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: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
This won't last, not only is it unconstitutional it's illegal.

It's no different than a town banning ownership of a Ford Focus and fining you for doing so.

It's backwards logic of a state/town legalizing something that's federally illegal like Cannabis.




posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


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?


Easy...Socialism, Marxism and...(gasp)...Fascism!


edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And ironically, the new Fascist movements will gain support by verbally denouncing the very Fascism they actively promote. When words mean everything and actions mean nothing, the lessons of history become meaningless.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: knowledge4truth
This won't last, not only is it unconstitutional it's illegal.


Well, technically, banning machine guns is also unconstitutional. As soon as that happened, it was all over. If they can ban machine guns, they can ban all guns. It's really just a matter of time and public opinion.

It may or may not last in this particular instance. Doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: knowledge4truth
This won't last, not only is it unconstitutional it's illegal.


Well, technically, banning machine guns is also unconstitutional. As soon as that happened, it was all over. If they can ban machine guns, they can ban all guns. It's really just a matter of time and public opinion.

It may or may not last in this particular instance. Doesn't matter.


It's also worth pointing out that a semiautomatic (pistol or riffle) is really not that far away from being a machine gun. The recent mass shootings have highlighted the fact that a semiautomatic riffle can do plenty of damage. A 30 round magazine is plenty big enough. Even though it really isn't that big. I mean, 30 rounds is probably more than anyone really needs for anything outside of a war zone but 30 isn't a huge number. It's just scary because a gun is a gun and 30 shots as fast as the action will work is a force to be reckoned with. Nobody wants to be on the business end of that.

At any rate, it was really just a matter of time before the media managed to convince the general public that a semiautomatic weapon was just as scary as a machine gun. Or at the very least, the next worst thing to a machine gun. So if you went into a gun control debate admitting that nobody really needs a machine gun, you were kind of already admitting that nobody really needs a semiautomatic. And you were just a hop skip and a jump away from the fact that a semiautomatic weapon with a 30 round magazine is more firepower than anyone really needs outside of a war zone.

And that's how the humble AR-15 became an "assault weapon". But really, any semiautomatic weapon that can hold more than 15 rounds and be reloaded quickly might as well be an assault weapon by that definition.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

With the greatest possible respect, no, the two things are not the same. There is a world of difference between fully automatic/burst fire weapons, and semiautomatic ones. They may have very many interchangeable parts, but the ability to fire fully automatic from the shoulder, offers ACTUAL battle rifles, actual assault rifles, a whole host of manual of arms differences, when compared with the semiautomatic variants available to civilians.

For example, a fully automatic weapon can, with one pull of the trigger, empty its magazine, and bloody quickly most of the time. Thirty rounds from most automatic weapons will evaporate faster than a pension fund around the Wolf of Wall Street. With a semiautomatic, the whole point of the thing is, that for every one pull of the trigger, one bullet comes out of the muzzle. No spray and pray, no one squeeze, all the noise and fun of the fair, just one round down range, then you have to pull the trigger again.

And as for your assertion that no one outside a combat zone needs a semiautomatic rifle... who the hell are you to say what another person on the planet needs to defend themselves? As a person prevented from even carrying a knife, leave alone a mans weapon (a sword), in a country where gangsters shoot kids dead on the streets of my capital city, where there was a two victim stabbing down the road from me just the other day, I think it is better left to ME to decide what I need for MY defence and the defence of the community in which I live, rather than being decided by some soft handed, workshy elitist from Whitehall or Westminster, dictating what I need to be safe in my own damned patch. I know better than my government, and I am willing to bet that there are many places, places you would not have necessarily thought about as particularly dangerous, where a semiautomatic weapon of some kind, would be damned near essential, either to fend of the bears, or the house invaders.

And further to that, regardless of what one might say about the artillery that the full might of the US military could bring down on any patch of territory in the US, one is a hell of a lot less likely to be messed with in a totalitarian fashion, if one is armed enough to make an attempt to oppress one, a costly and bloody endeavour. For that reason alone, the American public should be permitted to carry whatever they would like to for their own defence. I would highly recommend that America does not follow the British route where gun control is concerned. Its the wrong argument to be having anyway, because guns do not kill people, people do.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlatMyAss
a reply to: seagull


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.


I do believe that one of the big reasons countries like China and Russia would never come here in a ground war is not only due to our geographic location and military might, but also that the civilian population is well armed. Your idea that the federal Government would launch its military might on not only the civilians here but also every national guard too is something I agree would not happen, BUT most countries are taken over by a military coup d'état or a small group of Government leaders wanting a completely different Government, such as a dictatorship, by a very small percentage of the military since that is all they typically can get and typically need. In this situation 400 million guns in civilian control does play in to it all.

The other side of this is personal protection, as in when seconds count cops are minutes away and what that protection means to you is mostly much different than what it means to me. I'm 28 years military and I like the advantage as in I would not want a pistol fight against a group of others with pistols too when I could bring a AR15 with a ACOG scope, so saying a pistol is all you need is not true.

Lastly, can we both agree that a group of 4 men breaking into your house puts them in the "Predator" status? Very dangerous predators mind you too..



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BrianFlanders

With the greatest possible respect, no, the two things are not the same. There is a world of difference between fully automatic/burst fire weapons, and semiautomatic ones.


There is no distinction between them in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment makes a black and white blanket statement that does not leave the government any room to ban specific types of weapons. Ergo, the ban on full auto is already unconstitutional. If that can stand there is no reason they can't ban them all.


And as for your assertion that no one outside a combat zone needs a semiautomatic rifle... who the hell are you to say what another person on the planet needs to defend themselves?


1. I am nobody.

2. I don't make the weather. I forecast it.

It does nobody any good to deny the way the average person thinks. I don't like it but this is what's going to happen. The general public is going to buy the "It's a weapon of war" argument whether we like it or not. Whatever discussion there needs to be beyond that needs to start right there. We are going to lose our rights. It's that simple. It's a matter of time and public opinion. I didn't say I like it. And furthermore, the Second Amendment is not the only one that's going away. Most of them are. So this is where we need to start this discussion. From the point where we wake up one morning and find that all the rights we always thought were guaranteed are simply gone (or rendered inert).

As I say. This is not something that pleases me. It is just a fact. If someone you love dies, you don't get angry and ask the doctor who he is to tell you that your loved one is dead. He is just the messenger. Those of us who care about our rights have lost. They are gone. Rights depend on public opinion. If the majority doesn't support them, they have no power. The media has systematically destroyed public support for almost all of them.

So now that we have that out of the way, the forecast should be much clearer. What kind of weather is ahead?
edit on 5-4-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Opinion polls rarely reflect the truth.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Accepting defeat before it occurs is not wise.

Ensuring that no battle is lost before it is over, requires that one refuse to believe it is impossible to win unless it has already been lost, in fact, not in theory.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Accepting defeat before it occurs is not wise.


As I said, it already has occurred. Some people just are not aware of it. You don't have to accept it. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it. The fact of the matter is that this is out of our control. The people who control the world have decided what is going to happen. And from the looks of things, it doesn't look good for people who aren't willing to accept reality.

Let me put it to you this way. If it's 30 below zero outside and you're going outside, you have to accept that the weather is going to be unfavorable for you. You don't have to like it but you can't change the weather. Pissing in the wind (particularly icy wind) is usually not wise.

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



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Today's high was predicted to be 64 degrees... it's already there and rising, although it is only noon. The weather forecast is not accurate and neither is the political forecast.

Even if, as you say, we have already lost... this old redneck won't go down without a fight. Tobacco is essentially outlawed as well, but I still smoke, and actually have found cheaper and better alternatives to those cancer sticks sold in the stores. As much as this might grieve many, their dream of a tobacco-free country will have to wait until something or someone shows up big enough to make me dead.

In the same vein of thought, this old redneck won't go down on the gun issue without a fight either. To the last man, to the last shadow of a ghost of a chance, to the last breath of freedom, surrender is simply not an option. The government can force me to exist without benefit of exercising my rights, perhaps, but they cannot remove my rights.

God gave me them; only God can remove them.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Amen, Brother Red.

Showing my throat just isn't an option, nor is it to many. Defeatist attitudes make defeat inevitable.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatMyAss
a reply to: seagull

The second amendment seems rather useless to me already anyway.


You are, of course, free to feel that way. That you're wrong needn't play into your need to show your throat. So feel free.


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 do people feel the need to say such patently stupid things? Clear evidence to the contrary is out there to be seen all over the internet. Does Afghanistan ring a bell? Vietnam? Cambodia? Nicaragua? Iraq? All over Africa? Go back a ways, to Spain, during the Napoleonic era.

Reduce Earth to rubble floating through space? Ah, but they're aren't going to do something like that now, are they?? That'd more than slightly defeat the purpose of their masters tyranny, wouldn't it? --smh--


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


Quite frankly, you should have, if you want it.


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.


Shooting a missile down the chimney...fine. Which chimney? How often have we seen the "Army" miss the target, because they shot the wrong "chimney". As for that magical microwave gun? Fairly certain that one can spoof that, and again, they have to have a target.


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.


Clear evidence that you're wrong is the fact that the PTB's push for more and more restrictions. Or outright ban. Yep. Clear evidence.


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.


You've no clue how asymmetric warfare works, do you? Nor, seeing others posting the same stuff, do many others.


To be clear, I am pro-access, but I think the whining over it is just so irritating.


With someone else's permission. Then don't listen. Plug your ears, and sing loudly, 'cause the "whining" isn't going to stop any time soon.


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.


Thing is, I'm not required to justify anything to anyone at anytime.

But you go right ahead, and show your throat. Seems like you already have...



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Today's high was predicted to be 64 degrees... it's already there and rising, although it is only noon. The weather forecast is not accurate and neither is the political forecast.


Well, we appear to have plenty of time to wait and see. I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I am an intuitive. And I hate being right about things like this. I have learned the hard way that my gut is usually right.

I'm a libertarian at heart. Always have been. I'm not a gun person but the hardest thing for me to do is watch other libertarians get screwed. I won't enjoy it if I'm right about this.

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



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

There is no distinction between them in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment makes a black and white blanket statement that does not leave the government any room to ban specific types of weapons. Ergo, the ban on full auto is already unconstitutional. If that can stand there is no reason they can't ban them all.


I agree with this. The ban against fully automatic weapons IS unconstitutional. It is because people "compromised" their rights away that we are in the mess that we are in now. It's also part of the reason why I believe the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear gun cases, because if it starts to, it might find itself facing a roll-back of those laws.

And because it is allowed to stand, then it supports the logical argument that pretty much ANY firearm can be banned. And of course, no one really wants to push their luck, because with the way the courts are manned and the control crazy politicians have, something weird can come out of left field and we can find ourselves in an even worse situation than we already are.

Of course that may happen anyway, but it really is hard to say when most of the media is under the control of the Few and they want them to all give the same message out. Digging for the truth is very difficult and many people who disagree may be keeping their mouths shut since opening it and saying anything that doesn't support the media script just brings negative attention to you.

Maybe some of our smart, less corrupt leaders can do something radical like make their states Gun Sanctuary States...seems to work for those states protecting illegals.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Nope. Nope, they won't.

But, hey, at least the cops'll be there to clean up afterwards, right?



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

But, hey, at least the cops'll be there to clean up afterwards, right?


Cops do a lot more crime investigation than crime prevention.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
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.


and after the 4th circuit ruling today it will see scotus again. They just ruled Assault rifles arent protected by the 2nd amendment.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

We'll need a definition on what an assault rifle is. It's come to the point where there a groups of folks who don't see this the same way.

Perhaps there is a good debate thread at work here.




top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join