Pantagraph.com | Letters | Fight against attempts to limit gun-owners' rights

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

redbeard wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:15 PM:

" The statement " no guns equal no gun violence. " is false.

Australia passed some of the most draconian anti-gun laws, and their crime rates have rocketed since those laws went into effect.

The law that we COULD pass that is PROVEN to help reduce crime is a "Concealed Carry" law. Everywhere Concealed Carry laws have been passed, CRIME GOES DOWN. "

APOLOGIES FROM LDT wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:26 PM:

" Hey SIGH. My apologies to you. I misread your post. This spam parrot is cunning indeed. Since they never utilize the same name I got all turned around and didnt realize who is who here. Please accept my apologies. Also, thank you for your defense of the 2nd amendment.

Personally I would also list ad nauseum to the list of the spam parrots fallacies. "

oh sigh : ldt wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:22 PM:

" I forgot to mention this to you earlier. Frankly, I am a little surprised you missed it. After all, you mentioned how you would pick apart my grammar and all. I would expect you to have excellent grammar and spelling yourself.

It is Ad Hominem, not ad homonym.

Isnt that ironic. You accuse me of picking on peoples grammar, which I did not, and then you claim that you will be able to teach me a thing or two about it. Well, looks like the "teacher" needs to take a grammar class himself.

"

hey spam parrot: LDT wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:05 PM:

" So, how was your trip out of the country? I am sure that it was a gun free utopia where no violence or guns exist. Did you like it? Planning to go back anytime soon? Please..? You just give me the word and Ill find you a realtor, help you pack, and drive you to the airport. Ok.

Cheers mate, I hope you enjoy your tea and crumpets in never never land. "

Hey sigh - LDT wrote on Feb 15, 2008 2:01 PM:

" When exactly did I criticize anyones grammar? I dont recall doing any such thing. This thread already has enough "grammar police", so I dont make comments on peoples grammar. Thanks though. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 15, 2008 1:54 PM:

" “No guns no gun violence” guy – Are you aware that this university had a strict no weapons policy so it seems to me that no guns = murdered victims should be your motto. The sad fact is that there are people who don’t have the mental capacity to deal with life and feel the need to kill others with themselves. These people will find a way to hurt others if not with firearms then with cars, homemade bombs, poison, etc…. The best you can do as an innocent citizen is to be as prepared as possible for such situations. None of the teachers or students in that classroom was armed because they were good people following the rules but if one of them had been then the outcome might have been very different. It is entirely possible that the shooting wouldn’t have happened if the shooter thought someone else could be armed, as such an act can only be performed by an abject coward. Instead the victims had to helplessly run away hoping not to be shot in the back because someone like you decided it was a good idea to create an unarmed victim zone. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 15, 2008 1:27 PM:

" re: "To all " Funny, I have challenged it multiple times below- quite succesfully. "

WEB To:to all wrote on Feb 15, 2008 12:49 PM:

" One more example of a "gun free zone". Why not call them what they really are, "victim zones". A sick, lone individual, off of his medication and not even a student at NIU manages to get 54 shots off and no-one has the ability to defend themself. What is wrong with this picture? Where is the outrage that should be directed against our lawmakers who created this situation? Why are our sons and daughters deliberately placed in harms way by politicians who refuse to see the conequence of their unworkable gun laws in Illinois? "

Townie wrote on Feb 15, 2008 11:44 AM:

" To: To all....thank you. Truer words couldn't have been spoken. Thoughts are with the kids at NIU. "

To all wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:46 AM:

" It remains unchallenged as we mourn the dead at NIU...no guns equal no gun violence. "

To Stinger wrote on Feb 15, 2008 10:45 AM:

" About your 2/11/09, 4:35 post. You claim all this experience with max prisons yet you post that they are a joke and too soft. You are either a liar or an idiot...which is it? From your rants I would say the latter...a bullet for someone convicted of a non-capital crime? You are so far to the right you are in the 1% world along with the world government poster. At least you both give me a daily laugh. I know this is all tongue in cheek right? You really don't believe the trash you post on here. "

stinger wrote on Feb 15, 2008 3:18 AM:

" to the posters who mistook me for the parrot: at no time in any of my posts on this or other forums have i EVER supported a gun ban.as to the anonymous poster who suggested i visit a max prison, here is a little info.when i was stationed at ft. hood,tx i did prisoner escort duty through the m.p's for special duty pay.my saergent and i took prisoners to leavenworth federal penitentury.VERY SCARY PLACE and i was there just to deliver.so next time you post, please make sure your venom reaches the proper target and at least use a pseudonymn so we know who is spewing it.peace brother/sister "

My Rights wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:00 PM:

" The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". And, yet...that right is very much infringed upon. I want my 2nd Amendment rights back, Illinois! "

OGS to Feb. 14, 1:19 am wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:54 PM:

" How convenient for you to leave the country right after my last post to you on 2/7 7:21 pm. You really expect us to believe that? Haha. You simpleton logic was put to shame. The sooner you take another vacation would be much appreciated. "

to parrot wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:32 AM:

" you should be proud of yourself. sticking up for predators safety like that! "

Sigh wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:05 AM:

" re: "To LDT": We missed your ad homonym attacks and other flawed logic just as much as you missed us. Also, you might not want to pick on the grammar of any other poster unless you want me to go back and pull yours from the past as evidence of hypocrisy. "

to: to stinger wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:58 AM:

" those guys in the MAX security, are there without a ban are they not? do you really believe that a gun ban will :
A) make guns disapear?
B) actually stop people from killing others?
second point: look at sweden the lowest in gun crimes world wide, yet has the highest percentage of gun ownership world wide
yet the nation with the newest gun ban, has murder rate that has gone thru the roof. So much for your simplistic logic of ban = no guns = no gun violence
it just is not true
lawfull people want their guns. crimminals do not want lawfull people to own guns are you a crimminal?
gun bans = more violence "

WEB To Spam Parrot: wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Every 13 seconds there is a defensive gun use. The weak not falling victim to the strong, the lone not being preyed on by the gang, the woman not allowing herself to fall victim to the criminal. Why do you find this constitutional right so unacceptable? "

The Cat wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:13 AM:

" To: “Common Sense”. Jesus’ followers carried swords. The US is a representative republic (a collection of states) not a democracy so the individual states have a say in Presidential elections hence the Electoral College. Maybe giving women the right to vote may have been a mistake; for example, Shrillary as dictator in chief? Allowing slavery at the time the Constitution was being debated and voted on was the only way to get passage by all states. All weapons were “assault” weapons when the Constitution was being discussed and ratified; also, what do you consider an “assault weapon”? How can a “pro-choice” democrat be for gun control according to your “uncommon” sense? "

To Stinger wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:21 AM:

" As always you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Try visiting a max security prison sometime. You are bereft of ideas. No guns equal no gun violence. "

To LDT wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:19 AM:

" I have actually been on vacation out of the country. Nice to see idiots are still posting. BTW when you refer to "someone" maybe you shouldn't follow it up with "they". At least learn to write. No guns equal no gun violence. "

R wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:13 AM:

" One should look at what happen to the countries that have outlawed buns
It only works for the crimminals
look at the States that have legalized carring concieled weapons crime is down
Do people really think that crimminals care about the gun laws
If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them.
Lets enforce some of the laws that we have instead of makeing laws for laws.
I did a research paper on gun control in college
and more laws did not change crime but in many cases made it worse "

stinger wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:16 PM:

" i am not a christin,nor a muslim,nor a budhist,nor a jew. i am not a republican,nor a democrat.i am pro-choice-not just as to abortion.i believe we should have the choice to decide for ourselves how we live.the government intrudes into our daily lives enough as it is. why can't they leave the constitution alone and go by it as the founding fathers intended us to? "

LDT wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Hey. I dont see any posts from spam parrot recently. I guess they have decided to finally shut up. Thank God. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Re: “common sense”: Many founding fathers, though they owned slaves also believed it was wrong and put the seeds in place to get rid of it along with women not being allowed to vote. The people of the time had already gone through one radical change and wouldn’t have accepted any more. I am not even sure what your problem with the Electoral College is; we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy so it fits right in. Our founders had the vision to create a government to keep people free even if there are those who do not appreciate that fact. As for Christianity – I take it you have not read the Bible by your comments. While Jesus specifically wants us to turn the other cheek to insults and even mild physical abuse there are passages that speak of defending yourself. Shooting someone who is trying to kill you or another is not forbidden by a long shot it. Also, please tell me how murdering an unborn defenseless child is equal to killing a rapist bent on having his way with you. "

OGS World Government wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Unless the masses Wake Up and Speak Up, gun laws are a part of a coming World Government and a complete subversion of our rights, our life in the USA as we know it. Take the guns from the people and the people have NO defence. Control, control, control. Surveilance, more cameras, spy on Americans, THIS is TERROR, sold to us as the war on terror. No smoking here, no smoking there. As you get used to being controlled it will be easier for you to give up everything. "

Common Sense wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Keep in mind that the forefathers weren't always right. They thought slavery was acceptable, that women shouldn't vote and the electoral college was necessary so that the dumb populace wouldn't directly vote for president. Perhaps they were also wrong about the unfettered access to own assault weapons too. By the way, are you also a christian? I doubt that Jesus would advocate for gun ownership. And are you a republican? Because a "pro-life" republican couldn't possibly advocate for something designed for killing. "

criminal to be wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:47 AM:

" The day they make owning a gun illegal to all American citizens, I will be a criminal. Our fore fathers stated that we had the right to bear arms. Had they not had that attitude, we would have never won our independence in the first place. "

to stinger wrote on Feb 12, 2008 7:37 PM:

" Right on....you are a riot! "

Sigh wrote on Feb 12, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Whoa, looks like they implemented a new posting system. It will be refreshing that people aren't just using multiple names to post but I kinda liked the anonymity. "

OGS To kirkpcard wrote on Feb 12, 2008 2:55 AM:

" Right on! "

hey stinger wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:19 PM:

" someday you too may be unjustly branded a criminal. "

all you wrote on Feb 11, 2008 6:48 PM:

" that that want to take away guns from those who are not breaking the law. Come talk to us AFTER you have taken away the guns from the gangs and punks. "

stinger wrote on Feb 11, 2008 4:35 PM:

" our country has gone to hell and we did'nt even need a handbasket.when criminals have more rights than their victims there is something seriously wrong with the system.our prison system is a joke.the convicts run the places.3 meals a day,free clothing,beds,medical care,cable tv,exercize equipment and if they are strong enough a prison girlfriend.criminals have had it too easy since the 60's with the advent of the ACLU.the government wants to microchip pedophiles.i say no and lets go with dennis millers idea-38 cents for a bullet to the back of the head.problem solved.no more death row inmates sitting there for years on end.enough is enough.i don't work hard everyday just so some lazy ass criminal can try to take it away or sit in a jail cell sucking up my tax dollars.our whole system needs an overhaul and right quick. "

kirkpcard wrote on Feb 11, 2008 3:41 PM:

" When our American government gets in bed with communist and totalitarian regimes around the world, we are forced to become like them, not them like us. "

kirkpcard wrote on Feb 11, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Hmmm, the country is flooded with illegal aliens, hmmmm, American jobs being outsourced to every slave labor market on the planet, hmmmmm, cameras on every street corner watching your every move, hmmmmm, they want to take away American citizens constitutional right to own guns, hmmmm, better watch what you say, it may be politcally incorrect......hmmmmm, anyone detecting a pattern here? Country heading in the wrong direction!!! "

we wrote on Feb 11, 2008 2:49 PM:

" are the only state in the nation that requires an unconstitutional Card to buy a gun.
ban unjust gun laws "

look wrote on Feb 11, 2008 2:41 PM:

" at all these killings, we need to let everyone defend themselves against these terrorists lose on our streets "

kirkpcard wrote on Feb 11, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Get this government off the backs of legal American citizens who obey the laws, respect the country and know what a blessing it is to have the right to own firearms. I want my freedom, I want my guns, I want my country back. Period! "

Call your: wrote on Feb 11, 2008 2:18 PM:

" elected officials and tell them to support HB4544 (sponsered by Rep. Aaron Schock). This is a bill that makes sense and allows only qualified and background checked people to carry cocealed weapons. "

Meg wrote on Feb 11, 2008 11:22 AM:

" Thank you Denny, for another great letter. Keep it up. See you in Springfield on March 11th. "

The wrote on Feb 11, 2008 10:32 AM:

" President we have now is the first one in the history of this great nation. To NOT swear to up hold the constitution of the the United States of America. He felt it was more important to swear to protect the goverment "

As to accurate wrote on Feb 11, 2008 8:03 AM:

" My comment was: the AR-15 which is made by Colt arms is not that accurate, there are similar models that are and with modification the AR-15 can be improved in that department. But a stock AR-15 is not a real accurate rifle and is not a machine gun as it will not fire fully auto!! I can put a 1.5 in. group on paper with my .50cal. muzzeloader @ 200 yards but I wouldn't want to try it with a criminal breathing down my neck. "

Dana wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:45 AM:

" Thomas Jefferson said it well: “A true patriot must be willing to stand, to fight and if called upon—to die in defense of his country…even against its own government.”

As espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers made it clear that our government was formed solely to protect the rights and property of the individual. When government deviates from that singular assignment, it is the right of the People, to alter or abolish it.
"

besides wrote on Feb 11, 2008 7:25 AM:

" our Comander in Chief. told us we all had to be on guard and do our part to keep our country safe from terrorists. we can not do that with sling shots and peashooters. "

history repeating? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:46 PM:

" Let’s see ….I vaguely remember another party’s attempt to take away people’s rights. Sometime in the 1930’s I think. Perhaps in Central Europe, maybe? How did that experiment turn out, again? "

The Cat wrote on Feb 10, 2008 3:20 PM:

" To: Stinger. No one is going to hunt with a full auto and shotguns do a better job in hunting geese than any full auto. Range shooting is a different issue. Full autos are both a challenge and fun to shoot if you set up the proper range. Contrary to what you see on TV or in the movies you really don’t want to burn through a 20/30 round magazine or 50/100 round belt or drum on one pull of the trigger. There are some tactical situations like counter-ambush, being in imminent danger of being overrun, springing an ambush, or trying to neutralize a fast moving target like an aircraft or vehicle where volume of fire is more important than accuracy, but there are drawbacks to blazing away. Volume fire burns out barrels and causes jams, it uses too much ammo, and is increasingly inaccurate the more rounds you shoot at one time. If someone can afford the cost and upkeep (ammo usage) of a full auto, why should they be restricted by those who know little or nothing of firearms? "

WEB To Stinger wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Google "Knob Creek gun range 2007". "

Sigh wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:02 PM:

" to: stinger: The second amendment actually has not one thing to do with hunting as many claim is the case today. Please, recall what had just happened when the country was founded. The founding fathers had just fought a war and they would not have won if not for armed civilians in the militia (as good as regulars - no, but tide turning nonetheless). Many battles (Lexington and Concord for example) were fought to protect militia armories. Also, it would have been an insane thought to them that anyone would ban hunting weapons, as that is how many people stayed alive. The 2nd amendment was meant to protect military weapons for the militia, at the time all able bodied males of a certain age and has expanded since then. Heck, at the time any person who could afford it could buy a full ship of the line and outfit it with all of the most modern weaponry available. The Supreme Court itself has ruled (1936 Miller) that the amendment only protects weapons with a suitable militia use. No, to some who will reply it does not mean we can have nukes/anthrax/high explosives but it does mean military small arms. "

To: Stinger wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Maybe someone wants an automatic firearm for the eventual day our government becomes totalitarian and the president needs to be deposed for crimes against the Constitution. Maybe they want it because it looks cool. Heck, maybe they even want it just so someone else can not have it. The reason does not matter. What matters is that no weapon has ever killed someone by itself. Before the advent of firearms, man has killed man. With the correct combinations of household materials, an explosion can be created killing and maiming many more than a gun would. It is man that kills man, and regardless of bans, man will continue to kill man. "

to stinger wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:08 PM:

" I used to feel no one needed them. Then the media started telling us how badly the police needed them, due to being out gunned by the gangs. thats all the reason i need. If the gangs have them, then everyone should be able to have them. Lets go back to the 20's, when everyone could have them "

pitdogg wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:36 AM:

" To: To Hmmm
I beg to differ my stock AR-15 bought from Eagle Arms (ER-15 H-Bar) is VERY accurate at 200yards it will put all rounds in a nice little 1.5 inch group with Wolf ammo. I bet if I used the premium ammo that would shrink even more. Oh by the way did I mention STOCK IRON SIGHTS..... "

to to RIGHTOUS REPUBLICAN: wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Can you tell me why we shouldn't be able to have one. It's called "RIGHTS" It has nothing to do with hunting or what others do with their guns. Everyone has the right to own the type of car they want....slow one or a fast one. No need for that fast car, you can't drive it on the street that way. And really, what else can you do with that car? Is that what you are trying to say? No need, so therefore it should be out lawed. Why does our government allow motorcycles to be sold on the market that go faster than the top sped limits? People get killed on those everyday, same as cars. I sure hope you have a car that can't go faster than 65mph. (You don't need it) "

stinger wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:30 AM:

" to RIGHTOUS REPUBLICAN: can you tell me why a non-military, private citizen would need a fully automatic firearm? i am not for gun limits, but i do think that if you need a machinegun to hunt with,maybe you need to spend more time at the range learning to shoot properly.i like to hunt but i have no need to kill the whole flock of geese at one time.the ONLY gun control i am for is hitting your target with the first shot.as WEB pointed out, it is too expensive to just go blasting away. "

WEB to Rightous Republican wrote on Feb 9, 2008 5:58 PM:

" That gets WAY too expensive. Fun, but beyond my budget. "

Rightous Republican wrote on Feb 9, 2008 2:07 PM:

" I support the NRA and the right for all to have any type of weapons with concealed carry. Lets all go fully automatic and let the bullets fly!!!!!! "

stinger wrote on Feb 9, 2008 7:45 AM:

" question. how do you stop someone from shooting others in a "GUN FREE ZONE"?have you noticed this is an increasing dilemma? when you have unarmed peaceful citizens in these areas they are prime targets. check out the nation/world section of the paper for saturday feb.9th. 2 more innocents killed in a so-called safe zone.banning all guns will not work as it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.even the SPAM PARROT has to admit that.the only possible way that could ever happen is if there is a god and he has had enough of us killing each other and descended from heaven and erased all trace of firearms from the planet.then he would have to erase all KNOWLEGE of same so we could not make more.think it will happen? "

magic wrote on Feb 9, 2008 7:23 AM:

" it will be a fight alright,try to take mine "

Hmm wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:35 PM:

" He stated he wanted to tax "assult weapons" most people consider the AR-15 an "assult weapon." I consider it a hunting rifle therefore it should not be taxed as he stated. The AR-15 is very accurate and can be used to hunt varmints in Illinois. Put a .458 SOCOM upper on an AR-15 lower and you can legally hunt deer in Indiana with it. I carry a gun almost every day now when I go out. Why? Because when the druggie attempts to rob me for my money I can defend myself. I am not made of money therefore I cannot afford to just be a pushover and give away my money to anybody who orders it from me. "

to AR-15 wrote on Feb 8, 2008 8:14 PM:

" many IL residents travel to other states to hunt with their rifles "

AR-15 wrote on Feb 8, 2008 4:36 PM:

" it's illegal to hunt anything with rifles in this state. Depending on the game, it might make a good hunting rifle. I own an m4 carbine variant, and I've found it to be very accurate out to 300 meters or so. It's no match gun, but good at what it was designed for. "

To: Hmm wrote on Feb 8, 2008 2:45 PM:

" An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, it is only semi-automatic. In order for it to fire fully auto. it has to be modified and then it's no longer legal to own unless you have the correct license. So it could be taxed under that stupid idea you guys were talking about but I beg to differ that it makes a " mighty fine " hunting rifle it's not really that accurate. "

cy borg wrote on Feb 8, 2008 2:44 PM:

" ya'll need to google "bill of rights", read em all, not just the 2nd...pay particular attention to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th...then get back with me "

to: To OGS and all the more gun posters... wrote on Feb 8, 2008 2:25 PM:

" you choose not to respond to any of our arguments because they are all valid. you offer no solution to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals. you continue with the same lame argument. these criminals aren't even getting these guns legally to begin with. i'm not saying that universal gun ownership reduces gun violence. what i'm saying is that you are only going to take the guns away from the law abiding citizens...that's it. criminals always have other means to obtain guns. criminals are NOT law abiding citizens, so laws against gun ownership aren't going to work. it's that "simple". also, this has nothing to do with emotions. i don't even own a gun (nor do i want one). i believe they are dangerous. but, i do believe in gun ownership as a right as an american. maybe, there should be stricter guidelines for purchasing and harsher penalties for those who use guns for violence, but we can't allow another right to be stripped away. "

To LDT wrote on Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Thanks for realizing I was being "cheeky". I am pro-gun just like the framers intended us to be. I find our government's approach to the whole issue ridiculous, you can own this gun but only if it's so long, but you can own this gun because it doesn't shoot these kinds of bullets. As you can tell I'm not a gun enthusiast, wouldn't know a .22 from a .357. You can own a gun here and carry it openly but over here 100 feet it must be concealed. I do believe people who own guns should have to prove that they have attended/taken at least one gun safety class and that guns should be stored properly when inside the home. "

we should fine the media wrote on Feb 8, 2008 1:56 PM:

" 10,000$ every time someone can proved they(the media) printed a lie without checking their sources out completely. As an extra incentive the person that proves they lied gets 10 percent of it. The rest should go to education. oh BTW thats for printed media. Add a couple of zeros(yes before the decimal point) for T.V. media "

Hmm... wrote on Feb 8, 2008 1:02 PM:

" An AR-15 makes a mighty fine hunting gun. So remember you can't tax the ar-15 under your proposal. Automatic weapons can not just be bought anywhere. Only certain dealers can sell them and all transfers have to go through a dealer. At minimum an automatic weapon would cost at least $3000 plus tax and the $200 federal tax. "

OGS Martial Law wrote on Feb 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Martial Law is very easy to enforce, when the citizens have no guns. There will be anarchy in the streets. How about the National I.D. Act? Next you my hear, "Your papers please?" "

hey legalize, LDT wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:57 AM:

" I apologize. I didnt see the last part of your comment saying it was tongue in cheek. "

to legalize, LDT wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:57 AM:

" The term is actually "saturday night special" not friday night special. Also, one can not impose a tax on someone to excercise a right granted by the constitution. That is like charging a reporter a $500 fee every single time that write a news article. Or charging you a tax every time you speak your mind on this board. "

To Legalize all guns - Charge HIGH use tax wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:47 AM:

" you wrote....."they'll buy the guns and not realize they need to get the stamp" WOW you must think people.....criminals especially, "are stupid". WOW I can't believe you know how to type let alone spell. WOW. I am baffled. A stamp..... wow....a stamp. hahahahaha. Yeah, they will forget that darn old stamp. That will do it, put them away for good. "

To: To Legalize... wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:28 AM:

" 1. Glad we agree. 2. I specified that non-hunting guns (I was thinking more about the automatic weapons and/or friday night specials) would get the use tax. 3. Yes I said open it to all, but terms of parole or probation terms would limit some of those felons from obtaining firearms. 4. Just thinking of more ways the gov'ment could get rich, which was the intended gist of the post. You know some lawyer/lawmaker somewhere is thinking about this and knowing how greedy...er, fiscally irresponsible our current crop of government officials are, I was just getting people to ponder what might, someday, be proposed law. It was truly meant to be tongue in cheek. "

strict gun laws wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:10 AM:

" only protect criminals from honest citizens.
BTW to the simplistic parrot
PEOPLE CAUSE CRIME, BAN PEOPLE NO CRIME.
see how easy it is to comeup with an idiotic plan!
its true i swear it! if there are no people, there will be no crime
at least this one has truth to it . that is much more than you can claim "

we should be wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Angry. These maggots want to take our weapons away so we all can be their prey "

Just one of you wrote on Feb 8, 2008 10:54 AM:

" I want just one person, only one, to show, or prove that outlawing guns or any of these bills that are coming up will take guns away and prevent thugs from having them. Will any of these bills save your life or anyone's life that you know of? Show me where taking my fathers' fathers guns will protect me. Show me that I must look at my collection every day to make sure that no one has been in my house and stolen a gun, and this will protect us. Show me that a baseball bat will do a better job against a bear than a 44/410 will. Show me that those gang bangers had FOID's, and registered guns. Show me that they bought their guns from registered gun dealers. One last thing, show me that the Jew's didn't get a bunch wiped out after they thought that gun control would help to protect them. I can show you that Kennesaw, GA thought differently and it did work and still does. "

guns wrote on Feb 8, 2008 10:00 AM:

" save lives. you take them away, bad guys still have them. they have them now even tho they should not duh! train, practice teach. guns save lives.. PERIOD!! "

To: Legalize all guns - Charge High use tax wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:38 AM:

" There are so many problems with your wacky idea - I can't cover it all in 200 words - but here are a few thoughts. One: not only do you propose making all guns legal (which is perfectly fine), you are also proposing that gun ownership by felons should be legal (not fine). Two: your high use tax charge would in effect make firearms legally unattainable for anyone except the wealthy which is not at all what our founding fathers intended. Three: your use tax and annual proof of ownership is in effect backdoor registration, which is the first step to the banning of guns that are not politically correct at the time (oops - I forgot - that's all guns!). Yep, your post makes me think - it makes me think you're nuts! "

Read this: wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:06 AM:

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of this can you people not understand. It's written in plain english and is not open to points of view. That's the way they wrote it and that is what it means. Get over it. Plain and simple!! "

these shootings wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:05 AM:

" are terrorism. arm every man woman and child. WE MUST protect our country, towns, neighborhoods "

to all the anti gunners wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:03 AM:

" IF you don't like it your nieghbors having weapons then move to one of the countrys that do not allow then to be owned by the common person. You have your choice of many countrys "

Legalize all guns - Charge HIGH use tax wrote on Feb 8, 2008 8:55 AM:

" One way to solve Illinois $ troubles would be to throw open gun ownership and types of guns and then charge a REALLY, REALLY, high use tax or stamp (like they do for drugs in some states) for those non-hunting related guns. Criminals wouldn't get in trouble for carrying the gun but for not paying for the stamp. Now, knowing most criminals are stupid, they'll buy the guns and not realize they need to get the stamp and that gives law enforcement another reason to search those seedy individuals. And they can implement something like, to renew you must prove you still have the gun(s) in your possession and if you don't and didn't report it, way big fine or jail time. There are so many permutations to that. Makes ya think doesn't it? "

TO STUDENT wrote on Feb 8, 2008 7:59 AM:

" It will work just like the bans on drugs do not work. it will only succede in enlarging the black market share of gun sales. if you want to make the gangs MORE money then go ahead and support this abortion of democracy "

The Price of the Law wrote on Feb 8, 2008 7:34 AM:

" I love how more legislation seems to be the new fad to fix problems. Before we pass anymore, I would propose that our friends in Chicago take the time to read the legislation already enacted into law, and tell us how much it will cost to enforce the proposed legislation. One the smartest things I heard in the last year (spent in Afghanistan) is that instead of passing more laws, our legislatures should take a year, read the current statutes, and then use some gray matter to see how much money it will cost to adequately fund what it is we already are supposed to do.
"

Family protector wrote on Feb 8, 2008 7:31 AM:

" I have the right to defend my family. I need a gun to do that. What would you have me use? I knife? Golf club? Baseball bat? Get real. Many of you who have parted with reality would say to leave the protecting to the police, but we all know police arrive AFTER a crime has been commited, a child stolen, a woman raped, murdered. etc. When is the last time you heard of the police jumping out of someones closet to arrest the perpetrator just in the nick of time right before he committed a heinous crime? Never. it doesnt happen. I have the CONSTITIONAL right to keep and bear arms. You dont like it? I dont really care. Go cry yourself to sleep. the founding fathers were wiser than any of you wil ever be. They founded the biggest superpower country on the planet. What has your wisdom produced aside from some whiny posts about gun control on your local newspaper web forums?? "

every registered voter wrote on Feb 8, 2008 7:26 AM:

" should be allowed to carry. guns save innocent lives "

stinger wrote on Feb 8, 2008 4:07 AM:

" all of those items i asked you about are VIOLENT ACTIONS designed to inflict physical harm. it does not matter what i use, it is still violence, only varying degrees of same.persoanally, i would never think of causing you any harm whatsoever, unless you cross the line to the criminal side of the coin and wished to do me and mine harm. i and my fellows do wish you a long , happy and safe life. study hard to make your lot in life above average and think back on this as you get older- your rights were guaranteed long before you were ever born and no one has the right to take them from you. btw- welcome to the blog "

stinger wrote on Feb 8, 2008 4:01 AM:

" anyone ever drive there car over the posted speed limit? criminal. not declare all of your income on your taxes? criminal. take more than one paper from the machine? criminal. yes these are all minor things compared to breaking into someones home and stealing their things or raping or killing, but they are still criminal acts. student, let me ask you a question regarding semantics. if i hit you with my fist, beat you with a club, stab you with a knife or shoot you with a gun, what have i done to you? "

stinger wrote on Feb 8, 2008 3:57 AM:

" to all and sundry; the parrot is hereby rechristened-"SPAM PARROT" to "student"i understand your fears concerning school shootings, but there is something you have to understand. the people that perpetrate those heinous acts are mentally unstable and ALMOST never use guns that were legally obtained.gun laws do not help stop crimes committed with guns. it increases them due to the fact that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS can not protect themselves. criminals do not care about the law, therefore that is what makes them criminals.if you want to split hairs everyone of us is a criminal in some way or other! "

Progressives... wrote on Feb 7, 2008 11:53 PM:

" To: To OGS; Feb. 7 1:57 p.m. - You say that liberals have been defined as "PROGRESSIVES." "That means change. ... moving forward with new ways of doing things and looking at issues." I find it very interesting and fitting that the American Communist Party in the 1950s called themselves "progressives." I think it fits very well. Carl Marx would be proud, comrade. "

Student wrote on Feb 7, 2008 11:33 PM:

" While I don't believe that a gun ban would "eliminate" violence, I definitely think it would help. Judging from the alarming increases in public shootings, I think that gun control is certainly an important issue. Especially for a high school student like myself, I would not like to think that someone would shoot up my school, but I can't deny it as a possibility. "

The Cat wrote on Feb 7, 2008 9:45 PM:

" To: "to the Cat et al". OK, no guns = no gun violence also no cars = no car crashes or no planes = no plane crashes or no edged weapons = no beheadings or no computer keyboards = no stupid questions from you. So what? All those things exist and they aren't going to be "uninvented" and disappear so those are specious arguments. Your simple-minded statement shows a total inability to conduct any rational discussion on this issue. Now answer my questions from 2/3/08 1:01 PM post. "

Constitutionalist wrote on Feb 7, 2008 9:41 PM:

" Citizens of Illinois have become the captive "subjects" of one of many of America's pockets of Socialist Occupation government and useful idiots that keep them in power. With impunity, they continue to seize then gut your birthright freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights as they expand exponentially into all aspects of your life, ruling by whim and fiat. They realize that convoluted and draconian restrictions and outright bans in keeping and bearing arms is unconsitutional, yet they perpetuate this strategy to exploit decades long process of law required to unravel the damage. They also exploit the gun owner's inherent desire to remain "law abiding" and thus compliant, while it is they who violate the ultimate law of the land. The tenets of the Constitution are antithesis to their agenda of power and control. Lines in the sand must be drawn lest this malignancy destroys our nation.

' "

who wrote what i paraphrased here? wrote on Feb 7, 2008 8:47 PM:

" Tyranny is alive and well in the world. While this is an unfortunate truth, none the less is is still the truth. Therefore allowing the weapons to be taken from the common man will doom any society that allows it to happen "

WEB to LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 8:09 PM:

" I like "Spam Parrot" but we'll have to ask "stinger" to re-christen him. "

OGS to No Guns Equals No Gun Violence,, wrote on Feb 7, 2008 7:21 PM:

" I am NOT a convert. I simple stated that I understand your premise, but it does not belong in this discussion. I own guns myself and I have never committed any gun violence. So I guess that now we can also say that OGS OWNS GUNS EQUAL NO GUN VIOLENCE. It is a fact. Swear right now on the Holy Bible. This fact can not be refuted! And for millions of others out there that have owned guns and have not committed gun violence they would also be able to claim the same non-refutable fact. So much for your goofy use of simple logic. "

OGS To Feb 7, 1:57pm wrote on Feb 7, 2008 7:11 PM:

" A neocon is an extremist conservative view. People like Dick Cheney are neocons. They are members of the republican party, on the fringe,,,a neocon. That's what I call a neocon and I really don't care what you think. As far as debate is concerned, what is your point? This is a blog, not a debate. I think your revelations concerning Cat/Yada, progressive, regressive labels are baseless and basically ignorant. You contribute what you want, I'll do the same. Why don't you give yourself a constant presence here with some type of name such as "boring," "unhappy," "the insulter," or something like that so it will easier for me to ignore you and you can ignore me? "

Truth wrote on Feb 7, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Guns equal crime deterrent. Simple for all! Cannot be refuted... "

007 wrote on Feb 7, 2008 5:51 PM:

" Just how can you remove something when one can be made by someone with basic knowledge and a few tools, and is the reason why our right shall not be infringed upon....... Get a clue, where there is a will there will always be a way...... "

LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I think that the name spam bot would also apply to the parrot. perhaps, "spam parrot".

It is honeslty like reading the subject line of all your spam mail. They are almost all the same every single day. hundreds of the same thing in your in box. Thats what it is like to listen to the spam parrot. "

Re: Web to LDT- LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

" yes. i know this. I haev called the person "parrot" myself. It is a fitting name for the little parrot. They learn a simple phrase and then dont shut up ever again. I laughed so hard when I read that because it was ingenius.

The person is like a phantom though. They never leave the same name twice. The only way you can tell who it is is because of the same few lines used in EVERY SINGLE POST THEY MAKE. I mentioned earlier, that I counted 15 comments made in less then a 1 hour period of time that included those phrases in them.

I really think that the little parrot person has some "issues" and is obsessive. Really though, I personally dont rely on fallacy to "prove" a point. But hey, Parrots dont have very good reasoning skills do they. "

to "no guns = gun violence" wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:41 PM:

" after consulting my "Understanding Firearms Ballistics" Book and a US Marine Corps Scount-Sniper serving in Afghanistan, the argument that "no guns = no gun violence" is not valid. One does not neccessarily need a gun in order to discharge a bullet from its casing in order to commit a violent act, and the above argument does not address cartridges at all. For example, a kidnap victim could be restraing in front a front that is holding a live cartridge, and using an ice-pick and hammer, the criminal could easily cause the round to sizzle fire and violently injure the victim. Since a make-shift firing mechanism is simple to create out of legal components, it is possible to committ gun violence even if no guns were in existence. Following formal logic, "Some S is P" and "Some S is Not P" are incongruent and the argument fails the validity test. "

WEB to LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Thats all coming from the guy that "stinger" christend Parrot. "

HB 1793 - LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 3:29 PM:

" It has a provision that allows for the person to transport a firearm as long as it meets the requirements already in place. IE unloaded and encased etc. Pg 4 section A...
I am totallya pro gun person, so I am not bringing this up to refute the writer. But i do believe that the truth should be told at all times.

In this case, it was probably just a slight misunderstanding of the law. "

Re: to give a break 1248 - LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Tinley Park is in Cook County. Cook County has a ban on handguns. In fact Cook County is trying to ban all firearms in the county. Interestingly enough this includes BB guns and paint ball guns as well.
Many suburbs of Chicago have draconian laws regarding firearms. Every city in Cook County as well as surrounding areas like Dupage and Lake County have very anti gun laws. Even parts of Kane, Kendall, and Will counties are very prohibitive. I used to live in Chicago and some of the burbs and moved to get away from that mess. "

WEB To Parrot: wrote on Feb 7, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Every 13 seconds a defensive gun use, a victim saved. You find this appalling. That a weak or elderly or lame person would be able to survive when confronted by a young, strong aggressor. You need professional help. Or is it that you are one of the predators, and the citizens of this state regaining their right to keep and bear arms would interfere with your misdeeds? "

LDT wrote on Feb 7, 2008 3:01 PM:

" I swear to God there is a Spam bot in this forum.
No guns = No Gun Violence...Simple for most.
Simple for all but the most simple.
Still unrefuted...simple fo most.
I am seriously getting tired of seeing these posts from this idiot who thinks that making something illegal will make it cease to exist. "

NO GUNS wrote on Feb 7, 2008 2:36 PM:

" doesn't mean squat!! They got rid of them in England and still had gun deaths last year!! so now it's been refuted so will you please shut up about it?? You will never get all the guns from the criminals so it can't work. If it was that simple it would have been done long before now. You just can't admit your plan is flawed!! Please, no response is needed, you will just repeat your same flawed dream!!! "

To The Cat AKA Yada wrote on Feb 7, 2008 1:58 PM:

" I remain waiting for answers that you have not provided. As to the statement...no guns equal no gun violence...please attempt to refute it...I need a laugh. "

To OGS wrote on Feb 7, 2008 1:57 PM:

" You are really lacking in any understanding of politics or debate. A "neocon" is someone who prefers the status quo. That would be the radicals among you who think more guns reduce gun violence (as silly as that is). Please try reading and studying before you post. I am a liberal and proud of it. Liberals are defined by Cat/Yada (the other name he posts with) as PROGRESSIVES. That means change. Cat/Yada describes his conservative beliefs as REGRESSIVE. Understand the difference now? We can progress (moving forward with new ways of doing things and looking at issues) or we can regress (let's keep doing things the way we did them before...we are scared of ne things and new ideas). Looking at the polls and the campaigns I think the PROGRESSIVES are winning the battle. "

Interesting... wrote on Feb 7, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Today the Pantagraph printed an article about two brothers who were sentenced for robbing a store with a screw driver and smashing a man's jaw with a tool. I thought crime only happened with guns??? You mean that crime happens without guns - so if all guns were theoretically gone, crime would still happen???? I think we better get a jump on this and start to ban tools, baseball bats, kitchen utensils and popsickle sticks!!! "

To OGS and all the more guns posters wrote on Feb 7, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Another convert. You and Steve are now at one with the obvious. No guns equal no gun violence. It is simple, it has been proven to work, and it cannot be refuted because it is 100% factually correct. As to the others...I am not about to respond to each of you. You all say exactly the same thing. Your "arguments", if that is what they can be called, are based on emotion...not fact. Simply put, if there are no guns no guns are needed. I know it frustrates all of you who think that universal gun ownership will somehow (?) reduce gun violence. It has not worked in the past anywhere on the planet but, according to you, someday it will. Your arguments simply do not hold any merit. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 7, 2008 12:18 PM:

" re: gun gal: Too bad I'm already married, you sound like a keeper. "

I-GOLD wrote on Feb 7, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Set aside a vacation day for 11 Mar 08 to attend I-GOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day). Busses leave from various parts of the state and converge in Springfield to meet with your legislators and make your views known. 1500 supporters showed up last year. Lets do better this year. "

Gun Gal wrote on Feb 7, 2008 5:25 AM:

" In Response to Truth: I agree with your statements. try telling iraq, afghanistan or any of those other countries to give up their guns. won't happen. I am a person who prides herself on being able to defend my own life and those of my family. If someone takes my .357 they better look out for my .22 "

stinger wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:16 AM:

" a question was posed earlier by WEB and still no response. why are we argueing about trivial things when we should be discussing the subject of the original letter? 7 bills before the house and senate aimed at doing away with everything from bb guns to assault weapons. these items are not even the issue here.one county out of 102 is trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and tell the entire state how to live. this is an outrage.no one has the right to tell me or you how we can live our lives.that is our choice. call your representative and let them know how you stand on these bills. pro or con, vote your consciences and exercize your first amendment rights "

stinger wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:09 AM:

" to TRUTH: i brought up the very same subject of homemade guns(zipguns) on another post of the same topic.i was insulted and was told i have no idea what i am talking about.thank you for agreeing. to THE CAT: you will never receive a coherent response to any of your posts from the parrot.dogma has no answers, only aversion,disdain and hatemongering. but keep up the good work anyway "

OGS To no guns equal no violence,,, wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:01 AM:

" ,,,why don't you just get off that statement, huh? Your comment is a given but basically has no place in this discussion as it proves nothing. The letter and most all of the discussion relates not to destroying all guns but which group may own them. Why do you always have to be such a neocon? "

truth wrote on Feb 6, 2008 11:50 PM:

" gun bans will not make guns disapear. its not a magic show or reality tv, this is the real reality besides they are to easy to make. gangs back in the day, before bans on other things made gangs so rich. were made with pieces of pipe and rubberbands or springs and bits of scrap metal. the aphganistan hill people took a couple of english rifles in the 1890? (before 1920) and copied them with hardly any tools at all. so in closing, Bans Dont Work.they only make criminals rich.
so you have a choice, support you nieghbor on this (if you don't want guns yourself) or support GANGS. remember the laws haven't stopped gangs from having guns now and a new law will not change that.when push comes to shove i am glad i live in the country and KNOW most of my niegbors have guns and am glad for it "

The Cat wrote on Feb 6, 2008 9:34 PM:

" To: “to the Cat”. In your 2/6/08 12:56 PM post I see you are using a new moniker again. Utter incoherence again in that post as well. You brought up Regan and addressed the comment to me when I never mentioned Regan nor is the essence of the reference germane to this topic. Again I am not Yada but you know that and are only being petulant because you have no rational comments on this topic. Your “no guns = no gun violence” sounds just like a two year old’s tantrum when they don’t get their way and know their wrong. Where is your response to MY 2/3/08 1:01 PM questions? "

to Wondering wrote on Feb 6, 2008 6:56 PM:

" many of the founding fathers where afraid to define any rights what so ever. they were afraid that we would start thinking those where the only rights we had. they compromised and only listed the most important ones (source notes from the constitutional conventions) you all really should read these long documents "

to:To All of... wrote on Feb 6, 2008 6:52 PM:

" and i on the other hand hope that when you are attacked that someone (neighbor, stranger it doesnt matter) IS there and armed and able to help you. "

George Washington wrote on Feb 6, 2008 6:30 PM:

" " The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interferences - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good " "

if wrote on Feb 6, 2008 5:11 PM:

" If they take away our guns, who will protect us from SWAT, the police, burglers, and our freaking federal government supposedly made up of conservatives? "

stinger wrote on Feb 6, 2008 4:31 PM:

" to stinger: i am not the one who brought up the issue of ten rapists invading a home.that was mentioned in an earlier post.i was advising "gun gal" on what to do.please read all the posts before firing off assinine questions. "

Truth wrote on Feb 6, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Guns equal crime deterrent. Simple for all! Cannot be refuted... "

a couple people keep blathering about no guns no gun violence wrote on Feb 6, 2008 3:38 PM:

" once again HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THEM ALL DISAPEAR?
you are delusional. "

relax Sigh wrote on Feb 6, 2008 3:05 PM:

" "guns, gold, and a Good Book", and I will add, the ability to understand the difference, ok? "

Sigh wrote on Feb 6, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Please, explain how firearms are "inherently evil" (ed. for spelling). Explain to me how any inanimate object can be evil. Is a chainsaw inherently evil, they get used in slasher flicks a lot? What about axes or kitchen knives? Crowbars and bolt are frequent partners in crime, are they bad or are they just on the fence? Cars, as I showed below, kill far more people in the US than firearms do - so what about them? They are all made of the same types of materials, only in different configurations. What about popcorn, after all it is a delight for many to enjoy, is it inherently good? What if someone chokes on it? The only object I can think of that is inherently evil would be the Necronomicon (after all, it is written on pages of human flesh, inked in blood and can summon the undead against Bruce Campbell). "

Joe Gun Owner wrote on Feb 6, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Does anyone else find it ironic that the people who write these bills have their own body guards? Anyone who thinks taking away guns from law abiding citizens will stop violent crime is sorely mistaken. Take the Tinley Park shooting at Lane Bryant last week - the guy chose that store because he KNEW the ladies wouldn't be armed. If someone wants what you have or wants to hurt you, a bullet or a baseball bad will get the job done. We've got to stop the current trend in goverments of making felons out of law abiding citizens - stupid Liberals... "

Martial Law in Central Texas wrote on Feb 6, 2008 2:00 PM:

" " Pop some popcorn, get yourself a drink, then kick back and watch this 3 part video on youtube. "Operation Urban Warrior".

"Operation Urban Warrior", a video presented by Alex Jones as a military training exercise takes place in which US marines and foreign troops practice putting American citizens under martial law, on the streets and neighborhoods of Oakland, California.

"Martial Law in Central Texas", a 6 minute youtube video, draw your own conclusion.
mine?? the globalists are brilliant at "attempting" to destroy the moral of all, soldier and citizen alike, In their gloal of taking over this country. "

Simple solution wrote on Feb 6, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I say when every kid turns 18 we give them a handgun. After all, it is their rights. This country was founded on the priniciple that we have a right to possess firearms, something that is inherantly evil. Oh yea, we were founded in the belief in God too. Sh**, isn't that contradictory??? ah hell. Guns for all and we'll all be trully safe. "

To The Cat AKA Yada wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Just pointing out how completely out of touch you are with reality (in referring to the Regan post). You are Yada and you know it. You "outed" yourself today and it was noticed by more than 1 poster. No guns equal no gun violence. Is it your position that if there were NO GUNS available there would be gun violence? Mathematically impossible o' simple one. I am waiting for answers to my questions on other posts. When you answer mine (which were posed first) I will answer yours. "

To Patriot wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:51 PM:

" You are so simple (BTW how can you call yourself a patriot when you defend Timothy McVey and the violent overthrow of our government as you did on other strings?). If there are no guns criminals don't have them. No guns equal no gun violence. Simple for most and un-refuted by all. "

To Give me a break wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:48 PM:

" What law stopped them from having guns? You all keep saying Chicago...this was in a suburb...keep up with the discussion. The one question you all cannot over come is what if there were no guns available at all? The rest of it is just process. Japan was disarmed. England was disarmed. Many countries in the world are disarmed. You don't see their governments coming after them and you don't see gun deaths. Crime is crime...it happens everywhere and the crime rates have NOT gone up in countries that are disarmed. No guns equal no gun violence. Ignore the fact that this cannot be proven untrue but keep the insults coming...I need a laugh. "

what wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:46 PM:

" makes a criminal? how does one become a criminal? let's see here, THEY DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!

What makes anyone think that taking a gun away from an average citizen will stop crime?

according to this letter, i didn't even know about all these laws that the illinois government was trying to pass. why are the liberal moonbats so afraid of someone wanting to protect themselves in thier own home? are they afraid one of their thieving kids would get shot?

so far, every gun law that is on the books has been followed by LEGAL gun owners. the criminals aren't going to report anything. all of you anti gun nuts are trying to turn the United States of America into europe, the UK and Austrailia. get a grip, this is AMERICA AND I DO HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT. THE ORIGINAL HOMELAND SECURITY! "

To Queation wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Well...start by spelling correctly. How about this...we imprison more for a longer period of time than 95% of the countries in the world...it does not work. How about no assault weapons at all? No problem with them being used. No guns equal no gun violence. Simple for most. "

Sigh wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:14 PM:

" There is a case before the supreme court right now (heller vs. DC) that will have a huge impact on gun ownership in the future. The lawyer for Heller, the pro gun ownership side, has put together an excellent brief that does a far better job of explaining this right and its historical origins than I could ever do in 200 words. It is a good read and well layed out, I would suggest that anyone interested read it, even if you are against gun ownership. I earlier posted a link to this but it has been deleted, probably against Pantagraph policy. Instead please plug this into google gura possessky parker respondent brief and the first sight that comes up belongs to the lawyer for the case. Click on the "respondent's brief" to read it (its in PDF format). "

Back to Topic wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:10 PM:

" I have yet to see a single post defending ANY of these proposed bills. Here are nine examples of bad legislative proposals to try and interfere with LAWFUL firearms ownership and transport. Where is the outrage that should be directed at the authors of these bills that attempt to deny us the ability to exercise our rights. This is not about guns, this is about legislators trying to deny the existance of our very rights through a legislative power grab. "

The Cat wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:04 PM:

" To “Question”: If you know nothing of firearms why are you posting? There is no hand held firearm that shoots “hundreds of rounds a second”. Vehicle, aircraft, and ship mounted mini guns may, but then are neither practical for use by an individual nor available through Class III dealers since there is no market. As to automatic weapons ownership, if you get a Federal Class III license (cost $200) you can purchase an automatic weapon if your state allows ownership. Unfortunately they are very pricey when going through a licensed Class III dealer. If I want to own one (I would like to if I could afford one), why shouldn’t I be able to purchase one? They are fun (but expensive) to shoot. "

pro self defense wrote on Feb 6, 2008 10:40 AM:

" to the non self defense people: We are still waiting for you to tell us how you will get the guns out of the bad guys hands?. Please remember they do not follow the laws we have now. so don't try to tell us that the bad guys will start following this new law "

To Queation wrote on Feb 6, 2008 10:35 AM:

" It takes a Class 3 liscense to own a machine gun. Believe me its EXTREMLY tough to own one and you have to be a model citizen in every way to get one. When was the last time you heard of a Class 3 holder killing anyone ... PERIOD ! ????
Why not put away DIRT BAGS that use one in prison for life that use an assualt rifle... rather then slapping their hands and giving them 5 years with time off for good behavior ? "

to Question. wrote on Feb 6, 2008 9:59 AM:

" please quit grouping legal gun owners with the bad guys unless of course you are one of the gangbangers that want are guns taken away so you can victimize us. then i understand you position. "

to Question. wrote on Feb 6, 2008 9:36 AM:

" ah those are automatic weapons as in machine guns. few if any of you neighbors have them as most people dont want one and very few of them can have them here in Il. except of course the blackmarket ones that some gangs and the terrorists have. so just what was your post about? "

Give me a break wrote on Feb 6, 2008 8:27 AM:

" There might not be 5 dead women in Tinley Park if there had been a right to protect themselves !
The bad guys are always going to have guns but Cook county seems to believe that if we totally disarm the public ... crime with guns will stop ? ? ?
The only thing their laws will do is insure that the bad guys will continue to do what they do and make their lives easier .... it won't do a thing to protect the public ! "

to LOL wrote on Feb 6, 2008 8:14 AM:

" the only thing that needs restriced is how people try to tell other people what they can and can't do "

Bo wrote on Feb 6, 2008 7:56 AM:

" To LOL, why would stricter gun laws help? They don't enforce the ones they have now and most criminals don't abide by them anyway. Stricter gun laws will only affect legal gun owners and make it harder for them to defend themselves. You forget, if they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns and then what kind of shape would we be in?? "

Bo wrote on Feb 6, 2008 7:50 AM:

" I think you all might be surprised to find out how many people still think the old saying is true " I'll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" A lot of people fought and died to protect my rights and I will do the same!! "

Question. wrote on Feb 6, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Why is it necessary to have any gun available that can shoot hundreds of rounds per second unless you are in the military and eng