|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 10, 2012, 11:10 AM | #26 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
There is a particular mindset in Chicago, it's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism.
Individuals having guns - is not the answer (according to the mindset). In fact, they're part of the problem (according to the mindset). And the individuals who do insist on keeping guns have to be regulated and brought under society's control. The flip side is true for holding criminals responsible for their own actions. Many people in Chicago who have this mindset do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, society failed to provide a job for him. This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal onto vaugue concepts generally categorized as social problems and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. They view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like corporations that refuse to start making paint with no lead in it... It may surprise people but many many Chicago politicians do not see violent gang members as the problem: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...holy-Alliance/ Why don't they enforce existing gun laws? I want to direct your attention to a drug bust last year: http://thevoicenewspapers.blogspot.c...57934894374148 I'd like to point out that two of Koolaid's henchmen were A. Wilkerson and Lashawn Cain - both felons with previous convictions. They were charged with "Use of a Weapon by a Felon", The possible sentence for this crime? A paltry 2 to 4 years. These guys have already decided to take part in a criminal enterprise that could get them 30 to 40 years in jail, so why would they care if they get 2 to 4 on a weapons charge that they serve concurrently anyway. Also - read the comments of one of the posters: Quote:
They basically want to shift responsibility for criminal behavior somewhere else, they don't want to hold criminals in their community responsible for their criminal behavior. Every drug dealer that gets locked up has a grandmother, a half dozen aunties and dozens of cousins and a few uncles in the community. The politicians know that there is a lot of sympathy for that individual in the community and a lot of angst and resentment in general. It's easy to turn that dissatisfaction against corporations like S&W, Glock, Ruger, Beretta, the NRA, "rich people" et al... It's a complicated issue, but its true that generally there aren't consequences for gun possession or gun use that criminals are afraid of. |
|
February 10, 2012, 11:19 AM | #27 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Effective immediately: All FOID cards are now permanent and also double as CCW permits. A FOID card eliminates the need for any paperwork to the government and qualifies as the NCIS check. FOID cards to be issued without question if the requester is not disqualified due to a violent felony conviction or having been adjudicated mentally ill to the point where they are a danger to themselves or society.
That is the way it should read.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
February 10, 2012, 11:22 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
That's the way I read mine.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
February 10, 2012, 11:23 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
|
They Always Call Them Crime Bills, but...
the crime is extorting a fee from law-abiding citizens for the simple enjoyment of a constitutionally guaranteed right. It certainly won't stop any street crimes. But it will make the purchase of a gun more expensive, thus raising the barrier to ownership just a little higher. Which is undoubtedly the real goal.
Such an act could not really be enforced retroactively, unless people volunteered to register the guns they already have. Criminals in illegal possession of guns cannot even be compelled to comply with a registration program (USSC, Haynes vs. US, 1968) because it would involve self-incrimination, so maybe that would also provide an affirmative defense to anyone who simply refuses to register their existing collections. Hopefully the mere proposal will cause such an uproar that Rahm will shelve it. There is ample historical basis to fear, and thus resist, gun registration programs. Think Great Britain and Australia, and to a lesser degree Canada. Registration seems to inevitably lead to confiscation. Though, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin took it to a whole new level against a newly disarmed populace.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent "Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon. |
February 10, 2012, 11:29 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
For regular citizens who possess their guns legally, forced registration doesn't lead to self-incrimination, so Haynes isn't applicable. |
|
February 10, 2012, 11:46 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
|
Quote:
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent "Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon. |
|
February 10, 2012, 12:11 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
|
February 10, 2012, 01:22 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Gah, I hope that doesn't pass. Chicago doesn't ever seem to understand that just being a major population center for a state does not make you the state.
|
February 10, 2012, 01:32 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Just thought of something...if this were to pass would it Chicago remove its city handgun registration? I mean registration is one thing, but double registration?
|
February 10, 2012, 03:07 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,710
|
Quote:
|
|
February 10, 2012, 05:04 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 553
|
Quote:
This is getting more and more riduculous. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...egislation.pdf |
|
February 10, 2012, 06:07 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I would never register any of my handguns, they would all be moved to my families Wisconsin or Indiana Property. If CC ever gets passed I would keep ONE in the state. This is just step #1 to making it easy to confiscate all guns in the event of another handgun ban or a martial law type situation ala Hurricane Katrina.
|
February 10, 2012, 06:45 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
February 10, 2012, 08:49 PM | #39 |
Member
Join Date: January 29, 2012
Location: Chicago Area IL
Posts: 75
|
Let them know how you feel about this.
__________________
Criminals promote gun control. It make the rest of us easy prey. |
February 10, 2012, 09:19 PM | #40 |
Member
Join Date: June 25, 2010
Posts: 35
|
I loved the comment he made today. Something along the lines of his proposal will not affect legal gun owners only those who are illegal.
So a $65 dollar fee to title a handgun will not affect legal gun owners? I am confused how taxing people who aren't in the wrong does not burden them. |
February 10, 2012, 10:11 PM | #41 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
I just deleted a number of posts because they were generalized politics or bashing on Chicago. If you want to discuss the measure at hand, its implications, or how to challenge it, that's fine.
General rants and jokes about the mayor do not fly.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
February 11, 2012, 01:45 AM | #42 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Quote:
|
|
February 11, 2012, 09:40 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
I really think Emanuel is just pandering to his base here as I don't think this will have much of a chance to go anywhere given the current IL state legislature. Remember, CCW actually did pass but it just didn't pass with enough votes to override Gov. Quinn's veto.
Quote:
|
|
February 11, 2012, 11:27 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
February 11, 2012, 11:34 AM | #45 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
^ True.
We also needed that super-majority to over ride home rule for places like Chicago and Oak Park. This proposal may have an effect of rousing some of the complacent hunters and gun owners to action, we have yet to see what the backlash is going to be. The mayor is elected by people in the city obviously, but a suddenly uncooperative Illinois State legislature can cause Chicago and the mayor a lot of pain. It seems like a sensless way to expend political capital, but it may be ideologically motivated, or maybe President Obama asked Rahm if he could do something to try to lend weight to the idea that lack of gun control laws is a serious problem in the country? Like maybe adding weight to the argument that even if Fast & Furious was executed poorly, the premise of it was valid - lax gun control laws cause violent crime. I don't know... I'm just speculating, but I don't think that there would be any big payoff from Rahm's constituents for proposing gun control - there is very little upside to it and a tremendous potential downside. |
February 11, 2012, 01:51 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 553
|
It could also be that he's "sticking it to" the citizens because of the check paid to the Second Ammendment Foundation for legal fees. I'm sure the picture of Alan Gottlieb of the SAF holding the check doesn't sit well with the Mayor. He is human, and it could be that his emotions are in play here.
|
February 11, 2012, 02:31 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Emanuel, with emotional outbursts? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
(That was his reputation with the White House press, when he was chief of staff. One article had him going into a locker room, to confront a party member who wasn't toeing the line - in the shower. The guy has a reported history, in the mainstream media, of bullying and theatrics.) Note to mods: Not political - based solely on individual patterns of behavior, as reported by the MM. Edit: It just occurred to me, that many people who act in the manner that has been frequently reported about the mayor of Chicago, would fall afoul of the Lautenberg Amendment. Just a wee bit ironic... |
February 11, 2012, 03:01 PM | #48 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Catholic church in Chicago developing anti-violence initiatives with focus on guns
I'm not sure how much the whole Catholic church in America is behind this or if it's mostly Cardinal Francis George and Father Michael Pfleger, but it seems to be timed well with Mayor Emanual's call for stricter gun control.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...t-sabinas.html It also comes on the heals of Ed Acevedo introducing 3 anti-gun initiatives in the Illinois house earlier this year. |
February 11, 2012, 08:28 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Next generic city basher or suggesting to move as a bash - gets a whack.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 11, 2012, 10:43 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,328
|
Quote:
http://www.gunssavelife.com/ This group meets frequently and is very active politically. |
|
|
|