It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Illinois Senator Wants to Imprison Gun Owners

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Thank you, inanimate objects are incapable of being "good or bad". I live in rural GA, yah way out in the sticks, the last time I called 911 the sheriff deputy arrived approximately 30-40 minutes later. If someone were to come to my house or land with the intent to harm me or my loved ones, they would have the better part of an hour to do as they wish. That to me is just unacceptable. If I'm not mistaken the constitution states that there should be no law abridging the right of the people to bear arms. These laws to require registration for this or that are an unconstitutional abridgment of the 2nd amendment. if you commit a crime then yes you should forfeit some rights. I own what would be described by some as an arsenal, with enuff ammo to last for a very long time. I use these to hunt, protect myself and family, and by god its just so much fun to spend an afternoon busting caps. Ever have a man try to crawl through a window at 3am? He certainly isn't delivering a pizza or anything else that you would want. I assure you! I am a FIRM believer in gun control, hit what you shoot at!

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
I swear to god if I lived in IL and they tried to take my firearms they would have to kill me. I would be espousing the 2nd amendment till my last breath!

I was born and raised in Illinois. You should already know that a FOID card is already required to purchase and own a firearm and has been for a long time. I don't see how it would really hurt an already Illinois resident when you should already have a FOID card if you own a firearm.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by DaMod]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by itsallalie

google the crime in illinois its the worst nation wide. I think that if your a gun owner and you dont have a permit then you should go to jail. whats wrong with this law.

it seem when ever someone is trying to do good there is always someone who is against it. it doesnt matter what anyone does, someone will be aginst it.

this law is for the gangbangers and crime that is infecting that state. if your not living there and you dont have a gun dont worry about it. if you own a gun get a dam permit.

i wish that was the rule in every state.

Hay after it has passed through the digestive tract of a male cow.

The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well having to obtain a permit to posess a firearm is an infringement and therefore against the Second Amendment. That's it. Plain and simple. A permit means that the Government allows or permits you to do something. That means that they consider what ever you are getting a permit for to be a priviledge that they can deny if they choose. Where they think that they get the power to grant us priviledges, I'll never know. Posession of a firearm is a RIGHT not a priviledge. No permits should ever be required.

I do like your hypocracy in telling those of us who don't live in Illinois not to worry about it and then follow it up by stating that you wish it was the law in every state.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by JIMC5499

Thank you !
You see the true deal here. That's exactly what they've already done here in Chicago. They have made it impossible to have a gun by making it impossible to get a permit. Therefore violating our second amendment rights.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by JIMC5499

They have stopped the full frontal assault on trying to ban firearms. The are making an end run around the people by making laws to have permits for ownership issued. The sheeple are less prone to realize what's going on, they say "oh, they're not trying to take our guns away, just issue permits, so its ok!" Make no mistake about it, they will eventually have so many laws in place and permits required that when they deny the issuance of permits to purchase firearms the sheeple will never know what hit them or how they allowed it to happen.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by itsallalie

google the crime in illinois its the worst nation wide. I think that if your a gun owner and you dont have a permit then you should go to jail. whats wrong with this law.

FOID = firearm owner identification. It's issued by the state confirming that you have passed a background check, it's not a permit. We don't need permission to own a gun, it's our right.

this law is for the gangbangers and crime that is infecting that state.

The gangbangers and their gun crimes are infecting us because of the insane gun laws we have here, that have taken away the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. FYI in Chicago you can't get a permit, they won't give you one.

if your not living there and you dont have a gun dont worry about it. if you own a gun get a dam permit.

Maybe you should take your own advice.


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:10 PM
Aside from the gun control debate and all the nefarious undertones of motivation. The fact that there is now a MANDATORY sentence for something that should not be a crime, escalates every encounter!

A police officer is now at risk on every stop. A lot of people will not accept a mandatory 3 years in prison for doing something they don't feel is a crime.

Every encounter now has the potential to be a violent one. Before the law, if I was stopped in by a police officer, I may have been annoyed that I had to surrender a weapon and go to court to sort it all out. But now, I will have to decide how far I am willing to go to avoid 3 years in prison. I have a 3 year old and a 2 year old at home. I can tell you that I will go very very far to avoid missing 3 years of their life!

I know a lot of you will say, "Don't carry the gun then." I have carried a gun for over 15 years. I consider it not only a right, but an obligation. Should I violate my own morals and obligations to comply with a new law that will likely be overturned shortly? Should the police officer violate his oath to uphold the law? Should my children be punished either by having a father that would sell out his morals, or a father that would risk being absent from their lives?

Eventually (maybe already at this time) we will all be in violation of one or more laws at all times. In this manner, we have lost all rights as individuals, and we can be persecuted by law enforcement at any time, and it will be justified. When do we stand up and say no more? I believe the 2nd amendment is that line in the sand. It has to be, because if we concede our 2nd amendment right, we lose all capability to fight the rest of the aggressions.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by H.P. Wormwood
The article and the Bill it states makes sense to me. Want to carry a gun around, make sure you are carrying proof you are allowed to. Looks like they are just trying to create the means to handle criminals who probably don't have the paperwork for their gun, and to be able to toss them in jail right away.

People are already allowed to by the 2nd amendment. The fact that people have to apply for permission to exercise their rights says that the rights are endangered.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:28 PM
Again, these aren't really laws. They apply to the strawman. If you're even in such a situation remember, you are "Sui Juris" the living human. You are there in court "inproperia personum" you are the living human itself. You are not "pro se" you are "pro per". The judge will fraudulently assume "pro se" and even mumble that to the court which indicates that you have agreed you are there represented or representing the PERSON. You are never, representing the PERSON that means you are representing the strawman ie acting on behalf of the PERSON or the fictional that statues apply to. You are never that, you are the living human superior to the statues and fictional laws and the corporate state. You are never representing, you are yourself the living human, period. The corporate state and it's statues are dead in the law. They only apply to people who the courts criminally "assume" to be wards of the court by failing to state they are there as the living human and not a representative. That is what the Lawyer does. By merely having a lawyer you are saying to the court that you are incompetent to represent yourself the living person. Therefore they take you as a "ward of the court" and are free to act on the strawman. The lawyer never represents the living human, it only represents the strawman!

Is this crazy? Yes! Is this the criminal fraud of the CriminalS Justice System? yes! They're minds are twisted in greed and selfish delusion. But they still operate by rules that have been set up. It you get this clearly on the record you have serious appeal power if you need it. Even if the court is too corrupt to follow the system, you stand a better change of getting it cleared up in appeal if you get it on the books up front and operate throughout the trail that way. Never surrender yourself to be represented in criminal matters. Remember the old manipulation to the effect that "a person who represents themselves as a fool for an attorney"? That's supposed to intimidate you into abandoning your most fundamental right of self and sucker you into representation.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by boaby_phet
guns are just bad, but im not going to preach to americans about this as none of you seem to understand the argument one bit.

Someone threatens to ban guns, and you all threaten to shoot them!

the irony kills me!


how do you think we became a country in the first place, because we rose up and took it by force. and the beauty of being able to own guns, is that if we want to we can kick all those SOB's out of washington and take it back again.

Our guns are our insurance that our government will do what we tell them to do, and if they do not, we take it back with force. when they try to take them we see this as an act of war, literally; they take our guns they take our ability to wage war and the washington big-wigs can do whatever they want

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by primoaurelius

That is absolutely right! It is our DUTY as an american, if at any point the gov't becomes a tyrannical monstrous perversion of what was layed out by our founding fathers. They built the 2nd amendment into the bill of rights, so that they would ensure that if at any point the citizenry felt that it was time to either kick the bums out of washington dc or to scrap the whole ball of wax and lay out an entirely new system of governance, that the politicians could not deter the will of the people! That we would not morph into the tyranny of what we had left behind and came to this continent for. IMHO the time has come and gone when we should have put the bums out. We stand idly by and watch as our rights are eroded on a near daily basis. We stand by and watch as only a few try to shout from the rooftops that the Republic is dying...


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by the seeker_713g

When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms, for they do not legally purchase and register them in the first place.

I just can't understand what part of this one sentence is it that people just can't comprehend!!!

I went to college up in that area in the early 80's and from what I heard and saw for myself, the crime rate was kind of high. The gun law brought it way down.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by MBF
I just can't understand what part of this one sentence is it that people just can't comprehend!!!

Some people have the mistaken belief that gun laws only affect those who would use a gun to commit a crime. Not all gun laws are bad, some of them can help prevent or make it harder for the crazies to get them or place harsher punishments on those who do get caught committing a crime with one. What people don't understand though is that criminals don't care about the law. All the laws in the world will not stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm if they really want it.


posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Jenna

What people don't understand though is that criminals don't care about the law. All the laws in the world will not stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm if they really want it.

Very true. The problem I have is with making it more difficult for the honest obtaining a firearm.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by MBF

Same here. Until people stop blaming the tool and start blaming the user it won't change though.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by Vinveezy

How is this in fact, any burden on the HONEST, RESPONSIBLE gun owner? As I read it is saying that crooks that carry guns won't be put back out on the streets.

If as people say, honest folk do the right thing, register their guns as appropriate and crooks don't, then this law has no affect what-so-ever on honest folk.

What it does do is give more power to the police and courts to get the bad guys off the streets without having to watch them turn around through that revolving door so many people complain about.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:15 AM
Some of you people are morons. Honestly.

Don't you people ever get tired of looking like fools, with your knee-jerk reactions and obvious non-reading of the story presented?

Don't you ever feel like fools for reading the headline and making up your mind right on the spot?


Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. This bill just says you can't carry a gun out in town, public places either concealed (without a permit) or waving it around. Also, it makes laws harsher for people who commit crimes using guns.

It also says explicitly that you can have them on your land, abode, dwelling, place of business, land of another who invites you. It also mentions how you can sell your gun on public property.

The only thing that is questionable in there is that it says you can't have it in your car.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by RestingInPieces

Some of us posted on the first page that they were jumping to baseless conclusions, but you can see how much those posts mattered. Can't make people see what's right in front of them unfortunately.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by boaby_phet

Are you going to ban the guns from the criminals too? If you are tell me how you would accomplish this, then once you find out you can't tell america that its okay to ban firearms from the common law abiding citizen then tell him he's $#!T outta luck and too wait for a responding officer when he's being held at gun point while someone is attacking his family. If you think a gun ban is what we need, you are sadly mistaken. There is no black and white to this, only gray area, and we have to handle this with level heads. We cant lose our means to defend ourselves can we?

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by mack37

I'm in Australia and you are right, BUT!! and its a friggin big BUT!!!

No one, nowhere, can carry a gun in a city or town, either on the street or in their own home..
Permits , as far as I know, are only for a few sports shooting clubs, farmers and very few others.

Australia has been dearmed.....
You can blame a phyco with bad aim and little gun experience that had a sudden attack making him a better marksman than most Green Berrets

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in