And the gun bans begin

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just because somebody wrote something down 200 years ago doesn't mean it was sent by god to be worshiped for all time - you are allowed to discuss this issue purely on moral grounds you know, without involking the existing law.

You're right. The 1st Amendment is outdated anyway.

The thing was intended to protect people anyway, not to excuse this ridiculous culture of killing where it's acceptable to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they step on your shoes.

Who's saying that's what it's for? Nice strawman.

You have something like thirty thousand firearms deaths every year do you know that? That's a large town worth of people!

Half of which are suicides. Try to be honest.

The whole thing seems so completely out of control looking from the outside that it's almost impossible to understand how it could happen in a supposedly civilized country, until I see people like you, argueing for absolutely no licencing, registration, training, etc, as if it's completely sane... what on earth is wrong with you? Can't you see that hundreds of thousands of weapons are in the hands of complete and utter idiots with no idea how to use them and certainly no comprehension of when to use them - how could this possibly be a good thing? Would you want these fools in your 'well regulted militia' shooting their own cocks off because they don't know what a safety is? Bleh.

Nice appeal to emotion. Do you have any intelligent argument or just bleeding heart bullshit?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zebo

You're confusing reason and right.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
purpose
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Right

It does not say they have to be in militia, only that the armed people should form one should need arise.

Furthermore, all 10 BoR deal with individual liberties. You really think #2 is alone and doesnt?

Gungrabbers like to ignore history, the federalist papers, dictionaries from 1776.. I don't get why you guys engage in this intellectual dishonesty instead of nullifying the 2nd altogether? Man up ...trying to find holes in what is meant by "arms", "well regulated", "militia" and so on just makes you look stupid and without conviction.

You do realize that for almost 70 years the prevailing US Supreme Court decision on the subject said exactly that it was a collective, not individual right... right? I mean you can disagree with that all you want, but to say that holding the same opinion as the highest court in the land did for the better part of a century is stupid and dishonest is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, and the 9th and 10th amendments aren't necessarily about individual liberties either.

BS - Columbia v.Heller was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._of_Columbia_v._Heller

And being a authoritarian liberal I don't expect you to understand the 9th and 10th are all about peoples rights...again federalist papers are your guide.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Errr, as far as I'm aware, all militia-type fighting forces require some kind of organization - certainly a command structure for a start. And an administrative arm. And a logistics arm... I mean... how are you going to feed the soldiers?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Errr, as far as I'm aware, all militia-type fighting forces require some kind of organization - certainly a command structure for a start. And an administrative arm. And a logistics arm... I mean... how are you going to feed the soldiers?

Yes, the minutemen in Boston clearly had a logistics arm.

It's a militia, not an army, fool. They're not soldiers, they're armed citizens. No wonder you can't argue intelligently on this, you don't even understand the words being used.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just because somebody wrote something down 200 years ago doesn't mean it was sent by god to be worshiped for all time - you are allowed to discuss this issue purely on moral grounds you know, without involking the existing law. The thing was intended to protect people anyway, not to excuse this ridiculous culture of killing where it's acceptable to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they step on your shoes. You have something like thirty thousand firearms deaths every year do you know that? That's a large town worth of people! The whole thing seems so completely out of control looking from the outside that it's almost impossible to understand how it could happen in a supposedly civilized country, until I see people like you, argueing for absolutely no licencing, registration, training, etc, as if it's completely sane... what on earth is wrong with you? Can't you see that hundreds of thousands of weapons are in the hands of complete and utter idiots with no idea how to use them and certainly no comprehension of when to use them - how could this possibly be a good thing? Would you want these fools in your 'well regulted militia' shooting their own cocks off because they don't know what a safety is? Bleh.

About 60% of those deaths are suicides, not people gunning each other down in the streets.

Google search gives me 55%, but whatever, even if you discount those it's still a massive number. Far more than any other country which is not in a war zone.

The per capita figures drop it to a more reasonable level but I agree it is still much too high. Though our stringent drug prohibition laws are probably to blame for this more than anything. Tougher firearms laws also usually have the effect of driving up violent crimes in other categories, i believe your nation has experienced this firsthand. Unless the root causes are addressed you are (at best) just shifting the statistics around.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Then Regulation isn't a problem.

 

[Atheus]

The thing was intended to protect people anyway, not to excuse this ridiculous culture of killing where it's acceptable to shoot someone with an AK-47 if they step on your shoes.

Who's saying that's what it's for? Nice strawman.

That's what it ends up being used for. Every time there's a school shooting, (a quintessentially American thing BTW) or some cowardly murder of a black man or a teenager, the gun people on this board come out in force to defend it using the constitution. There's nothing that could have been done they say - he had a right to use his guns.

You have something like thirty thousand firearms deaths every year do you know that? That's a large town worth of people!

Half of which are suicides. Try to be honest.

Still a massive number.

bleeding heart bullshit?

You all could use some heart I reckon. Or maybe just common decency.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zebo

You're confusing reason and right.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
purpose
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Right

It does not say they have to be in militia, only that the armed people should form one should need arise.

Furthermore, all 10 BoR deal with individual liberties. You really think #2 is alone and doesnt?

Gungrabbers like to ignore history, the federalist papers, dictionaries from 1776.. I don't get why you guys engage in this intellectual dishonesty instead of nullifying the 2nd altogether? Man up ...trying to find holes in what is meant by "arms", "well regulated", "militia" and so on just makes you look stupid and without conviction.

You do realize that for almost 70 years the prevailing US Supreme Court decision on the subject said exactly that it was a collective, not individual right... right? I mean you can disagree with that all you want, but to say that holding the same opinion as the highest court in the land did for the better part of a century is stupid and dishonest is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, and the 9th and 10th amendments aren't necessarily about individual liberties either.

BS - Columbia v.Heller was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._of_Columbia_v._Heller

And being a authoritarian liberal I don't expect you to understand the 9th and 10th are all about peoples rights...again federalist papers are your guide.

The federalist papers are a guide to only the thoughts of some of the founding fathers, and they certainly don't encompass enough guidance to state what you did about the BoR. Of course I do find it funny that you're calling me an 'authoritarian liberal' considering I am a supporter of the individual right to bear arms. My post was indicting your poor reasoning, not your stance on the 2nd amendment. Of course, if we weren't knee-jerk labeling people in P&N based upon poor evidence, what would we be doing here?

As for US v. Miller and Heller, you can say that Heller is the only case to have definitively spoken on the subject, Miller most certainly framed the discussion within the militia context, not the individual context. US v. Tot, a clarifying ruling issued by federal courts most certainly established this as a collective right and it was unchallenged. So no, not BS. This argument has reasonable points on both sides, and doesn't require you to attempt to reduce the other side to a caricature in order to win.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
...well regulated....

As long as the gun grabbers ignore the "shall not be infringed" part, I'll conveniently ignore the "well regulated" part.

No reason to ignore it. Well regulated means well trained in todays language. Primary schools should have firearm training to comply with the constitution.

The gun grabbers can quibble over language but they can't ignore the federalist papers e.g. the meaning, intents and reasoning behind the constitution. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I'd actually be all for proper firearm training of children. They could use some nice 22 rifles and teach good firearm safety habits. Start young enough and you can even protect the children this way from picking up and playing with guns at home.

I've been shooting from the age of 6 years old. i started with a pellet rifle. Moved up to a 22 and 410. Today I own a few firearms and secure them safely and hold a carry permit. People like me are not the people we need to worry about owning firearms. And any government law will only stop people like me from owning them. This is like copy protection on video games. It does nothing to stop the criminals and everything to annoy people who would like to be good citizens.

I agree completely. I, like you, grew up hunting and shooting very young so it's strange when i see people nervous around or about guns. Firearms are just a tool like any other and population should have some proficiently with rather than fear them.

It's also dismaying to see lack of safety among some people. I've had a loaded shotgun pointed at my guts by a noobie, see guys crossing fences with one in the chamber, etc - some training would do good.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zebo

You're confusing reason and right.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
purpose
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Right

It does not say they have to be in militia, only that the armed people should form one should need arise.

Furthermore, all 10 BoR deal with individual liberties. You really think #2 is alone and doesnt?

Gungrabbers like to ignore history, the federalist papers, dictionaries from 1776.. I don't get why you guys engage in this intellectual dishonesty instead of nullifying the 2nd altogether? Man up ...trying to find holes in what is meant by "arms", "well regulated", "militia" and so on just makes you look stupid and without conviction.

You do realize that for almost 70 years the prevailing US Supreme Court decision on the subject said exactly that it was a collective, not individual right... right? I mean you can disagree with that all you want, but to say that holding the same opinion as the highest court in the land did for the better part of a century is stupid and dishonest is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, and the 9th and 10th amendments aren't necessarily about individual liberties either.

BS - Columbia v.Heller was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._of_Columbia_v._Heller

And being a authoritarian liberal I don't expect you to understand the 9th and 10th are all about peoples rights...again federalist papers are your guide.

The federalist papers are a guide to only the thoughts of some of the founding fathers, and they certainly don't encompass enough guidance to state what you did about the BoR. Of course I do find it funny that you're calling me an 'authoritarian liberal' considering I am a supporter of the individual right to bear arms. My post was indicting your poor reasoning, not your stance on the 2nd amendment. Of course, if we weren't knee-jerk labeling people in P&N based upon poor evidence, what would we be doing here?

As for US v. Miller and Heller, you can say that Heller is the only case to have definitively spoken on the subject, Miller most certainly framed the discussion within the militia context, not the individual context. US v. Tot, a clarifying ruling issued by federal courts most certainly established this as a collective right and it was unchallenged. So no, not BS. This argument has reasonable points on both sides, and doesn't require you to attempt to reduce the other side to a caricature in order to win.

Sure you do.

Miller only said that sawed off shotgun he was carrying has no use to a militia so he couldn't have it.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Errr, as far as I'm aware, all militia-type fighting forces require some kind of organization - certainly a command structure for a start. And an administrative arm. And a logistics arm... I mean... how are you going to feed the soldiers?

Yes, the minutemen in Boston clearly had a logistics arm.

You think they didn't? How did they eat then? If I understand it correctly they marched hundreds of miles in strength of thousands of men - that many men couldn't have survived by begging and hunting local wildlife.

I know for sure they had a command structure because I just read about it now.

And they had organised training too - the first paragraph of the wikipedia article states they were:

trained to respond "at a minutes warning"

hence the name.

It's a militia, not an army, fool.

They're not a standing army but they are definately an army. The word 'army' just means a large group of fighters.

They're not soldiers, they're armed citizens. No wonder you can't argue intelligently on this, you don't even understand the words being used.

Yea and your intellect is really shining through lol - are you serously telling me that a militia with no command structure, no logistics, no training, and no organisation at all would be an effective fighting force?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Errr, as far as I'm aware, all militia-type fighting forces require some kind of organization - certainly a command structure for a start. And an administrative arm. And a logistics arm... I mean... how are you going to feed the soldiers?

Yes, the minutemen in Boston clearly had a logistics arm.

You think they didn't? How did they eat then? If I understand it correctly they marched hundreds of miles in strength of thousands of men - that many men couldn't have survived by begging and hunting local wildlife.

I know for sure they had a command structure because I just read about it now.

And they had organised training too - the first paragraph of the wikipedia article states they were:

trained to respond "at a minutes warning"

hence the name.

It's a militia, not an army, fool.

They're not a standing army but they are definately an army. The word 'army' just means a large group of fighters.

They're not soldiers, they're armed citizens. No wonder you can't argue intelligently on this, you don't even understand the words being used.

Yea and your intellect is really shining through lol - are you serously telling me that a militia with no command structure, no logistics, no training, and no organisation at all would be an effective fighting force?

It wasn't in 1812. Which is why the US abandoned the idea of Militias as a form of National Defense at that time and moved towards copying Britains Conscript Military as Defense.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Ok, where are these Militias and why are Gun Owners not Members of said Militias?

A militia isn't organized. It's anybody who can grab a rifle and join the fight. And by your definition nobody should be able to do that because nobody owns rifles.

Errr, as far as I'm aware, all militia-type fighting forces require some kind of organization - certainly a command structure for a start. And an administrative arm. And a logistics arm... I mean... how are you going to feed the soldiers?

Yes, the minutemen in Boston clearly had a logistics arm.

You think they didn't? How did they eat then? If I understand it correctly they marched hundreds of miles in strength of thousands of men - that many men couldn't have survived by begging and hunting local wildlife.

I know for sure they had a command structure because I just read about it now.

And they had organised training too - the first paragraph of the wikipedia article states they were:

trained to respond "at a minutes warning"

hence the name.

It's a militia, not an army, fool.

They're not a standing army but they are definately an army. The word 'army' just means a large group of fighters.

They're not soldiers, they're armed citizens. No wonder you can't argue intelligently on this, you don't even understand the words being used.

Yea and your intellect is really shining through lol - are you serously telling me that a militia with no command structure, no logistics, no training, and no organisation at all would be an effective fighting force?

It wasn't in 1812. Which is why the US abandoned the idea of Militias as a form of National Defense at that time and moved towards copying Britains Conscript Military as Defense.

Which is now being used to kill Iraqis. I'd prefer the militia.

 

[Zebo]

Yea and your intellect is really shining through lol - are you serously telling me that a militia with no command structure, no logistics, no training, and no organisation at all would be an effective fighting force?

Please 1000 hunters with 300 winmags w/6x scopes would shut this country down. A million would overthrow it trivially.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: RY62

Isn't it ironic that this bill comes from a Chicago politician, in response to a firearm incident in Chicago when most, if not all of this is already law in Chicago. How many IL gun laws were broken in the case involving Blair Holt?

I think it is ironic that handguns were banned for 2 decades and look how much good it did in chicago.

Main problem is the politicians that come or try to be in control of that state.

Chicago.... Who Runs it?
Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin
Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Illinois Governor: Rod Blagojevich (arrested)
Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
Illinois Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter or wife (don't remem) of Mike)
Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
The leadership in Illinois? ......all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Body count in the last six months: 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago (one city)
State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country . Towns are actually trying to remove themselves from Cook county all together for this reason
Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country. (not to mention BHO is tapping the superintendent for his Secretary of Education???)



I am a northsider but fuck the politicians that hav run that city so well

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And so it starts. Its funny to think of all the times some empty talking head said "gun owners have nothing to fear". Of course we dont. Nothing to fear at all... Granted this has just been drafted but the point is quite clear. The Democrats dont give a shit about anythying other then putting their boot on the back of all of us.

Notice the section on licensing. No license, no firearm. License is shall issue with no timeframe. Which means the feds can choose not to give you a license before yours expires and without it your an instant criminal.

Now someone tell me again how we're "all on the same side"......

HR 45

dude, what exactly do you need, or want, a gun for? u're not in a warzone are u? i was in the army 3 years and i can assure you it gets boring REAL quick firing guns over and over. sure the 1st 2 months were exciting and interesting firing different weapons, but it gets repititve real quick.

Besides, I CANT STAND CLEANING GUNS. i swear cleaning guns made shooting them such a chore. It takes forever to clean em of carbon after you shoot em, so i can't understand how anyone can have it as a hobby? (assuming that's why you own em?)

I didn't think they allowed 12 year olds to enlist.

New excuse for not enlisting?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Yea and your intellect is really shining through lol - are you serously telling me that a militia with no command structure, no logistics, no training, and no organisation at all would be an effective fighting force?

Please 1000 hunters with 300 winmags w/6x scopes would shut this country down. A million would overthrow it trivially.

With no organisation, no leader, and no plan? I'd give that about 36 hours before they all start killing eachother.

 

[Jschmuck2]

God conservatives are addicted to umbrage.

Do you need anger to exist, or do you exist to be angry?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Two things concerned me about Obama winning. First is ramming a national health care system down our throats and the second is this.

First, I still maintain that laws which are created with clauses that will turn thousands into criminals is wrong. Yes they can do it, but as I said if someone moves they have a lot going on. Forgetting to send in a change of address form will happen and as a consequence these people are now criminals. That's wrong.

Second, I don't expect to see outright bans (with perhaps the exception of "assault weapons" which will be as broadly defined as possible). What I expect is that the Dems will use the power of lawyers to crush manufacturers of firearms and ammunition. Someone shoots someone in the ghetto and immediately someone sues Remington or whoever. That will probably be encouraged. The next tactic will to create such a regulatory morass that companies and individual gun owners will be unable to comply due to technical requirements, or that the costs of complying will be astronomical.

Of course that will be seen by many as not being a "ban" since you can theoretically own a weapon. It's just practically impossible. Same thing in the end.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

A City Ban is useless. A National Ban is the only way a Gun Ban would be effective.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

A City Ban is useless. A National Ban is the only way a Gun Ban would be effective.

Well that would certainly take care of law abiding gun owners.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

A City Ban is useless. A National Ban is the only way a Gun Ban would be effective.

Well that would certainly take care of law abiding gun owners.

It would take care of many, if not most, Criminals as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

A City Ban is useless. A National Ban is the only way a Gun Ban would be effective.

Well that would certainly take care of law abiding gun owners.

It would take care of many, if not most, Criminals as well.

Since criminals don't surrender their weapons I'd say not. Oh, maybe in 20 years when they all wear out, but then people will just start making primitive firearms. Less accurate, but if you shoot the wrong person, it doesn't really matter to them. I can without much trouble make an efficient deadly weapon which would be quite effective at the range most criminals kill. What I know isn't rocket science. Of course they would be banned as well.

Besides, an outright ban would almost certainly be viewed as unconstitutional. There are other ways to effectively disarm law abiding citizens, as I have described.