Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rahm Emanuel: "we have to pass stronger gun laws in this state"

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Apparently he doesnt have a clue what the current laws are in his state.


"We can keep doing that," he said, "but we have to pass stronger gun laws in this state. We're not talking about repealing conceal/ carry, but making sure we have a tougher set of laws dealing with assault weapons and other types of guns."
link

Sounds reasonable, right?

"Concealed carry" in IL is unloaded and cased transport of a firearm. You cant carry a loaded firearm.


Because of this, it is recommended that, in order to be in compliance with all statutes, all firearms be
transported:
1. Unloaded and,
2. Enclosed in a case, and
3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.
link

The "workaround" is to carry your unloaded handgun along with a loaded magazine (not inserted) in a zipped up fanny pack.

So nice of Rahm to not want to repeal something that doesnt exist.

The "assault weapons" line is always a laugh because these shootings that Rahm is so upset about were all dine with handguns. How exactly does banning barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs on rifles reduce handgun crime? No politician has been able to answer that yet.

While I'm at it IL requires an FOID card to purchase or posses not only firearms but also ammunition. Getting the FOID card requires a fee and a complete background check. Handguns must be registered with the PD.

None of these measures have impeded crime at all.

So other than banning bayo lugs and not repealing a law that doesnt exist what does Rahm think hes going to do?
edit on 31-8-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: fixed misinfo




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
While I'm no fan of Rahm or Chicago politics running the entire State, nor a fan of any more gun laws, I have to say the FOID card thing is BS! All you have to do is fill out the form and send your Ten dollars! That's right, a whopping TEN dollars. There is absolutly to training required to obtain your FOID card, None. You do get a background check, but so what?

As for Rahm, he needs to let go of the "this State" line! I'm so sick of Chicago thinking they represent all of Illinois! Lets split the State into two. Cut off is I-80.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
right because Chicago's already super strict gun laws have done loads to prevent violence.

So of course the answer must not be allowing citizens their Constitutional rights, but more removing of them...




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KawRider9

I have to say the FOID card thing is BS! All you have to do is fill out the form and send your Ten dollars! That's right, a whopping TEN dollars. There is absolutly to training required to obtain your FOID card, None. You do get a background check, but so what?


Thanks. I confused IL's FOID with MA's FID. I'll make the proper edits.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


It's all good. The only good thing about the FOID card is that they made it a ten year deal. You used to have to renew it every five years, but they stretched it to ten. The only good thing Illinois has done with gun laws!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Yes because stricter gun laws have clearly worked so well to keep people from shooting each other, especially in New Jersey this morning.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Out of sheer curiosity, if stricter gun control laws impede on your constitutional rights therefore not acceptable, what is the solution to gun violence? Or is the current level of gun violence in the US just acceptable?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The people who make the rules aren't stupid. They know they will never stop gun violence and they aren't even trying.

Laws aren't passed to stop criminals and they never have been because it doesn't work, and they know it doesn't work. Laws are passed under the guise of stopping criminals with the true intent of regulating the vast majority of people. The vast majority of people are a threat to power, criminals are not.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by fenceSitter
 


The solution is simple, enforce our current laws to their fullest extent! Everyday there's a felon commiting a gun crime and he gets 2-5 years in prison, when the actual punishment is 20-40 years... You keep slapping people on the wrist and they will never change!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Out of sheer curiosity, if stricter gun control laws impede on your constitutional rights therefore not acceptable, what is the solution to gun violence? Or is the current level of gun violence in the US just acceptable?


Ignore for the moment the whole "constitutional rights" side.

There are plenty of test nations/states to look at right now.

The most strict laws exist in states with the highest crime rates. Chicago for instance is on fire with petty gangland killings has laws not very dissimilar from the UK. Owners must be licensed, firearms registered, firearms secured and locked up. The only real difference is the type of firearms allowed.

All "rights" aside show me where strict laws, even outright bans, have eliminated murders. At best murder is simply steady at what you might refer to as an "acceptable" level.

The UK is experiencing an influx of smuggled weapons from Eastern Europe right now and guns are becoming more and more common and cheaper everyday on the streets.

It isnt about legislation. It's about culture. For a very long time the laws appeared to work over there.That was just an illusion however. The real difference was that for a long time there was simply no demand for guns. Now there is a demand and it is growing every year. That demand, that cultural shift, negates all laws.

If the people want it they'll get it.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Again. This is an epic fail. Huge epic fail. Do you think the criminals are going to follow the law. This is getting so ridiculous its pathetic. Once again. Criminals or people who decide they've had enough and want to go psycho on everyone, are not going to follow the law. The only thing this will do, is make the law abiding public unprepared. We will be busy trying to load our guns while the criminal or freak unloads on us. We may not survive. I truly do not understand why people keep blaming gun laws for viscous acts. I have guns. I follow the law.

For example: In the Colorado batman shootings. Which is weird in itself with all the witnesses then the media reporting something different than what ALL the witnesses are saying, Their is a sign on the theater entrance that states no fire arms allowed. All law abiding citizens respect that, and leave their concealed arms behind. However, someone comes in and starts blowing people away. He obviously did NOT follow the rules. If their would have been an armed law abiding citizen within the theater, he may have been able to stop it.

All gun laws do is help the criminal and give the cops and government more control.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Ignore for the moment the whole "constitutional rights" side.

There are plenty of test nations/states to look at right now.

The most strict laws exist in states with the highest crime rates. Chicago for instance is on fire with petty gangland killings has laws not very dissimilar from the UK. Owners must be licensed, firearms registered, firearms secured and locked up. The only real difference is the type of firearms allowed.

All "rights" aside show me where strict laws, even outright bans, have eliminated murders. At best murder is simply steady at what you might refer to as an "acceptable" level.

The UK is experiencing an influx of smuggled weapons from Eastern Europe right now and guns are becoming more and more common and cheaper everyday on the streets.

It isnt about legislation. It's about culture. For a very long time the laws appeared to work over there.That was just an illusion however. The real difference was that for a long time there was simply no demand for guns. Now there is a demand and it is growing every year. That demand, that cultural shift, negates all laws.

If the people want it they'll get it.


Would comparison to Canada's gun control regulations be fair? There are fairly strict gun ownership laws but nowhere near the level of gun violence. Is this because of the stricter laws or is it simply a cultural divide? I would think any responsible US gun owner wouldn't complain about tighter regulations, background checks etc. if it means that weapons are falling into criminal hands less often.

I agree with culture being part of the problem. Is it reasonable to assume the majority of gun violence is a result of gang related/poverty stricken areas? How can that be solved? Should nothing be done about gun control and somehow directly target and attempt to eradicate gangs and poverty? Or should tighter laws be put into effect until those issues can be addressed?

In my opinion, the demand for guns is increasing as a direct result of gun violence. Gun violence is increasing partly because more guns are available. Just sounds like a cyclical issue that is (or will) snowball out of control. Can I ask your reason for owning a firearm? Is it simply for defense? If so that sounds fair to me but what type of weapon is required if only for defense? Is a handgun enough or does fully-automatic assault rifles need to be available too?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fenceSitter

Would comparison to Canada's gun control regulations be fair? There are fairly strict gun ownership laws but nowhere near the level of gun violence. Is this because of the stricter laws or is it simply a cultural divide?


The only differences between Canadian laws and US laws are lawful carry and prohibited firearm types as far as I know. Oh, and that now-defunct national registry.


I would think any responsible US gun owner wouldn't complain about tighter regulations, background checks etc. if it means that weapons are falling into criminal hands less often.


You'll have to be more specific with "tighter regulations." Background checks are already mandatory with the exception of face to face transfers by private citizens in the same state. Even then if you knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who wouldnt pass a background check you're going to prison.


I agree with culture being part of the problem. Is it reasonable to assume the majority of gun violence is a result of gang related/poverty stricken areas? How can that be solved? Should nothing be done about gun control and somehow directly target and attempt to eradicate gangs and poverty? Or should tighter laws be put into effect until those issues can be addressed?


Tighter laws as a stop gap would be fruitless and take valuable resources away from tackling those real much more grand societal issues which to date no politician has a solution for. Hence the constant attack of the symptom rather than the disease.


In my opinion, the demand for guns is increasing as a direct result of gun violence. Gun violence is increasing partly because more guns are available. Just sounds like a cyclical issue that is (or will) snowball out of control.


Reports from the UK attempt to tie the increase in firearm demand to immigrants from the former Soviet Union bringing with them a more violent attitude and an overall lack of value for life which in turn prompted UK gangs and criminals to up their game, so to speak.

If gun availability is the issue then you're fighting against the simple existence of a thing. That fight is not winnable. You can buy heroin in any high school in America. Marijuana from any park in America. Absolute prohibition of any thing is impossible so taking that approach leaves us with tolerating an "acceptable level" of whatever it is we are trying to eradicate.


Can I ask your reason for owning a firearm? Is it simply for defense? If so that sounds fair to me but what type of weapon is required if only for defense?


Every reason under the sun. I started out hunting as a child then shooting competitively in my teens. Now I participate in everything from squirrel to deer hunting to IDPA to trap and biathlon and 3-gun and everything in between. And I do carry a handgun everyday everywhere for defense.


Is a handgun enough or does fully-automatic assault rifles need to be available too?


Full auto firearms are heavily regulated by several federal laws. First all full auto firearms in circulation are from 1986 or earlier. Nothing post 1986 is available for lawful civilian ownership. This severely limits the available firearms and so their prices are outrageous. A legal to own AK for example can approach $20,000 + in price and each transfer of this type of firearm requires a $200 fee and a complete background check as well as local police approval.

For contrast an illegal select fire AK can be had for $3000 or less.

Personally I think full auto restrictions are stupid. Only someone who has no machinegun experience would think the whole "spray 100 rounds into a crowd" thing is feasible.

In reality ammunition is expensive making that 100 round spray cost $100 on its own and the act would last less than 10 seconds. If you've ever fired one you'd know in that 10 seconds of those hundred rounds fired you'd be lucky to make one hit.

There seems to be this assumption that America has no laws and machineguns can be had in bulk by mail order. That is simply not true. On paper US laws are not very different from those of more restrictive nations save carry and type.
edit on 31-8-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
In Massachusetts guns laws are RIDICULOUS. I personally know several people who work in law enforcement that were denied a permit...no record, nothing. If you live in Boston, forget it. Don't even bother trying to get a firearms permit. There are towns throughout the state that are the same way.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Id bet dollars to donuts Rahm owns not only a pistol but also an "assault" rifle. He strikes me as the hypocritical type



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The whole "we need stricter gun laws" argument is retarded. It is the same as saying we need better "no shooting other people" laws. Clearly people who do this are not law abiding in the first place.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Apparently he doesnt have a clue what the current laws are in his state.


"We can keep doing that," he said, "but we have to pass stronger gun laws in this state. We're not talking about repealing conceal/ carry, but making sure we have a tougher set of laws dealing with assault weapons and other types of guns."
link

The "assault weapons" line is always a laugh because these shootings that Rahm is so upset about were all dine with handguns.


You are falsely conflating two things....Rahm was talking about the STATE...you falsely inferred he was talking about Chicago specifically.

He is talking about a State leve proposal by Govenor Quinn which specifically bans the AK-47, AR-15 and TEC-9.

And to claim that "none of the crimes" in Chicago involve assualt weapons...is un-infomred..

City Sees Assault Weapons Increase on Streets



City Sees Assault Weapons Increase on Streets
The trends are alarming.

Chicago numbers show the number of assault weapons are up 17 percent this year on city streets, and the ages of criminals using guns is getting much younger with a growing number of weapons being used at the hands teenagers.

..........

That's how Denise Reed lost her 14-year- old daughter, Starkesia. A stray bullet blasted through their home.

"An AK-47 from nearly a block away. She had no chance," Reed said. "There has to be a purpose to this pain."



Source: www.nbcchicago.com...

Man Sprayed House With AK-47: Cops
www.nbcchicago.com...


Chicago: 11 hurt in shooting, bus crash in Englewood (AK-47)
www.chicagotribune.com...< br />

Chicago: Police Seize $1.7 Million in Drugs, AK-47
www.nbcchicago.com...

JUNE 30th 2012
Chicago: Weekend Shootings Leave 9 Dead, At Least 17 Wounded


Yet another violent weekend in Chicago left nine people dead from gunfire and at least 17 others wounded – including a 3-year-old boy.

...

A gunman got out of his car and started firing, reportedly with an AK-47 assault rifle. Lenard Truss, 17, was wounded in the head and died at the scene.


JULY 25th
Chicago: Mother Dies After Quadruple Shooting In Jeffery Manor Neighborhood Park


CHICAGO (CBS) — A mother has become the second victim of a gang shooting in a Jeffery Manor neighborhood park, which also killed a 17-year-old boy and wounded two others.

“One of them had an AK-47,” added Hancock’s grandmother. “You hear about this stuff, and you just can’t rationalize it, I just can’t believe it; I mean, it’s just unreal. She’s here the next minute, gone the next.”

chicago.cbslocal.com...


Honestly...I could keep posting all day...no offense...but WTF are you talking about when you say that the Chicago criminals don't use assualt weapons????

These are MILITARY WEAPONS and kids are being killed.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Glad Rohm is looking out for the best interests of the criminal element in his city and now the entire state. That's how Rohm stimulates that mico economy.... Funny how the press continues to ignore the widespread shootings that occur in Chicago everyday....



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Um your post is probably all true except the weapons they seek to ban arent miltary weapons. Military "style" weapons are weapons that look like military issued arms but do not function as their military counterparts. Also... It is safe to say all those links you posted that criminals used the weapons correct? Now with those few links when coupled with the fact that there are probably 10's of thousands of legally owned and operated AK 47 style rifles in chicago alone and you have a great call for proliferation of small arms :p



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Um your post is probably all true except the weapons they seek to ban arent miltary weapons.


The bill specifically bans... the AK-47, AR-15 and TEC-9

Lets not muddy facts.






top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join