They don't want to take all your guns...

[PaulS1950]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

 

[martybegan]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.

 

[JustTheFacts]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

I've been saying it for awhile. The Second Amendment is poorly written and doesn't even do what most think it does.

Congress could pass a bill tomorrow defining "arms" as nothing larger than a single shot .22 and that would be that, they could outlaw all other weapons.

We need a new clearer amendment. One that both protects gun rights AND yes provides for regulation and even the outright loss of rights under certain circumstances.

Alas, this will never happen until a majority of people from both sides of the coin come together and say "okay you're right, we MUST find a middle ground that provides for the rights of gun owners while at the same time does as much as possible to keep guns away from those who ought not have guns"

that day will probably never come because of one core group of people from each side

1. The group who INSISTS on fighting against banning gun sales which don't include a back ground check

2. The group who insists that anything that even remotely resembles an assault rifle should be outlawed

oh, and don't get me started on the people who claim that assault rifle is a made up term LOL

 

[MikeK]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Whether by intentional strategy or by a process which comes naturally to the anti-gun mentality, I believe what you've said to be the direction the Second Amendment issue is taking.

Little by little, inch by inch. One step at a time. And one day we will be permitted to keep one single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle, chambered for Short, and to bear it in a locked container to a federally supervised shooting range where we will be issued a prescribed amount of ammo, all of which must be expended there.

And that, in the minds of the Brady Bunch, will satisfy the requirements of the Second Amendment.

 

[JustTheFacts]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.

That is just ridiculous.

 

[martybegan]

What do you think of this latest test of restrictions to the Second amendment from Illinois?

ISRA Urgent Alert - Illinois Near Total Gun Ban January 2nd!

So that leaves the bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns and revolver and single shot guns.
Can you still believe that we are not being systematically disarmed?

Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.

That is just ridiculous.

The police are not the military, they are civilians just like we are.

At a minimum they should only have disapproved weapons at work, which would be locked up in an armory at the end of shift. They could only take home weapons that are approved for the rest of us, and would have to follow the same rules are the rest of us.

So if a non police officer has to lock his weapon unarmed in the trunk while driving, the officer should have to do the same while off duty returning home. They would also have to store thier weapons the same as non plice officer would.

If we have to rely on the on duty police to protect us from others, they should too.

To do otherwise would create a 2 class society, those with 2nd amendment rights, and those without.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Then the same should apply to the police as well. If we have to be disarmed, so should they.

That is just ridiculous.

The police are not the military, they are civilians just like we are.

At a minimum they should only have disapproved weapons at work, which would be locked up in an armory at the end of shift. They could only take home weapons that are approved for the rest of us, and would have to follow the same rules are the rest of us.

So if a non police officer has to lock his weapon unarmed in the trunk while driving, the officer should have to do the same while off duty returning home. They would also have to store thier weapons the same as non plice officer would.

If we have to rely on the on duty police to protect us from others, they should too.

To do otherwise would create a 2 class society, those with 2nd amendment rights, and those without.

That doesn't even make a little sense. Not even a little.

Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

I mean let's use a little common sense here. The police obviously face situations on a daily basis which require more firepower than I do as an auto technician , for example

PS - you could join the police force and carry whatever weapons they issue .

 

[martybegan]

That is just ridiculous.

The police are not the military, they are civilians just like we are.

At a minimum they should only have disapproved weapons at work, which would be locked up in an armory at the end of shift. They could only take home weapons that are approved for the rest of us, and would have to follow the same rules are the rest of us.

So if a non police officer has to lock his weapon unarmed in the trunk while driving, the officer should have to do the same while off duty returning home. They would also have to store thier weapons the same as non plice officer would.

If we have to rely on the on duty police to protect us from others, they should too.

To do otherwise would create a 2 class society, those with 2nd amendment rights, and those without.

That doesn't even make a little sense. Not even a little.

Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

I mean let's use a little common sense here. The police obviously face situations on a daily basis which require more firepower than I do as an auto technician , for example

PS - you could join the police force and carry whatever weapons they issue .

I shouldnt have to join the police force, I should just be allowed to carry when off duty the same as they are allowed to carry. When on duty they can be armed as needed, but when off duty, they should return to the citizen they still are. They are not the military.

I realize my argument is "reducto ad absurdum." My point is that we cannot let people take away our gun rights, but allow agents of the government to maintain thiers, even if not on duty. Again, what it creates is a two tier society. Those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.

My main fear is that the police organziations would back harsh restrictive gun laws because they know it will not be applied to them.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The police are not the military, they are civilians just like we are.

At a minimum they should only have disapproved weapons at work, which would be locked up in an armory at the end of shift. They could only take home weapons that are approved for the rest of us, and would have to follow the same rules are the rest of us.

So if a non police officer has to lock his weapon unarmed in the trunk while driving, the officer should have to do the same while off duty returning home. They would also have to store thier weapons the same as non plice officer would.

If we have to rely on the on duty police to protect us from others, they should too.

To do otherwise would create a 2 class society, those with 2nd amendment rights, and those without.

That doesn't even make a little sense. Not even a little.

Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

I mean let's use a little common sense here. The police obviously face situations on a daily basis which require more firepower than I do as an auto technician , for example

PS - you could join the police force and carry whatever weapons they issue .

I shouldnt have to join the police force, I should just be allowed to carry when off duty the same as they are allowed to carry. When on duty they can be armed as needed, but when off duty, they should return to the citizen they still are. They are not the military.

I realize my argument is "reducto ad absurdum." My point is that we cannot let people take away our gun rights, but allow agents of the government to maintain thiers, even if not on duty. Again, what it creates is a two tier society. Those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.

My main fear is that the police organziations would back harsh restrictive gun laws because they know it will not be applied to them.

But police never return to normal citizen is exactly what I'm saying to you. An officer is almost always on call. I have some friends who are police and they get called out at 3 am, they get called out of church, they get called out during dinner, etc etc, and sometimes they drive to scenes in their own private vehicles even, and the situation they responding to is nowhere near the police station so that would be a waste of time before they even respond.

Hard to take you seriously to be honest. Maybe you should rethink your thoughts here re police.

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't even make a little sense. Not even a little.

Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

I mean let's use a little common sense here. The police obviously face situations on a daily basis which require more firepower than I do as an auto technician , for example

PS - you could join the police force and carry whatever weapons they issue .

I shouldnt have to join the police force, I should just be allowed to carry when off duty the same as they are allowed to carry. When on duty they can be armed as needed, but when off duty, they should return to the citizen they still are. They are not the military.

I realize my argument is "reducto ad absurdum." My point is that we cannot let people take away our gun rights, but allow agents of the government to maintain thiers, even if not on duty. Again, what it creates is a two tier society. Those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.

My main fear is that the police organziations would back harsh restrictive gun laws because they know it will not be applied to them.

But police never return to normal citizen is exactly what I'm saying to you. An officer is almost always on call. I have some friends who are police and they get called out at 3 am, they get called out of church, they get called out during dinner, etc etc, and sometimes they drive to scenes in their own private vehicles even, and the situation they responding to is nowhere near the police station so that would be a waste of time before they even respond.

Hard to take you seriously to be honest. Maybe you should rethink your thoughts here re police.

All are valid points, and I would honestly never want to see my conditions put into place. However if it is decided that ordinary people should be disarmed for the "good of society" Then we either have to militarize the police, thus allowing them the mantle of a commission or an elistment, and thus the right to bear arms at all times, or we have to disarm the police when off duty the same way we want to disarm other people.

You do not see the danger in a government where only government officals have the right to defend themselves or thier homes without having to wait for someone else to show up?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I shouldnt have to join the police force, I should just be allowed to carry when off duty the same as they are allowed to carry. When on duty they can be armed as needed, but when off duty, they should return to the citizen they still are. They are not the military.

I realize my argument is "reducto ad absurdum." My point is that we cannot let people take away our gun rights, but allow agents of the government to maintain thiers, even if not on duty. Again, what it creates is a two tier society. Those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.

My main fear is that the police organziations would back harsh restrictive gun laws because they know it will not be applied to them.

But police never return to normal citizen is exactly what I'm saying to you. An officer is almost always on call. I have some friends who are police and they get called out at 3 am, they get called out of church, they get called out during dinner, etc etc, and sometimes they drive to scenes in their own private vehicles even, and the situation they responding to is nowhere near the police station so that would be a waste of time before they even respond.

Hard to take you seriously to be honest. Maybe you should rethink your thoughts here re police.

All are valid points, and I would honestly never want to see my conditions put into place. However if it is decided that ordinary people should be disarmed for the "good of society" Then we either have to militarize the police, thus allowing them the mantle of a commission or an elistment, and thus the right to bear arms at all times, or we have to disarm the police when off duty the same way we want to disarm other people.

You do not see the danger in a government where only government officals have the right to defend themselves or thier homes without having to wait for someone else to show up?

I actually advocate letting anyone own anything they are qualified to own under very strict guidelines.

 

[PaulS1950]

Happily the framers of our bill of rights decided that people should be allowed to have the same weapons that the military had in order to protect themselves against tyrany from without as well as from within.
They understood that government become corrupt and the citizens need to be able to balance the equation of power to remain free.
Criminal use is already against the law. Criminal possession is already against the law. There are laws that prevent children from legally possessing a gun. There are laws that prevent the insane from using or possessing guns. There are laws that prevent those under investigation or convicted of violence from having or using guns.
We already have too many laws that prevent or restrict what guns the law abiding citizens can own. More laws that only restrict the law abiding citizen from owning guns does nothing to address the crime issue. Criminals do not obey laws - that's what makes them criminals.

 

[PaulS1950]

It seems that the Illinois congress has suddenly realized that they don't have enough votes to pass these two bills - they are officially tabled until a later date.

I still find it difficult to believe that any state government would undertake such a bill and even discuss it.
It doesn't diminish the threat of a total gun ban in the future - "eternal vigillance is the price of freedom".

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Do you realize that police are on call even when they are not on duty? If some idiot is shooting up my kid's school I don't want to have to wait an extra 30 minutes for a response while the police rush back to the armory to get armed.

[...]

Off-duty police are not "on call." If they are called in for some emergency, they are on duty. And allowing off-duty police to keep a handgun in the home is not the same as carry authorization.

If off-duty interruptions of serious criminal activity is the basis for off-duty carry authorization, is the existing ratio of such off-duty incidents sufficient to base such authorization on?

 

[MikeK]

Happily the framers of our bill of rights decided that people should be allowed to have the same weapons that the military had in order to protect themselves against tyrany from without as well as from within.

[...]

Although what you've said above is implicitly correct, the actual language of Amendment Two makes no such specifications. In fact, the language of the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which could be extremely problematic for pro-gun advocates if the Court is dominated by anti-gun judges.

 

[PaulS1950]

It may be subject to the interpretation of the supreme court legally but lawfully it is subject to the gun owning citizens who have the right to protect the state and country from tyrany.
It would be difficult for American soldiers to fight against Americans fighting to protect their rights when they are sworn to protect the same constitution that the population is fighting to protect.
I hope it never comes to that because it would be bloodier than the last civil war and last much longer.

 

[martybegan]

But police never return to normal citizen is exactly what I'm saying to you. An officer is almost always on call. I have some friends who are police and they get called out at 3 am, they get called out of church, they get called out during dinner, etc etc, and sometimes they drive to scenes in their own private vehicles even, and the situation they responding to is nowhere near the police station so that would be a waste of time before they even respond.

Hard to take you seriously to be honest. Maybe you should rethink your thoughts here re police.

All are valid points, and I would honestly never want to see my conditions put into place. However if it is decided that ordinary people should be disarmed for the "good of society" Then we either have to militarize the police, thus allowing them the mantle of a commission or an elistment, and thus the right to bear arms at all times, or we have to disarm the police when off duty the same way we want to disarm other people.

You do not see the danger in a government where only government officals have the right to defend themselves or thier homes without having to wait for someone else to show up?

I actually advocate letting anyone own anything they are qualified to own under very strict guidelines.

The problem with "strict guidelines" is they can be interpreted to become de facto bans, if not de jure bans. Look at NYC. It is a ",may issue" state, but the only way you get a carry permit is if you are a cop, a retired cop, klnow someone in the government, or can prove you carry over $20k in cash on you at any given time.

Strict guidlines become cronyism, where only the friends of those in power get the permits, and anyone else can go pound sand.

 

[4Horsemen]

The sheep will bleed

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress could pass a bill tomorrow defining "arms" as nothing larger than a single shot .22 and
that would be that, they could outlaw all other weapons.

Not according to current jurisprudence. Any such law would be struck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Happily the framers of our bill of rights decided that people should be allowed to have the same weapons that the military had in order to protect themselves against tyrany from without as well as from within.

[...]

Although what you've said above is implicitly correct, the actual language of Amendment Two makes no such specifications. In fact, the language of the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which could be extremely problematic for pro-gun advocates if the Court is dominated by anti-gun judges.

The supreme court has already ruled on the matter of what sort of weapon are protected by the 2nd.