112 Comments - The Captain - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:38 pm: Cullerton’s gun repo men are actually zombies and confiscating your guns is just a secondary objective, their primary objective is to take your souls! - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:41 pm: –Based on what is known about the proposal, it would result in the banning and confiscation of most privately-owned firearms in the state.– Right. Who would be doing that confiscating, anyway? Sounds like a pretty big job. So on the one hand, you claim sweeping Constitutional victories in the courts for private gun ownership. On the other, you claim new laws are coming to confiscate guns. Pick a lane. - Former Downstater - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:41 pm: They have to maintain the “jack-booted thugs” drumbeat. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:41 pm: I think the ISRA likes having its collective skivvies in a bunch. Perhaps if they’d just calm down we’d be able to have an adult discussion about what to do about the massive amounts of ILLEGAL guns in the community. Not their guns–the guns in the hands of criminals. - Spliff - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:44 pm: This could be the first real jobs billwe have seen in years. Imagine how many new state troopers we would need to confiscate all those guns. And those are good paying jobs! - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:45 pm: Not one mention of Obama? These guys are losing their touch. - phocion - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:46 pm: Maybe ISRA’s membership renewals dropped off after Sandy Hook and LaPierre’s disastrous press event. It looks like ISRA’s membership committee is trying another tack to scare people into joining its association. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:57 pm: Does anyone have any REAL intel on if there is a bill and what it contains? - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:01 pm: - Does anyone have any REAL intel on if there is a bill and what it contains? - According to the release the ISRA has a credible source, perhaps you should contact them. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:09 pm: - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 12:41 pm: I think the ISRA likes having its collective skivvies in a bunch. Cheryl, that’s known as an issues thong. Very much in fashion these days among the special interests. - Grant #1 - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:10 pm: Springfield can put a stop to all this “hysteria” by simply reaffirming their commitment to gun ownership in Illinois. The man hours wasted on this issue would drop significantly, and we could use them instead on fighting Illinois’ REAL problems… - the Patriot - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:19 pm: I have no doubt he will introduce a bill. It would take 10 minutes to get injunctions in every county in the state. It is just idiotic. The people to point to a European model type gun control need to look closer. In England even the cops gave up their guns. You can argue those results either way. Tell the police officers in Chicago to turn their guns in first. Letting the Government keep their guns but taking them from the citizens won’t even pass the laugh test of any Court in the Country. It was tried in the 30’s in Germany and did not turn out so well. Quinn has already probably lost a seat in the house and Senate next go round by closing Tamms. If the democrats push through any significant gun control, they will lose in Court and at the Polls. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:26 pm: I’m hearing from some reliable sources that the gun lobby actually does expect a bill banning semi automatic weapons (as opposed to pump action shot guns as mentioned in the NRA piece) including semi auto handguns. They also expect an attempt at registering weapons. Expect a huge fight over any attempts at registration. - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:33 pm: Perhaps if your favorite Constitutionally-protected right had been dragged through the mud for the past few weeks by a news media eager to drum up whatever support it could for abrogating it, you’d get your “skivvies in a bunch” sooner rather than later. As long as a minority of the citizenry in this state thinks it’s “ok” to punish their fellow citizens for having the gall to want to own and legally use firearms, we’ll continue to have these discussions. - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:39 pm: Word: It seems to me that both are possible. The courts did affirm the 2nd amendment’s reach and some legislators are pushing for more gun control. Grant#1: Good point. I wish the legislators would focus on real issues in Illinois instead of distractions like this. According to FBI stats, there was 1 murder in Illinois in 2011 (most recent data) by a rifle. I couldn’t tell by report if that was an evil “assault” rifle or a regular one. You are probably more likely to die from choking on your lunch. Let’s talk budget, mental health services, and that stuff. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:45 pm: Brian, you are SO right. For instance, my favorite Constitutionally protected right is interstate travel. YET THOSE PEOPLE IN SPRINGFIELD KEEP TAXING THAT RIGHT! Know what else they do? They slow me down! I would like to go 120 mph when exercising that right, BUT THEY WON’T LET ME! They make me register EACH AND EVERY car I own! Outrageous, isn’t it? After all, the Supreme Court has said the right is fundamental. Brian, are you ready to take up my cause and throw off the yoke of the oppression of my favorite right? - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:52 pm: >>Skeeter Way to fire up a straw man argument. Of course, if you’re traveling down the road @ 120mph, you’re endangering yourself, and others around you. I’m not sure how that compares to the firearms of lawful gun owners, which haven’t yet figured out how to self-animate and perform the mayhem that you seem to enjoy. You only have to register vehicles you use on a public road, study the law a smidge more and maybe save yourself some $$$. Keep flailing away though with nonsensical comparisons though, they’re helpful, though maybe not in the way you intended. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 1:59 pm: Speak for yourself, Brian. When I’ve gone over 100, I’ve never had an accident. Nobody has had to move out of my way. The car I drive is designed to go 160. I’m perfectly safe at 120, just like you are perfectly safe with a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round mag. Is there a way to travel interstate without driving on public roads? That part of your comment didn’t make much sense, I admit. Here’s what I know. Those of us who like to exercise our right to interstate travel are a law abiding people. Unless you try to take away our right, we happily follow the law. But Big Government keeps wanting to take away that right. And people like you don’t care. Fine, Brian. If you won’t support me in my favorite right, I’m not helping you with your favorite right. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:01 pm: By the way, Brian. Do you get the irony of somebody who claims that Big Government is going to take all of your guns talking about a straw man? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:03 pm: I don’t get it. For months we’ve been hearing there’s a nearly veto-proof GA majority for conceal-carry. Now, that same group is going to confiscate all the guns? Both can’t be true. - MrJM - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:16 pm: Why can’t Brian recognized that when Skeeter exercises his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to go 120 mph, he makes all of us freer by getting the heck out of the way! Skeeter: Hero of Liberty! – MrJM - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:21 pm: >>Skeeter Apparently the Illinois State Police considers >20 mph over the posted limit to be unsafe even for their highly trained officers: http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/pressdetails.cfm?ID=452 Still not sure how you wanting to drive faster than even law enforcement considers to be “safe” in an emergency equates with my wanting to own metal boxes with springs and plastic pieces in them. The proposed Feinstein anti-gun legislation involves mandatory registration of certain firearms, a process which includes a tax, local signoff by the chief law enforcement officer in your town or county, federal background checks, and much paperwork. Given all of that, the results would be “taking of your guns.” Wheel out the dictionary, go to the “D” section, and see under “de facto” = “in practice or actuality, but not officially established.” - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:28 pm: Really Brian? The State Police consider 120 unsafe? And that’s good enough for you? So if the State Police say semi-automatic weapons are dangerous, then you will just say “Hey, the State Police have spoken! No need for that right anymore!” Is that what you are going to do, Brian? By the way, registration means confiscation? Now are they going to show up and confiscate the Beamer? That would be unfortunate, since I really like my right to interstate travel. By the way, you must have one awesome dictionary if it is on wheels. Where can I get one of those? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:31 pm: “Skeeter: Hero of Liberty!” Thank you so much, Mr.JM. I’m not really a hero. I’m just one humble man, in a really fast car, fighting the fight for the most important of our Constitutional rights. - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:43 pm: >>Skeeter Just trying to use some automobile phrasing in my writing, which appears to keep you engaged and focused on the issue at hand. I would expect that your Beamer would be dealt with in the following fashion: 1. A flurry of reports on TV, radio, and Internet, describing the horrors of the Germanic death machine and the people who drive them 2. An intense campaign of Astroturfing, hitting the various social media websites, to further stir public opinion. 3. Reasonable legislation proposed during a veto session, using an amendment to an existing bill to cut short the whole pesky legislative process. 4. Passage and signature of said bill, with the appropriate amount of legislators, police officers, and children on hand for the signing ceremony. 5. Self-enforcement by law-abiding Germanic Death Machine owners, followed up by gradual confiscation as car registrations come due. Luckily for us, the Germanic Death Machines are already registered with the state, so we mostly know where they all are. To answer your other question: I’d be fine with being restricted to using whatever the State Police are restricted to using to protect themselves and the rest of us. I don’t see machine guns ever making the “approved for the little people” list, but I don’t think the ISP is ever going back to the musket. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:52 pm: ===So if the State Police say semi-automatic weapons are dangerous, then you will just say “Hey, the State Police have spoken! No need for that right anymore!”=== You stepped in it bigtime, Brian. OK, now, time to move along. Brian lost that round. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:52 pm: I’m sorry, Brian. I missed your reference to being a State Police Officer. Apparently, since you are a member of ISP, you are bound by their rules. I’m not, so I don’t recognize the ISP as a binding authority on what is safe. Now, a lawful order is one thing. But a recommendation? Sure, that’s worth something. On the other hand, Adrian Newey says you can go 160 on certain streets of towns including Monaco, and he knows more about cars than anybody on ISP, so I think I will rely on his judgment. Now, since the ISP have said that 20 mph over is unsafe for them, you are fine with it. And you are also fine with whatever the ISP say is acceptable in terms of owning firearms, right? Because when it comes to our fundamental rights, the ISP knows best? One question though, officer. Do you officers have any training that the rest of us don’t have? Do some of us have better training that you? Unless those two factors line up, why should we care about the ISP’s judgment? Also, who granted the ISP authority to decide how I should exercise my fundamental rights? Thanks in advance for clearing this all up, officer! - Endangered Moderate Species - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 2:58 pm: The ISRA is drumming up more sales for the manufacturers and dealers of guns. I am a gun owner, but I will have to give Skeeter the edge in his debate with Brian. Brian definitely lost points when he quoted the State Police regarding unsafe speeds. I am sure some police group has also declared firearms to be unsafe if not properly used, that seems to be common sense. - SO IL M - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:05 pm: Skeeter—Driving on State and Federal Highways is a Privilege, not a Right. There is a big difference. You may exercise your Right to Interstate travel in other ways than thru your Driving Privileges. This does not compare to the Constitutional Right of the Second Ammendment. - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:05 pm: Ramen noodle bricks, Nintendo Wii controllers, push-operated lawn mowers, and most everything else produced in our post-industrial society are “unsafe if not properly used.” I’m glad to hear though that Skeeter agrees with me that the State or its Officers shouldn’t decide how we exercise our fundamental rights. At least we’re all on the same page(ish). - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:11 pm: “I’m glad to hear though that Skeeter agrees with me that the State or its Officers shouldn’t decide how we exercise our fundamental rights” I didn’t say that at all. The very idea is ridiculous. We have a long history of limiting fundamental rights. Speech is clearly a fundamental right. Yet courts have divided it into classes, with some speech having nearly no restrictions, some having some, and some speech can even be banned. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:12 pm: Rich, perhaps a good QOTD sometime would be, “What is your favorite Constitutionally protected right?” - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:15 pm: SO IL M said: “You may exercise your Right to Interstate travel in other ways than thru your Driving Privileges.” Is that really the standard? You realize, of course, that you can exercise your 2nd A right in ways other than a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round mag? So, since you can exercise it in other ways, you are cool banning it? Here’s another thought — just like we have reasonable restrictions on the 1st Amendment, I would be OK with reasonable restrictions on my right to interstate travel. Sure, it will not be as fun or efficient, but I can compromise. How about you all on the 2nd A? Don’t you think we need some reasonable restrictions on that one too, just like we have on all of our other rights? - SO IL M - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:19 pm: Skeeter—The point is, you are confusing Privileges with Rights. Please learn the difference. Compare Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:23 pm: Actually SO IL M, you are wrong. Interstate travel is a fundamental constitutional right. Travel going 120 in a BMW is one way to exercise that right, just as owning a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is one way to exercise the 2A. For both, there are alternatives. - Endangered Moderate Species - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:29 pm: Skeeter I am retracting my original praise for your debating points. You should have quit while you were ahead. You can own a fast car but you are restricted to the speed limit when on public roads because you have the potential to injure someone by doing otherwise. You can own a big gun but you are restricted to firing it within designated areas inside of municipalities because you have the potential to injure someone by doing otherwise. Either a car or a gun can be used as a weapon of destruction if the operator so chooses, either way, they will be breaking the law. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:31 pm: Gun owners and gun rights advocates should be aware that the NRA/ISRA thinks nothing of telling these types of bald-faced lies to their own members and prospective members in order inflame opinion and raise funds. They do it all the time. - Brian - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:31 pm: The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right as well, and also one that the courts have divided into classes, notably the Heller and McDonald decisions, along with the more recent 7th Circuit decision vis a vis concealed carry in Illinois. I’m not a lawyer, but the proposals currently pending (before any changes that may or may not be made this afgternoon) in the ILGA would appear to go against those court decisions. Of course, the true outcome of all of this will be continued rancor, legislative maneuvering, and legal action. It’s unfortunate that continued attacks on civil rights still occur in 2013 when there are more pressing things for our leaders to be worrying about. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:36 pm: Endangered, So nobody has ever been injured at a firing range or municipalities? Is that really your test? As soon as somebody gets hurt at a range or municipalities, we can ban that weapon? On a related note, if I’m going 160 miles per hour around a track, how can I get to Indiana? That may be a good time, but it has nothing to do with my fundamental right. Wouldn’t it be better if for both guns and cars we just looked at what is reasonable? Sort of like we do with the First Amendment? - Endangered Moderate Species - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 3:52 pm: Skeeter, Timothy McVeigh did his destruction with a weapon that had four wheels and not a barrel. Just saying! - Colossus - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:21 pm: EMS: And we also track the sale and distribution of the components used to achieve such an act (fertilizer, ammonia, etc), so that we can prevent another one from happening. You can’t stop everything bad from ever happening, but you can implement sensible regulation to prevent known calamities from being repeated. You’re barking up the wrong tree. - SO IL M - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:29 pm: Skeeter—Its simple. Driving Privelges. There is nor right to drive at any speed on Public Roadways. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:31 pm: SO, Is there a right to interstate travel? - Bemused - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:41 pm: Skeeter You have driven thru the orange barrels, time to check the condition of your car. Now as to the main point of all this, the ISRA fund raiser. We all know it is directed at those who have said “I will drink the cool aid”. I would think it, along with some of the NRA stuff only helps them with that group. This is the same bunch who think armed Teachers and custodial staff sounds like a good solution for school safty. Or maybe even Police in every school. I suspect a number of those who support the Police idea would choke on the tax hike it would take to support it. Of course not long after these ideas hit the press we had the shooting of the first responders in New York. So I guess now we pony up for a swat team to ride with all those guys, pretty hard to handle a gun and a firehose at the same time you know. Hey we could still beat Yemen as the country with the most guns per person. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:51 pm: Skeeter, some of us may be curious to know where you think it’s safe to drive 120+ in this state. Please elaborate. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 4:55 pm: Anon, That’s a good question. Not that I speak from experience given our current repressive laws on interstate travel, but I hear that people can go pretty fast on I-88. Not that I’ve done so. You, I am a law abiding man. Now that raise the issye, can you let me know where you think it is safe to use a semi automatic rifle to empty a 30 round mag? Because I think that would unreasonably dangerous anywhere in Illinois. But since you appear to think they are safe for ordinary people, I’m sure you can point out the location. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 5:04 pm: Skeeter, engineering calculations have also shown that it is theoretically possible to wind up a BMW M3 to about 160 indicated on I-72 west of Springfield. Never done it myself. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 5:14 pm: Arthur, Not that I speak from experience, but in terms of the 120 threshold, it is a heck of a lot more possible in a BMW 328i than in an X5. Nobody should ever go above 100 in an X5 no matter how fast the vehicle seems to want to go. That would be reckless. And driving over 100 on the way to depose an Illinois State Trooper is just sort of stupid no matter what you happen to be driving. You never want to risk meeting the troopers a bit too early. I would never do something like that. Nope, not me. - Johnny Q. Suburban - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 5:46 pm: I know of one anti-gun legislator voted out- Bob Dold. Granted, he was replaced by someone who will likely be just as anti-gun, but I’m sure the NRA will happily take credit for the (non) victory. - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 5:56 pm: Wow a gun section that spent more time arguing about driving 55 The amendments are out, hb815 & hb1263 The gun ban bans all semi-auto pistols that accept a magazine. They also set up a whole new license scheme for ranges Seems rahm wants to dump their their range ordinance and lawsuit - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 6:32 pm: Todd, I’m headed to read the amendment, but does a semi-auto pistol, in the common definition, without a magazine, exist? - Lobo y Olla - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 6:53 pm: Todd- Where does it say it bans all semi-auto hg’s? Don’t semi auto handguns exist with less than a 10 round magazine? - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 6:56 pm: As introduced, the amendment banned all handguns with the “capacity” to take more than a 10 round magazine. There are few, if any, semi auto handguns that could not take a larger than 10 round magazine. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 7:12 pm: I know one state trooper that isn’t confiscating anyone’s guns-this one. If our esteemed leaders in Sfld think the ISP rank and file are going to go door to door grabbing peoples guns, they are sadly mistaken. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 7:25 pm: Just read the grandfathering section where you get to keep it if you can provide proof of legal purchase and register it with the police using the proper paperwork within the limited time period specified. If I’m reading it right, it looks to me like a backdoor attempt to create a state-wide registry of most guns. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:10 pm: So if I’m reading this correctly, my .22 plinking pistol may be grandfathered in at best and must be registered, but they still don’t care about my buddy’s “Dirty Harry” .44 Magnum hand cannon because it is a six shot revolver. Only In Illinois. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:13 pm: AA, That’s the way I’m reading it too … - Lobo y Olla - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:16 pm: Banning semi auto hg’s will hobble many homicide dick’s case closure rates. No shells on scene hurts. Shell casings are the bread and butter of drive-by shootings. - Lobo y Olla - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:17 pm: I should have said the bread and butter of drive-by shooting investigations….. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:23 pm: Both bills moved to the floor on party lines. I’m not a fan of the ISRA scare tactics, but they sure called it right on these two bills … the Chi D’s are the ISRA’s best fund raising poster child. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 8:45 pm: And people wonder why we are suspicious of “common sense gun control” pushes… - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 9:54 pm: Lobo under section c-10 or c-15page 9 i think - oz - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 11:01 pm: FBI has reported that gun background checks for Dec 2012 are up 39% vs Nov 2012 and that’s also a 49% increase vs Dec 2011. 2.8 Million checks were run in Dec 2012. To put that in perspective what’s the population of Chicago again? 2.7 Million/ - Midstate Indy - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 11:01 pm: Who here is offended by homosexuals expressing physical affection or a tv commercial promoting/opposing abortion or a song which includes profanity or any other exercise of a constitutionality protected right? Hopefully nobody. That being said, why would anyone care about a firearm sitting in a safe or utilized for a legitimate purpose ie hunting/sport? Limiting gun ownership amongst legal gun owners is akin to limiting the speed of Skeeter’s 160mph car on the basis that a moped would adequately allow for interstate travel as welll. Its subjective, albeit in the subjective context of public safety, its subjective nonetheless. I see little use for even law abiding gun owners such as myself to have the necessity of certain types of firearms..that being said, I see equitably littler use for a 160mph car… Its all contextually subjective. - wishbone - Wednesday, Jan 2, 13 @ 11:06 pm: “ISRA: They’re coming to get your guns” Only this time it looks like “they” really are. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:23 am: The fact that something like this generates so much anger and paranoia shows how far off the deep end the gun lobby has gone. REGISTRATION! ACKK! THUGS WILL SHOW UP AT OUR DOOR AND TAKE OUR GUNS! THE WORLD WILL END! BECAUSE IF THEY REGISTER, THEY WILL BAN! IT IS THE END, I TELL YOU! Settle down, people. We’ve registered a lot of things. And still, most of those things are not banned. You can live without a rifle with a 15 round mag. If you need 15 to take down Bambi, you really should not be around guns at all. One final note — if the gun lobby had responded responsibly over the years by promoting reasonable gun control, such as banning 30 round mags, they would be taken a lot more seriously now. Todd and his group were reasonable on conceal carry and on a few other matters, but that has been the exception rather than the rule. All the talk of “THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!” has served to make the rest of ignore what comes out of the NRA as just another whining rant. These people want to have guns on the street. They need to act like adults. All this outrage is no way to create the impression of being calm and reasonable. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 7:11 am: “proof of legal purchase”…lets see, where’s that receipt I got 25 years ago? Gee, that’s pretty feasable.. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:24 am: >>>> We’ve registered a lot of things. And still, most of those things are not banned. Guns are not cars, and they’re not Kitchenaid mixers. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:27 am: Good point, John. Guns kill way more people than those things. - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:43 am: Skeeter, I don’t have the statistics in from of me, but I am willing to bet that automobile accidents kill more people in the U.S. each year than guns and probably in multiple numbers. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:47 am: Yes, that’s true. Although very useful for our Constitutional right for interstate travel, cars are dangerous. Despite the fact that it is a right, we tax each and every one. We make you register each and every one. We impose limits on the types of cars and what is available on each one. How about guns? Do we do any of those things? - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:54 am: –I don’t have the statistics in from of me, but I am willing to bet that automobile accidents kill more people in the U.S. each year than guns and probably in multiple numbers.– You lose. It’s about a push. From CDC: Mortality All injury deaths Number of deaths: 177,154 Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 34,485 Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2 All poisoning deaths Number of deaths: 41,592 Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,347 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, table 18 Adobe PDF file [PDF - 2.1 MB] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:56 am: Skeeter / John, 2009 final stats published December 29, 2011 from the CDC since the 2011 stats are still “preliminary”. These includes deaths for all reasons (accidental, intentional, homicide, suicide, etc.) by cause firearms - 31,347 motor vehicle - 34,485 - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:57 am: Word, We thought alike. You must have posted while I was looking up the numbers also. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:04 am: My understanding (I haven’t pulled numbers in a few weeks) is that gun homicides are about 15,000 per year. As Word and RNUG point out though, total deaths from guns is much higher as it includes suicides. Getting a “homicide” number for auto deaths is difficult for a few reasons, notably where the line is for the equivalent of a homicide. Is a DUI the moral equivalent of shooting somebody? But in any case, both guns and cars are dangerous. Both implicate a constitutional right. For all practical purposes, only one of the two is regulated. - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:20 am: Good job on the statistics. I made a bad bet. “For all practical purposes, only one of the two is regulated.” Skeeter, We need a tighter definition on what regulation means. It took over 2 months to recently renew my FOID card. The last time I purchased a shotgun for hunting purposes I had to wait 24 hours before taking it home. We aren’t allowed to discharge a gun, in or, within a 1/2 mile of a nearby village. If we choose to hunt, we are limited by law as to what type of gun we may use. Firearm hunting is not allowed within 300 yards of a residence. We must have all fire arms encased or locked up while driving on a public road. I agree with all of these laws (regulations). - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:23 am: Two months for an FOID card? Have you applied for a building permit recently? Tried to get inspectors out to check rough plumbing? Government at all levels is inefficient. There is a difference between inefficiency and over-regulation. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:25 am: I don’t want to take your guns away (at least not most of them). I think Cullerton’s bill goes to far to the extent of a blanket ban on semi-autos. But when the pro-gun people start talking about the need for large magazines, it gets ridiculous. When the start objecting to the fact of registration (as opposed to debating the cost of registration), it gets ridiculous. Dangerous things are regulated. That’s how a civil society works. - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:26 am: I received my car re-registration within two weeks. - Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:31 am: Skeeter: By your logic 6 rounds is adequate so why not ban 30 rounders right? No need for that? The maximum speed limit on the Illinois interstate system is 65 MPH. Lets all limit cars to that speed. No need to have a car capable of more right? - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:40 am: >>Skeeter You say we need to act like adults, yet you make generalizations that lump all gun owners together. I may not need a 15 round mag to hunt, but it sure saves time at the range on reloading. Do you NEED a BMW that goes 120mph? No, but it makes your trip shorter and thus your life easier. If an extremely small minority of our society was abusing ANY fundamental right, would you rather pass blanket legislation affecting all Americans, OR, would you rather criminally prosecute these people on an individual basis? Me owning an AR-15 does not affect anyone at all, unless I am defending myself, or committing a criminal act. Would anyone enjoy being punished for my crimes? On top of that we need to think about why this bill (and others like it) are being introduced. Without recent, highly publicized, mass shootings, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. Most politicians are saying that these bills will prevent future mass shootings, or at least deter them or minimize the damage. I disagree. First of all, no criminal will be registering their firearms or turning them in. The only people following the law will be people who followed the law before. Chicago will still be full of illegal firearms of all actions. Second, any magazine restriction is silly. I can eject my 10rd mag out of my Glock 17(9mm) and slap a new one in, in 2-3 seconds total. Someone can take 20 10rd mags and fire 200rds easy. People are using emotions instead of logic and reasoning. These bills will do nothing to stop criminals. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:00 am: What? It saves time on a shooting range? Golly! Why didn’t you say so! That makes putting all of us at much great risk completely worth it! Because a few minutes for you is all that is important! - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:01 am: Anon, We have laws that prevent me from going 120. If I operate a vehicle at 120, I go to jail. How about you? If you operate a 30 round clip, do you go to jail? - Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:09 am: Using a 30 round magazine at a recreational shooting range is like driving 120 mph on a race track. Fully legal. If someone uses a 30 round clip in a massacre, then yes, they would go to jail (if they survive). Think of an AR-15 like a Dodge Viper. It is a scary looking machine, often used by professionals, but can be operated safely by an average citizen. Just because it is capable of doing things that are highly illegal does not mean that those who own them are automatically out to do harm to others. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:12 am: Not, Why should your pleasure at fondling something in a range outweigh my safety? Are you claiming that a city could not outlaw race tracks? All Constitutional rights have limits. Why not the 2nd Amendment? - Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:18 am: I demand that all vehicles be fitted with GPS controlled speed limiters. Cars will not be able to function at speeds beyond posted speed limits. Why should your desire to have a performance vehicle outweight my right to safety on the roads. I in full support of race tracks as it gets racing off the streets. Just like I in full support of shooting ranges (another thing these new bills are trying to restrict…) I in full support of REASONABLE restrictions to the second ammendment, like the ones we have in place that are not being fully enforced. Felony convictions and certain mental diagnosis should prevent people from buying firearms. Unfortunately this is not the case. Recently Rich reported that something like 99 of 102 county clerks have not been reporting convictions to the state police. I am in favor of the current class 3 restrictions on fully automatic weapons and destructive devices like grenades and RPGs. I am in favor of harsh penalties for crimes committed with weapons. While the NRA may argue for no regulation at all, I like the limits we have. I think they are fully sufficient and should be enforced properly. - Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:19 am: Sorry on my edit I missed the word “am” a few times. It should be ovious where they went. *facepalm - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:20 am: 30 round magazines are the standard size magazines for my Kalashnikov and my AR. They are not high-capacity, they are the standard size. It’s a nice convenient size for use at the range or for use in defense or home and country. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:21 am: >Skeeter Illogical yet again, you never seem to fail. You getting to your destination faster! Golly gee that’s a great reason to put us all at risk! Wait…..how am I putting you or anyone else at risk by owning or operating a 30 round mag. Please explain this to me. And please explain it to me without the assumption that I am going to use it for criminal purposes. If I own one and possess it in Chicago (where I live) or DC yes I do go to jail due to local ordinances. Also, by operating a 30 round magazine (not clip) outside of Chicago or DC, I am not committing a crime, therefore no, I don’t go to jail. You don’t NEED a car that goes 120mph just like I don’t NEED a 30rd mag. Just as in any hobby, one wants the best, be it in cars and car accessories, or firearms and firearm accessories. Who am I to decide you shouldn’t have a vehicle because some other people misused said vehicle? And who are you to decide if I shouldn’t be able to have a firearm or magazine, because some other people misused similar firearms and magazines? - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:21 am: John, There is no legitimate reason for you to own a Kalashnikov nor an AR. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:25 am: “I demand that all vehicles be fitted with GPS controlled speed limiters. Cars will not be able to function at speeds beyond posted speed limits. Why should your desire to have a performance vehicle outweight my right to safety on the roads.” That’s fine, if I get a ban on clips over 15 rounds. I would sign off on that in a heartbeat. You see, I realize that what constitutes a fun time for me puts others at danger. While I can operate a vehicle at 110, I don’t think others can so I recognize that as a society we need to impose limits, even when inconvenient to me, to make us all safer. Glad we can reach agreement. Pleasure negotiating with you. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:26 am: >Skeeter With that logic, there is no legitimate reason for you to express your opinion. - Notacop - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:51 am: Skeeter, You are assuming that speed limits are created for safety purposes. Gun laws, especially ones in the wake of a tragedy, are done to make people feel safer even if they do not actually change much. The guy in Newtown was a suicide bomber that used a different tool. Take away one tool and he will find another. Banning 30 round magazines will not stop it. Check out “reloading drill” videos on youtube. Take a look at Jerry Miculek who can fire 18 rounds on 3 different targets in under 5 seconds using a revolver (including 2 reloads). People who want to use a gun quickly and proficiently will be able to. People who want to create terror and mass hysteria by killing a lot of innocent people will find ways to do so. Lets focus on laws that will reduce crime drastically. Lets focus on cutting down on gang violence. 28 people dead in Connecticut, while tragic, is a drop in the bucket compared to the 500+ murders in Chicago in 2012. Chicago gang violence existed while the handgun ban was in effect and continues completely oblivious to the law. Those guns are not purchased legally. The laws they are debating today do nothing to change that. Rather than regurgitate the same extreme positions (on both sides!), lets instead focus on meaningful restrictions that will actually make a difference. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:20 pm: >>>>>> There is no legitimate reason for you to own a Kalashnikov nor an AR. They are both useful light-powered utility rifles that have a proven effectiveness in a well-regulated militia. Which would make them protected arms under US v Miller (SCOTUS 1939)… - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:24 pm: John, Are you in the militia? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 4:28 pm: >>>>> Are you in the militia? Yes. Aren’t you? - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 4:31 pm: Really John? Do you all hold a lot of meetings? - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 4:50 pm: >Skeeter 2008 DC vs. Heller “held that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individuals right to possess a firearm” Please inform yourself. Connection to a militia has no basis on my 2nd Amendment rights. I see you conveniently skipped over my post including my questions, only to be a misinformed cynic to John. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 4:53 pm: Anon 4:50: 1. I have no idea what you are talking about; 2. Come up with a name. I have no idea which anon you might be; 3. Calm down and put the weapon down. - MrMonarch - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:01 pm: This is the Anon who has been posting. >Skeeter said “John, Are you in the militia?” Implying that if he owned an AK or AR he would have to be in a militia. I referred you to the 2008 DC vs. Heller case. You also never responded to my post at 11:21AM today, but you have time to be a cynic to John. Implying that I am holding a weapon or am anything but calm is silly since I am someone over the internet you will never meet and know nothing about. Stick to my argument and debate me. If you can’t that’s fine, but quasi-ad hominem attacks will do nothing but highlight your lack of logic. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:05 pm: No, it was not in response to that post. It was in response to the post immediately prior to my post. If you are going to insult me, at least try to follow the discussion. - MrMonarch - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:11 pm: Here is the exact text as i copy paste from right above us. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:20 pm: >>>>>> There is no legitimate reason for you to own a Kalashnikov nor an AR. They are both useful light-powered utility rifles that have a proven effectiveness in a well-regulated militia. Which would make them protected arms under US v Miller (SCOTUS 1939)… - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 3:24 pm: John, Are you in the militia? This is where I came in and presented you with the 2008 DC vs. Heller decision that confirms there is no need for a connection to a militia for an individual to possess a firearm. I’m still waiting for any genuine debate in response to my 11:21 post, however I have the feeling I will never receive it from you. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:15 pm: Monarch, You shouldn’t have it because it puts the rest of us in unreasonable danger. Just as I can’t drive 120, despite the right to interstate travel, you can’t have a 30 round mag just because you prefer it. In civilized society, we have limits. Glad I could clear that up. - MrMonarch - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:20 pm: >Skeeter How does ME owning a 30 round mag put YOU in danger? Please explain it clearly, don’t just say, “it puts people in danger” explain HOW simply owning a 30 round mag puts people in danger. Show me a direct correlation or causation. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 5:52 pm: Mon, It puts me in danger because you might be nuts. It is the same reason you can’t have a nuke. - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 9:14 am: >Skeeter You might be a child molester, should we keep all children away from you because of that “might”? You “might” be anything, so therefore we should ban you from having anything? You “might” be hateful, should we ban freedom of speech? You are highly illogical and I think you know it. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:25 am: Skeeter, you’ve been fighting the good fight. I’m so sick of guns, and gun massacres, and so sad about the long road we have in front of us to end these massacres, I disengaged. Bad on me. But it’s a New Year, now, isn’t it? Time to get to work. Lets lay the foundation: the current conversation on gun “rights” is a radical departure from American history, fueled and funded by the fringe that took over the NRA in the Cincinatti Coup of 1977. It’s based on lies, what Chief Justice Burger called “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” The founding fathers had no intention that you could walk the public square packing or could have easy access to killing machines with 30-round mags. No way. That’s a lie. It rejects history. The states of Indiana and Kentucky banned conceal/carry in 1820. Judicial review had been established in 1803 in Marbury v Madison. If anyone had an issue with those bans, and wondered about the founders original intent, they could have consulted those still alive that signed the Constitution. Those would have included James Madison and John Jay, two authors of the Federalist Papers (the third, Alexander Hamilton, would not have been available; he had an illegal dustup with firearms at Weehawken Heights with Vice President Burr). The current radical five-member majority of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Scalia, concocted a fiction of American history on guns, divorced it from the militia of the 2nd Amendment, and gave us Heller and McDonald. Legislating from the bench at its most cynical (except for maybe Bush v Gore). Those decisions, both 5-4, rejected American history and common sense and drive the current discussion. 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. So be it. They were not the last words on gun safety in the United States, but just the beginning. Game on. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all - Skeeter - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:50 am: Thanks for the kind words, Word. The two discussions on this issue have included one person with late night rape fantasies and other claiming that that people who favor reasonable restrictions on guns might be child abusers. With very few exceptions, these two discussions have not brought out the more calm and rational of Rich’s audience. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:06 am: Skeeter, maybe we could set up a swap where you trade in your semi-auto for an electric guitar and you can indulge your Nugent that way. The only risk to the public would be some bad Van Halen (like there’s a good Van Halen). - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:39 pm: >Skeeter The only argument you have is that I might be nuts. I countered that with you MIGHT be a child molester, and on that grounds of MIGHT should we ban you from children? I am attempting to show you your extremely flawed logic. I don’t think you are a child molester, however if your level of scrutiny to place a restriction on someone is simply the off chance that they MIGHT be, I don’t think you should be allowed around children, just as you don’t think I should be allowed to operate a 30rd mag. Anyone can say anything about anyone. It isn’t true until it happens. I can say I think you have a fetish for cutting things, therefore everyone should be banned from owning knives. This is your logic. >>Word How would this bill stop mass shootings? Please enlighten me. Because criminals follow the law, right? - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:49 pm: >Word You said: “(the third, Alexander Hamilton, would not have been available; he had an illegal dustup with firearms at Weehawken Heights with Vice President Burr).” Illegal dustup? Hamilton and Burr had a duel. The part you may misconstrue as illegal are the charges brought against Burr for murder, which were either dropped or he was acquitted of. You also mislead with the statement: “The states of Indiana and Kentucky banned conceal/carry in 1820. Judicial review had been established in 1803 in Marbury v Madison.” You omit the fact that open carry was still legal, leading a reader to believe that the right to carry a firearm was banned by Kentucky and Indiana. This only pertained to the fact that a concealed weapon was thought to be nefarious compared to an openly displayed one. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 4:04 pm: –Hamilton and Burr had a duel.– Which was illegal, a fact known to both parties and their seconds. My point regarding the 1820 conceal carry laws was in regards to the claims by some that conceal carry was somehow envisioned as a right by those who wrote the Constitution. It clearly was not, as evidenced by those laws and numerous local firearm restrictions that have been in place since the country’s founding. It was only the Scalia court in 2008 that adopted in Heller the NRAs fiction of a Constitutional right to firearms outside a government militia. Even the strictest originalists such as Robert Bork wrote on and rejected that contention. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.