Gun Control Debate - Joliet, IL

Law wrote:

<quoted text>Who would use it? Gangbangers prefer handguns and you'll never get the necessary velocity. When was the last time you read about a crime with autos short of the North Hollywood incident in 1997?
The polluticians were yammering about how the so called "cop killer bullets" with the teflon tips could penetrate a kevlar vest.(Which many hunting rounds already could) And made it sound like the Teflon somehow gave the bullet this mystical ability. Sadly, too many of the unaware public knew enough to question it and went along with what ever hysteria the pols were stirring up.
secret identity wrote, "
As for 'Christian Militia', I thought I explained this already. It is a generic term for some redneck-bible thumping crazies that seem to picket and protest any form of 'liberalism'. They are all hyped up because Obama is in office, and feel like everyone is out to get them.
"

First off, they a far and few between and second, people who ascribe to addled-minded cliches like "redneck-bible thumping crazies" also resort to "gun nuts" as an all encompassing stereotype for people who dare to question the unnecessary laws and don't buy into the "common good" justification for additional hoops necessary to exercise a constitutional right.
secret identity wrote, "
If you happen to be one of these paranoid conspiracy-theorists who think everyone else is wrong; but you, then I apologize. I dont know how to better explain this. Do you not have a television?"

No, I'm one of these paranoid realists that realize that there are people in office that would love nothing more than a UN Small Arms Treaty signed and implemented in the US.
I'm one of those mopes who have heard polluticians use nebulous terms like "assault weapons", "armor piercing bullets", "automatic weapons" (when in fact their use in crime is EXTREMELY rare). I guess a crazy like me is off my rocker for believing that the government was only given limited powers and have stretched that well beyond the elasticity of the interstate commerce laws, etc. Yes, I have a television. Why do you ask?

secret ID wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't trying to imply that you were a "nutjob" as I described above. I also apologize for sounding condescending. I don't believe that our rights should be regulated/limited either. I have experienced people, groups and organizations of all sorts. I know there is a better way to describe what I was trying to explain, but it was late and that was all I could come up with. Take out the religious aspect and add in "people". I have heard many (witnessed a few), attempting to push every boundary with their anti-government movement. It seems that some are only trying to see how far they can go, feeling they are within their constitutional rights. I don't know if it's in the bill, and I could be imagining this, but I didn't think that violating the rights' of others was acceptable.
Honestly, I could go on for hours and don't think you or anyone else cares to hear my ramblings. I should probably take it to a private blog ;-]

Youre Full Of It wrote:

<quoted text>NAw, I understand. There are extremists of every stripe and unfortunately the focus gets pt on them and from that, laws and more regualtions are made.
I see where you're coming from and I agree. I'm sure over a beer we would have seen this eye-to-eye well before the time it took us to rack up a half dozen posts apiece.

CC Ryder wrote:

So while I was at the store picking up some groceries for the family I most always check out the magazine stand their looking at a variety of publications. I ran crossed one by “Harris Outdoor Group” named “The Complete Book of Handguns” and in the book were articles on concealed carry tactics and techniques. Although our state still doesn’t have this yet I though the articles might be worth looking into since I’m hoping in the future that this state will someday allow it. But what really got my attention was an article named “Courtroom Minefield” which points out that even if you believe you were completely justified in taking deadly action against an intruder that has threatened the lives of you and your family the justice system and some lawyers within it would still try to convict you of manslaughter. I got the magazine and after reading it could not believe some of the reasons that could be used to make their case to make that happen. People need to be aware of this.

secret ID wrote:

<quoted text>
I have heard of that too. It seems to me, most people are going to sue for their family member who was shot while breaking into your place. The sad thing, they sometimes win. Another reason to be sure that you protect yourself with a legal registered gun and somehow 'prove' that your life was endangered. It sucks; it's sad, and it doesn't make sense... But in my opinion, if I am protecting my family, nothing else matters.

CC Ryder wrote:

Heard on the news today that a larger percentage of women are now going to classes for firearms training. In this day and age it's good to see more women taking this up.

My secret ID wrote:

<quoted text>
My dad taught us girls at a young age, how to fire a gun. He would throw 50/50 bottles in the back yard, for us to target. I have all of his guns to this day, and have yet to clean and shoot them since he passed. I have seen a lot of my friends go through classes and are now able to protect themselves!

My secret ID wrote:

<quoted text>
My dad taught us girls at a young age, how to fire a gun. He would throw 50/50 bottles in the back yard, for us to target. I have all of his guns to this day, and have yet to clean and shoot them since he passed. I have seen a lot of my friends go through classes and are now able to protect themselves!