It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

page: 8
54
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
As long as my concealed 460 is legal I'm good...

The funny part in CA when they limited mags to 10 people just went out and bought .45s...lol stupid Government...




LOL!! How do you conceal that BEAST?




posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I see their plan. disarm the poor population first and then go for the middle class. We shall see how willing they are to surrender their guns.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TreetopControl

The trunk of your car? Otherwise, no idea. Damn, that's a big gun.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Truth. Because without the second, the first amendment is toothless. Utterly without any power other than what a govt. will allow.

Elections? Only if we allow 'em. Choice in any matter, of any sort? Only if they allow it.

All for want of a little tiny sentence.


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.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

So where are all the ATS gun control know-it-all’s spewing that this sort of thing won’t happen? They just want “common sense” gun control laws after all.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
I see their plan. disarm the poor population first and then go for the middle class. We shall see how willing they are to surrender their guns.


Step 1

Criminalize guns... Walk down the street with a gun on your hip or on your shoulder and see how fast a cop comes up to you. When I was a kid my dad would walk into a bank with a gun on his hip since we were going hunting and no one would look twice. Every truck had a gun rack in the back window and many had a gun there too, schools had gun clubs etc... Today you can have your guns but keep them in safes and hidden otherwise you must be doing something illegal, so now we are forced to carry concealed and even that is being attacked in many ways as an illegal act.

No need to repeal the 2nd, just make the idea of actually having a gun on your body an illegal act.


edit on 4-4-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


Walk down the street with a gun on your hip or on your shoulder and see how fast a cop comes up to you.

Way, way back in, I think it was '86, I was in Birmingham and in a pickle... needed cash to fix my car so I could go get the cash. So I did the unthinkable... I pawned my guns for the weekend. But without a car, I had to get a taxi to take me and my armory to the pawn shop, and just my luck, the paw shop I went to thought 10 cents on the dollar was generous. So I chose to try another pawn shop.

So here I go down the streets of Birmingham with my gun belt (which included a TC 30-30 with a 16" barrel), rifles slung over my shoulder, a shotgun in each hand, enough artillery to make me rattle when I walked. I stand 6'-2" with a full beard, long hair, and a Stetson arrogantly sitting on my head. I walked to another pawn shop,got a better price, and called for a taxi to take me home. No one panic... I had my weapons back safe before they could unlock the doors good Monday morning.

My point being, not once was I stopped and harassed, thanks to the fine folk of the police department. On the other hand, I was watched closely... it seemed like every third car that went by was a cruiser. That's the way it should be: had I been of a mind to do something nefarious, I would have been surrounded by angry armed cops before I could drop enough guns to use the ones I was holding. As long as I did not indicate such nefarious motives, I was not bothered.

That's the way gun control is supposed to work. Potential problem? Watch him like a hawk until you make sure he is not an actual problem. The cops could have stopped me, questioned me, and even harassed me (I was halfway expecting it, to be honest) and had a bank robbery or actual shooting happened they would have been stuck with me instead of stopping a violent crime in progress. That's exactly what we're discussing in this thread. In this thread, we're discussing spending the police's time and money harassing folk who have done nothing wrong and are well within their rights, instead of letting them take the trouble to actually act like real cops and protect the public good.

As with many similar agendas, it's not about public safety as much as it is about public perception. Public safety be damned; we want to feel better about the fools we elected to office!

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm trying to visualize that...


But you, and Xtro, are spot on.

That's all the cops usually need to do, in most cases. Just make the person aware that they're being watched...no need to harass, or question.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

Well, first of all I disagree entirely with this ruling, because semi automatic ANYTHING is not an assault rifle. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor is any form of semi-auto pistol or shotgun an assault weapon, and anyone seeking to classify them as such needs a slap upside the head, and a dressing down from someone who is not fundamentally intellectually incompetent.

BUT...

You state that the ruling covers all firearms. I would argue that, no it does not, because it fails entirely to cover single action revolver pistols, unless you left something out of your OP. Its a small thing, and don't get me wrong, the ruling is pure crap, and needs setting fire to, along with the people that thought it was a good idea, but be accurate in your statements. There are more than enough real douches out there who will use inaccuracies to assail your points, and while I found a chink, I agree with the point you are making here, and only want to see them made from an unassailable position in future



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyfloating







Of course those numbers have nothing to do with the difference between a third world craphole and highly efficient European country... Eh?



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The second amendment seems rather useless to me already anyway.

So the idea is Basic Guns will protect you from an Army so advanced it could reduce Earth itself to rubble floating through space?

Yeah, k.

Why can't I have access to the same weapons they use, if it's to protect myself from them?

Without equal Military access in the first place, it's pretty terrible protection. "Military access" back in the day was 'just guns', but I have 0 faith this could prevent the Army from doing whatever the # they wanted to anyone now. Zero. They can shoot a missile down your chimney and a microwave gun through your house all while being hundreds of miles away on a boat, the argument that bearing arms allows you any kind of protection against that is idiotic.

And so I hate when it's pushed under the idea that this amendment is useful for the same reasons as it was in the past, it's not even.

The real kicker is you could buy a tank and still not even come within a horses ass hair of beating the United States Military, but everyone still argues about what level of access of a gun is acceptable for 'defeating the gubbernment' and 'defending yourself'. I'll give you a clue, #ing none of them will live up to that expectation, and it's very rare a Rifle will allow you more personal defense than a Handgun, anyway.

To be clear, I am pro-access, but I think the whining over it is just so irritating. I feel like owning up to Gunning being a sport would be more beneficial for access than constantly riding this idea you need semi auto rifles for personal defense. You don't, really. Rifles are long range. Rifles are for the Predator.
edit on 5-4-2018 by FlatMyAss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
One things for damn certain...if you want to get killed with a GUN while YOUR not allowed to own one.......move to Illinois. The closer to Chicago the better.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

Yeah this law is unconstitutional and will be struck down.


edit on 5-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


That is a good case but because it was a per curiam it may and will most likely be tested again until a more lengthy signed opinion is produced by the Supreme Court.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is where Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) come into play.

The attempt to ban guns that are semi automatic is unconstitutional considering all firearms are semi automatic. Itsd up there with Debbie Wasserman-Shultz trying to back door gun legislation by introducing a bill that requires background checks just to purchase ammunition.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlatMyAss
a reply to: seagull

The second amendment seems rather useless to me already anyway.


That's really unfortunate, and a very misguided opinion.


So the idea is Basic Guns will protect you from an Army so advanced it could reduce Earth itself to rubble floating through space?

Yeah, k.


Frankly, yes, that is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Sadly, WE have allowed politicians to water it down over the decades, and it shouldn't be that way, but also remember; all those advanced weapons may not all work in a fractured command and control environment. That, and there's a whole lot more of those 'primative' firearms than there are of the advanced ones.


Why can't I have access to the same weapons they use, if it's to protect myself from them?


Candidly...you SHOULD! Again, to the spirit and essence of the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights.


Without equal Military access in the first place, it's pretty terrible protection. "Military access" back in the day was 'just guns', but I have 0 faith this could prevent the Army from doing whatever the # they wanted to anyone now. Zero. They can shoot a missile down your chimney and a microwave gun through your house all while being hundreds of miles away on a boat, the argument that bearing arms allows you any kind of protection against that is idiotic.


Well, are you just going to throw up your arms, declare everything impossible and give up??? Regarding the "idiotic" part, the only person being idiotic is the one who gives up without even trying...which it would appear is exactly what you are doing.


And so I hate when it's pushed under the idea that this amendment is useful for the same reasons as it was in the past, it's not even.


And you would be DEAD WRONG! Go ahead, "hate" on!


The real kicker is you could buy a tank and still not even come within a horses ass hair of beating the United States Military, but everyone still argues about what level of access of a gun is acceptable for 'defeating the gubbernment' and 'defending yourself'. I'll give you a clue, #ing none of them will live up to that expectation, and it's very rare a Rifle will allow you more personal defense than a Handgun, anyway.


Why not just come out and say it..."SIEG HEIL!!" Say it loud and say it often!

What makes you think the entire might of the US military will be turned on the people??? Do you honestly believe all those brave warriors will just automatically sign up to start killing Americans on American soil???? You are a foolish one, aren't you?


To be clear, I am pro-access, but I think the whining over it is just so irritating. I feel like owning up to Gunning being a sport would be more beneficial for access than constantly riding this idea you need semi auto rifles for personal defense. You don't, really. Rifles are long range. Rifles are for the Predator.


Well, be irritated then, be really irritated...and get used to it, because it's people like me (and millions of others) who will gladly be the sand in your butt-crack until the end of time! I promise!
edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
That is where Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) come into play.


To a degree, but the court refused to take the neighboring Highland Park case or offer a per curiam and it is nearly identical to this one.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this.

We have enumerated rights. I believe the first 9 or 10 of the Amendments are enumerated.

Which means specifically that government cannot infringe on them.

Now we have small segments of society and of government that no longer see rights as enumerated.


They see rights as something allowed by government. And what government gives, it can take away.


I mean, people aren't even shy about trashing the 1st amendment any longer, so why should the 2nd be sacrosanct?

And if we're edging ever closer to a government that doesn't recognize rights as enumerated, then what style of government will we have that no longer recognizes the Constitution?



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SailorJerry

As of yesterday it just got worse.

The rhetoric until now has been to demonize so-called assault rifles even though real assault rifles were banned in 1968. The liberal gun grabbers and their media continued to use the term assault rifle even when they knew they were describing regular rifles, and it worked. They redefined "assault rifle" to now include a variety of weapons that are simply semi-auto including handguns. This tactic worked because we all know that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes true.

Well, yesterday on two different news stations I heard the new buzzword: high velocity weapons. I believe this is entirely intentional and meant to expand the list of offending weapons with flagrant disregard to the mechanics of the firearms in question. High velocity is a nebulous term. And I bet it will be the gun grabbing liberals who get to define that as well...




top topics



 
54
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join