Chicago Suburb Bans Assault Weapons And High-Capacity Magazines

[Motodad71]

Colorado is becoming "infested" with left coast transplants "yes Commiefornia", I had a conversation with more than a few lifetime Colorado folks who are not happy about what is happening in their beautiful state.

its all about the weed laws.

Nah this has been steadily happening for years, and not as many smoke or eat weed as you might believe.

[shavdog]

The changing of gun laws is just getting started.....all you 2nd amendment defenders get your muzzloaders out and protest....changes are coming your way....after 200 yrs it's about time...

[Jess from VA]

Hey Troll, go back to shaving your dog (please).

[3fan4life]

The changing of gun laws is just getting started.....all you 2nd amendment defenders get your muzzloaders out and protest....changes are coming your way....after 200 yrs it's about time...

[old2soon]

As much as I Enjoyed livin in Colorado I saw the hand writin on the wall when I left there 20 year ago. FAR Too many left coasters messin up the good life. AND that's where I'll be leavin it. RIDE SAFE.

[Robert]

Says it all   Funny how we dont hear from kids like this in the news  ???

[Motodad71]

MANY don't want to hear or accept the TRUTH Robert, they blame inanimate objects instead.

[Chrisj CMA]

The changing of gun laws is just getting started.....all you 2nd amendment defenders get your muzzloaders out and protest....changes are coming your way....after 200 yrs it's about time...

It amazes me that so many people are so eager to give up their rights.  You don't have to like or own guns. But you are safer and more free because millions of freedom loving Americans do.  You should move to Australia where guns are banned already. See how it works out for you. Better buy a plastic baseball bat to ward off intruders (I think maybe the wooden ones are illegal there)

[The emperor has no clothes]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

[Robert]

When Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel Was Accused of Corruption, He Responded: 'Lions Don't Care About the Opinions of Sheep'

Not only was this absolute hack of a Sheriff, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, absolutely failing to protect his county’s school children from a psycho like Nikolas Cruz, he’s also been getting chummy with well-known terror supporting groups!

Shocking footage has been released of Sheriff Israel, arabic-speaking deputies in tow, speaking to the radical Islamic interest group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and being praised for all the work he’s done for local Muslims in Broward County.

And get this! Not only that, but as the Conservative Review reports, one of his deputies, Nezar Hamze is an officer in CAIR who trains mosques in active shooter situations!

[Chrisj CMA]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do.  

That statement is highly debatable.  

Meathead, statements are always debatable. That has no bearing on whether they are true or not. The proven fact is that communities with law abiding gun ownership and laws allowing protecting ones self with guns have less crime than communities that restrict guns and self defense.

Freedom is not free or natural. A free people can only remain free if they have the means to defend that freedom 

[Gavin_Sons]

The changing of gun laws is just getting started.....all you 2nd amendment defenders get your muzzloaders out and protest....changes are coming your way....after 200 yrs it's about time...

I assume you want a civil war? Because that is what will happen. The 2nd amendment will never go away in my lifetime. So all you liberal cry babies will just need to get over it or come and try to take them yourselves. Oh yeah, you like to mouth online then do nothing in the real world to support your cause.  keep up the great work.

[3fan4life]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

[The emperor has no clothes]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

[Robert]

In the effort to take guns and align the US to the worlds standard going forward one of the ideas floated was to have foreign troops disarm the US since the government was not so sure the US military would do the job. If a scenario like this happens gun ownership is the most daunting of problems for these troops. Facing a fully armed populace is not something any soldier would want to do not to mention foreign troops are training here in the US. Its not only about crime

The proliferation of guns in the US has not made us unsafer either, in fact statistics say we are actually safer.

[Serk]

What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

[Chrisj CMA]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do.  

That statement is highly debatable.  

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

"Proliferation".  Hmm.  You say proliferation like it's a fact. People that don't particularly like guns may be intimidated by numbers anti gun folks spew to make it sound like gun owner's are multiplying and guns are exponentially getting out of hand. That's what proliferation implys.

In reality the amount of gun owner's and actual guns per capita is not multiplying out of control like you assume with that word proliferation.

Good guys with guns stop bad guys all day long. There are no such thing as evil guns..

The more good guys with guns the better

[98valk]

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.
[/quote]

u really need to stop being ill-informed and educate yourself. CCN and the main stream UN controlled news media is not the answer. more kids 17-21 die every wk from cell phone use every day than that die from guns. u should search that.
FBI statistics prove the below.
https://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/09/24/everyday-in-the-usa-2191americans-use-their-gun-in-self-defense-fbi-there-are-32-guns-purchased-every-minute-in-the-united-states/
Somewhere, everyday in the USA, 2100+ people use a gun for self defense, to stop a crime or save the lives of themselves or their family.

    “We believe that the American public deserve to understand that on the average, guns save 2,191 lives and are used to thwart crimes every day,” says Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation
    Most times you won’t see these tales on the news as it does not fit the main stream media’s story line of “Guns and Gun Owners are Bad“.

This is just one of those stories;

        Banking Cabal’s Carnival: Israel ~ The Land Of Delusion
        U.S. Citizens Defend Themselves With A Gun Every 41 Seconds.
        DEVELOPED MARKET DEBT BOND YIELDS CRASH TO RECORD LOWS MONDAY JUNE 27, 2016: BREXIT WAS ONLY THE SYMPTOM… DEBT WAS THE DIAGNOSIS

A man armed with a gun entered Burt’s Meat Market in Houston, Texas and demanded money from the teenage clerk on duty. When the clerk didn’t produce the money fast enough, the criminal fired a shot.

Store manager J.L. Nickel, who was in a nearby office, became aware of the robbery, retrieved a gun and fired at the robber. One of Nickel’s shots struck the thief, prompting him to flee.

(KPRC, Houston, Texas, 09/20/14).

About the Guns Save Lives Series:

Every few days AmmoLand Shooting Sports News will be featuring a new report of stories involving self defense with a hand gun. Be sure and share, like and Tweet these posts and help spread the truth that

“Guns Save Lives”.

See more at http://www.AmmoLand.com ( http://tiny.cc/s6ef2w )

[The emperor has no clothes]

What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
This doesn’t include suicide with guns, but I suspect it would be similar or worse.

[The emperor has no clothes]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do.  

That statement is highly debatable.  

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

"Proliferation".  Hmm.  You say proliferation like it's a fact. People that don't particularly like guns may be intimidated by numbers anti gun folks spew to make it sound like gun owner's are multiplying and guns are exponentially getting out of hand. That's what proliferation implys.

In reality the amount of gun owner's and actual guns per capita is not multiplying out of control like you assume with that word proliferation.

Good guys with guns stop bad guys all day long. There are no such thing as evil guns..

The more good guys with guns the better

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7fb98a0fee6

[Serk]

What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
This doesn’t include suicide with guns, but I suspect it would be similar or worse.

That also doesn't include the millions of times a gun is used every year to stop a crime without ever being fired.

And that's not even getting into the genocide prevention abilities of civilian owned weapons.

Guns. Save. Lives.


Addendum - And those scary evil black assault rifles are only PART of the 374 deaths caused by firearms in 2016, vs. the 7,105 lives taken by handguns.

So then why are "they" (And  by "they" I mean all anti-liberty campaigners) fighting so hard against the least murderous type of firearm there is? Could it possibly be because "they" know THAT firearm is the kind that would be used to remove a communist dictatorship, that "they" so fervently wish to install in this great nation?

...things that make you go "Hmmmmmm"

[Serk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7fb98a0fee6

And that is a good thing. A very VERY good thing.

[3fan4life]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

Then, What is your problem with guns?

Because you are certainly coming across as having sided with the anti gun crowd.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
This doesn’t include suicide with guns, but I suspect it would be similar or worse.

That also doesn't include the millions of times a gun is used every year to stop a crime without ever being fired.

And that's not even getting into the genocide prevention abilities of civilian owned weapons.

Guns. Save. Lives.

Those are different arguments. It seems pretty clear that more guns haven’t made us safer. If you want to debate whether more guns deter crime, that’s a separate debate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7fb98a0fee6

And that is a good thing. A very VERY good thing.

That is a valid opinion. But his assertion was there are not more guns. Clearly mistaken.

[The emperor has no clothes]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

Then, What is your problem with guns?

Because you are certainly coming across as having sided with the anti gun crowd.

It is amazing how as much as I have waded in on this subject people still want to ascribe a generic “you are against guns” theory. I am not against guns per se. I think some things should be tightened up. But if one is not for complete unrestricted proliferation of any and ALL weapons, devices, etc. here they are labeled as anti 2nd Amendment. I believe there should be limits on weapons. I think most would agree. You don’t think we should be allowed chemical, biological, nuclear weapons ? The issue is where are those limits.

[3fan4life]

There are 263 million cars in the US.

And In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions. Records indicate that there have been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

 2016 data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day (11.6 deaths per 100,000 US citizens).  


In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 US citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.

Since more people are killed by automobiles in the US than guns we should ban them.  Or maybe we could limit their passenger capacity or restrict who can own one or something.

[Serk]

[The emperor has no clothes]

They do put all kinds of restrictions and safety measures on cars all the time. But, your deflection was admirable.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe I am in good company with this opinion.                                                                                 The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

[Skinhead]

What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole.

That is entirely YOUR opinion and not supported by facts.

[Jess from VA]

Historically, there might have been a time when a rational discussion on types and actions and magazine capacities of firearms could be had.  Maybe even all within a proper reading of the 2d Amend.

But after nearly a century of the passing of tens of thousands of state and federal gun laws, including an expansion of those prohibited any gun ownership, we have reached a point where it seems clear all new gun laws proposed are ONLY aimed at the law abiding citizenry, and clearly in furtherance of a concerted effort to a (slow but sure) disarmament strategy.  

The reason no new gun laws are ever aimed only (or principally) at criminals and criminal use, is that every conceivable law that one could ever think up for criminal use has already been passed, long ago (not that they are always actually enforced, especially by our illustrious DOJ in DC).

We law abiding citizen gun owners have long grown weary of the old catchphrase common sense gun laws and other save the children appeals to emotion (but not logic or common sense).  All new laws discussed today are in furtherance of a long range disarmament program (only of the law abiding), and will be resisted from here on out for what they are.  There is no trusting or believing in any of them.  Period.  While called a gun show loophole fix (liars), that legislation sought to prohibit all private transfers and even inheritance, and was a clear and certain precursor to a universal licensing and registration scheme.  And it was killed accordingly.

With the new five man majority on 2d Amend. in SCOTUS, and hopefully a 6th being added any time now, the prohibitionists and disarmament people are about to get a big setback in their plans.  

It would be nice if the left would stop with their perpetual common sense inroads on the existing 2d Amend, and just go after the 2d Amend itself, which is the only way they can ever get to their endgame goals.  And why don't they do that?  Because it is nigh on impossible is why.  But if there was any honesty or decency or truthfulness in them whatsoever (there isn't), that is what they ought to be doing.

In the meantime, we must be forever vigilant, support our NRA, GOA, and others, and Pro 2d Amend politicians, and fight and resist every new gun law at every level of Government forever.

I am always open to hearing about a new law aimed at criminal gun use, but I don't think I've heard of one for about 30 years or so.  

[Serk]

I am always open to hearing about a new law aimed at criminal gun use, but I don't think I've heard of one for about 30 years or so.  

If they just decree all (Or most) gun owners as criminals, then they're half way home.

[Jess from VA]

I am always open to hearing about a new law aimed at criminal gun use, but I don't think I've heard of one for about 30 years or so.  

If they just decree all (Or most) gun owners as criminals, then they're half way home.

Molan Labe to that.


Cool.  How did we miss this?

[3fan4life]

But you are safer because millions of freedom loving Americans do. 

That statement is highly debatable. 

Attempt to debate it all you want.

Anytime that law abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves from the criminals, crime thrives.

Statistics clearly show that crime is the highest where legal gun ownership is severely restricted (think Chicago) and is lowest where legal gun ownership is less restricted (think Kennesaw, GA).

This is a clear distinction that is either ignored or is incomprehensible to those that want to ban guns.

I neither said "I want to ban guns" or that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves. What I am saying is the proliferation of guns in our country is not making us safer as a whole. There is a big distinction.

Then, What is your problem with guns?

Because you are certainly coming across as having sided with the anti gun crowd.

It is amazing how as much as I have waded in on this subject people still want to ascribe a generic “you are against guns” theory. I am not against guns per se. I think some things should be tightened up. But if one is not for complete unrestricted proliferation of any and ALL weapons, devices, etc. here they are labeled as anti 2nd Amendment. I believe there should be limits on weapons. I think most would agree. You don’t think we should be allowed chemical, biological, nuclear weapons ? The issue is where are those limits.

Then explain your stance and be specific.

Outside of a fully automatic weapon I don't see any problem with a responsible person owning any gun or hundreds of guns.

It has been said and I fully agree that, "The Second Amendment makes all the others possible".

The answer isn't in limiting or restricting guns.

The answer is in tougher punishment of those who use guns to commit crime.

Up to and including a much more liberal (not the political meaning) use of the death penalty for those that use guns to murder others.

Using a gun to commit a crime should add an additional 5 to 20 yrs to the sentence and this time MUST be served, i.e. "NO DEALS".

It might take awhile but if using a gun to commit a crime resulted in an automatic and lengthy jail term many would think twice before using a gun to commit their crime.

Guns are NOT the problem, the problem is the mentality of the people that use them to commit crime.

We need a system that punishes them so severely that they and their buddies change their way of thinking.

[3fan4life]

They do put all kinds of restrictions and safety measures on cars all the time. But, your deflection was admirable.  

Obviously, they aren't working.

We need to BAN THEM ALL!

Starting with yours. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Mark, people here are sick of hearing my stance. I have been specific in the past. If you truly want to know it, I'm sure it can be easily found.

A survey of VRCC members found 97 out of 100 are sick of hearing meathead's opinions. I will try to accomadate them. (No promises)

[3fan4life]

Mark, people here are sick of hearing my stance. I have been specific in the past. If you truly want to know it, I'm sure it can be easily found.

A survey of VRCC members found 97 out of 100 are sick of hearing meathead's opinions. I will try to accomadate them. (No promises)

Your oppinion(s) may aggravate the crap out of me sometimes but I'm not sick of them. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Mark, people here are sick of hearing my stance. I have been specific in the past. If you truly want to know it, I'm sure it can be easily found.

A survey of VRCC members found 97 out of 100 are sick of hearing meathead's opinions. I will try to accomadate them. (No promises)

Your oppinion(s) may aggravate the crap out of me sometimes but I'm not sick of them. 

OK, 96.8 % 

[Wizzard]

hey, you forgot me
 

[The emperor has no clothes]

hey, you forgot me
 

uhoh...96.9%