Shared publicly  - 
Illinois Senate Democrats push forward with new gun control legislation to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Michael K Pate's profile photoD. Kelly's profile photoNick Karpushkin's profile photoExpeditho Ivan's profile photo
Good,a small measure of sanity.
Illinois is the last state I would trust with gun laws... That state is a joke already when it comes to gun laws.
That will solve the problem of 500 homicides last year.
You cannot legislate a man or woman's conscience.
It won't solve anything. It will however give the left all the more excuse to take ALL firearms from law abiding folks when the violence does not stop. This is a power grab from one group who thinks it is their duty to tell another group what is best for them. You are right you cannot legislate a man or woman's conscience.  To me this comes down to good vs. evil. The evil want to control the will of those who are law abiding.
You American's are so deluded.Enjoy your ongoing carnage.
Yeah, strict gun laws have worked wonders in Chicago.  Stupid leftist.

Hey Don, STFU and continue being a subject.  
The Canadian gun registries are a huge success, too. No, really. 
Hey, don't make fun of Canada!  The Feds should put a huge tax on guns and ammo, and wipe out the deficit!  :)
I'm fascinated by the NRA argument that more guns will make us safer. I guess the Secret Service should arm everyone at Presidential events, to foil assassins. At the airport when boarding airplanes all passengers should be armed, to prevent hijackings? We should let every nation on the world including Iran become a nuclear power. We should give everyone a penis to stop rape.  It makes perfect sense, no?
Hey Don,  what are you talking about? Carnage? Are you really serious? I mean it is a terrible thing what happen to the school kids, but like 60K deaths a year from auto accidents, many probably due to alcohol. Where is the leftist movement for prohibition? Put it in perspective.
I think you leftist gun grabbing anti constitutionalists should go and have your brains tested for worm infestation. Parasites are the thing I can come up with for your FUPed thought process.
Hey, in Canada we can spend 2.7 B on a program to wipe your nose properly!  Still, Less Gun Availability ==> Less Carnage.
New FBI report out shows more people are killed with hammers/clubs than rifles.  Lets ban them too!
Ban on guns is a ban on rights and we become a pathetic police state at the mercy of our gov't
There's laws restricting driving drunk but people still do it, does that mean we should abandon the effort to prevent drunk driving? Just because a law doesn't stop all of a particular type of behavior doesn't mean it isn't worth working towards.
+Harold Asmis You seem to have a distorted notion of the size of the deficit, or the ability of liberals to spend money.
Gun control is a myth.  What democrats are talking about is gun ownership.  Democrats want to further increase the number of people unable to own firearms.  This is proof of the ignorant logic of democrats.  They think guns cause violence and murder people, so their solution is eliminate guns.  The real problem is the violent criminal, not the tools he uses.  Matches don't commit arson by themselves. 
+Colin Wallis Well said and I agree, except it might as well have been written in Klingon, because a leftist is mentally incapable of a common sense thought process.
Keeping people from owning guns is not the solution, we do not have a gun control problem today, we had it decades ago,We should have stopped the production, import and sales of many of these guns, but we didn't.. and back then, there were more then enough guns to keep the much more generally conservative population "happy"

  We now have the results of a failed gun control policy, a hundred fold times more guns, a far far less conservative population and constitutionally countless problems "fixing" it because people already own the guns they should never have been able to purchase in the first place.....
+Tim Taylor It is not my logic.  It is what the NRA supports, no?  You are not reading what I posted.  Your are making things up to support your world view.
Right on time, the Obama troll comes to tell us what we "never should have purchased" in the first place.  Laughable.
bottom line, we don`t blame cars for drunk drivers. why do we blame guns for mentally unstable people? coke, heroine, pot, meth. its all illegal, and it hasn`t stopped it. criminals and the mentally unstable don`t obey laws.
+Mike Mac Very laughable. And don't F'n tell me what I should or shouldn't own. You seem a little schizo. Keeping people from owning guns is not the solution? We don't have a gun control problem today? Make up your mind, oh I forgot, leftist thought is deranged thought.
+Spencer Scott  no company has any rights under the constitution to produce or distribute any product. any product can be regulated.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you have no cart-Blanche rights to buy anything at all.

as usual you are the typical Monday morning quarterback that does not understand the game of football.... but that does require some mental capacity to grasp, something you have demonstrated over and over you are lacking...
You can't "buy anything" at all moron.  You can't buy automatic weapons, something you lefties continually lie about.  

Back to your Obama hole boy.
+Spencer Scott  you repeat what I said, agree with it, then call me a moron for saying it?  LOL  what a stupid fuck you are... back to your momma's basement with you son. You are not allowed in pubic without your headgear...
Notice these leftist goons always go after the legal citizens, and never mention the criminals.  
Oh BTW, yes, automatic weapons can be bought...... more of your distortion and projection of your ignorance
+Mike Mac Wow dude you really are a deep thinker. I don't hear or see anyone asking to have the law changed so the average citizen can buy an RPG at Walmart or hand grenades from a  vending machine, the issue is that there are crazy lunatics out there. They sometimes pick up guns, sometimes baseball bats. The scary looking ( I think they look cool as hell) ARs are not the problem. And now you leftist schizo want to remove rights from 99.9999% of law abiding citizens. That type of thinking is childish and flawed and dangerous.
They are very difficult and require LOTS of government permitting and regulation.  They aren't easily available that's why most people don't have them.
wow.... they have to be licensed to get them, to own a really dangerous gun, you have to be licensed, have a background check and demonstrate one of several specific "needs" to own it....  what a concept
why don't anyone propose higher taxes on guns and ammunition instead? 
Mac is an Obama bottom feeder who trolls Fox News.  LOL
Yes stupid, there's a difference between fully automatic weapons and non-automatic.  Again, see how these Fox News trolls never blame the criminals?
+James Lertora  I never said anything you are saying I did.  The problem today is not law abiding citizens having gun, it is too many guns that are too readily accessible, for the reasons I already mentioned.... but good try to twist my words :)
+Spencer Scott   that has always been my position, your the one flip-flopping lol
Tim, leftists want to go after legal gun owners.  That's been their goal for years.
+Tim Taylor  a lot of what has happened is water over the dam. Anyone that suggests taking guns from law abiding citizens is an answer is definitely barking up the wrong tree, I know I am not giving my guns to anyone....

But we do need to put a stake in the ground and stop the free flow of new arms, controlling the flow of the massive amount of guns in circulation is a start...  I do not have "the answer" but doing nothing is not really the right answer either...
+Tim Taylor I never said anything about a gun free zone.  You added that...making it up to support your straw man argument.
I thought the Second Amendment was rather clear; why do we have any gun laws?
I have yet to see a sheet of paper with a law written upon it ever stop a bullet. Those who commit crimes certainly are not worried about obtaining guns legally.
+Tim Taylor     what is the difference between a "legal gun" and an "illegal gun" ? (not talking about full-auto vs semi-auto etc)

Right, The answer is, nothing.

But it could be argued successfully that making it more difficult to get period, less supply = less on the streets available, it will also make it more difficult to get by those who wish it use the general gun for ill.... background checks and some form of licensing makes it more difficult yes, but it does not prevent ownership, it does not take guns away from "legal" owners.

Fewer guns (over time) would indeed result in fewer guns available for those who can not legally own them.

I may be off base, but I will assume that you would agree that there are some people that should not be allowed to own a firearm, ever.

Other then controlling the availability and accessibility of guns to those who should not have them, what other means do we have other then doing nothing?
+Brian Fahrlander the second amendment does not grant you the right to purchase anything you wish, and some argue that it by specifically referencing "well regulated" it presumes there is some form of control over the guns and who has them....
Banning guns of any sort doesn't solve the real problem. People generally kill with whatever weapon is available. Thousands have been killed with butcher knives, baseball bats, crowbars, rocks, etc. Don't blame the weapon, just hang the killer, in public, asap.
some problems are solved, mitigated or impacted by multi prong approaches, stiffer penalties are one good suggestion, but are not the complete answer either. the dead person is still dead, history has shown that punishment is only a partial deterrent... unless we start talking Taliban-level punishments....
The ruling class moves around with trained heavily, armed security. Their homes have sophisticated security systems and in many cases trained heavily, armed security personnel living onsite. The children of the ruling class are sent to schools in safe areas of their choosing where they are protected by trained heavily, armed security.

We the "Ordinary People" must be disarmed and forced to fend for ourselves best we can.
+Mike Mac the second amendment reads. " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The militia is well regulated, nothing about the firearms.

Some people are not allowed to own firearms, some of those people still do. How do we stop that problem?

Some crimes are committed by people which get access to others firearms. Some kill to get them, that is another problem entirely.

In the US many more people die from side effects to obesity, do we outlaw fast food or implement a food ration?

The problem is you can't legislate away all crime. You can't stop all shootings. A person that wants to inflict casualties will find a way, it is called terrorism.

Just my opinions of course

(edited to correct spelling errors by fat thumbs on a phone) 
If arming people makes people safer, why not let every nation in the world become a nuclear power? 
+Alan Williamson You really do love that question don't you? Let me answer that with a few different comments.

1. Right now, we are a super power...and minus another super power stepping in, we can do pretty much whatever we want. Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist, but we have pretty much the ability to completely destroy most countries in the world if no one interferes. If the other countries get Nukes, it is harder for us to do whatever we want. i.e. Iran gets a Nuke, we can go to war with them without the fear of them nuking us.

Example one sounds a little like a dictatorship doesn't it? We have the do what we say or else. Don't worry, I will make this nicer.

2. If we let EVERYONE have a nuke, well then we have to worry about evil dictators and regime changes and well...pretty much countries that have nothing to lose. Their mindset might be "We will bomb you, go ahead and bomb us back". Or my favorite "We as a government didn't bomb you, it was a rogue force"

So what is the solution? Maybe we let everyone have missiles, but only let people that have passed serious background checks have Nukes? That sounds pretty good, kind of like our existing firearms laws (at lease here in Utah).  See, a nuke is not what we all have, but Utah has a whole lot of "missiles."  In Utah, we strongly defend the right to carry. I know that may make you not want to come here, but I feel very safe. Am I betcha, I carry too.

So lets answer this, why should everyone need "missiles"? Am I afraid of other people, no I am not. I, however, am prepared if something does happen. Am I well trained, yes, as a matter of fact I train others. Does that fact that some people have near zero training and carry bother me, you betcha. I also know that the odds of that person who legally owns a firearm doing something violent with his firearm are...well...very slim.

Mass shootings are very tragic, and I mourn for those victims. Giving mass shooters more unarmed people to shoot at though, not my idea of a solution.

So in conclusion (and sorry this is so long) arming the world with nukes might make it safer, but as long as we can blow whoever we want away at the touch a button, I don't think that will happen. I will keep my missiles  and I not only will fight to protect your right to have them (if you live here), but I would gladly use mine to protect you from criminals wrongfully using theirs. 
+Michael Jones   yes, same sentence  same subject/context IMHO, others share that opinion, but a lot of people argue that the militia is the main reason for owning firearms.  But they ignore the well regulated part, just sayng.

As far as controlling what guns get into what hands....register them all at every sale....then the registered owners are responsible for them , and their security.  I know how bad guns rights defenders hate to have someone compare guns to cars, but... there are many parallels even though there are differences...
+Francis Moran   maybe a silly question, but it makes a valid point...very valid and that is the reason why its called silly...

Why can't I have a nuke?  Why can't you?

Why can't I buy a Claymore at Dick's Sporting Goods?  I have been trained and used them before, why can't I have them to protect my personal property?
Why can't I purchase an automatic weapon without a special permit?

Why can't I buy pop bottle rockets?
Why can't I buy Lawn Darts?

Technically those are "arms" and I should be allowed to bear them, right?  an "arm" in not specifically a firearm, an "arm" is any weapon, knife, pointed stick, 155, grenade launcher etc

So I guess we have to agree by default that there are indeed accepted limitations to our "right to bear arms" , just as there are limits to "free speech", the only debate is where is the line drawn, for whom and why....
Until the southern border is secured there is no point in talking about gun control. That's a joke! Drugs, guns, and only God knows what is coming across the Mexican border everyday. The Dems won't let us do anything about that, yet they want to make it harder on law abiding citizens to get guns. Secure the border then maybe we can talk about gun control ;-)
+Francis Moran I guess that's my fault for contributing to it. Maybe what the compromise is +Mike Mac is we leave firearms regulations alone and we deregulate Nukes ;-). I think we need to have some humor in the discussion or people start to get uncivil. I hopefully my non sense contribution still got my point across. We may not all agree, but if some facts get across in the long run, it is worth it.
+Francis Moran  nukes, down to pointed sticks, pick your weapon, your "arm"...  lawn dart?  Stick of dynamite?  Colt .45 ?

If you do not want to discuss that's ok, but please do not use the excuse of it being "absurd", you always manage do the same in many of your arguments and seemed ok then with such logic to prove your points........
Paul F.
I steadfastly disagree with this idea of gun bans. Once it starts, where does it stop? And, the media is only serving to promote the bans through their efforts to publish as many stories of gun violence. What about hammer violence? 
+Francis Moran I never said I could not see the difference, but if you can not see their similarity , then your right, there will be no constructive discussion.  If you can not also see the nuke reference was fully intended to point out an absurd far-stretch of a valid concept, then you need to check your Cracker Jack box to see if you got a sense of humor as a free prize.

Your off-tangent liberal-hater rant was entertaining, but let's get back to discussing weapons.

Strike the nuke reference if you can see the levity, chuckle and move on, and what about the other items I mentioned?

Why can't I easily own a full-auto rifle?  or an anti-personal mine?  why can't I buy Lawn Darts?
+Francis Moran  if you don't want to discuss I am not sure why you bothered to respond, but there is a valid concept here, arms are arms, where do we draw the line and why?
and how?

I have proven my point anyway, Your response has shown you feel there is most definitely a line, you just do not want to be pinned down and have to define that line and justify it, I get that.
lol  ok lighten up Francis , along those same lines, it really does not matter what you think :) But.. by responding, you are indeed participating in a discussion, even if you prefer to call it something else to help you sleep better.

The Constitution says "arms"   you may think its absurd, but even so that does not change the fact that an arm is an arm.
A weapon is a weapon. We are talking basic, common definitions here...

But I get that you just do not want to discuss it,  it will force you to logically have to defend your position, to explain why I can carry a Glock, but not a sawed off shotgun.  Why can't I have a burst or auto sear for an AR-15, but can have a trigger crank in some states, but not others?
lol moon bat.. really? so your justification for not discussing an issue with someone when you have a position you can not firmly defend is to personally insult them?  I am trying to remember a time where where I called you names, and am having a tough time remembering even once I actually have shown a lot of restraint, and we were generally civil, but looks like those days are over :)  Maybe the election finally sent you over the edge into the bat-shit crazy abyss you so firmly clung to the edge of for so long ....
I don't need to look at them.. I wrote them.  and yes, when someone is condescending towards me, they get it back, you seem to think you can call me silly, and call my opinions absurd and not get subtle hints of kmfa back?  lol  really?

And you still cling to the belief of my side own, when I have stated over and over that it's not really my side, I am pretty Moderate/Independent, somewhat Conservative in many ways, until 2002 was a registered Republican,  I will say the "best" side won in the last two elections....

But anyway, we will see this "gun control legislation" not clear the end of the runway or get blasted out of the sky shortly after take off, no gun owning American is going to give anyone their gun, and few will register them...
well we finally got back to arms control, aka gun control. but again, their must be some form of control, but we blew it years ago when there was an opportunity to have "gun control" but now there are far far too many guns to think about "controlling" , another example of a fairy tale "problem" fought against years ago that actually caused the problems we have today......  The pointed sticks reference did indeed come from my silly walking friends from across the pond. 

I would ask, we had the AWB in place for years, and it did not seem to infringe on anyone's rights.... we have a record number of free-floating guns today, and there was never a shortage of guns for those that wished to buy them then, just like in 1975 there was no shortage.....  But no matter how one slices the Constitution  it says one can keep and carry arms, not that one can buy anything they want, there are no rights to manufacture and/or commercially distribute any gun, or any product for that matter....
Guns aren't the problem. More laws & restrictions will not fix the problem.  People are the problem, specifically the ones that are insane, unstable or just plain evil.  They will find ways to murder, rape,  and injure the innocent, honest, unprotected citizen, regardless. The only way to protect against the worst of our society is to defend ourselves, in whatever means we can each personally manage.  Guns, pepper sprays, self defense arts.  We can thus reduce the damage done by the criminal element.  If you are not comfortable with any of those things, call 911, wait for the police to show, if they show.  See how much damage can be done before they get there, how many people die or are injured, property stolen or destroyed.  I can end the issue in moments, protect myself, family, friends and property. Taking my means of doing so will not stop the bad guy from doing his thing, just make him more likely to continue and enable him to do so without repercussions.
I do not think guns are the problem either, but too many guns are indeed part of the problem.   
No such thing as too many guns in the hands of legal gun owners. Too many
criminals running loose due to a weak justice system, inadequate law
enforcement, and a refusal by the general public to allow the punishment to
fit the crime (death for death, and quickly not years later), these are the
problem. Repeat violent offenders are released on society over and over, to
continue attacking law abiding citizens, whom our government is trying
desperately to leave defenseless against them.

Dawn Leiter
+Dawn Leiter as long as there is no control of whose hands a gun can effortlessly end up in, there will always be such a thing as too many guns. But there is no problem for legal gun owners to get them, there never has been even when there were more restrictions, its a problem that never has existed.

 maybe with some luck they will end the "war on drugs" that has proven to be such a dismal failure, all it was done is clog up the legal system and penal system with non-violent offenders with mandatory sentences, so we parole a murder to make room for a three-time pot possession loser. We lock them up, take their kids into the social system, let a killer back on the streets then wonder why we have problems....

But this is not new.... this war on drugs was a another Reagan era mistake. (along with run-away deficit spending )

Why have we collectively allowed it to get to this level?
But the government is not trying to take anyone's right to defend themselves, not trying to take anyone's guns, your argument is the same one that has been echoed for years, and there has never been a problem.... the solutions for problems that did not exist are exactly what caused the problems we have now.....
Paul F.
Bring back the days of public punishment, i.e. the stockade, flogging, etc.  let the people KNOW the reason for the punishment make the punishment hurt.  Then let's see what happens.  Legal ownership should NOT be made to pay the price for the actions of those doing things illegally.  Did you get a fine due to your neighbor driving drunk?  Do you know of someone who got a summons to court because a co-worker committed a crime?  Then why should the masses pay for the few?
Excellently put. I agree. If we did a better job of punishing our
criminals, swiftly and effectively, crime rates would drop dramatically.
Don't punish the rest of the citizenry.

Dawn Leiter
so we advocate methods of punishment that have been classified as inhumane and torture? Things that under international law we are unable to even do to an enemy combatant ?  Sounds a little American Taliban`ish to me....
Do you feel that what these people do to others is humane? Do you feel they
should be able to beat, maim, rape or murder others, then live in a warm,
comfortable place with free healthcare, food, entertainment, etc, at the
cost of those they attacked? Why do you think that is right?

Dawn Leiter
+Dawn Leiter   where did you get the idea I ever even slightly suggested it was right?  The fact that we are even discussing punishment clearly shows otherwise.  Just because I do not agree you should cut off a child's hand for shoplifting does not mean I feel shoplifting is right...

Do you feel we should impose Sharia law here ?
No.  I think punishment should fit the crime, and that due process needs to be followed.  I also feel that letting career criminals back on the streets or keeping them at our cost in food, health care, activities, that many of us law-abiding citizens, cannot afford, is outrageous.  I feel that violent criminals, especially, need to be eliminated, quickly, humanely, but terminally. 
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." George Washington. First annual meeting to congress 1790-01-08
Add a comment...