The traitors in IL will try again this afternoon to take the guns

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Some may choose to have the oppourtunity to hide behind their own weapon.

or

Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.


And some may choose to live their lives without guns that can kill 100 people in a few seconds. The people that insist on having those kinds of guns are usually cowards who are attempting to cover for some short-coming or insecurity, imho. You know, kind of like the really short guy who has to have the biggest hummer/truck/SUV on the market.




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



And some may choose to live their lives without guns that can kill 100 people in a few seconds.

What sort of gun does this? A few seconds... 100 people?

By what numbers do these sort of weapons exist in civilian hands in the United States of America?

ETA: Seriously, given thirty seconds(which I consider to be more than a few), this gun would have to kill more than three people every second. That means acquiring an initial target, firing a shot that kills that target, acquiring the next target, firing a shot that kills it, acquiring another target, firing another kill-shot... IN ONE SECOND.... Then repeating that miraculous feat for the next 29 seconds! Only in a dream.
edit on 6-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The stats cannot be denied.


Disarming citizens increases murders. Chicago had 513 homicides in 2012, up from 448 in 2011. More than 60 children were murdered in Chicago during 2012, as honest people are defenseless against armed criminals.

Daniel Greenfield categorizes the dangers of Democratically controlled areas very well. Following are excerpts from his excellent column,

Chicago’s murder numbers have hit that magic 500. Baltimore’s murder toll has passed 200. In Philly, it’s up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it’s approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it’s almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it’s over 500. In St. Louis it’s 113 and 130 in Oakland. It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham.



Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.



A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs.


lubbockonline.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well. thats a major city, how do we know that deaths wouldn't go down in less urban cities? I don't believe one cities crime rate increase tells the whole story. It may be a point, but there needs to be more statistical evidence to back that up as being true.

I've never needed a gun to feel safe and I've lived in Chicago and I've lived right outside in its suburbs. So I'm from that neck of the woods and I don't deem it necessary. Just saying.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And what makes you think that giving everyone a gun in Chicago will stop all the shootings? Then there'll be triple the shootings. Do you think the gangs will stop shooting if everyone has a gun? Do you think all of a sudden they will be meek, mild, peaceful types?

We need social programs to stop the poverty in Chicago - not more guns.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.
You are Military....
Seems to be working out for you.

Hypocrite Much?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Cowardice? Should I give an intruder with a weapon a hug or call Uncle Sam? I am not a coward at all, but i will level the playing field. A drug addict with a gun is not going to turn over their gun, nor the gangbanger, not the mafia, thieves, rapist, or your beloved liberals holding office. (they are surrounded by guns)
I really wish Texas would just leave the union, we would have the best of the best moving down here and the liberal whiners moving out.
You would be hard pressed to find a household where I live without a gun, and guess what? Thugs dont come here, crime is low, and home values are up! Im also pretty sure if there was a gun round up our local police would not enforce it. In fact, I think they would stand at our side and throw a shower of lead at the Obamabots that were sent. Every state has to fight this and just say no! They (the goverment) are our employees.Dont forget that.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well. thats a major city, how do we know that deaths wouldn't go down in less urban cities? I don't believe one cities crime rate increase tells the whole story. It may be a point, but there needs to be more statistical evidence to back that up as being true.

I've never needed a gun to feel safe and I've lived in Chicago and I've lived right outside in its suburbs. So I'm from that neck of the woods and I don't deem it necessary. Just saying.


No, one city may not tell the whole story, but they use the statistics from that one city to make rules for the whole state. Illinois murder rate is based mostly on numbers from Chicago and surrounding area. So, why should I have to be ruled by a bunch of gangsters, either on the street or in the halls of government?
edit on 6-1-2013 by DAVID64 because: punctuation



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Proves how little she actually knows about the guns
in question.

Anyone that reads/learns or owns/uses these know the
difference, and how impossible the previous statement would
be to do.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by beezzer

Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.
You are Military....
Seems to be working out for you.

Hypocrite Much?


Apples/oranges.

Drawing conclusions between dissimilar situations may work on the networks, but it fails tragically here.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And what makes you think that giving everyone a gun in Chicago will stop all the shootings? Then there'll be triple the shootings. Do you think the gangs will stop shooting if everyone has a gun? Do you think all of a sudden they will be meek, mild, peaceful types?

We need social programs to stop the poverty in Chicago - not more guns.



Not everyone will have a gun only people who want a gun and can get a permit. No felons or criminals will have a carry permit only the law abiding.

There will not be triple the shootings it hasn't happened in the other 49 states it will not happen here. Shootings amongst gang members shooting each other will remain unchanged. Violence against citizens will drop because no one wants to rob someone if they think they might be armed. Carry will be a very good thing for illinois and make criminals think twice.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Hey what can we say about this, why not go the Mexican route (if you thought banning knives was bad wait to you see this bad boy). And just ban toy guns while your at, because we all know that small parts are dangerous for children, with the dumbing down of everyone the adults might choke as well....... I can see it now the reality of The Christmas Story happening, "You'll shoot your eye out!" or Nerf sent kid to the hospital with an eye infection. What's next banning children making a gun sign with their hands, with the whole attacking people with their fists and such that may not be too far off.... hey why not also those stabbings are getting quite dangerous why not ban those knives and toy knives as well. (I still can't believe what I read wow....)


www.breitbart.com...

abcnews.go.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by lolita64
Try to change it the lawful way
edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


That's exactly the lawful way. To propose bills in the state House and Senate.

Do you know of another lawmaking body recognized by the State?


That isn't lawful. The only lawful way is to get 2/3rds of both houses of the US house of reps to agree and then 3/4ths of the states.

Otherwise it is illegal, just as California's gun laws are illegal or any law that infringes on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

Jaden



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


"Living documents are susceptible to change, and if the Legislative branch wants to change it, the Supreme Court has a say, as does the President/Governor. The Constitution was written for land-owning white men. That population no longer reflects the average American, and is a shrinking minority."

and when its the will of a few vs the will of majority. the people will have a say as well.

when that first shot is fired.

im pretty sure you will also find many non white non land owning american citizens feel the same way.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Looks like there may be hope after all, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.


www.breitbart.com...


Gun banners in Illinois were dealt a temporary set back on Sunday when a bill containing gun-banning language was put on the back burner in these waning days of the legislature's lame duck session.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
In the pro-gun side of the argument I wonder why they haven't tried the Commerce clause argument?

Article 1 section 8.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It would seem to me that all that needs to be done to break this magazine law they are trying to pass is simply show that it's Unconstitutionally regulating interstate commerce. And as such is a violation of the separation of powers amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal power. And a violation of your 10th amendment rights if exercised by a state.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
...when I yell Apple....your response better be Cobbler and not Pie.



-'Hell is For Heroes
edit on 7-1-2013 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by beezzer

Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.
You are Military....
Seems to be working out for you.

Hypocrite Much?


Apples/oranges.

Drawing conclusions between dissimilar situations may work on the networks, but it fails tragically here.


So why do you constantly do it?




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ntech
In the pro-gun side of the argument I wonder why they haven't tried the Commerce clause argument?

Article 1 section 8.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It would seem to me that all that needs to be done to break this magazine law they are trying to pass is simply show that it's Unconstitutionally regulating interstate commerce. And as such is a violation of the separation of powers amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal power. And a violation of your 10th amendment rights if exercised by a state.

That is applicable here, in my opinion.

When it comes to the Federal legislation that is in the works, they will use the same clause to support the federal gun ban.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join