(and have been for the entire life of most posters)."

Tim, see above. You must have missed it, it's there.

"Serin Nerve gas" or should it say: sarin? Look, airplanes are still legal now look at 9/11 (not a good example but equally as stupid as your's with sarin).

Also, check out the BATFE, one can still purchase and acquire NFA firearms....FAIL

Actually, I know a lot of people who can make SARIN. The process is touched on in HS chemistry class(although with different substances), and certainly covered in college level organic chemistry classes. They can make mustard gas too(even easier, and just as illegal to possess). Cyanide gas is about the easiest to make, and can probably still be done in any HS chem class. Funny thing about education though, is that it makes you not stupid.

Granted, the level of education needed is self-selecting to the 'crazy types', but it is quite possible, and quite easy once you know how.
One of the main ingredients for it is probably in your bathroom closet right now. One of the other ingredients can be distilled out of your city tap water.

Because it is easy(with the education), it is also heavily regulated. You know, so one person can't go out and accidentally kill dozens of people from their own irresponsibility. Meanwhile, here you are getting more agitated by the spelling of autocorrect(since it wants forcet talking about the bird, not the weapon), than the concepts you 'claim' to be defending.
SARIN is a weapon, period.
You can't buy it, period.

Tim,
Sorry, but you are wrong.
It is very easy to buy all the ingredients needed to make Sarin.
I believe he said it only costs $130 and he could have enough to kill tens of thousands of people. So much for your " heavily regulated" poison.
So now, what difference would "heavily regulated" gun laws make?
Here's your link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=better-killing-through-ch

Go try to buy one, let us all know how that works out for you.

Tim,
Although it is a takes a long time and you must pay and have special licences, you can purchase and manufacture machine guns in the U.S. Here's your link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

Oh, you mean they are heavily regulated? Imagine that.

Thanks for the link though, it can give the doubters all the evidence they need that simply buying a machine gun the same way as buying a handgun, is illegal.

Tim,
I knew that you would respond that way. You are one of those that can't admit when you are wrong.
You said machine guns are illegal and even after you were proved wrong, you try to twist it with "heavily regulated". It is not illegal to buy a machine gun and once you have the correct licence, it is just like buying a handgun. Kind of like once you have the correct licence (foid card for Illinois) you can buy a handgun, or an AR-15
Regulated or not, still legal and you were still wrong.

To further advance this comment. With the amount of venom being spewed at each other, I think we need to put the guns and patch away. Meet at Tailgators for drinks and hugs.

Sheesh.

liberal mind set, socialist mind set, public schooled, nuf said

Psychologist Jean Twenge, the lead author of the analysis, is also the author study showing that the tendency toward narcissism in students is up 30 percent in the last thirty-odd years.
This data is not unexpected. I have been writing a great deal over the past few years about the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults, particularly as it regards turning them into faux celebrities—the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists/#ixzz2HQwxIhoz

Those that would give up liberty for false security cannot think abstractly, there are those in this society that would remove our liberty. Just 2 N.D.A.A. and the Patriot Act have damaged our freedom in the short term. Ask the liberals why FEMA camps are being built across this nation, why the TSA was installed. I'll bet they don't have a clue.

What does killing elephants have to do with any of this? The issue is killing human beings, and it appears a .223 can do that, correct?

So can a pencil, a pill, a car, a punch, a rope, a hammer, etc., etc.

Yes, and I plan on entering a 1st grade class room armed with a #2 pencil...

Ernie, can you kill an elephant with a pencil? My point is we're not talking about elephants or pencils, it's humans and the guns killing them in mass amounts.

BTW, according to G. Gordon Liddy, the pencil must be a sharpened, No. 2 with a full erasor for what that's worth.

Stones,
Mass amounts? Homicides are down as they have been for years (since concealed carry). You are only talking mass shootings, which the media love to cover vastly out of proportion to their likelihood?

So, the intent in war is to maim and not kill? Some on here are veterans that have seen action in battle, is that true? And thanks for serving, we can never thank you enough.

#1. Since the country is already trillions of dollars in debt, where will the money needed for enforcement of any type of new gun restrictions come from?
#2 Who is going to remove the guns from the citizens?
#3 What will the government do if people refuse to give up or register their guns?

There are many more questions than answers to this debate, but one thing I'm sure of is that if it can be screwed up and become a huge expense to the taxpayers while somebody in the government gets rich off it while it accomplishes nothing, then our government is the one for the job.

First mac, we must get rid of severely corrupt government. The problem is how?
I have wrote letters to politicians until my fingers tip bled. joined with others to stop corruption in government. it only seems to slow them down. I believe the problem to be that only 1 in a thousand care enough to learn the truth ans act on it. Our government is out of control and taking all of us to hell with it. JMo. The answer is education and activism. I am amazed we now have NDAA and the so called Patriot Act. they have done more damage to all Americans and most do not even know how.jmo

So the 2nd amendment applies to non-citizens too?
Native born American Indians were not recognized as US citizens until 1940. Although some were citizens as early as 1924, none of who you are mentioning were.
The US government murders non-citizens on a regular basis. You may know it by its other name - war. Which is why it is known by its other name; 'The American Indian Wars'.

So, the next question is;
Do you think the same thing applies for illegal immigrants, since they are non-citizens as well?

#Tim; Might as well. Illinois is gonna issue them drivers licenses.

Twisting things to fit your twisted thoughts again, Tim?
While Pat Craig posts an example of federally backed gun confiscation and the results, you attempt to make some kind of a point about the Constitution, of which you apparently know little about.
So to answer your question, no, the second amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. This is not my opinion, it has been ruled so by our courts.
"On Carpio-Leon's Second Amendment challenge, we conclude that the scope of the Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance," Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the panel Friday.

Another thought occurred to me Tim. Based on your post then you think it is alright for the Federal government to kill women and children as long as they are not recognized as US citizens. (of course all in the name of war). By the way, if you are going to use the term "American Indian Wars" it must mean that the native population was, in fact, a sovereign nation and the Federal government was the aggressor looking to deprive them of their land, freedom and life. Great "manifest destiny" argument there, Tim.

And there we have it from Tim.

All our service people who fought to keep us safe and protect our way of life, are murderers according to Tim.

So if the 2nd amendment does not apply to non-citizens, why are we using an example of a war against non-citizens, as having anything to do with the 2nd amendment?

Yes Ernie,
People get killed in war.

Is this something you are learning about just now?

Tim,
If you don't get the difference between killing in self-defense or killing to protect the country and MURDER, I don't even know where to start.

In case you're not aware, murder is a crime. We do not generally incarcerate our returning servicemen.

Yes Ernie, That is exactly what I said.
I don't know what self-inflicted cocoon you are living in, but that is what happens in war. It is what happens in every war.
http://gawker.com/5892290/american-soldier-murders-16-civilians-in-afghanistan
Denying the realities of war, doesn't make them go away.

I will not use a musket, I will use a modern equivalent. This may be a 30.06, it may be a Glock, it may even be an AR-15. I like to keep up with the times.

They can "bear arms", and we can "well regulate" the hell out of them. I agree that the only legal weapons should be antiques.

That is a great idea, I would like to have my antique Gatling Guns, please.

Tired, I'm heartened to learn that you believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to today's technology and today's standards and mores. I, too, am for keeping up with the times.

Please stop with the cars, bikes, planes, baseball games, drugs/medicine, kitchen utensils, it's a very stupid arguement.

Guns are A-OK for self protection, for the most part we all accept that. What I and many others are concerned with is the weapons that can kill mass amounts of people, very quickly, without barely stopping. And Yes Tired, even the Gatling Gun, though those are pretty cool in the movies or museums.