And just what "well regulated militia" are you a part of?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

For people who have been brutalized and victimized, they will tell you that it is a cataclysmic event in their life and for the most part there is no pursuit of happiness when you're suffering from the psychological damage that an attack causes.

The anti-gun positions are built on piles of erroneous beliefs to begin with - one of these erroneous assertions is that if you just give the robber what they want – they go away, which ignores many decades of documented cases where criminals have slaughtered their victims after they have robbed them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no liberty nor pursuit of happiness when your life has been taken from you. It seems like a simple concept – but it’s obviously one that anti-gunners cannot grasp or refuse to acknowledge

Doug - "We the people" and the 2nd amendment wording has already been covered by judges. The historic evidence is clearly there that they are talking about the people. Nice try, though.

@Doug Daluga

re "And just what "well regulated militia" are you a part of?"

No where does it say one MUST be a member of a militia to have the right to bear arms.

The words mean people are not to be denied the right to arm so they could, IF NECESSARY, join a militia to EITHER support governments aims, OR protect themselves from the government, OR if necessary over throw the government.

You seek to deny a right with words that never voiced such oppression.

Here's proof of their mindset, Jefferson writing about Shay's Rebellion.

"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably (sic) conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Cheers

Actually, HB148 didn't fail at all, it is listed as "consideration postponed". So, it can be brought up for vote again during the current session. However, there was only 1 "no" from south of I-80 on the initial vote. It is clear that Chicago legislators are the main obstacle concerning HB148.

Chicago is the impetus behind the anti-Second Amendment gun-control philosophy.

There is nothing shoddy, lazy, or biased about the reporting.

Being just a few votes short of a super-majority can hardly be characterized as a failure.

Don't become sheep: listen to one person telling you what to do on the internet.

Well, since it is allowed in 49 other states, you are saying that the entire difference between crime rates is due ENTIRELY and ONLY to concealed carry. Aside from being an absurd claim to make, it's also wrong. I will go look at other statistics.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Houston has more guns, and in less population, than Chicago. So I find it odd that despite those guns there were more aggravated assaults, a lot more burglaries, more thefts, and more carjackings. I will grant you that there were less murders and robberies, but not enough to be lower overall. How about in Tennessee, say Memphis? Their crime rate is above Chicago's in every category. If concealed carry is the unequivocal answer to crime there should be no city that has higher crime rates than Chicago. That's nowhere close to being true.

So "Local" I'm sorry, but I missed the period at the end of your story.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0309.pdf

I'm not for sweeping control of guns, but the second amendment was one of those rights meant to keep invaders out of our homes. We don't live in the 1700's anymore. Our nation has moved forward. What gives us all the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? What about Amendment Six?

And for every stat and story about conceal lowering crime, there are counter studies as well. Especially since there are never controlled studies for it. There are so many other factors involved with crime rates. Personally I don't think the best way to deal with a problem is make sure both sides can kill each other willy nilly out in the streets. We don't live in the wild west any more.

For those who say it doesn't work, here is Australia's results in gun related homicides. Again, I know other factors can come into these results as well, but it looks pretty good.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

@Brian- the last thing I'd ever want to do is to hurt or kill anyone! I don't believe two people shooting each other "willy nilly" is the best way to handle any situation, but criminals don't think that way and I want equal right to protect myself, my family, and others that can't. Put your wife, daughter, or son on the street with a lunatic gunman and tell me you wouldn't want the same opportunity? What, are you going to sweet talk them out of shooting you?

Brian the Second Amendment is a right that is meant to keep government out of our homes. Personal protection is also a part but when the founders constructed the US Constitution they were not thinking about home invaders there to thump you in the head and take your big TV. When citizens are armed the power remains in the citizens hands. How many armed civilizations are oppressed, none. How many unarmed civilizations experience mass genocide and murder at the hands of rebels or people that come in the name of government, many at the moment, Syria and Uganda come to mind. "A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington 1790

I wonder Donny, where did the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda get most of their firearms? The idea that the Ugandans were a pacifist country ripe for Kony's plundering is absurd. There is no shortage of private firearms in African nations.

@Donny, So you only want to be armed to keep big brother from snatching you out of your home? Is the benefit of killing an intruder just a bonus? Is everyone that terrified this day in age that they think everyone is out to get them and we better get them first?

@ Brian

re we dont live in the 1700's anymore

The 2nd Amendment ensured the right of the people to IF NECESSARY, join a militia to EITHER support governments aims, OR protect themselves from the government, OR if necessary over throw the government.

Here's proof of their mindset, Jefferson writing about Shay's Rebellion.

"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably (sic) conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Crime is a red herring by those seeking to control guns, an attempt to change the narrative.

Cheers

12 of your piers?

You carry a concealed weapon to protect you from the government? Those black helicopters must fly pretty low around your house.

peers, unless you really want to be judged by 12 boat docks

muh wa muh wa wa wa

OK, somebody wrote a book saying gun control fails. Wow. Color me surprised. Well I have to admit you must be right. Since there is obviously no way anybody could argue with one book, you win.

Funny little thing Local. If carrying a concealed firearm is having your "right," then you are, in fact, being denied it right now. You vehemence does not change that.

I'm not sure why we should only allow law-abiding, responsible, citizens to conceal carry. It is, after all, a right that cannot be abridged. The irresponsible and criminal should be able to conceal carry too, they're going to anyways right? Donny seems to already be carrying one.
I don't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I don't want to stop anybody else from owning a gun but I don't want to subjected to Local's and Donny's views of who or what a threat is.

Are you a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the whole thing... the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR (To carry from one place to another; transport.) arms, shall not be infringed.

So people can do whatever they want with whatever guns they have wherever they want. That doesn't sound well-regulated to me.

I'm wondering Local, does Article 1 Section 8 mean anything to this discussion?

Look at RD's comments: "The criminals will carry anyway (duh!)."
Look at BrianF's comments: "Criminals will carry a gun without a conceald carry permit."

If you replace carrying a gun with drinking and driving, that's exactly what RD and BrianF are saying.

But answer me this, why bother with permits? If someone can be denied a permit, isn't that denying them their constitutional right? And I wasn't aware that being a criminal deprived you of constitutional rights. So if conceal carry is a constitutional right, what authority does Illinois have to say no to criminals carrying it?

So the fine upstanding citizen you are, you are...or may be now...breaking the law here in Illinois. Which then makes you a criminal...right?

No need to worry about me little Brian, I have a FOID card. ;-)

Thanks for the condensation. I'm sure it makes you feel nice. But last I checked, my FOID card didn't permit me the right to carry a gun into a restaurant/bar. Pretty sure that's still illegal here in Illinois, which makes you a law breaker....again, if you did it. Since your exact words didn't say.

“the condensation”, huh?

You couldn’t possibly know if I posses the right to legally carry a concealed, loaded weapon, therefore, you shouldn’t assume otherwise.

“again, if you did it. Since your exact words didn’t say”

Thanks for being an unwilling participant.
Don’t you see, the threat of the unknown is already working?

TWL I too carry a small .22 for protection. I refuse to be a victim.

Yes, i typed the wrong word. My bad. Condescension. So according to this website
http://www.concealcarry.org/illinois-carry/
The gun you carry is unloaded and in a special fanny pack, right? That way you don't break the law. I guess you could be a cop too, which sort of defeats the purpose of this argument.

You don't have to treat me a like a child in a discusion here. I'm just presenting different viewpoints. Funny thing this notiong that everyone has their own opinion.

This vicious sociopath did not need a gun to brutally beat a woman, rape her daughter and stab theor dog:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/police-man-beat-woman-with-hammer-raped-little-girl-stabbed-dog/

But if this woman had a gun and knew how to use it - she could have saved herself and her daughter.

The philosophy behind gun-control amounts to denying people the right to defend themselves.

It is morally bankrupt.

Actually, I believe that 1,700 rapes have been prevented by the invisible unicorns flying over our heads. In neither case can either of us prove the other person wrong. It is impossible to prove that something did NOT happen because of something else.

So if 90% don't need guns, why do we (non criminals?) There are other ways to disarm someone. Learn self defense. Some sort of martial art. You could then prevent close to the same number is my guess and be in better physical and mental shape. The old adage of guns not killing people isn't right. They are a tool used to kill. Yes, a person pulls the trigger, but take the gun out of everyone's hand that makes equal footing as well.

“90% don’t need guns”
Where did you obtain this data. What basis do you make such a comment?

Martial arts, better physical and mental shape? That’s comical. Tell that to the victims of violence and aggression. Tell that to my neighbors who have recently been victims of burglaries and auto break-ins.

“The old adage of guns not killing people isn't right. They are a tool used to kill. Yes, a person pulls the trigger, but take the gun out of everyone's hand that makes equal footing as well.”

Huh?

Ok, the 90% came from C0untZer0, stating that 90% of violent crimes do not involve firearms. Don't know if he/she was right on that or not, but I was saying that if 90% of the crimes don't involve guns, how does arming citizens make the footing equal?

"Martial arts, better physical and mental shape? That’s comical." How is that comical? Working out generally leads to better shape. Learning a skill like Krav Maga, or Karate will aid in preventing an attack from the "90% of violent crimes not involving firearms." I am sorry for the people you know who were burglarized and victims of crimes...it's never a good thing. If they knew a form of self defense that could have helped just as well as a gun without murdering the criminal so he could be brought to justice.

As for the guns not killing people. Have you never heard that? It's one that most gun advocates stick to their car. Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell Fat. Its a cop out. She picked up the spoon to use it, you picked up the gun to use it. Both help in getting something done.

Again, I have no problem saying that guns can help deter crime. But I also have no problem saying that their are always alternatives that work as well.

"Again, I have no problem saying that guns can help deter crime. But I also have no problem saying that their are always alternatives that work as well."

Such as your hands or kunchaku sticks? LOL

Good luck.....

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And better restrictions on guns. No one has even mentioned the numbers I brought up from Australia with sweeping gun control. There are other options. You may not like them, not everyone will. But there are always other options

Yes, a 70 year old woman may have trouble defending herself with a martial art. But she may also have trouble quickly taking a gun out, flipping the safety, aiming at her assailant and shooting him.

"It's a philosophy that says "Above all else, let's make sure the vicious murderous sociopath doesn't get hurt.""

I have no problem with them getting hurt, more power. They are trying to hurt you. My problem is trying to kill them with a deadly weapon and that gun advocates demand that is the only way.

Where on earth did you pull 2 million from that? Looking at the ESTIMATED study numbers the only number in the millions is that when firearms were pulled out when no intruder was evident.

"and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. " So now the study is just asking their phone interview if they scared away the intruder with a gun. Very scientific

"Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

Most of Robin's studies seem to be dealing with the vernacular used in such studied, such as access to loaded guns vs ownership of guns. Robin also seems to have studied the effect said guns have on accidental shootings and gun related suicides.

"The trend is clear - families in their prime earning ARE moving away from Illinois' oppressive mismanagement of budgets and policies"

Yes, and we've already seen the results of this socialist type of thinking, look at what happened to East St.Louis, Gary, IN, and Detroit.

The liberal's promise to create a utopia falls apart as productive people refuse conscripted labor to pay for the flawed socialist policies.

Illinois has successfully taken away people's Second Amendment rights, but the state cannot prevent them from simply leaving and finding a better place to raise their families.

How to understand that mindset?
It's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism. You see the same attitude displayed toward home schooling. They have the attitude that "It takes a village to raise a child". Well they have an attitude that it takes the entire village to do everything, everything should be done by society, by consensus.
The flip side is true for holding criminals responsible for their own actions. Many of them do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, society failed to provide a job for him. A philosophy that the individual criminal is not to blame.

According to Bucephalus and Brian this woman should have taken martial arts classes, but should not be allowed to have a gun:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/police-man-beat-woman-with-hammer-raped-little-girl-stabbed-dog/

Yes C0, you will find stories saying you are right. I get it. You clearly took my martial arts comment very literally. Here then is a story where it worked.

"Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 20th injury. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio."

Those are the details from the Giffords shooting in AZ. At the same location, Mr. Zamudio had his gun drawn, safety off and was ready to shoot at the assailant. Who did he aim the gun at and threaten? The citizens who disarmed loughner already. Luckily he was smart enough to not pull the trigger, but not everyone is.

The liberals who rant and rave against the right of citizens to bear arms are the same people who say that incarceration is not the answer , and fight for more lenient sentencing of felons .. "we can't arrest our way out of this problem" as the new Chicago Police Cheif has said...

It has taken some time but the people in Illinois have gradually seen that the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment arguments are seriously flawed. Anti-gun activists asked the people of Illinois to ignore common sense, they were told that it's an unsophisticated view. The inteligentsia has the true answers... well decades of criminology studies have shown hat people knew a century ago, just common sense things like, having a firearm really does enable you to protect yourself - wow imagine that.

Firearms when the country was founded did not include uzis. I am not against gun ownership. I am against the ease with which anyone can buy a gun and the types of guns that are out there for personal use. People do not need to own military style automatic weapons to defend themselves or to hunt. The NRA seems to believe that ANY firearm is acceptable and there should be no oversight as to who can own these weapons.

@Sully
"Firearms when the country was founded did not include uzis."

True, but two facts make that fact irrelevant.

1st the Founding Father's were smart enough to know the development of weapons would continue, and they considered that when writing the 2nd Amendment.

2nd the whole point to the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the citizens could protect themselves from the government, not hunting; anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant. As such the citizens must be able to bear arms pari passu. That is why they specifically expressed no conditions or limitations in the 2nd Amendment.

The Amendments were written specifically created and written the way they were by the FF's to ensure the rights would never be changed or taken away.

Furthermore, the reason "militia" is specifically stated is so it is clear that US citizens have the right to create a militia on their own, without government control or restriction.

First of all firearms are not east to obtain, and if you’d ever attempted to purchase on you’d know that. First of all you have to get a FOID. The FOID process screens all applicants and does an intensive background check. The process also typically takes 60 days to be completed. Secondly, when you say “Uzis”, I’m assuming you mean the sub machine guns that the Israeli army uses. Those are not available to the average citizen and have been illegal since 1934:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
I know Hollywood portrays all bad guys as touting machine guns around but in reality – it doesn’t happen.

“Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”1 The closest relative is the “assault rifle,” which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that fires rifle cartridges. In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical though less powerful than hunting rifles, but they are cosmetically similar to military guns.
Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban.

In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%.

In the drug-ridden Miami of 1980, fewer than 1% of all gun homicides were with machine guns.

Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.

Only 6% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,” though less than 2.5% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.

“Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry “assault weapons.”

The government is regulating a deadly weapon. How is there such a massive problem with that. Handguns are made to be a portable stopping device. They are meant to severely wound and kill. Yes, they can be used for sport; target shooting and some use them to hunt, but their primary purpose is as a convenient sidearm.

Should we all be allowed to possess a nuclear warhead? IT doesn't kill people. Someone still has to push the button.

If everyone is supposed to take things into their own hands, that seems to fall into an anarchistic society. Way to go America.

Brian, you state that guns are just meant to kill or wound. I could agree with that. You also seem to state that you have no problem with the government regulating the "deadly weapon". Question: FIRE is only meant to burn, how many die or are injured by fires / arsonists???? Should the government regulate matches and lighters?? Should we need to get a permission slip before we can purchase matches or lighters?

"Should the government regulate matches and lighters??"

That is an absurd analogy. I truly hope Tom that you are just being argumentative. There happens to be a substantial difference between lighters and guns. There is no other purpose to a gun other than to injure kill something. That is why they are created, that is their point. A gun cannot be used for anything else. You don't use it as a hammer or a straight edge, it doesn't function for anything else except the purpose of firing bullets.

Now, let's look at a lighter. If I point it at someone's head and flip it, it will not kill that person. Even if I was physically touching them with the flame, it would burn them, but it would not kill them. Furthermore, lighters do have other purposes. As you kindly reminded everybody, lighters cause things to burn. This is useful for the legal, if repugnant, act of smoking as well as numerous other activities none of which involve the injuring or killing of another person.

Bucephalus, Firearms ARE useful for the legal, even if you feel repugnant, act of SELF Defense as well as numerous other activities none of which involve the injuring or killing of another person, Such as target shooting and hunting.

Hey, we get it you don't like guns. Then don't get one! I have a Constitutional Right to "keep and bear" mine - but I promise if YOU or your family are ever attacked by thugs I will NOT use mine to save your sorry a_ _ !!

I definitely have no problem with the government regulating deadly weapons. I understand what you mean with your lighter and match, but they really are apples and oranges. Much of this discussion has been over the fact that people should have conceal carry to instill fear in criminals that the victim might have a weapon. I'll restate that we don't seem to mind if the government tells us we can't possess a dirty bomb or rocket propelled grenades. They would do the same thing as a gun, why stop at handguns?

I've said somewhere else in here that if/when this law passes, i'll live with it because I do enjoy this great country we live in. Unfortunately I sometimes have to live with laws I don't agree with and policies I don't like. What bothers me so much about political hot button issues is both sides refusal to bend. People are of the mindset that if they don't agree with the law, it shouldn't apply to them. I get that this is a constitutional argument vs a current state law. But my statement still stands.

Tom, you didn't answer the very point you raised. You and C0untZer0 seem to be really angry people. I'm sorry you have to live your life hating people who disagree with you.

But my point still stands. The other uses for guns all involve shooting objects, living or dead, to inflict damage. I agree, those uses are all legal, but they all involve inflicting damage to something else. A lighter or match doesn't do that. A lighter does not always burn things to the ground, nor does the act of uses a lighter or match inflict as much damage as using a firearm.

Rather than go off on me for not liking guns (I'll be more than happy to provide a list of all the firearms I've ever used), which is incorrect anyways, you should probably try and stick to the questions you raise. Yelling and screaming that you want your guns just makes you sound childish.

Sully always wants to change the subject. This isn't about uzis, dummy. It's about law abiding citizens having the right to protect themselves while criminals have things like uzis. How many law abiding people do you know who carry automatic weapons around. Ummm, none,

Denying people the right to defend themselves is morally bankrupt:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/police-man-beat-woman-with-hammer-raped-little-girl-stabbed-dog/

Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times.

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated
that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

Of the 2,500,000 annual selfdefense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed
victim than they are about running into the police."

Or just shoot the siphoners. That'll show 'em.

But by your logic, if the criminals will always do it, shouldn't we just be allowed to siphon gas freely? Level the playing field right? Free reign.

This is the same opinion of the officers in our town as well! I've taken our citizens police academy class twice and each group of officers made similar comments. :)

You mean the same Illinois liberals you keep supporting?

Oh Sully, quit your whining.

I see your point:

Sully: sheeple, play toy soldier all you want, Bitter, angry, easily fooled, and easily led..

You: I think you all have a delusion bubble around you all, I won't be thinking or acting any differently knowing that nutjobs like you, Would you like a trophy with that?

Sully again: I'm surprised that Donny, being such a devout Christian

No, I don't think you will. I think you all have a delusion bubble around you all. I don't know what you expect will happen IF it passes in Illinois. So you'll be able to have a gun in your car or on you. If that changes your behavior, good for you. It won't change mine.

I won't be thinking or acting any differently knowing that nutjobs like you (I can throw insults too, whoopie!) are feeling high and mighty. You get to carry a gun now. Good for you. Would you like a trophy with that?

I'll still be laughing because you've expended so much frustration, so much energy, so much devotion to something that is utterly inconsequential to your daily life.

Lets hope so Tom. I carry here in Illinois because I refuse to be a victim and I think a jury would have a hard time convicting anyone that uses a weapon in self defense to defend ones life.

I'm surprised that it was my comment here, out of all the comments said, that got pulled, presumably for being inappropriate. Well I'm going to repost what I said and hopefully eliminate the inappropriate part to it.

Donny=Criminal

Concealed carry is against the law. You may not like the law, but that does not give you a right to brazenly violate it. Work to change the law if you don't agree with it, but openly admitting that you break it doesn't change the fact that you become a criminal by breaking the law.

As for self-defense, well, jury nullification just doesn't happen. If you are counting on a jury to allow concealed carry, wait some more. That just doesn't happen.

Finally, self-defense is not a carte blanche to do as you please.
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a)"...However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."

If someone breaks into your house and is stealing your TV, you are NOT justified in shooting that person. Or, to use Nightcrawler's example, if you saw someone siphoning your gas off, you would NOT be justified in shooting that person. Self-defense does not allow you to shoot anyone you perceive to be committing criminal acts against you.

What the law states and what a jury states are two totally different things. If it was a matter of life and death and you defend your life the worst sentence a jury would pass down might be a probation sentence if that. And Bucephalus unless you're driving 55mph down our beloved highways you too are a criminal.

What's wrong Sully, no Lennie Jarratt to wrongly pick on today, so you take up another favorite liberal whiny issue?

If I was to ask you if you drive 55 MPH in a 55 MPH zone? Would your response be, muh wa muh wa wa wa.

No Sully, I don't believe you know what flowing testosterone feels like. And apparently you do in fact care or you would be focusing your efforts on issues that benefit you the most, such as legalizing same sex unions in Illinois....

What will Bucephaus think of the cartoon stereotypes?

@TWL BWHA HA HA HA HA HA

@TWL - I am not sure when Sully says he is part of the 1% if that means he is a homosexual or that he is rich. You might want to ask him to clarify.

Not everyone is as greedy as others, Targets. I do villify the corporate whores who want to bankrupt the country in order to have more and get more. Target and Donny- you two seem to have much in common, both insecure little boys threatened by anyone who doesn't look or sound or believe as you do. I'm going to guess Rush is your hero with Beck a close second. Obama's not really an Amuricun citizen you know, and he's a Muslim too. Oh, one more thing- he's black! The trifecta for you fellas!

You certainly are full of assumptions.

Right, which i mentioned. He didn't end up being a problem. But Mr. Loughner purchased his gun legally, carried it legally, and then proceeded to gun people down at which point he was stopped by unarmed citizens. All I'm trying to state is that there are problems with conceal carry as well. I recognize that not every person is a problem. But I also recognize that just passing a background check does not make you a saint. It doesn't make you a perfect law abiding citizen.

There isn't constantly this need to kick and yell that i am fighting for such an extreme view. Relax, fighting on the internet is a situation where no one will win.

You are comparing a weapon (guns) with commonplace items that can be used as weapons and/or dangerous devices. The only part I will lump in with the guns for you is knives that are meant for killing. Switch blades, butterfly knives, and blades of that nature.

I know I won't get the amendment changed because at least half the nation is for the "right to bear arms." What you don't get is that there are a lot of people against it. This forum is just a way for us all to get our ideas across. I don't get your general refusal to accept that Illinois has a law that you don't like right now. It happens. You keep arguing back by picking and choosing what to talk about without a mild acceptance of statements or facts that I have given against this topic. The truth is, there are numbers to support both arguments. I get it, guns can help with self defense, but so can other things. You guys are so one track minded that you refuse to accept that.

Maybe to you this is like debating about taxes or corporate welfare or something. This isn't debate club.

As far as other things being used for self defense. We've known for over 235 years that the firearm is the best most effective tool for self defense. The founding fathers knew it.

As much as others would love everyone to use tasers or stun guns or karate chops or the Vulcan nerve pinch - firearms are the most effective tool. It is spelled out in the constitution and Illinois citizens have been deined those rights for decades.

It's definitely not debate club. I see it as residents voicing opinions with each other with what has become the very lack of respect (by both sides) that others have debated about on this very website. But again you take it down the childish path to make what I say look like lunacy. People have defended themselves, and will continue to defend themselves with other methods as well as with guns. Firearms can be a good way to defend against criminals. I get it. They can also be used to accidentally wound or kill family members who get home late, threaten and/or shoot the wrong person in what appears to be a problem on the street. I don't think more guns on the street is the answer.....I get it....you do. Super. We can be done now.

This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal onto vaugue concepts generally categorized as social problems and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. They view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like corporations that refuse to start making paint with no lead in it... The great socialist mantra – there is nothing that can’t be fixed or improved with the right government program if you throw enough money at it.

This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal onto vaugue social problems and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers.
There is especially this particular mindset in Chicago, it's a faith in collectivism a faith in the state and a distrust and dislike of individualism.

Individuals having guns - is not the answer (according to the mindset). In fact, they're part of the problem (according to the mindset). And the individuals who do insist on keeping guns have to be regulated and brought under society's control.

Common sense is prevailing. Forty Nine states have citizens who understand that the anti-gun rhetoric is baseless. American citizens are increasingly demanding their rights be restored. They’ve endured the failed policies of anti-gun mayors and anti-gun chiefs of police for decades and now there are only a few dozen of these socialist municipalities left, unfortunately for the law abiding citizens of Illinois – Chicago is one of these surviving bastions of oppressive socialist thinking. Rahm Emanuel is still peddling the message that people can’t be trusted, trying to convince people that they can’t even trust themselves. But the politicians can be trusted – they do the difficult thinking for the community so individuals don’t have to. The message is falling on deaf ears. The city has completely failed to protect it’s citizens. The same tired tactics are being re-used now in this debate. When liberal socialist policies fail, it’s never because they are intrinsically flawed, it’s due to opposition b those darn conservatives. Failed gun-control laws can be rectified with more laws. If the new laws fail, even more laws will be passed.

Well, decades of this illogical and obviously flawed thinking are now being seen for what it is – a failure.

I don’t believe the government s going to protect me. I don't beleive their lies that I can't be trusted to provide for my own well-being.

Illinois UUW is unconstitutional, it will be proved so..

Such machoism!