Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Chicago is all safe now ... new law passed

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Chicago is all safe now ... new law passed

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/3c50...w-targets.html

    A waste of paper if you ask me...new law passed in Illinois .. meant to curb something ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Generally speaking if you are white, not in a gang, not dealing/using drugs and don't go into high crime areas it's a safe city.

    http://heyjackass.com/category/2016-stats/
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    591
    Yeps, and this one will work! Gotta have that state gun owner id card. They must know who you are. So when they need to, they know where the guns are.

    Nemo

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/news...rol/index.html

    New gun control law targets Chicago violence
    CNN Money•August 24, 2016

    The governor of Illinois just signed a new gun control law to combat the sale of firearms in the bullet-ridden city of Chicago.

    Gov. Bruce Rauner approved a law on Tuesday that imposes a stiff penalty on anyone without a gun-owner identification card who brings a gun into the state of Illinois to sell.

    That crime is now a felony that carries a prison sentence of four to 20 years, or up to 30 years for repeat offenders, according to a spokeswoman for Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, one of the bill's sponsors.

    . . ..

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Va_Nemo View Post
    Yeps, and this one will work! Gotta have that state gun owner id card. They must know who you are. So when they need to, they know where the guns are.

    Nemo

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/news...rol/index.html
    I am no fan of gun control laws - isn't this redundant? To sell a firearm across state lines LEGALLY requires an FFL, failure to have one would be a federal offense, wouldn't it? I know in NC at least you can't buy directly from out of state - you have to go through a FFL to do so.

    I also was under the impression that straw purchasing was a crime in and of itself....

    However - with this being an entirely asinine law -provided one is not SELLING their firearm - they wouldn't need any "state gun owner ID card", now would they?
    So for those who would not be selling their tools of self defence - its a bit of a moot point.

    Or did I miss something?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post
    I am no fan of gun control laws - isn't this redundant? To sell a firearm across state lines LEGALLY requires an FFL, failure to have one would be a federal offense, wouldn't it? I know in NC at least you can't buy directly from out of state - you have to go through a FFL to do so.

    I also was under the impression that straw purchasing was a crime in and of itself....

    However - with this being an entirely asinine law -provided one is not SELLING their firearm - they wouldn't need any "state gun owner ID card", now would they?
    So for those who would not be selling their tools of self defence - its a bit of a moot point.

    Or did I miss something?
    I would not find anyone guilty of selling their property. Would you?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would not find anyone guilty of selling their property. Would you?
    That depends. Are they selling it to a convicted criminal who has - by virtue of their crime - abrogated their right to keep and bear arms?
    Are they selling it to a guy that is mentally unstable?

    With OWNERSHIP and FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY.

    If a person does not take their OWNERSHIP of a firearm seriously, and thereby sells that property to someone who is prohibited by law from possessing it - then yes. I would.

    I don't like anti-firearm ownership laws. However, the idea that 2a gives carte blanc to any citizen to own a firearm regardless of any other circumstance is ludicrous. In fact - properly read 2A limits FEDERAL reach in regards to firearms only - it does not in any way impact the rights of INDIVIDUAL STATES to adopt their own individual firearm laws. Unless you care to throw out the rest of the Constitution just so you can assert 2A rights.....

    You can not just pick and choose and remain consistent.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post
    That depends. Are they selling it to a convicted criminal who has - by virtue of their crime - abrogated their right to keep and bear arms?
    Are they selling it to a guy that is mentally unstable?

    With OWNERSHIP and FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY.

    If a person does not take their OWNERSHIP of a firearm seriously, and thereby sells that property to someone who is prohibited by law from possessing it - then yes. I would.

    I don't like anti-firearm ownership laws. However, the idea that 2a gives carte blanc to any citizen to own a firearm regardless of any other circumstance is ludicrous. In fact - properly read 2A limits FEDERAL reach in regards to firearms only - it does not in any way impact the rights of INDIVIDUAL STATES to adopt their own individual firearm laws. Unless you care to throw out the rest of the Constitution just so you can assert 2A rights.....

    You can not just pick and choose and remain consistent.


    With OWNERSHIP and FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY.

    This is what lizzurds say all the time. And everyone says different things about what makes a person to be a "responsible gun owner". It means all of us are not responsible obviously...so no one can own except the .govs.

    Any freeman should have the RKBA. The .govs could make anything a felony .. and they are going down this road. A felon who is free has paid his debt IMO and all freemen have the RKBA. Once you start down the path of "this guy is too dangerous" then everyone will fit into this bucket eventually.

    The .govs depend on people like you to curtail and infringe on peoples' RKBA.

    And the 2nd amendment is just a law .. it can change or be eliminated. Rights however are always with use regardless of any law. .govs can only trample on our rights.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    With OWNERSHIP and FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY.
    This is what lizzurds say all the time.
    I have no idea what a "lizzurd" is. Unless you simply lack the ability to spell - and somehow or another have formed the opinion that amphibians can speak....

    And everyone says different things about what makes a person to be a "responsible gun owner". It means all of us are not responsible obviously...so no one can own except the .govs.
    My statement was not merely in reference to firearms. Any OWNERSHIP of property comes with responsibility. Own a car? You are responsible to operate it in a manner that does not jeopardize the safety of others. Own a house? You are responsible to insure it does not collapse on visitors - or burn down with others in it. If you want to burn or collapse it on yourself - well - you should be allowed to. That would be stupid - but I think you should be allowed. Own a knife? You are responsible not to throw it at people for fun. I could give more examples but the point is clear, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

    The idea that Freedom and Liberty are without any limits or responsibilities - which is what you are implying - is not truly Freedom or Liberty. It is ANARCHY - and anarchy is merely a state in which the strong have an easier time dominating the weak. Your Freedom to do and act is unfettered UNTIL it infringes on another person's Liberty. Therefore it DOES have limits.

    Any freeman should have the RKBA. The .govs could make anything a felony .. and they are going down this road.
    By ".govs" do you mean the Feds, or do you include any and all governmental entities, from the Feds - through the State and down to your local governing body?

    I am a Constitutionalist - I believe the Fed has tremendously over-reached in so many ways its uncountable. I believe in States rights - and the rights of the Individual. Which means if you live in a State with law you don't like - you should have the INDIVIDUAL right to move to one that better fits you. With the Federal overreach that has continued to grow worse - such things are not - right now at least - the way they should be - which would allow such things. The Fed is a monstrosity that needs to be stopped and cut wholesale until it is back within its Constitutional constraints. How each State deals with things is - and should be - up to the People.

    A felon who is free has paid his debt IMO and all freemen have the RKBA.
    I disagree. SOME felons have paid their debt - others, like murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc - can never truly recompense society for their crimes. Sadly - the screwed up "justice" system lets these clowns out amongst the LAC population. Personally, the Criminal "justice" system needs a serious overhaul! Am I ok with letting someone who one time wrote a bad check for more than $200 bucks get their rights restored? Absolutely. Do I think that a child molester who gets out on "good behavior" after a 10yr sentence should have open access to kids again? No - I don't. Apparently you think that since they served their time - they should no longer have any kind of restrictions on them.... Just like someone who committed armed robbery and murder while holding up a bank should be allowed to get another gun...

    We just aren't going to see eye to eye on that one.

    I personally know a gentleman who is 33 - he was born with severe mental deficiencies - to the point where he has required 24/7 care all his life. His intellectual ability is that of somewhere around a 5 year old. He is however - legally speaking - a "freeman" - and you think that he should be able to own a gun? Really?

    Again - we are NOT going to see eye to eye on that.

    Once you start down the path of "this guy is too dangerous" then everyone will fit into this bucket eventually.
    Ever heard the old saying "A Leopard can't change his spots."? Ralph, the alcoholic down the road - he has only had 3 wrecks where he killed a total of 7 people. He did his time - he should be allowed to have a drivers license again, right? Chester the child molester a block over, sure he should be allowed to work at the daycare center since they released him from jail. Hell - using your logic - the illegals crossing the border should be allowed to stay after they "do their time" for crossing over here illegally. What are you - for AMNESTY?

    The .govs depend on people like you to curtail and infringe on peoples' RKBA.
    The fact that I do not subscribe to your rather flawed concept of RKBA does not automagically mean that I am somehow in support of government curtailing RKBA. While I know it makes for great hyperbole to tr and paint that picture, it is not an accurate or truthful one.

    And the 2nd amendment is just a law ..
    Wrong - it is part of the US Constitution as Amended. I find it ironic that you fail to grasp the importance of one of the Cornerstones of our entire system of society - denigrating it to "just a law" - when it is that very Founding Document that holds back the progressives, liberals and socialists from entirely remaking our country into yet another krapistan or eurosocialist state. If the Constitution is so unimportant as being "just a law" - perhaps you would like to join the far left in trying to get rid of it entirely?

    it can change or be eliminated.
    Is that a threat?

    Rights however are always with use regardless of any law. .govs can only trample on our rights.
    No - governments can only trample our rights when and if we as citizens allow it. I for one do not choose to allow it - but you and I define "trample" entirely differently.

    Perhaps you should not only re-read the Constitution - but also review 2nd sentence of the Declaration of Independence...
    "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"

    Because the Creator is now involved with those "certain unalienable Rights" remember - Jesus did command some of his disciples to go forth armed. I don't think God has a problem with the RKBA. However, Jesus also commanded Peter to "put down his sword" in the Garden of Gethsemane. So it would be unwise of you to state that the RKBA is somehow an "unalienable" right.

    I am not in favor of the Chicago law. Its stupid, redundant and will be entirely ineffective. I am also not in favor of letting anyone, anywhere - have access to firearms. Or for that matter - other weaponry.

    So let me take a page out of your book on this one...

    Should RKBA be limited to firearms? Shouldn't it include fully armed tanks, artillery pieces, even nukes if one could afford them? If not - why not? Hell - your so damned scared of the ".govs" you might need all that to keep them at bay. Of course - that would mean any of the "legal" immigrants coming from places like SYRIA should be allowed those things too right? I mean - its "Rights however are always with use regardless of any law." - so you must be all for letting them have all kinds of weapons. After all - you can't say "some people are just too dangerous" - can you?

    Yea - it doesn't matter if they are likely terrorists. Doesn't matter if they are insane. Or Illegal. Every "freeman" has a right to arms in your book.
    Nope - just can't agree. Nor would I want to see what kind of crap hole such a country would be like if that happened. It'd be a cross between Mexico and any krapistan in the Middle East you could pick - on steroids.

    No thank you. I spent 8 years in a funny green suit to make sure we didn't end up like that. I am not in uniform any longer - but I can tell you this - I didn't take that oath lightly. Its a lifetime commitment. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - and seeing people on both sides of the political spectrum try and STOMP on it - well - don't expect to go unchallenged.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    My ownership of property is not contingent upon me being responsible at all. You are putting the cart before the horse and your logic is flawed.

    The only barrier to owning stuff is (or should be) my ability to pay for the stuff. That's it. I need not convey a feeling to the seller or others that I would be a "responsible" owner, whatever that means.

    And if you plunked down $30K for a car not knowing how to drive, according to you, you would not be able to purchase it.

    And please spare me your "green uniform..oath" pleadings ... I'm a vet. I never saw my work in the service as doing anything relevant to preserving people's freedoms or protecting US citizens inside this nation.



    You talk about Chester the child molester .... well, we let Chesters out of prison, don't we...you say inevitable that Chester will do it again. I'm not an expert on such matters but if so, life sentences would likely be seen as OK but I don't see that for a first offender of many crimes of a Chester-type crime.

    The constitution is just a bunch of laws...I don't think you understand this. The Declaration notes or references various natural rights and concepts in it .. yet you did not identify these as rights which may just be an oversight in your writings (hey, this is not a PhD dissertation). Also, I did not have a say in the constitution ~ I was not alive...I have plenty of objections to many things in it but I know that I cannot change it....nor do I have to as my rights are still my rights even if the .govs refuse to recognize them and even if others refuse to recognize them.

    As for criminals...I am not that "hard up" for revenge via our current system ... revenge does not make the actual victims whole (for those that live of course) ... if someone clunks you on the head, putting that person behind bars may feel good but it really is no compensation for you as a victim. The law does not allow, as compensation, for you to clunk him back (although this will not make your head hurt less). I can see why people would support such an idea though..its very attractive. In reality you can only take control of someone's property (either his stuff or his person) .. I see the taking of stuff to be more important than the person. If a fine is paid by a criminal, who gets the $$$? Not the victim..that's sad...IMO.

    You seem genuinely concerned of .govs .. that's good. Just give issues more thought and meditation. Ask, what right is this associated with, if any.

    One question to meditate upon: What, as a constitutionalist, are you going to do or think if the 2nd amend. is repealed? And what would you think others would do or think about such a thing? Its possible, right?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    I never saw my work in the service as doing anything relevant to preserving people's freedoms or protecting US citizens inside this nation.
    Ahh I see. The ever present "well I don't think so and only my opinion matters" complex. Gotcha.

    Sadly - while you may be a vet - you fail to comprehend that those like myself who have been overseas, left sweat, tears and in many cases blood and life, there - did in fact do so to insure that the picture you posted never happened. I don't know what time frame, and I really don't care. While we could probably argue over whether we should have gotten involved in many overseas conflicts, the reality is that there are a shitload of terrorists that have been killed OVER THERE - rather than here. That does protect your freedom - whether your smart enough to see it or not. By discounting and disparaging those who have done their damnedest to make sure that we don't have flames, sandbags and soldiers on the streets of this nations cities - you prove you have no understanding of the multiple threats that we face.

    Then again - you also demonstrated you couldn't address any of the questions I posed to you - proving you don't care to debate or deal with facts - you merely wish to proclaim your gospel that all government is evil and wishes to infringe on whatever "natural" rights you wish you claim at the moment.

    I am always willing to have a debate - but not a one way questioning session with someone who can't even answer simple questions that rebut their so dearly held positions. Since you can't debate or discuss, but merely "preach" - especially after insulting the sacrifices of many of what are our brothers on the battlefields of this planet - you are no longer worth my time.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post
    Ahh I see. The ever present "well I don't think so and only my opinion matters" complex. Gotcha.

    Sadly - while you may be a vet - you fail to comprehend that those like myself who have been overseas, left sweat, tears and in many cases blood and life, there - did in fact do so to insure that the picture you posted never happened. I don't know what time frame, and I really don't care. While we could probably argue over whether we should have gotten involved in many overseas conflicts, the reality is that there are a shitload of terrorists that have been killed OVER THERE - rather than here. That does protect your freedom - whether your smart enough to see it or not. By discounting and disparaging those who have done their damnedest to make sure that we don't have flames, sandbags and soldiers on the streets of this nations cities - you prove you have no understanding of the multiple threats that we face.

    Then again - you also demonstrated you couldn't address any of the questions I posed to you - proving you don't care to debate or deal with facts - you merely wish to proclaim your gospel that all government is evil and wishes to infringe on whatever "natural" rights you wish you claim at the moment.

    I am always willing to have a debate - but not a one way questioning session with someone who can't even answer simple questions that rebut their so dearly held positions. Since you can't debate or discuss, but merely "preach" - especially after insulting the sacrifices of many of what are our brothers on the battlefields of this planet - you are no longer worth my time.
    I assume that you are meditating on the question concerning the repeal of the 2nd amendment at your viewpoint afterwards. I assume at this point that if the amendment was repealed then you would support any gun control measures passed.

    And the idea that killing people overseas as we do protects us or if it actually creates more enemies is subject to debate. I think its clear that these activities likely create a greater danger to us than it solves.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    My ownership of property is not contingent upon me being responsible at all. You are putting the cart before the horse and your logic is flawed.

    The only barrier to owning stuff is (or should be) my ability to pay for the stuff. That's it. I need not convey a feeling to the seller or others that I would be a "responsible" owner, whatever that means.

    And if you plunked down $30K for a car not knowing how to drive, according to you, you would not be able to purchase it.

    SNIP
    I have to point out that you're not up to snuff.

    I have had this discussion before with others. Part of ownership is responsibly. Your car argument is a red herring. Owning a car in an of itself is harmless. But part of the right to keep an bear arms is owning nuclear devices. Part of owning nuclear devices is storing them correctly, and that is responsibility. If you allow the radiation from the nuclear device to harm anyone else through poor storage, you're responsible. If you harm someone with your car, you're responsible.

    If you do not maintain your firearms and they misfire do to your poor maintaince, you're responsible.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post

    Sadly - while you may be a vet - you fail to comprehend that those like myself who have been overseas, left sweat, tears and in many cases blood and life, there - did in fact do so to insure that the picture you posted never happened. I don't know what time frame, and I really don't care. While we could probably argue over whether we should have gotten involved in many overseas conflicts, the reality is that there are a shitload of terrorists that have been killed OVER THERE - rather than here. That does protect your freedom - whether your smart enough to see it or not. By discounting and disparaging those who have done their damnedest to make sure that we don't have flames, sandbags and soldiers on the streets of this nations cities - you prove you have no understanding of the multiple threats that we face.
    We are not to be fighting overseas.
    Governments cannot be trusted as even noted in the writings of the founding fathers.

    Actually, we are not even to have a standing army. We are supposed to have very active militias. I have wanted an amendment to allow for a standing airforce, however as it stands, it needs to be disbanded.

    The only thing our military does overseas is create more enemies and guard the drug trade. Then there are the murders, rapes, theft.....

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 09-01-2016 at 09:23 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I have to point out that you're not up to snuff.

    I have had this discussion before with others. Part of ownership is responsibly. Your car argument is a red herring. Owning a car in an of itself is harmless. But part of the right to keep an bear arms is owning nuclear devices. Part of owning nuclear devices is storing them correctly, and that is responsibility. If you allow the radiation from the nuclear device to harm anyone else through poor storage, you're responsible. If you harm someone with your car, you're responsible.

    If you do not maintain your firearms and they misfire do to your poor maintaince, you're responsible.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    If you harm anyone then there could be issues to be addressed. But potential, not yet encountered, issues are no reason to prohibit ownership. So we might be on the same page here.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    We are not to be fighting overseas.
    Governments cannot be trusted as even noted in the writings of the founding fathers.

    Actually, we are not even to have a standing army. We are supposed to have very active militias. I have wanted an amendment to allow for a standing airforce, however as it stands, it needs to be disbanded.

    The only thing our military does overseas is create more enemies and guard the drug trade. Then there are the murders, rapes, theft.....

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    And we are on the same page here ... our presence overseas does create enemies.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If you harm anyone then there could be issues to be addressed. But potential, not yet encountered, issues are no reason to prohibit ownership. So we might be on the same page here.
    So, we are on the same page.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, we are on the same page.
    That might create a scandal of epic proportions.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    That might create a scandal of epic proportions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •