goo.gl/q8GG2

You will not be extinct!

You will not be extinct!

As usual, politicians in Chicago writing laws without consideration forvthevr

For the remainder of the state.

What do you do?

Well, this may be going a bit too far, but it does consider exception for "grandfathered" ownership, and it seems that a tax is conditional. Conditional on what? Perhaps on how long you have owned it.

Since there is only parts of the bills mentioned, it's hard to determine, but it may be a deterrent for those who'd rush to buy the soon-to-be-banned stuff. Now, there does seem to be some stupidity in there.

Instead of asking to vote "no" straight ahead, why not suggest amendments that would make it more acceptable? Showing a little flexibility would probably go a lot further than just kicking and screaming.

Just my (quebecer and very personal) opinion, of course.

The Reuters feed was saying that Illinois passed a law on the 1st exempting historic re-enactors from some weapons laws - figured that would have you covered.

Ya know what? I say vote it UP! How about somebody explain to me why you need a .50 caliber rifle to hunt deer? Or an AR-15?

And home defense? Don't make me laugh. I've talked to experienced military vets who say only an idiot would use anything other than a pistol or shotgun for that purpose.

And most of all I'm sick of people defending the right of civilians to own weapons designed only for warfare.

I guess it is time to give background on myself...I have a very diverse life. I am indeed a historical re-enactor. Foggy, I didnt see that, please give me that link....This bill is a fragmented, rambling

attempt to try reign in the people of my state and establish a precedent for a national gun ban. As a armed security guard, I make a living that supplements my teaching paycheck because, as you know, teachers

are very low paid. I also have invested a winfall money into a shooting range, and have been drawing a paycheck from providing training and inventory services.

if this bill passes, the firearm on my hip, that I have carried will be made illegal. 99% of my personal collection will be illegal as well. The pump shotgun that I have carried in my line of work will be now

illegal as well. Even the rifle(ar-15) that I had to pay my state 900 dollars to qualify with is illegal to use in my profession. To be honest, I have a large investment in training and equipment that if this

passes, I shall never see a return on. I wake up every morning wanting to do the same thing with my life...to eliminate the fear of something out of someone's life. A life lived in fear, is a life not lived.

its why I teach, its why I guard..its pretty much the core of my existence. Some people ask, "why be afraid, we have police?" Do you have one in your house?....in your car?...in your school?..do you trust your

life to every officer you meet? Are they incorruptible and perfect to the point of mechanical reliably? Or are they human? A gun is a machine, and with training, is the only line of defense you have when

your door flies off the hinges at 4am. As far as the types I have, yes, I do have an AR-15 as my home defense weapon. I can put down an intruder in my home, and due to its bullet's light weight, not kill my

The limits should be relaxed slightly for private security and investigators, I'll concede that point, but at the same time, I still don't see any reason for a private citizen to have an AR-15. In your...

...scenario, you are the one at a disadvantage. Because you have the heavier, more cumbersome weapon in tight, confined quarters, and unless you are using frangible rounds, you are likely spraying those...

..."light" bullets straight through your walls and into your neighbor's house.

neighbor sleeping next door because the bullet flies through the house. It also has removed coyotes that has preyed upon calves of a farmer I know.

have you seen an m4 set up?...very light, very short.

230grain.com/showthread....

and since security officers are not outlined in the bill, I have no reasonable hope that they will be included.

If you need more ammo than what a revolver can hold to stop a burglar at the range of the average living room, then you obviously need more training. Revolvers are excellent for home defense, and BAD for...

...shooting up public places.

Also, any decent bolt-action rifle will serve your hunting needs better than a weapon you need to slap a condom on just to keep dirt and moisture from fouling the mechanism.

zanya, any person that tells you in your first firefight that your hands dont become flippers, is lying to you.

iasonhassanov: This is the case for any high-pressure endeavour and it's something very few people understand.

and as the bill is written now, revolvers will be most likely outlawed because they can be fitted with muzzle breaks..

Again, that does nothing to further the argument that any private citizen requires a weapon designed for a modern military battlefield.

And also, you're forgetting that the law was probably made deliberately strict so when the gun proponents objected and the bill challenged, they could negotiate down to something reasonable.

what, that I might not hit them in the first shot, and therefore might need more than 2 rounds to hit them?..I think It proves my point rather well

oh, we do not go into a negotiation being offered nothing, and fight from there...that is called begging, pleading...if I wrote a law saying I was going to outlaw dogs because pitbulls kill people, and allow

people to have shih zus...that's hardly right

Your entire argument on this subject sounds like begging and pleading. You are fighting for your livelihood. I am fighting for the police officer who has to go into a situation where he may have to face...

...hundred of rounds of ammo that can shred his vest to pieces, instead of a few shots from a 9mm.

hundreds?...what gun shoots hundreds?

and headshots make vests irrelevant. How about fighting to enforce the laws instead of making new ones?

And the argument that "only outlaws will have those guns" is on its face intellectually dishonest, because the whole point of regulation is to make it HARDER for crims to get those kinds of weapons.

fast and furious worked so well.....and lets outlaw meth..so people cant get/make it?

You yourself just argued that accuracy is almost impossible in ones first firefight, so how is a criminal with minimal experience supposed to score a headshot on a police officer?

Even cops are trained to go for center-mass because of how difficult it is.

but it still happens....the unlucky shot. If you want to protect those officers....use the energy that you have against firearms and promote better mental health care, removing the stigma of mental illness,

keeping violent offenders behind bars longer and focusing on their rehabilitation.

Why do you assume it's an either/or situation? Why not get unnecessarily powerful weapons off the streets AND enact better policy regarding mental health care?

stereo, there is alot of stupidity in this bill, and that's why its a bad idea.

look at all the energy that goes against the gun owners in this country....and now look at all the mental heath reform people....which pile is bigger?

Now you're just using diversionary tactics. There are any numbers of problems that need addressing in this country. Just because we have a problem with obesity we shouldn't enact car safety regulation?

You're arguing apples and oranges. Just because we have one problem doesn't mean we can't address others too.

You are both arguing religion and neither is going to convince the other.

so then its NOT a either or situation

www.dillard.senategop.or...

Hope that link helps - feeds on the news stories didn't give any links.

thanks foggy...wow..I wonder how that got snuck in there....before the first of the year that would have been a 300 tax stamp...wierd

How is it religion to simply ask questions? Why is there a national registry for car owners but NOT gun owners? Why is this idea fought tooth-and nail by the NRA? And speaking of mental health, why are...

...background checks and waiting periods fought? Why are mental health examinations fought? The NRA have become extremists, and now to get even the most reasonable legislation pushed through the proponents...

...have to become extremists as well.

Without weighing in on the issue at hand, I will say that moderates should never, ever adopt extremism. They cannot and remain the voice of reason.

Im in Illinois...we have all those things in place...and have been for some time.

the bill failed....I can breathe again...I salute all the Illinois senate democrats that didnt bow to party line and fought for the rights of the voter....this was a victory in more than one respect.

... Until another crazy man with an assault riffle kills more innocent, and then it will come back with a vengeance. Why not take a step forward, and propose something that would be acceptable?

I have....what we need to do is put armed security officers in schools. I am an armed security officer in a school. It works out very well....as a matter of fact, I was humbled at the amount of stories that

were told to me about the kids not being afraid of what happen at sandy hook happening at our school because of me. One kindergartener Mom told me that her kid said "mr hassanov, he'd save us.he fights monsters

the mother's first impulse was to correct her, but she didnt saying "she thinks you are a hero, and kids need more heros"

Im just a human, but I am a human that doesnt back down against evil.

If the media wouldnt glorify such acts of violence, I guarantee we would have less of them. To a sick mind, looking for attention, doing something horrible is the easiest way to obtain it.

That just means that if someone is dedicated, s/he'll shoot you first. Probably by surprise, before you can pull out your gun. How can you protect the children then?

(Also, I am a bit confused. You said you were a teacher, and armed guard as a complement. Now you say that the children know you as an armed guard, not a teacher... Am I missing something?)

And I totally agree with you that the media shouldn't put so much emphasis on the killers, making them anti-heroes. Unfortunately, the public's morbid curiosity means that things won,t change anytime soon.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwi...

I do both...I told you I was complex

and if they come after me they better be damn fast....and If I lay down my life to buy some time for the cops to show up to save my kids and co=workers.....I've done my job

we have a buzz in system...Im at the doors at the beginning/ending of the days....

and it can change...if they can pull cigarette ads off of tv, they can establish a code of broadcast ethics....even if it was not mentioning the name of the killer or giving him a nickname...its defeats the

purpose of being famous

Iason I think what you do is quite brave. And I'm glad to see someone is working to try to protect kids. So many people do nothing and than play the what if game later.

And tell me then, do you carry your AR-15 to school, and keep it in a position of readiness at all times? If not then a bill banning military rifles will hardly affect your job, so the story is irrelevant.

And a pistol with only 9 rounds will hardly be less of a deterrent to a potential school shooter than one with 17.

I carry 14 rounds in my xd springfield....I have had to carry my ar-15 on jobs before....and if you read the bill carefully, it said any firearm with a detachable magazine.

a standard revolver has 6. I like my chances with 14 alot better.

This is a religious argument because it is based on belief rather than on evidence.

Evidence: People in places with strict gun control are being shot in random violent attacks. Children are being attacked in schools with knives by people with no access to guns. Gun control will not solve THAT.

Evidence: The number of people killed in this country in their homes by their own firearms (often by family members) greatly exceeds the statistically small number of people who utilize a weapon in home defense

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to have a personal arsenal or private army. Gun registration and restrictions will not prevent random violence from happening.

I do think that standing toe to toe and screaming at each other for another 50 years is probably not going to get us any closer to finding some solutions to complex social problems

I'll take six carefully aimed shots over 14 sprayed wildly, especially when there are as many potential innocent victims as a school. Hell, I'd rather risk a flesh-wound and take the time to put them down...

...with my first. Also, what is fact and not belief are the violent crime rates in countries with strict gun control laws, but as usual, we as Americans tend to think only without our borders.

What's belief is that correlation implies causation

zanya, have you been shot?

it hurts...alot

Mr. Hassanov and always will.

A cop once calculated the odds of actually scoring a fatal shot if you run. That's the thing about spraying bullets, it's meant to suppress the enemy, not kill them (unless you shoot into a crowd).

Unless the other guy has full-auto, then you are better off taking the extra 1sec to steady your aim than just sending a wall of random lead.

first off..citation needed....this logic is flawed...and I will explain why...weaponsman.com/?p=2387