The question is not based on need. The question centers on State power to use the banhammer.

You do understand that military style weapons are already illegal in Illinois. These weapons under the proposed ban are semi auto and no different than the wood stocked rifles that dont scare you other than they are black. They dont shoot any faster or any more.

"These weapons under the proposed ban are semi auto"

Exactly. 90% of all weapons made in my lifetime are semi-auto.

Never give the tyrants an inch. They will be back for more.

What exactly is "military style"? Some cosmetic issue that happens to scare some persons? Or something functional. Fully-automatic firearms require a special license from the Feds. Everything else is semi-auto and ought not to be banned or restricted at all.

...1...ding! ding! ding!

More people die in car accidents than by gun accidents each year. Nobody 'needs' a car that can go faster than 65 MPH - should we start banning those next?

Please, don't start the car argument again. The two issues don't relate. And beside that, we have many rules to regulate how fast you can drive including losing your ability to drive in our country. To even get behind the wheel you have to spend hours behind the wheel and pass written and practical tests. Then you have to drive clean through a probationary period. In some states you have to be 18 to buy a gun....that's it. No test. Great idea.

I'd argue that we have more testing for driving a car because it's more dangerous and difficult than using a firearm safely.

Whether you're driving 65 MPH or 10MPH, you can still kill someone with a car. As we discussed on another thread, there's something like 30K+ deaths per year due to vehicles... Yet, no calls to ban vehicles... Strange

Brian - You are forgetting that owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege. The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drive a vehicle, but it does guarantee the right to own a firearm.
There are enough peer-reviewed statistics available that shows a direct correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. If you would like to do some honest research, I highly recommend the book "More Guns, Less Crime", written by Dr. John Lott.

It is not a coincidence that most gun violence occurs in places where guns are banned, it acts as a magnet for criminals. Except for 1 example, ALL multiple-victim public shootings (since records in 1950) have occurred in places where guns are banned (Columbine, Virginia tech, fort hood, the most recent colorado shooting, etc).

This country has enough history to show that prohibition/banning simply does not work.

http://www.resist44.com/aurora-theater-shooting-armed-response-analysis

Owning an Ak 47 or an M4 military grade rifle should not be banned. So one idiot creates havoc and the masses begin to stir ideas for banning weapons? When the gov takes rights and then weapons away from it's citizens, who do we the people turn to for protection? And please don't say the police because by the time you dial 911, the intruder or kidnapper is already in your room.

Just look at the actual statistics. If you are afraid of inanimate objects, we probably can't help you.

http://www.resist44.com/aurora-theater-shooting-armed-response-analysis

Fine then, they can define them as they ban them. It isn't super tough. Start with barrel length, volume of magazines, rate of fire, caliber of the weapon, are there applications where the weapon in question can be an automatic (military.) Forgetting the blanket ban for a second, these "assault weapons" (while you can hunt with them) are generally used in the legal sense for sport/target shooting and can easily be replaced with a different weapon. The only reason people want them is to say they own one in the "mine is bigger than yours" category (in my opinion...obviously.) There is no need for the amount of military style and grade weapons that are available in the U.S.

Whether or not one needs an (indefinable) assault weapon is irrelevant. The question centers on the State's power to use the banhammer.

Free people presume liberty.

The whole concept of a firearms ban - regardless of what you call the weapon - is simply inane. It doesn't do a thing to prevent crime because criminals don't obey the law!

Gun registration schemes in any form are a bad idea because they don't reduce crime (criminals don't register their guns), and they're typically used by a tyrannical government when disarming the populace.

"there is no need for the amount of...weapons that are available in the US." - bullfeathers. Tell that to the Korean merchants in LA who successfully protected their businesses and families against the throngs of rioters in the city. Were it not for those merchants being armed BEFORE the rioting took place, and being prepared BEFORE they "needed" the weapons, the results would have been quite different.

You have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens.

"We have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens." Of course we don't. By definition they never break the law. When they do they become criminals and then we realize our mistake too late. Our CO man had no criminal record. Jared Loughner, apart from very minor offenses, was a law abiding citizen. Guess what. People change and the results can be catastrophic. Also, David, I suggest you research a little so that you can add to your claim about tyrannical governments. Yes that happens, but a quick look at the list of countries with strict gun control laws includes many democratic, stable nations. We already know that both you and I can find stories to support our claims so I'm not going to justify that with an answer.

Let's look at the UK - they've all but banned firearms, so their criminals have turned to knives. Knife attacks have been so prevalent, that the UK government has considered banning sharp tipped knives (as if a criminal wouldn't ever just sharpen the tip). They had pub goers smashing each other over the heads with beer mugs, so they proposed making them from plastic... Even here in the good ole USA where we have guns, some criminal thought it'd be easier to get an axe and rob someone - so that's what he did (was recently in the Chicago Trib).

Banning this item or that is just insane and doesn't address the root cause of the issues at all.

People will occasionally "go off the deep end" as it were, but there's no way to predict it, so you just have to be prepared to deal with it when it does happen. Banning something isn't going to prevent someone hell bent on committing mayhem from doing so, but it will allow those who are prepared to defend themselves and others. Even in Colorado - a few years back, a guy came into a church and tried to kill a bunch of people - he was stopped by a law abiding, volunteer security guard who was armed - the Pastor remarked that this volunteer probably saved 100 people. Concealed carry among law-abiding works, it's been proven in state-after-state.

While I completely agree with you and use this argument a lot, the way I heard it was that the concealed carry citizen didn't fire because he took proper training courses and was taught to not shoot until he gave a warning and identified his target. Which is good, because in AZ you don't have to pass any classes to carry legally. Mr. Loughner was proof of that. He bought and carried his guns in a legal manner according to AZ law.

Yes there are some people who treat their guns with respect and safety. There are many others who don't and we end up with stolen weapons, children accidentally shooting each other, stores selling to people who should never have weapons, and countless other problems. At certain point we have to see that as a nation we are not civil enough to keep the streets full of guns.

Respect and safety have nothing to do with thefts of weapons, people lock the doors to their houses and still get robbed despite their best efforts. Firearm stores have to run a background check before selling a firearm - if they don't - it's a federal crime. If the person passes the background check, then it's not the store's problem.

At a certain point, we have to see that as a nation we need more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens in order to ensure that the criminals are kept in check. Witness the miserable failure of Chicago's gun ban...

That's not what I meant with the safety and respect. I'll be more direct. Many people leave their guns out in the open, near a window, in a desk drawer...somewhere that isn't a gun safe. My grandfather had his service .45 stolen out of his basement window by some jr high kids. Luckily they didn't kill themselves. Now his gun sits in my father's safe under lock and key.

So then are you and your band of mercenaries going to go out and clean up the streets of gang violence or do we just accept that they are going to die along with innocent bystanders? You guys site all these chicago deaths and they are not happening on Michigan ave, they are happening in poor districts where a lot of people have guns. They still shoot each other knowing that they might be shot. We need to do something about it and limiting and confiscating guns has a possibility of working.

"Many people leave their guns out in the open, near a window, in a desk drawer...somewhere that isn't a gun safe. My grandfather had his service .45 stolen out of his basement window by some jr high kids." - ok, so some criminals stole his weapon. Even if it was in a gun safe, it could have still been stolen, albeit perhaps not as easily, but still.

"So then are you and your band of mercenaries going to go out and clean up the streets of gang violence or do we just accept that they are going to die along with innocent bystanders?"

Sorry, but I am not, nor have I ever been a mercenary, nor do I know anyone who is. It's not my job to clean up the streets of gang violence - that's the job of the gang banger's parent(s). It's my job to keep me, my family, and my loved ones safe from harm by such fools.

"You guys site [sic] all these chicago deaths and they are not happening on Michigan ave, they are happening in poor districts where a lot of people have guns."

Ummm, sorry but these problems ARE happening on Michigan Avenue, downtown, and on the Lakefront. The lamestream media tends to clean up and hide those stories, but they happen with alarming regularity and are reported on news blogs (cf. secondcitycop.blogspot.com).

"...We need to do something about it and limiting and confiscating guns has a possibility of working..." Sorry, we've tried limiting it doesn't work. Banning doesn't work. Confiscation sounds a lot like Nazi Germany to me. NEVER AGAIN!

...and yes, I know there is the gun ban and I know they ignore it. That is a problem. You can't ban something and just assume everyone will go ahead and live by it. You can't expect DUI laws to work if the cops ignore it. You need a threat of check points, of random speed traps and of vigilant officers to keep people in check. Yes, people still crash and still drive drunk, but the number of fatalities has gone from roughly 26,000 down to just under 13000 in 2009. Yes, a long time, but you need time to get people's mentality to change.

We've gone over the NAZIs before. Again, research before you use data that is just wrong. Utter the word NAZI and of course everyone freaks out...and rightly so. But the elected government before them banned guns. Hitler then positioned himself into office and just didn't change the law. Comparing the US to NAZI Germany is also an outrageous claim. Could it happen? I guess, but Germany had just been ravaged by WW1, lost all their land and was in complete turmoil. You like to use shock and awe to make people scared for their minor freedoms and lives.

And fine, I'll even believe your man's opinionated blog about the happenings of Chicago, but the majority of gun deaths in the city still come from the south and west sides.

Hitler may simply have not changed the law, but he certainly took advantage of it. How about the Bolsheviks in 1917 - they disarmed the populace and never returned the firearms, in fact current discussions in present-day Russia around allowing firearm possession get caught up because the corrupt bureaucrats are fearful that law-abiding citizens would turn the firearms against them.

The most ridiculous is the UK - arguably, the firearms that the USA provided in WWII turned the tide for them (and we had to air drop many of them to get them into the country) - but unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that lesson.

As for the opinionated blog - yep, it's certainly that. His is but one of many voices that bring news to the masses - the trick isn't to rely on any one source, but rather to review many sources and come to an opinion from the information gathered.

Crime used to happen primarily on the south/west sides. Downtown was pretty much off-limits. But things have changed, the Downtown is no longer de facto off-limits, and flash mobs/wildings are happening down there with regularity. The north side is also rife with crime - has been for about 35 years, but it's getting worse. The City suffers from many problems, two of which are: A lack of Concealed Carry by law-abiding citizens, and a lack of Police - the City's cut officers in recent years and hasn't replaced them.

Quinn is a moron. Using the typical Democrat tactic of "never let a crisis go to waste" by attempting to amend a bill to accomplish that which he has not been able to accomplish head-on in the legislature, is simply reprehensible.

Remember: Quinn is the lying scumbag who told you that raising taxes would allow us to pay off the pension liabilities... HA!

And all those who could be expected to be "National Leaders" on the subject of gun confiscation are not saying a word on the subject in this pre-election period. They know which way the wind blows.

If Obama gets a second bite at the apple, you can be sure that the Progressives will attempt many radical changes, including remaking the US Constitution to their own liking.

It was a sting operation. So by the same token we shouldn't have cops and DEA agents pose as drug dealers so we can catch the real drug dealers. I'm OK with that policy, as long as it reduces the drug and gun trafficking. My guess is it would increase if we stopped that particular tactic. If you have proof of how many Americans THIS PARTICULAR sting operation killed I would be interested, but my guess is you're just flapping your gums.

They gave over 2,000 assault rifles to Mexican Drug Cartels who killed over 35,000 people in the last 6 years.

The Mexican Drug Cartels have not yet released the records on how many people they've killed with the weapons supplied by our government. I assume that will come out in their annual report.

We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals armed by our own government.

Yeah, I'll wait for the annual report before I believe that one.

You really don't know that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by one of the weapons given away in the Fast and Furious scandal, do you?

http://www.vpr.net/npr/156503666/

I keep forgetting how complete the news blackout for certain stories on the left can be.

This story is so damning for the Obama administration that it was essentially ignored by left wing media. They couldn't spin it, other than the usual blame Bush stuff.

Of course we don't know how these weapons were used to terrorize the people of Mexico, but we can be sure Fast and Furious added to the slaughter, all in the effort to put gun control in the headlines by making guns sellers in the US look like the bad guys.

If it was a "sting" operation, then you take the 2000 guns, and when the guys show up to pay for them and take possession, you ARREST the criminals. In this case, the imbeciles at the BATFE allowed the guns to leave the scene so they could "track them", then they "lost track" of them, and a bunch of people were killed - including a Border patrol officer.

When the whole screwup came out into the light of day, they tried to deny it. In fact, Congress has held the Atty General in Contempt of Congress for failure to provide documentation about the screwed up operation. There's even been discussions about how the government was attempting to use this operation as a way to spin things so they could get MORE gun control.

"Those who melt their firearms to make plows, will plow for those who don't" -- Thomas Jefferson

When you put a ban in effect in a city that is located in a large country, where all the inhabitants can move freely and purchase almost whatever they want, from wherever they want, the ban becomes mostly ineffective. Add to that many of the populace who don't agree with the ban and you get a lackadaisical effort.

Citing that ban and saying it won't work country wide is flawed. Especially when a lot of the Chicago violence is gangs killing other gangs and innocent bystanders. Arming everyone else won't make a difference. People will still get shot at an alarming rate. Doing what we can as a country to rid ourselves of such an easy method of killing becomes a valid option to save lives.

Brian, the article is about banning guns in Illinois. It will be just as effective as the Chicago handgun ban because, as you noted, people are free to move about the country.

True, but one state is a good place to start. Expand the ring where bans are instituted.

Apparently 49 other States would beg to differ. Only Illinois, the MOST CORRUPT, the MOST BANKRUPT and once great state would believe otherwise. Concealed carry reduces crime - it's been proven in State-after-State.

David, you missed this one in the other forum about CC so I'll post it for you. Of the 15 states above the national average for violent crimes, 12 of them were shall issue conceal carry states (when the data was collected, 2009), with 3 more conceal carry states being less than 10 points away from the national average. And only 1of those 15 has no CC and that is D.C. (Illinois was not included in the stats for how they define rape.) The numbers get worse as in 2011 we have 20 states over the national average for violent crime and we all know that again, only 2 are not CC states (IL and DC.)

I recognize there are other factors involved with crime and the numbers don't show a direct connection to CC or not...but again, do your homework and actually read before you just say something works. 20 states above the national violent crime average, and that is when the national rate is decreasing.....oh yeah. CC gets rid of crime.

Brian - again I will recommend the book "More Guns, Less Crime". It goes county by county in this country and shows what happens when tighter gun control laws are passed, and what happens when they are loosened (such as concealed carry). Not a single county in the entire US had violent crimes increase, most had a large drop in crime once concealed carry was enacted. There are too many sources to list for this data - if you truly want to educate yourself on the matter, I can't recommend a better source than that book.

Cute anecdote.

If it we're for the rifle, we would still be subjects of the King of England.

No wonder they dislike guns in England. It upset the class system. Guns took the power out of the hands of the elite and gave it to the average person.

So we need Uzis to protect ourselves from our government and criminals that our government arms. By any chance are you posting from a log cabin in Montana while writing a 520 page manifesto?

And England seems to be doing just fine now without them. Still worried about them coming over and waging war? We have an actual military now, not citizens that need to defend our borders. And you need those weapons in case our military turns on us? Good argument, i'm sure whatever arsenal you have stacks up real well against our government's army. In this modern era in the advanced country we live in your arguments lose a lot of footing.

Go apply for and receive a Class 3 Federal Firearms License (FFL), comply with all the requirements of it, and you too can own a fully-auto Uzi.

As has been proven time and again though, a small band of armed rebels can make a difference even in the face of a stronger and well-armed government. To wit: US Revolutionary War, Afghanistan rebels v. /everyone/, Multitudes of citizens against the Nazi's in WW II....

The English were allowed to own personal firearms until 1919 when fear of a
Communist revolution, such as the one that overthrew and killed Czar Nicholas of Russia and his family (cousins of king George V) gave Britain's government the excuse to ban most personal firearms. As the decades passed, more classes of arms were banned. If any are still privately owned, they now must be stored under lock-and-key in vaults of British sportsman's clubs.
Australia passed similar gun bans a few years ago. Australia is now as crime-ridden as Chicago, because honest Australians no longer have the means to defend their homes.
Criminals don't obey gun laws, or ANY laws. That's why they are called "Criminals."

Brits are pansies...that was your point right?

We decided long ago not to be bound by the limitations of the British mind. England has survived to this day only because of American riflemen, and that proven in two World Wars. In a comparable modern scenario, England would cease to exist without the protective umbrella provided by the USA. Perhaps we will think better of it next time.

It's really pretty simple. If you're adjudged mentally defective or insane, your name goes in the National database and then if you try to purchase a firearm, you are denied. Of course, this all relies on the imbeciles in State Government actually entering your name on that list.... But they don't and so you have incidents from time-to-time.

John Lennon would be the first in line to ban crazy people, wouldn't he?

Yes, fireworks are illegal in IL, but somehow for as long as I've been alive - I hear fireworks every June, July, and August. People still do stupid things with them despite the pretty clear instructions of "Set on ground, light fuse, get away" - and I'd argue that rather than being a Nanny State, we ought to simply teach people "Fireworks Safety".

As for firearms - yes, you can buy a semi-automatic AK-47 with whatever clip you deem necessary. What's the problem? You have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't obey the law anyway. Even if you ban some type of firearm, criminals are going to get it. They're not registering it, and when they commit a criminal act - you're not going to be able to defend yourself because you're a law-abiding citizen. Now THAT defies common sense. But I suppose that's Illinois government in a nutshell. "Spend what you don't have, promise something and never fund it, tax more so black markets proliferate, pass laws that only affect the law-abiding, and keep law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals... "

You probably ARE a person who should not own a banana clip. Is that something one wears in her hair, or what?

The streets of Geneva are relatively safe.

What's wrong with Chicago?

Max, get a clue. Lake Geneva is a sleepy little nothing, and Chicago has 3,000,000 people. Just like many Americans don't like, for example, Iran and would shoot at them, a similar dynamic exist in a city of 3,000,000; the us versus them mind set. There aren't enough different people in Geneva to say, "us versus them".

Luka, I'm not about to debate my educational qualifications with you. Suffice it to say that although there is nothing wrong with community colleges, that's not where I achieved my degrees. I'm also not employed by the NRA or any firearms/ammunition manufacturer/distributor/reseller.

Regarding limiting power of "legal fireworks", the semi-automatic AR-15 (one of the guns Gov. Quinn proposes banning) is not more powerful than other guns. As rifles go, it's middle-of-the-road. A small rifle cartridge like the .17 Remington carries about 801 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. A big-game cartridge, like the .444 Marlin, is around 3,040. The AR-15? A typical caliber is .223, and a common cartridge would have 1,395 foot-pounds of energy. Contrast with illegal fireworks - which if not purchased from some State where they are legal, are often made by roadside vendors and which pack quite a punch; ever try making your own powerful firearm? or ammunition? It's not that simple and I doubt most criminals would go to the trouble (well, at least until 3D printers come down in price a bit).

Quinn also proposes banning magazines with more than 10 rounds. This would outlaw standard magazines made for about half of all handguns today, and for many rifles. Like many police officers, ordinary law-abiding Americans often choose magazines with more than 10 rounds because they know that sometimes criminals attack in groups, and that one hit may not stop a large, violent attacker.

Half of all millionaires in America didn't even graduate high school, so I guess that makes them all stupid.

You criticize others but can't use proper punctuation in your sentence Luka (yes, a question mark belongs after your phrase ending in "your way through," shocking, I know).

Not to mention, by your logic, you claim more laws save lives and prevent injuries.

Umm, it's still against the law to shoot people, and has that stopped criminals from killing each other at a world record pace in Chicago this year? No. Because they are criminals, and will do so whether you ban something or not.

Hey, let's ban forks and spoons because they aided in Americans getting fat!!

"Make it a capitol offense to manufacture, sell, buy, or posses any type of firearm in the USA. " - even if you did, it still wouldn't stop criminals from doing so, and it'd put all of us at great risk from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Even though we have a strong military, I believe it was the Emperor of Japan who stated that the only reason he didn't attempt to invade America is because our population is armed.

The Armed forces are not the "well regulated militia", nor should they be the only armed force in the Nation. Communists and their ilk have been trying to disarm this country for decades. G-D willing, it'll never happen.

You, Colin are an idiot. You say "if ever a case proves that we cannot identify and stop potential mass murder the CO shooting does."

Which means someone hell-bent on killing a bunch of people will do so regardless of what weapons are or are not legal. Furthermore, someone can go and make an explosive device that can do far worse damage just as easily from commonly bought items. Some which are things you use in your everyday life. So let's ban those things, right?

Wrong.

You also state that the laws we have no simply don't do enough. Well, maybe if your liberal pals in Illinois and elsewhere knew how to balance a budget, they'd be able to afford to put way more police in the crime stricken areas, like Chicago's south and west sides.

The reason guns were made legal in the constitution wasn't just for hunting for food. It was given as a right to citizens to protect themselves from the government, and to reassure themselves that they would never be put through the tyrannical reign of a government, or a king, again.

I said it before and will say it again:

You are more likely to be killed by someone driving and using a cellphone that you are by an assault weapon. That is a FACT.

So before you say someone else's arguement is pointless, go look around....your life is put in danger every time you drive. People are CONSTANTLY texting and driving. Why aren't you trying to ban that?

So passing another law is going to stop criminals from being criminals? Riiiiight. Because we all know the existing laws that say people can't shoot other people stop that from happening.

Guns can hurt people. Knives can hurt people. Food can hurt people. By my count, those are all self-inflicted.

A person driving with a cellphone can kill just as easily...why aren't you angry about that? Sorry, but by singling one thing out because of your own fear, but not the other, it makes you a hypocrite.

Every time I drive, I see someone on their phone texting, and don't act like it doesn't happen because it's everywhere. I guarantee you....GUARANTEE you, that your odds of dying from an assault weapon in your lifetime is wayyyy more slim than your odds of being killed by someone texting and driving.

And that's a fact.

Actually, Brian we've debate this on another thread. Guns aren't designed to maim or kill - they're designed to allow a user to propel a projectile in a particular direction. That projectile can take many forms, and the direction doesn't have to be toward living being (human or otherwise) - it can be a simple paper target or plinking target. What a gun is used for is totally dependent upon the person pulling the trigger.

Save for hunting for food, or shooting at hapless targets, civilian guns should be used for defensive purposes only. That criminals use them offensively is precisely WHY the rest of us should be armed, so we can defend ourselves.

So in what state does the city with the highest death rate reside? The one and only state that doesn't have conceal carry and with all the crooked politicians that haven't made it to prison, it's no wonder that they want to ban guns, they are afraid of a revolution.

Fact: You are more likely to be killed by someone texting while driving that by an assault weapon. Look around you when you drive, there are people doing this every second of the day, and I wouldn't be surprised if Colin is one of those people.

Why aren't the liberals and Quinn whining about that, since it is statistically more dangerous?

Personally, we ought to just re-define a vehicle driven by a person texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone to be an assault weapon and go from there, it'd fit right in with the mentality of the nitwits in Springfield...

Ha, I think you're on to something. Actually all your comments have been "dead" (sorry) on. But as you say, arguing with folks who talk about banning cars etc. is like
banging one's head against the wall.
Hey, Ioved action movies when I was a kid but I knew it wasn't real life. The world is not black and white.
Why are many Americans so slow to evolve?

VOTE. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THE. SWINE. OUT.

I agree Cannon..Quinn just let some criminals of his kind go! These are gangsters as their policies alone of taxation is the biggest assault weaponry of all.

Stan - Have you read what Quinn is trying to pass? This bill would ban most guns people own in Illinois. Is it that much of a stretch to go from 'most' to 'any'. Almost all guns are semi-automatic (The military definition of assault weapon is fully-automatic - BIG difference), and this bill goes after semi-automatic weapons.

Functionally, there is NO difference between a hunting rifle and a civilian AR-15.

via ISRA.org:
Here is just a partial list of what this bill would do, if passed:

1. Ban the manufacture, possession or sale of nearly every semiautomatic rifle, pistol and shotgun you own.

2. Specifically ban Glock pistols since they share a common design with the Glock 18, a select fire handgun.

3. Require you to register every semiautomatic firearm and every magazine you own that exceeds 10 round capacity. The kicker is that, under Quinn's proposal, the State Police can charge you unlimited fees to register your guns. Thus if Quinn's bill passes, you could very well find yourself paying $100 or even $1,000 per firearm per year to comply with the law. Additionally, you could find yourself paying $50, $100 or even $500 per year for each "high capacity" magazine you own. Can't pay? Well then you would have to surrender your guns to the State Police for destruction.

I guess that includes all resident of Chicago, Washington DC, Wilmette, Morton Grove...

Stan - it's not paranoia, it's history that's actually happened, and continues to happen to the Present.

Great Britian - Circa 17th Century - firearms confiscated from 'serfs' to keep them subservient. That's one of the reasons why we have enshrined the natural right to self defense in our Constitution.

Bolsheviks in 1917 - grabbed all the firearms, still have them.

Nazi's in WW II - registered by whatever government pre-dated them, and then they knew where to go get the guns, and they did.

UK - started off banning small things, now it's effectively a wholesale ban. Did you know that it took an Act of Parliament to allow Olympic shooting team members to be able to bring their rifles into the country so they could compete? The UK has arguably the most CCTV cameras around, and they still have high amounts of crime - albeit it with knives. During the recent rioting in the UK, the cops couldn't defend against the throngs of rioters, the rioters refused to go defenseless, so they purchased aluminum baseball bats from Amazon UK (top selling item during the riots).

Australia - banned their firearms, and when people refused to give them up and hid them in the desert, they had the US Marines come in with metal detectors to find them, and dig them up so they could be destroyed. Result: High amounts of knife crime in Australia now.

Persons who don't believe the government could become tyrannical should be required to take 8th grade history class again.

Not necessarily - you're assuming that if firearms aren't available, that criminals will simply choose not to commit a criminal act. This isn't the case. Here's an example from about 3 days ago:

A 19-year-old man armed with an ax robbed $95 from a man in the West Pullman neighborhood on the Far South Side

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-authorities-axewielding-suspect-robs-man-in-west-pullman-20120730,0,2960435.story

Sorry Marc, not in the real world.

Apparently whatever kind you liberals see fit to suit your needs.

The second amendment is pretty specific about one's right to bear arms, period. End of disucssion.

I believe Jus. Scalia said that he'd consider a ban on cannons to be reasonable because one couldn't carry a cannon. As for the "military grade weapons" being brought for militia duty in the 1700's - that didn't exist. You had flintlocks, and muskets. Rifles with bored barrels and handguns didn't come on the scene until much later.

So what people brought to the service, were their personal firearms - items they had at home that were used for defense, practice, and for hunting for food.

Flash forward to the Present - we have a number of other firearms to choose from that we can use at home for defense, hunting for food, or for just good ole target practice. Just because they differ from those in the 1700's doesn't mean that they ought to be banned. Quite the opposite - the 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear arms" - that's what they had then, that's what we have now.

The weapons being pitched by Quinn for banning aren't "military grade" weapons at all. They're not fully auto, one pull of the trigger = one bullet (usually, unless something jams). In many cases, they're SAFER and more accurate because they only fire one shot at a time. Ever fire a fully automatic weapon? It's not easy to control.

Neither of those actually answer the question I asked:

What would be a reasonable application of regulation? What (if anything), in your opinions, can be banned and/or regulated?

Nuclear weapons. Tanks. Bazookas. Missiles. - should be military only.

Fully auto weapons - no problem, just get a Class 3 FFL.

Everything else - no bans, sell to law-abiding citizens who aren't convicted violent felons, or adjudged incompetent/insane.

It seems to me that not selling firearms to a convicted felon, presumably after that person has been released from jail (I don't think either of us would agree with selling a firearm to a convicted felon who is still in jail) is a form of banning firearms.

Is a convicted felon no longer likely to need to defend him (or her) self from vast gangs of criminals? Is a convicted felon no longer likely to need to defend him (or her) self from an omnipresent governement? Where in the Constitution does it say that being a felon deprives you of Constitutional rights? You wouldn't say, I hope, that being a convicted felon deprives you of your right to free speech or from cruel and unusual punishment (which a convicted felon is probably very grateful for). So why should they be deprived of their 2nd Amendment when the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc. are all still fine?

"convicted violent felons" - yes, of course, after being released from prison. Some felons aren't violent, shouldn't be banned. Some have a history of violence and ought not to be trusted until they've gone some period of time without an offense on their record.

I wouldn't be willing to trust someone who'd murdered or raped or committed armed robbery with a firearm - not for a very, very long time.

The reason for high-capacity magazines is because criminals often attack in groups, and one bullet may not stop a determined attacker.

As for "no reason that any civilian needs to have the capacity these guns provide" - tell that to the Korean merchants who protected their stores/families from the rioting throngs who would have robbed, looted, raped their families, and burned down their businesses. These guys were PREPARED beforehand, got up on the roof with their AR-15's and high-capacity magazines and DEFENDED themselves when the Police were unable to do so. Their neighborhoods remained untouched during the rioting.

You may not believe that you need the capacity, but I hope to G-d that you never need it and don't have it.

David, can you provide a more recent example of mass group riots being stopped than the 1992 riots? I would think that if criminals "often attack in groups" you would be able to cite a more recent example than 20 years ago.

Also, there was no body with an AR-15 there. They had pistols, a few rifles, and some shotguns, but no AR-15s, much less with high capacity magazines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/01/los-angeles-times-recently-ran-story.html

Bucephalus, whether it's 20 or 200 years ago doesn't matter. It proves the point that it happened, can happen, and may happen again - that's reason enough to be prepared for an eventuality. Some of the photos I saw had high cap magazines on the weapons.

As for examples of attacking in groups - you must have missed the news here in Chicago. There's been quite a few incidents this summer where we had roaming bands of criminals running wild around the downtown - robbing defenseless, law-abiding citizens at will.

One happened just a few days ago - 3 or 4 imbeciles that robbed an 87 year old man. Some a week or so ago on Michigan Avenue - started out at the Lakefront (Oak St. Beach) and worked its way around the city. Some went from Red Line stop to Red Line stop on the CTA - robbing and beating people along the way. Some got on a bus, grabbed an iPod from a pregnant woman and proceeded to attack her boyfriend en masse when he stood up for her.

Chicago is an absolute nightmare - too many criminals, not enough cops to handle the mayhem, and law-abiding citizens are disarmed so the criminals have free reign. And it's spreading to the 'burbs - even to Highland Park where we had some moron running around with a rifle this morning after a robbery.

Just curious Conceal and Carry, what do you have in your arsenal that gives you a chance against a bad government with armored vehicles,tanks,aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons. Apparently you have been watching too much of the movie "Red Dawn" WOLVERINES!!!!!

It's been proven time and again that small bands of armed rebels can take on and defeat strong and better armed forces. Witness: US Revolutionary War 1776 - we beat the Brits. Afghanistan - the Afghan rebels beat Russia, and have been fighting against our forces as well.

The simple fact is - probably 200 million people in this country have 300 million firearms. Somehow, unless our Military goes bat (*&(*& insane and pulls the nuke triggers, we'll prevail. And that's if our Military decides to follow a corrupt dictatorship...

There are over 300 million firearms in private hands in this country. In many States, it's legal to drive with a firearm, so there's millions of people with firearms in vehicles as well. Somehow, gunfire between drivers rarely happens, and when it does, it's typically one criminal shooting at another...

As for the Colorado Theater - the major problem is that the theater goers were disarmed by the Theater owners before entering, and then the Theater failed to secure the Victim Zone that they'd created. If just ONE of those lawfully concealed carry permit holders was carrying, things may have come about much differently.

David just completely destroyed your point Thomas.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in America, yet people aren't firing them off every time they do out and drive.

Yet I can spot someone texting and driving LITERALLY every time I go out for a ride. LITERALLY. He could have just as easily walked into the theater with an explose device that would have done far more damage....one made out of items anyone can buy at any store in America and put together themselves.

Another failed liberal arguement.

And so what if there are millions of cellphones? It makes your arguement completely hypocritical, because as I said, you are statistically way more likely to be killed by someone driving and texting. Sorry if the truth hurts. So why aren't you whining to ban cellphones? There are millions of them too.

Sorry Steve I beg to differ. First of all my argument wasn't against "firearms" in general but specifically "assault weapons" does every one of those firearm owners also own a military assault rifle? if so, then your argument holds water. My guess is that it is not the case. Secondly, texting while driving IS IllEGAL in Illinois and many other states. And yes your correct, the Colorado shooter could have easily built a bomb with household supplies, but why would he go through all that time and effort and uncertainty when it is so much easier to order an assault weapon on the internet and you have instant and certain destruction that you can kill quickly and descriminately.

Thomas - regardless of why you think that, you cannot just buy an 'assault weapon' on the Internet. You can purchase ammunition online (although this is illegal already in some instances), but you cannot purchase a firearm in this manner and just have it show up at your door.
Also, civilians already can't own a 'military assault rifles'. You can own one that LOOKS similar to a military weapon, but it doesn't function the same as a military weapon. And if we start banning thing because of how it looks, oh my...

"Colorado shooter could have easily built a bomb with household supplies, but why would he go through all that time and effort and uncertainty" - Thomas, have you missed the news? Even the regular lamestream media covered the fact that the Colorado nutjob rigged his apartment with HOMEMADE explosive devices. The cops said it was pretty sophisticated, and it took them a good couple/three days to disarm the traps. There was a video of one of them being detonated in a quarry from a helicopter - the explosion was pretty big.

So I have little doubt that this guy could have improvised a homemade claymore-style mine in the theater if he wanted... The fact is - he was nuts (is nuts?) - and wanted to commit some harm. He came up with methods to do so, and implemented his nefarious plan. Whether this guy had guns or not wouldn't have made a bit of difference - he was dead set on something and he did it, to the detriment of those in the Theater. But it doesn't mean we ban everything he used - because even if we did, he'd just use something else.

Yes David I did follow the news. Lets do the math. Deaths by improvised explosive devices = 0. Deaths by assault weapon = 12. Again Assault Weapons seem to be the most effective weapons of choice by the criminally insane. And good luck with your citizen uprising against the US government. Remember they don't fight with smooth bore muskets anymore.

"Thomas
Yes David I did follow the news. Lets do the math. Deaths by improvised explosive devices = 0. Deaths by assault weapon = 12."

You must have missed the news in 1995 when 168 were killed and 680 injured in Oklahoma city.

Thanks for the reminder Earl. I also remember that was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, a militia sympathizer who hoped to inspire a revolt against what he felt was a tyrannical government. Not far from some of the sentiments I have been reading on this thread. Now thats really frightening

"Thomas
Yes David I did follow the news. Lets do the math. Deaths by improvised explosive devices = 0. Deaths by assault weapon = 12."

1993 World trade Center bombing. Killed six. Injured 1000. Could have easily been worse.

Don't forget the "Unabomber" - he made many improvised devices and delivered them to locations with catastrophic effects.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Here is a good breakdown that explains this in a very detailed manner:
http://www.resist44.com/aurora-theater-shooting-armed-response-analysis

It appears the only one that was safe was the criminal!

It is our constitutional right, and an existing law that says we are allowed to bear arms, plain and simple.

Don't like it? Go live in Russia or China. You should be dam* thankful for the rights you do have here, including that one.

People gave their lives for us to have these rights, and it's to stop idots like you who get in office and abuse their power to change the rights GUARANTEED to us when this country was founded that causes the founders of this nation to create the second amendment to begin with.

Hey Mark, I don't like what you are saying to me, so let's all ban the First Amendment too? What, you like having free speech and don't want it taken away?

Seriously, shut up.

If that guy didn't have assault weaponsd available to him, he simply would have created an explosive device. What's that, he did create explosive devices and left them in his house?

Gee, sound to me like someone who was hell bent on killing a lot of people one way or another, so there's no doubt in my mind that he would've just gone and blown the whole place up instead.

You liberals just don't get it. You are like a plague, a disease...one that wants the govenment to babysit you out of your own irrational fears.

I guarantee you Mark was also one of those people that immediately freaked out on 9/11 and raced to get in line for gas after panicking, causing some stations to run out of fuel immediately.

Gee, that would mean he could drive 200-300 miles before again running out of gas...boy, I'm sure that would immediately make you safer from Al Queda.

You are another one of the sheep that lives in fear and lets the mass media dictate what you should and shouldn't do, what is right and wrong, and then tries to jam your opinions down the throats of people who don't want your ideas.

You are what is wrong with this country Mark, not the solution.

I am so sick of people giving opinions on things they don't understand. It's obvious that you have not owned a firearm before, let alone try any of the shooting sports, yet you think you have the right to tell me what I can or can't do?

As to your claim that more people would have died because of concealed carry - I have a challenge for you: Find ONE example of someone accidentally being shot by someone with a licensed concealed carry gun. Here's a news flash - it's NEVER happened, not once ever. There have been thousands of defensive firearm shootings by people with concealed carry, and not once has an innocent person been shot because of it.
Stop spreading false information.

It stops when the voters stop voting in these morons like Nanny Bloomberg, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Clinton, Karen May, Susan Garrett, and the rest of the shrill anti-gunners.

Mark, You are right, of course, but it is totally pointless trying to have a rational discussion on this matter in America. You have but to scroll through this thread to see the twisted logic, ignorance, the paranoia, and the delusional thinking that permeates the thinking of the rabid pro-gun people in this Country. You might as well try arguing with a brick.

At any rate it is probable that history will repeat itself again and again on this matter. The NRA has so terrified politicians that they will ignore the will of the majority in order to please the well organized and active minority who favor unlimited access to firearms.

There will be more and more unnecessary gun deaths. People will continue to ask for some sort of reasonable, rational control, and nothing will happen, again.

To prove the point, it has been proposed by many that all firearms have titles and be registered like cars are so that they can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to owner to new owner, etc. This would enable law enforcement to know where guns are and which ones might have been stolen. It would make the black market sale of guns very difficult and require personal responsibility and accountability on the part of owners. It would not be unconstitutional in any way.

When it was first proposed the gun lobby screamed as though they were about to be castrated.

The whole mess is simply crazy and for that reason I'm opting out of this discussion. It's pointless.

No it won't that's why they are criminals.

"To prove the point, it has been proposed by many that all firearms have titles and be registered like cars are so that they can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to owner to new owner, etc. This would enable law enforcement to know where guns are and which ones might have been stolen. It would make the black market sale of guns very difficult and require personal responsibility and accountability on the part of owners. It would not be unconstitutional in any way."

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. Again, this will only adversely affect the LAW ABIDING citizens of the country. Criminals won't be affected in the least because they won't have a title, won't care about a title, will file serial numbers off of firearms (as they do now despite the law to the contrary), etc.

Titles are used on cars and property. Property is pretty difficult to steal (yeah, there's some adverse possession nutjobs that try to exploit that obscure concept, but I digress). Cars - again, titles only prove ownership when you're buying/selling the vehicle. It doesn't stop criminals from operating chop shops, or just shipping the vehicles overseas to be driven in another country by someone who could care less about a title. Titles also get FORGED.

Titles for firearms - dumb idea. Only going to create a big black market for firearm titles, with no beneficial consequences for solving or preventing crimes at all.

Another idiotic assumption. You do realise that you have to pass a training course to be able to concealed carry there right? Not to mention it was an extra rule that prevented those poor people from being able to defend themselves to begin with.

IF the guy was shot by a concealed carry permit holder, even with body armor - the kinetic energy transfer from the bullet to his armor would likely knock him down, and then others could tackle the criminal.

OR, someone could have walked up behind him and shot him from behind, underneath his helmet.

OR, maybe, just maybe this guy would have considered that he could have been shot and killed by armed concealed carry permit holders, and wouldn't have committed the crime he did. Consider that he was obviously concerned about getting killed and escaping unnoticed - so he decked himself out in body armor to protect himself, and obfuscate himself. The problem is that he wore something SWAT wouldn't (the articles haven't said what exactly), so he was noticed by a cop and arrested as he tried to slip out in the crowd.

And a "Well-regulated militia"? That's 17th century speak for "BEING ARMED AND ABLE TO SERVE WHEN NEEDED". Like a well-regulated clock, or well-oiled machine.

@Mark - I urge you to read some of the links I have posted earlier. Here's a new one I just came across on suntimes.com: http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/14160460-474/cdc-exposes-gun-control-myths.html

I don't even need to comment about the 'contained space' becaues Steve and David did a fine job, however check this out: http://www.resist44.com/aurora-theater-shooting-armed-response-analysis

Seriously, shut up Thomas. Stop insulting everyone's intelligence.

Wow, did I touch a nerve Steve. I cant tell by your reaction if you would be for or against teachers packing heat. Laurie Dann would not have been as successful if those elementary teachers were armed. Based on your arguments in other posts I would assume you would not want to restrict their rights as citizens to bear arms or is there actually a situation where you would be in favor of gun CONTROL

You are an idiot Thomas, and its pathetic this is all you can come up with. Clearly you are obsessively trolling this site desperately hoping someone will be dumb enough to take the bait and say, "Why yes, let's arm teachers around kids." Go away. You are like a fly buzzing around droppings.

Thomas, you can easily research what I've said on The Patch. I did state that allowing school teachers to be licensed to carry concealed MAY have prevented certain school tragedies that were perpetrated by armed invaders.

If the elementary school teacher were properly trained, and the firearm was concealed about the teacher's person and never left unattended for possible acquisition by a student, I'd have absolutely NO problem with that whatsoever.

This thought isn't unique to me - it's present in other school systems throughout the country. "...three school shootings have ended when teachers or other responsible adults had firearms: in Edinboro, Pa.; Pearl, Miss., and Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va. Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously enforced the Concealed Carry Act, ruling that the University of Colorado could not prohibit licensed carry on campus. " (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21168162/no-state-gun-laws-do-job)

Well look at that Steve, didn't take long for Mr. Greenberg to take the bait. Apparently your not quite as committed to the rights of gun ownership as Mr. Greenberg and the ability to stop "any possible" crime at "any possible" cost. I am sorry for possible insulting everyones' intelligence, but everyone would have to have some intelligence for it to be insulted now wouldn't they?

Oh one more question Steve. If I am the fly in your metaphor who would be the droppings?.....Just asking

Thomas, you are spot on. He is one dangerous candidate. What's to stop him from advocating that students be allowed to bring guns to school? With all the school shootings, they should be allowed to defend themselves, right? And yes, his comments are all over the Patch. And I'm sure many will come back to bite him if he chooses to run again. I guarantee it!

"Walter White
Thomas, you are spot on. He is one dangerous candidate. What's to stop him from advocating that students be allowed to bring guns to school? "
Federal "Safe School zone" law prohibits this.

Thank God.

@Thomas: "Mr. Greenberg and the ability to stop "any possible" crime at "any possible" cost. "

Thomas, it wasn't "bait" that I took. I made comments on this board, in another thread, and I'm not going to deny it or try to hide. I stand by what I said, and I have nothing to be ashamed about for doing so, nor will I allow anyone to make me feel as if I should be ashamed. And please, don't put words in my mouth - I never said we need the ability to stop "any possible crime at any possible cost". I said we need to be PREPARED to deal with situations when they arise.

@Walter: "Thomas, you are spot on. He is one dangerous candidate. What's to stop him from advocating that students be allowed to bring guns to school? With all the school shootings, they should be allowed to defend themselves, right? And yes, his comments are all over the Patch. And I'm sure many will come back to bite him if he chooses to run again. I guarantee it!"

Walter - What have I said that you believe makes me a "dangerous" candidate? I'm all about PREVENTING problems, not creating them. If we can do that by allowing teachers to help defend their young charges when seconds count, what's wrong with that?

What I find most dangerous is restricting civil rights. It was Benjamin Franklin that essentially said "Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither." If that makes one of the Founders of this Great Country "dangerous", then I'm proud to be in his company.

Actually, the Federal Safe Schools Zone Act doesn't prohibit this:

(B)(ii) would seem to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry.
(B)(v) would allow a security guard or TEACHER under contract to carry.

"The Gun Free School Zones Act states:

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or..."

That's fine, Dave. We'll see how 113 parents feel about their teachers carrying guns. My guess is they will be super supportive of that idea.

"David Greenberg
11:57 am on Friday, August 3, 2012

Actually, the Federal Safe Schools Zone Act doesn't prohibit this:"

In Illinois it does since we do not have concealed carry and private individuals are not licensed to carry.

If the parent's aren't, then it's likely that the Board wouldn't be either, and it wouldn't happen.

Good thing we have laws to protect us from the likes of you.

"Good thing we have laws to protect us from the likes of you.". Please elaborate on the phrase "the likes of you". What precisely is it about me that you believe requires the protection of the Law?

Besides being a fiscal conservative and defender of Civil Liberties, I think that most people who know me would consider me a friendly soul.

Extremists who would put guns in our schools and think it would be solving a problem.

Mr. Greenberg,
Look, I am sure that you are a relatively normal productive member of the society who loves his wife and children, but that doesn't mean you are'nt incapable of holding some extreme beliefs outside of what some may consider "mainstream" thought. Look at Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and thousands of others who are productive citizens but still believe that someone named XENU was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.They believe that Scientology scriptures hold that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

@Earl: "In Illinois it does since we do not have concealed carry and private individuals are not licensed to carry." - not yet, but it'll happen. If Wisconsin could pass concealed carry, so can Illinois. It's been proven to reduce crime in every State it's been implemented in.

@Walter: "Extremists who would put guns in our schools and think it would be solving a problem." - Sorry Walter, this thought isn't unique to me - it's present in other school systems throughout the country. "...three school shootings have ended when teachers or other responsible adults had firearms: in Edinboro, Pa.; Pearl, Miss., and Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va. Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously enforced the Concealed Carry Act, ruling that the University of Colorado could not prohibit licensed carry on campus. " (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21168162/no-state-gun-laws-do-job)

@Thomas: "<comparison about Scientology>" - Sorry if we disagree Thomas, but my thoughts are hardly outside of the mainstream, Millions of citizens in 49 other States would beg to differ about firearms, carrying concealed, possession, etc. That I happen to agree with the Founders of this Country that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't make me an extremist, it makes me an American Citizen. I am not a Scientologist, so I'm unable to comment on their beliefs. Others would also agree with me, and disagree with you regarding firearm possession in school by Teachers/Security guards - again, that doesn't make me an extremeist by any stretch of the imagination. What I consider extreme are people like Gov. Quinn, Mayor Bloomberg, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen Barbara Boxer, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen. Garrett, Rep. May, Pres. Obama, Pres. Clinton - who have been opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, and who work to violate their Oaths of Office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - but that's just me, you may of course disagree.

OK then I'll restate. Good thing we have laws IN ILLINOIS to protect us from the likes of you.

Walter, I find it unfortunate that we have laws in Illinois which create Victim Zones, and which create de facto concealed carry for criminals while leaving law abiding citizens defenseless. I find it unfortunate that we have laws in Illinois which only adversely affect the law abiding and don't affect the criminals at all.

And I sincerely hope to see these misguided laws change in a lawful manner.

Oh, I'm sure you do.

What gangster movie gave him the idea?

So lets ban movies now too.

I have to laugh every time someone claims that a TV show, movie, video game, or D&D game causes kids to become violent, and start shooting or chopping each other up.

Nothing could be further from the truth for 99.9% of the population. In any group there will always be some outlier that does something stupid or unexpected. There's no way to prevent it or control it, nor would you want to even try because despite the Civil Rights violations, it wouldn't stop the problems from occurring from time-to-time.

My brother and I grew up watching Tom 'n Jerry cartoons in the afternoon-yet somehow, we never decided to smack each other with frying pans. We watched the Road Runner/Coyote yet never tried blowing each other up. We watched Godzilla v. Gammera yet never believed that giant lizards blowing fire out of their mouths and turtles flying really happened. We grew up, and we look back on those cartoons with fond memories of childhood afternoons spent laughing together...

That someone might take it differently and start whacking people with frying pans doesn't mean we should ban violent cartoons or TV shows. If you don't want to watch that kind of programming or don't want your kids to watch it-enable the V-chip in your TV and block it. But leave the rest of us out of your choices.

Also, lots of people see psychiatrists - it doesn't mean they should be prohibited from owning firearms. Unless and until they're declared incompetent/insane by a court, leave them be.

Ok then. How about requiring psychiatric evaluations before giving a gun license?

Nope. Because it's open to too much interpretation. What form would the evaluation take? What's to stop the State from changing the metrics being evaluated and making it so that essentially no one qualifies?

Besides, even if someone is "evaluated" and passes the evaluation, there's nothing to say that the Psychologist doesn't miss something. Or the person has a psychotic break afterwards and that's nothing that would have been picked up in an evaluation.

The whole idea behind a court of competent jurisdiction adjudging someone insane or incompetent and THEN relieving that person of their right to own firearms, is that the process is overseen by a Judge. The person gets due process, is represented by an attorney. The State is represented. Each side gets to bring in their experts to evaluate the person. Things are compared, contrasted, and a decision is made.

It's not left up to one shrink to decide, based on some willy-nilly flavor-of-the-day evaluation metrics created by a State attempting to deprive some, all, or just certain citizens of their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Hello nightcrawler...the gangster movie is called "gangster squad"...its trailer allowed viewing on the internet. It depicts a gangster shootout in a movie theatre. They are now revamping this scene in the movie.

No one would even be having this discussion if not for all the paranoid left wing communist control freaks running rampant in this state.

I think you might be utterly naive if you believe that James Holmes would have been unable to figure out a way to kill people if it were not for Batman, that trailer you mentioned, and the vast horde of other films that depict firearm usage.

OK, how about Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny? Pretty violent there - Elmer's always trying to "kill da wabbit!". Actually I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek. Do we have lots of violent movies and shows? Sure. We have lots of NON-violent movies and shows as well.

That it's possible that some fool gets ideas that he wants to implement from a movie or tv show is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to watch sanitized "G-rated" shows to try and prevent someone from "getting ideas". For all I know, that fool could come up with the idea entirely on his own and implement it - and given that a WRITER of a movie or tv show came up with this concept and put it into a show, it's not a big stretch of the imagination that another fool could come up with the same idea.

Bucephalus, he reported to the authorities he was the Joker. It has nothing to do with being naive.

Where do you come up with these fantasies Thomas?

There's already 20,000+ laws on the books regarding firearms. We don't need more regulations. There's already background checks when purchasing a firearm. For handguns you have to wait 3 days before picking up your gun.

Sales at gunshows are regulated between firearm dealers.

If you want education regarding firearm safety - simply google for an NRA-certified Firearms Instructor, and go take a class. And yes, even the Police take classes from NRA certified instructors, so taking the class won't automatically make you a member of the NRA (if that's something which bugs you).

Gun Bans are not effective. They do not decrease crime because criminals will always find a way to commit a crime if they want. In GB, they have high incidences of knife attacks because of their gun ban - so many in fact that the GB's considered banning "sharp pointed" knives...

I have no problem with people who use firearms in a defensive manner (obviously, the military is excepted during lawful operations), for target shooting, or hunting either. I do also have a problem with criminal misuse of a firearm, or using it in an offensive manner (except military).

But I have to ask:Who defines what a "right" reason is for owning a firearm? It's not the Government, it's the individual.

Waiting 3 days can endanger someone's life, if they decide they want or need a firearm, and it's not going to be a deterrent against someone who wants to commit a criminal act with a firearm because either they'll commit the act in 3 days after they pick it up, or they'll just get one on the black market and commit the act immediately.

There's documented cases of women with restraining orders against violent boyfriends/spouses-they went out to get a firearm for self-protection, weren't allowed to pick it up for 3 days, and the violent 'other' came back-in some case they were beaten, killed, or they called the cops while they hid in a closet and hoped the offender didn't find them. There's other cases as well.

Regarding mandatory gun education:Education in and of itself isn't a bad idea, but again, who gets to set the terms of what constitutes a "valid" course of study? If it's the Government, the risk is of ever expanding and changing requirements that ultimately can't be met. So again, the individual should determine the education needed for safe operation.

"I didn't mean to say that the government gets to choose what the 'right' reason is but I believe the wrong reason is when you have the intent to hurt innocent parties." - I agree.

"...I think that owning a gun without real knowledge on how to use it in a high stress situation like that is a waste of money and people can end up injuring themselves when they mean to protect themselves or others." - I agree with you again.

"In response to mandatory education, I think that a certain amount of time and competence with the weapon should be shown." I agree that people should be competent in the operation and maintenance of the firearms they own - but that's the slippery slope of "defining competence". Every firearm owner I've ever known has practiced many, many times with their firearm; learned how to strip it down and clean it, maintain it; how to load it safely, and the most important of all - to never point it at anything they didn't want to shoot. This isn't hard to learn - some people take a class, for some it's mother/father passed down to son/daughter, and for some people it could be a quick thing. For others, it may take them longer to achieve that level of competence. Practice at the range and asking questions makes perfect :-) But allowing the government to define what competence is, is just too dangerous.