I recently had to request some documentation regarding a family member from Gov. Pat Quinn, which was somewhat privileged and difficult to come by. The man is a sweetie!!! He responded to me immediately, indicating an assistant counsel would research the matter,and my response was prompt, efficient, and 100% what I needed. I DO believe in our 2nd amendment rights, the right to self defense, and the right to bear arms to overcome tyranny...but can also see the Governor’s point that we don’t need the deadly and sophisticated type of weaponry that our forefathers wouldn’t dream being available now falling into the hands of citizenry who would abuse the right, and turn it against their fellow citizens.
Either you forgot your /s/ tag or you are terribly naive for someone who has been here since 2008.
You are overtly naive, or clueless. Arms have developed over the centuries. Do you believe back in the 17/1800’s citizens were only allowed weapons less powerful than the military as a whole? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to insure citizens can protect themselves from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. And if those enemies, including those domestic, have assault weapons, then it’s incumbent on the citizenry to be equally armed. Period. Paragraph. It we’re not, then our freedom is toast.
1. Who is "we"?
2. It's not the Bill of Needs. It's the Bill of Rights.
They were citizens that killed the friggin' king's troops genius.
You’re a complete idiot.
zot
Want to help educate this fool before he zots himself?
Actually, modern firearms are safer for gunshot victims today than they were 200 years ago, because of the relative states of medical care then and now. 200 years ago, almost any slight torso gunshot wound led to an agonizing death through infection. Any wound to a limb led to an immediate amputation, and most of the time after that, it still led to an agonizing death through infection.
The “assault weapon” of 200 years ago was the blunderbuss, which could launch 30 pieces of lead or rusty iron at a crowd of victims with one press of a trigger. Yet “blunderbuss attacks” on innocents were unheard of.
Effective long guns have existed for 500 years. Multi-shot pistols and rifles for 150. Semi-auto rifles and pistols for 80 years. Yet it was nearly unheard of for anybody to go berserk and fire into a crowd of innocents.
So what changed? The culture.
Until about 30 years ago, there were no movies or TV shows with attractive, charismatic but evil “anti-heroes” for potential psychos to use as role models. James Holmes wanted to be “The Joker,” an evil yet cool, attractive and charismatic villain. If you want to do something about rampaging psychos, look at the mass popular culture, which has changed radically for the worse in just a few decades.
Don’t look at guns, which have been around for 500 years, and in modern self-loading versions for 80 years.
And please don’t cite the false “fact” that guns are more dangerous today, for they are NOT. They are much, much safer, due to medical care today. Soldiers, cops and criminals are shot through the torso every day, and survive. This NEVER happened in the past, when nearly every gun shot resulted in an agonized death or at least an amputation. Saying that guns are more dangerous today is pure foolishness.
“our forefathers wouldn’t dream being available now falling into the hands of citizenry “
You’re following the extreme left-wing tripe. Our founding fathers had cannons, warships with dozens of cannons, explosives, hand grenades, etc. They had the best military weapons made and were far more effective than our little rifles today. In fact, we borrowed a few of those warships during the war from private persons. When they said the people should have the weapons and the government should borrow them in time of need, they meant it.
" I DO believe in our 2nd amendment rights, the right to self defense, and the right to bear arms to overcome tyranny...but"
No sooner than Jimbob mentions it, then someone posts it: the appearance of the current Leftist talking point. While you're smacking your lips and savoring the taste of the Kool-aid, pay attention...
The Left does not want "assault weapons" banned, they want ALL weapons banned. They want the citizenry disarmed, which is what the 2AM was designed to prevent. This is what Fast & Furious was all about: the government arming criminals with weapons to gin up hysteria and support for a universal weapons ban. Haven't you been paying attention since your sign-up date??
Tell me again, how criminals will comply with a weapons ban - out of their sense of patriotism? That's what criminals do; they break the laws of society and the nation. When the Trayvons and Tawannas come boiling out of the ghettos like fire ants, better armed than the police, will you appeal to their sense of community to lay down their arms and sing kumbaya?
Now, let's turn the clock back 236 years. The principal weapon of the British military at the time was Brown Bess, a .75 caliber monster that was still in service during the US Civil War; considerably larger and more powerful than modern arms. With modern ammunition like the .22, 5.56mm, and even the 9mm, a single hit is survivable with medical care. When Brown Bess hit you, you died - or you wished you had.
This musket was also in the hands of the citizenry who were part of the unorganized militia, which still exists today: all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45(Title 10 USC Sec 311), and all military vets up to age 65 (Title 32 USC Sec. 313). The unorganized militia must maintain its own arms and arsenal, and that is partly what the 2AM is all about - the right of the people to keep arms.
And if one wants to argue contemporary law, let's go to D.C. v. Heller where the SCOTUS ruled that banning an entire class of weapons is unconstitutional. The Left wants a ban on an entire class of weapons, and demands that so many weapons be included in the banned class that ANY weapon used for defense is illegal.
Now please, not for our sakes, but for your own, reconsider your position. You are falling into the Leftist mindtrap of agenda couched as "reasonable" requests. I do not apologize for the length of this post; it's meant to give you better ammunition and insight. Take it, and go forth.