Illinois lawmakers proposing state "Assault Weapons Ban"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,402
45,862
136
Attorney General Press Release

Some gems from the text:

The federal ban was passed in large part because many police across the nation in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the ?weapon of choice? for criminals
Click to expand...
...Ten years later, however, special interests have persuaded Washington to allow these dangerous weapons to return to our streets,? Madigan said.
Click to expand...
?This legislation simply extends a law which has been on the books for 10 years,? Cullerton said. ?My plan is to fine tune and strengthen the law in the next General Assembly.
Click to expand...
?If you talk to any community member in some of Chicago's most challenged neighborhoods, they would tell you they want fewer assault weapons on their streets, not more,? Grau said. ?By establishing a new ban on these deadly weapons, we're taking one more step toward building safer communities.?
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see what insanity lurks in the new bill they introduce.

 
JDub02

JDub02

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2002
6,209
1
0
something like 1% of all gun crimes are committed with "assault" weapons .. which really aren't even assault weapons, they're semi-automatic rifles that happen to look like military assault weapons.

although, they are scary looking and it makes politicians feel good ... it's legislative masturbation ... feels good at the time, but in the end you're only fscking yourself.
 
bradruth

bradruth

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
13,479
2
81
I think it's common knowledge that a collapsable stock makes a gun 6000% more deadly.
 
Pliablemoose

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: bradruth
I think it's common knowledge that a collapsable stock makes a gun 6000% more deadly.
Click to expand...


Hey, cops are supposed to be in favor of gun bans, cut it out & jump on the anti bandwagon:|
 
S

Shelly21

Diamond Member
May 28, 2002
4,111
1
0
Meh, don't care, not my state, and i got my rifles already. :p

I don't believe in slippery slope.
 
bradruth

bradruth

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
13,479
2
81
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: bradruth
I think it's common knowledge that a collapsable stock makes a gun 6000% more deadly.
Click to expand...


Hey, cops are supposed to be in favor of gun bans, cut it out & jump on the anti bandwagon:|
Click to expand...

If you don't see the sarcasm in that you don't deserve a gun. :p
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,402
45,862
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Sad. Very sad. Honestly, this state is further left than CA.
Click to expand...

Only the farthest NE corner is, unfortunately several million people live there.
 
JDub02

JDub02

Diamond Member
Sep 27, 2002
6,209
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Sad. Very sad. Honestly, this state is further left than CA.
Click to expand...

I think that has something to do with the Chicago "vote early and often" elections. The whole system is crooked.
 
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
I'm a "meh" on this deal.

One the one hand I think the media are fscking morons and completely run away with the words "assault weapons". Any gun to them that can fire semi-auto is an assault weapon. :roll:

On the other hand, I don't see how limiting rounds to 10 or less per clip/cartridge/whatever is a bad thing and how it actually affects anyone in the way of preventing them from hunting or effectively protecting their home.

Both sides need to get the fsck over it.

 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,402
45,862
136
Originally posted by: vi_edit
I'm a "meh" on this deal.

One the one hand I think the media are fscking morons and completely run away with the words "assault weapons". Any gun to them that can fire semi-auto is an assault weapon. :roll:

On the other hand, I don't see how limiting rounds to 10 or less per clip/cartridge/whatever is a bad thing and how it actually affects anyone in the way of preventing them from hunting or effectively protecting their home.

Both sides need to get the fsck over it.
Click to expand...

I'd take a complete freeze in gun laws at this point, the anti-gun supporters wouldn't.
 
D

DeadByDawn

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2003
2,349
0
0
As a good neighbor Missourian I'd like to offer to hide the guns of our Illinois brothers at my house. I swear I'll only shoot them every other weekend. I'll hide your ammo stash too ;)
 
M

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
I'm a "meh" on this deal.

One the one hand I think the media are fscking morons and completely run away with the words "assault weapons". Any gun to them that can fire semi-auto is an assault weapon. :roll:

On the other hand, I don't see how limiting rounds to 10 or less per clip/cartridge/whatever is a bad thing and how it actually affects anyone in the way of preventing them from hunting or effectively protecting their home.

Both sides need to get the fsck over it.
Click to expand...

You're only going to be able to have free speech for ten minutes a day. As for the other 23 hours and 50 minutes per day, you are restricted.
 
D

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: K1052

I'd take a complete freeze in gun laws at this point, the anti-gun supporters wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Now that the assault weapons ban has been lifted.

That's a bit like saying you'll agree to no more reproductive rights changes after Bush appoints a couple more "pro-life" Supreme Court justices and they strike down Roe v. Wade. It's easy to agree to stopping the fight when your viewpoint is currently the law.

I'm not for a ban myself, though I do support waiting periods and background checks, and closing the gun-show loopholes that let people avoid both. Also, the WA gun shop owner who let Muhammad and Malvo "shoplift" a hunting rifle should get a long jail sentence for selling weapons under the table.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,402
45,862
136
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: K1052

I'd take a complete freeze in gun laws at this point, the anti-gun supporters wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Now that the assault weapons ban has been lifted.

That's a bit like saying you'll agree to no more reproductive rights changes after Bush appoints a couple more "pro-life" Supreme Court justices and they strike down Roe v. Wade. It's easy to agree to stopping the fight when your viewpoint is currently the law.

I'm not for a ban myself, though I do support waiting periods and background checks, and closing the gun-show loopholes that let people avoid both. Also, the WA gun shop owner who let Muhammad and Malvo "shoplift" a hunting rifle should get a long jail sentence for selling weapons under the table.
Click to expand...

The only reason the ban lifted was because of the Sunset provision. The law was ineffective and very few people could support its renewal with a straight face.

I consider the chances of actually getting any gun laws repealed by active legislation basically zero. The odds that more restrictive laws will eventually be passed are much better IMO.
 
P

poopaskoopa

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2000
4,836
1
81
I don't like ineffective/unnecessary laws, but passing this can be a victory for both pro and anti gun folks. The anti gun folks can say that the world is safer because there're fewer assault weapons on the streets. And the pro gun folks can rest easy knowing that this is a useless law that doesn't really change anything.

I guess it's a bit like selling a fake Rolex to someone, and fooling him into thinking that he bought a real Rolex for cheap.
 
Demon-Xanth

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
I'm going to bring up that BofA robbery again:
The guys had fully auto weapons,
Already illegal before any AWB.
The guys were past felons,
which means that even with the background check, if the guns were legal, they still would've got them.
They were robbing a bank,
last I checked, that was still a felony.
They were shooting cops,
I believe "murder" is still on the books.

Okay, so they already commited a minimum of four felonies. I doubt a fifth or sixth would've even been an issue.


Now onto the 9/11 incident.
They hijacked _FOUR_ planes with box cutters and killed 3000 people. No amount of anti-gun laws would've prevented that. Some PRO-gun laws might have.

My .22 is currently a legal gun. Last I checked it was available at K-Mart. All I need is a bipod and a scope to make it an assault rifle. (I live in California) Anyone care to speculate on how those items would assist in using it as an assault rifle?

Nine guys wearing all black are walking down a street weilding clubs. Are they a gang or a sporting team? After all, what use is there for a baseball bat aside from beating things?

 
CPA

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
I don't like ineffective/unnecessary laws, but passing this can be a victory for both pro and anti gun folks. The anti gun folks can say that the world is safer because there're fewer assault weapons on the streets. And the pro gun folks can rest easy knowing that this is a useless law that doesn't really change anything.

I guess it's a bit like selling a fake Rolex to someone, and fooling him into thinking that he bought a real Rolex for cheap.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. The law-abiding Pro citizen now loses the right to legally purchase an assault weapon. That is not a victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom