This is a discussion on Illinois Gun Owners need to get in the game within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Here they go: Illinois governor wants ban on assault weapons - U.S. News...
I'd rather be lucky than good any day
There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
Believe me, I know that Illinois gun owners ARE in the game...
I do not understand why these politicians proselytize gun control, when every single act of "gun control" has only raised the crime rate... Loosening the reins on guns has decreased violent crime across the board... but they don't see it.
It can only come down to pols wanting to control the people... the good people... and let the criminals run amok.
The only possible motivation I can see for that is when the state catches a few criminals, they can say "See, it is the state who is making your lives safer!"
It could be worse!
I thought Wisconsin was bad. Anti gun and all. Well they were and the state was. Thank God for Govenor Scott Walker. Is there is Scott Walker anywhere in Illinois? Sharing a border with such an anti gun state is really a pain and most likely a bigger pain for the good people of Illinois. I hope they get there @#%@@ together one of these days.
Kahr CM9, Beretta PX4 SC .40, Ruger LCP/LM, Dan Wesson .357, Beretta 21A .22, Four Aces .22, H&R .22, Marlin .22 rifle and 1946 Remington 12 gauge.
I think those wacko politicians there harp on gun control so much because it's the only easy "solution" to their crime problem. It's not a real solution, obviously (it only makes it worse), but for the mindless drones who live in the state, it is a hard stance against crime, which makes them feel safer. It's how more votes are bought. I guarantee you that if these people were concerned about their constituents throwing them out of office, they would care more about putting up a real fight, which may include legitimate strategies to fight the crime rather than make it worse by disarming those who could fight back. But the people who are voting for those guys don't care about the truth, so the politicians just need to appear tough on crime and all is well for them.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand
And you did it right, too... Good on yaz. (Just a "Bear," pokin the cheese head...)
It could be worse!
Hopefully the 4th Circuit does the right thing on the Maryland decision. It may be the fastest path for the Supreme Court to end this crap once and for all. 4th Circuit has an expedited hearing on the may/shall issue in MD in October. We were all disappointed they reinstated the stay, but expedited the hearing put the question at the head of the line. Gansler an O'Malley need to go.
OK, so how many people in Illinois have died from so-called "assault weapons" since Capone was around? Is there NO news outlet in that state with the gumption to challenge that idiot?
NRA Endowment Member
Anything and everything seen as bad must be legislated out of existence. Anything seen a good, safe, healthy, must be legislated as a requirement. Do you see the common string here? Everything and anything MUST be included in a law. Thus our government can totally protect and control our very existence from birth (actually from the act of contraception) to death.
I carry to protect myself and my loved ones from the BG's. Not to solve societies problems. That said: if more carried the deterrent would only have a positive overall effect on those problems.