Illinois trying to go full batshit crazy on guns

[CrazyPhuD]

Because if we make everyone who owns a gun a felon then that will stop the felons who own guns in Chicago from shooting each other.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50350330...-restrictions/

Both Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday night praised an Illinois Senate committee's approval of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

In a party-line vote, the committee approved measures that would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles, but would allow current owners to keep them. High-capacity ammunition magazines would be restricted.

Quinn said he is very pleased the Public Health Committee took the step.

"There is no place in Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range," he said.

In a statement, Emanuel said in order to protect children, families and communities, there is a need for "common-sense laws that provide the residents of our cities with the safety they deserve."

Gun rights groups, however, said the measures go too far and amount to an assault-weapons ban "on steroids."

Democrats are seeking restrictions in the wake of the school massacre in Connecticut last month and mass shootings in Wisconsin and Colorado last year. While the measures were approved by the committe, supporters will have a tougher sell in the full Senate, where downstate Democrats as well as Republicans are more pro-gun.

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

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

"I've never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions," Vandermyde said.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Antonio "Tony" Munoz, disagreed.

"For everyone that says that we're taking away their rights, well then go to the range," the Chicago Democrat told members of the Senate Public Health Committee.

The second proposal would limit ammunition magazines and other "ammunition feeding devices" to 10 or fewer rounds. A similar measure received Senate approval in 2007, but the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dan Kotowski, downplayed the idea that a separate effort on shells stood a better chance of passage than the ban on weapons.

"The reason why I'm focusing on that is because (high) magazine capacity has led to the increased lethality and the dangers associated with automatic weapons," the Park Ridge Democrat said.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, called for an assault-weapons ban in August after a mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater. But he took the approach -- highly unpopular with legislators -- of rewriting a fairly innocuous bill covering ammunition purchases, substituting language on semiautomatic weapons.

That failed when the General Assembly voted to override his amendatory veto, but mostly because lawmakers thought Quinn had overstepped his authority.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It's possible to chip away at it and, with politically appointed members of the Supreme Court having the final say on exactly what constitutional means, it doesn't have to be rewritten.

Possible doesn't equal probable.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

The left will give up on gun control about the same time the right gives up on abortion.

You can take that up with somebody else. I don't give two ****s about abortion and think anti-abortion people are as ****tarded as anti-gun idiots.

However, I don't view the anti-abortion people as a threat to my personal safety.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by frazod

I listen to WBBM (CBS-affiliated) news radio daily. Mainly for traffic and weather information, but also to chuckle at their horseshit liberal agenda which they don't even try to hide. There are always anti-gun stories - whether it's something Rahmbo said, or Quinn, Bloomberg, Brady, Cumeo, Jackson, etc. - it's always there. If they even bother to mention a conflicting viewpoint as a footnote to the main story, it's also attributed to the NRA and only the NRA. There is never any mention of undeniable crime staticistics that blow anti-gun arguments out of the water. And for every fleeting story they grudingly air about an homeowner who successfully used a gun to fend off a burglar, they'll air a hundred soundbites from anti-gun rallies featuring weepy welfare turds crying about their gangbanger brats getting greased by criminals using illegal guns.

But it's not like they have an agenda or anything.

Like anyone thinks you're an objective judge of content.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC native

Possible doesn't equal probable.

You don't think it has already happened?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by listopencil

You don't think it has already happened?

For gun rights? With the strike down on DC's hand gun ban, and the proliferation of "stand your ground" laws and CCWs, no.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KC native

Like anyone thinks you're an objective judge of content.

That's pretty funny, coming from a complete communist hack like you.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by frazod

You can take that up with somebody else. I don't give two ****s about abortion and think anti-abortion people are as ****tarded as anti-gun idiots.

However, I don't view the anti-abortion people as a threat to my personal safety.

That is because you aren't a woman.

In Mississippi they recently passed a law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This law is forcing the only remaining abortion clinic in the state to close. So in case of a need for an emergency abortion the woman will have to drive out of state and hope she doesn't die.

That would be like passing a law stating you couldn't sell a gun unless you are part of the local police department.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by frazod

That's pretty funny, coming from a complete communist hack like you.

I notice you completely ignored this post.

Originally Posted by KC native

And because you disagree with them, you assume the government controls them. You are ****ing retarded.

ABC is owned by Disney. Disney is a public corporation. Nice to know the government covertly controls the whole company.

CBS is it's own corporation. Glad to know the government controls them too.

Comcast and GE own NBC. eh you should get the point (but probably won't).

It's awesome how the private sector is the right's savior but, when convenient for their arguments, they are controlled by the government.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KC native

For gun rights? With the strike down on DC's hand gun ban, and the proliferation of "stand your ground" laws and CCWs, no.

Not everybody lives in Texas, you idiot ****.

Move to New York and try to legally obtain a pistol, then tell me about how effective your constitutional rights are.

I know exactly what a non-wealthy, non-politically connected law-abiding citizen has to go through to get a pistol in New York. Do you?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by frazod

Not everybody lives in Texas, you idiot ****.

Move to New York and try to legally obtain a pistol, then tell me about how effective your constitutional rights are.

I know exactly what a non-wealthy, non-politically connected law-abiding citizen has to go through to get a pistol in New York. Do you?

Yes, I do.

I've looked at moving to New York so I checked the gun laws there. You don't have to be politically connect to get a gun in NYC. Hyperbole doesn't change that.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KC native

I notice you completely ignored this post.

Yeah, I did, because it was so ****ing stupid it didn't rate a response.

If you don't see every major network (other than Fox, which has it's moments) as a government propaganda outfit, then you're really beyond help.

Granted some are worse than others, NBC being the absolute worst.

You talk about corporations controlling the media. Who do you think controls the government?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC native

For gun rights? With the strike down on DC's hand gun ban, and the proliferation of "stand your ground" laws and CCWs, no.

I was thinking more in general terms rather than specifically gun rights. But I don't want to derail this thread by cluttering it up with a bunch of links and excerpts from court documents, and then the legal opinions that can go on forever. Also there is the substantial logic problem presented due to the nature of our legal system. When a legal issue is raised and that case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the decision that the SC makes is (as I understand it) valid because they are the arbiters of constitutionality. So if we get into that there is going to be a lot of room for unproductive subjective analysis. I am just stating that it would be easier for a political party to alter law by remaining in power and "stacking the deck" so to speak with SC appointees than it would be to attempt to alter any amendments. Off the top of my head I can not think of a single politician that I would trust with the Constitution, including its amendments. I'd rather be lobotomized by a mentally retarded gorilla then hand that sacred document over to any of them.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KC native

Yes, I do.

I've looked at moving to New York so I checked the gun laws there. You don't have to be politically connect to get a gun in NYC. Hyperbole doesn't change that.

No you obviously don't, you ****ing liar.

Start with a several hundred dollar, non-refundable application fee. After that, wait six to nine months for approval, which may or may not be granted without explanation.

If you are approved, you have a 48 hour window in which to procure the weapon. If you fail do to so, the process starts all over again.

Oh, and every adult in your residence must sign a form consenting to your exercise of your constitutional rights. If one of them objects? **** you and your rights.

I guess you don't have a problem with any of that, right?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by frazod

Yeah, I did, because it was so ****ing stupid it didn't rate a response.

If you don't see every major network (other than Fox, which has it's moments) as a government propaganda outfit, then you're really beyond help.

Granted some are worse than others, NBC being the absolute worst.

You talk about corporations controlling the media. Who do you think controls the government?

Fox isn't government propaganda but the other networks are to you. Cognitive dissonance much?

You are just flailing now. You should stick to bullying people in the lounge because you aren't good at debating anything.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by frazod

No you obviously don't, you ****ing liar.

Start with a several hundred dollar, non-refundable application fee. After that, wait six to nine months for approval, which may or may not be granted without explanation.

If you are approved, you have a 48 hour window in which to procure the weapon. If you fail do to so, the process starts all over again.

Oh, and every adult in your residence must sign a form consenting to your exercise of your constitutional rights. If one of them objects? **** you and your rights.

I guess you don't have a problem with any of that, right?

If someone doesn't like it, then they can move to somewhere else.

It's not my ideal situation but that's what the people of NY have decided, so if I'm going to move there then I have to deal with it.