If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Concealed carry fails in Illinois House. This is good news for gun owners because if they don't pass one in the next few weeks you can carry any gun you want any time you want in the Land of Lincoln   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 49
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7884 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-20 12:04:00 PM
3 votes:

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery


Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.
2013-04-20 11:02:41 AM
3 votes:

Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....


That's why he said:

Silly Jesus: is a certain culture that exists in your largest city



You brought up color, you farking racist.
2013-04-20 11:02:39 AM
3 votes:

Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....


And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....
2013-04-20 01:09:08 PM
2 votes:

snocone: Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.


Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.
2013-04-20 12:59:04 PM
2 votes:

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


This.

Where's Obama and Feinstein to say that the cops don't need those weapons, that they're designed for one thing-to kill as many people as possible, that they're only good for spray firing from the hip, etc.?
Where's Joe Biden to tell them they just need double barrel shotguns and that the rifle is harder to use and aim?

If the police want to be viewed and treated as a civilian police force, they need to dress and equip like one.  They're much more like a paramilitary organization than a police force, and need to be treated and regulated like one.
2013-04-20 12:49:30 PM
2 votes:

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


You need to leave your house more...

In recent months, Darin Fowler had been the victim of several burglaries at his Oroville, Calif. store, Air Cooled Unlimited. Fed up, Fowler, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, decided to arm himself and camp out at the business. While sleeping behind the shop one night, Fowler was awakened by a thief. Fowler drew his gun on the criminal, who complied with the business owner's orders to stay put until police arrived.
A subsequent search of the burglar's home uncovered several of the items that had previously been stolen from Fowler. Following the incident Fowler commented, "It was almost closure because now we can relax a little bit now and get back to work." (CBS, Sacramento, Calif.  April 8, 2013)

82-year-old Jim Brazel and his wife were asleep at home in Linn County, Ore. when they were awakened by suspicious noises coming from Brazel's workshop. After retrieving a .410 shotgun, Brazel went to investigate and discovered a burglar. Brazel said to the man, "You take one more step and this gun goes off in the middle of your chest. Do what you want."  The criminal chose to stay put until police could arrive, 20 minutes later.
Following the incident, Brazel spoke of the burglar to local media, stating, "He's making a mistake to try country people... Because 99 percent of us are all the same. We're not afraid to shoot." (NWCN, Portland, Ore. 03/28/13)

Just after a 22-year-old woman got out of her car in Oregon City, Ore., a man grabbed her by her ponytail and dragged and attacked her. The criminal continued his attack until the young woman drew a handgun, which caused the attacker to flee. In describing the incident to local media, Oregon City Police Sgt. Matthew Paschall recalled, "He continued to assault her until she was able to defend herself by producing her legally-owned handgun." (KPTV, Portland, Ore. 04/01/13, KGW, Portland, Ore. 04/02/2013)

A woman in Elm City, N.C. was home sick from work when she heard a banging at her back door. The noise turned out to be a pair of home invaders who forced their way inside as the woman fled to retrieve a gun and hide in a closet. Eventually the burglars made it to the room where the homeowner was hiding, and when they opened the door, the woman fired at them, striking one and causing both to flee.
Neighbor Wayne Crumpler spotted the home invaders after hearing one of the criminals screaming for help in the street. As one of the burglars moved towards Crumpler's property, Crumpler retrieved a revolver and ordered the man to halt. The criminals fled, but were captured by police a short time later. Speaking to local media about the incident, Crumpler approved of his neighbor's actions, stating, "She was lucky she knew how to use a handgun and lucky she had it. Because if she hadn't, we might be going to a funeral." (WRAL, Raleigh, N.C. 03/22/13)

A homeowner in Maypearl, Texas was at home watching TV when she heard a suspicious noise at the door. When she got up to investigate, the woman spotted one of a pair of armed criminals trying to get into her home. The homeowner then went find her husband and retrieve a gun. The husband was on another part of the property, but once he heard of the intrusion he went inside the house and retrieved a rifle. A gun battle ensued, with the husband and wife firing at the criminals and the criminals returning fire.
The homeowners managed to strike one of the home invaders in the foot, while the other fled in a pickup truck to a nearby field. After succumbing to the armed resistance, both criminals took their own lives.
Following the incident, Lt. James Saulter of the Ellis County Sheriff's Department told local media, "Our sheriff is always letting homeowners know to arm themselves. This is one of the reasons why... Sometimes it takes a while for us to get out this far, and they have to take care of themselves." (KENS, San Antonio, Texas 03/21/13)

Seriously, that took less than 5 minutes to find and there are thousands more.  But keep pretending you know better, okay?
2013-04-20 11:28:10 AM
2 votes:

Farkage: Carousel Beast: aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.

It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...


When the cops have them they're "patrol carbines" not "assault weapons."  Learn your terminology, citizen....
2013-04-20 11:20:49 AM
2 votes:

BigRightRear: COOL tag?  Does this mean subby likes crime?


Your statement is apt; allowing concealed carry of firearms without a permit will substantially increase rates of violent crime, as is evident by the unbearably high crime rate observed in Vermont.
2013-04-20 11:17:20 AM
2 votes:

aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.


It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?
2013-04-20 11:08:18 AM
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

And what's the solution?


There is no easy solution.  The conditions that led to that situation built up over generations, and it will take generations to change both the conditions and the culture, and like the old joke about the psychiatrist and the lightbulb, that culture has to *WANT* to change:  It can't be imposed upon them from the outside.

There are some incentives we can enact, and perverse incentives we can remove.

Certainly, gun control was tried:  Handguns were completely banned in Chicago (existing permits were grandfathered), and that didn't stop or even slow down the crime.
2013-04-20 11:07:37 AM
2 votes:

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


Armed gays don't get bashed.
2013-04-20 11:00:19 AM
2 votes:

edmo: namatad: Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?

Please please please


I think a really good civil rights lawyer could effectively argue that the fee on FOID cards is in fact a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional.
2013-04-20 08:11:05 AM
2 votes:
ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true
2013-04-21 10:14:33 AM
1 votes:

udhq: mizchief: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

You're aware that's not a real quote, right?



Irrelevant.

The 2nd exists to snuff a government that forgets whom it serves. Full stop.

Our government forgot about 50 years ago, which coincides rather closely with the rise of the dole-oriented grabber movement.

I see the grabbers as traitors of the United States, who collude with corrupt government out of ignorance or in exchange for sundry doles.
2013-04-21 02:29:41 AM
1 votes:

seadoo2006: Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.


I like the GA law better. You can post all the signs you want but it doesn't mean shiat unless it's a courthouse or some other pre-defined off-limits area. For everyone else, worse they can do is ask you to leave then charge you with trespassing if you don't.
2013-04-20 05:33:10 PM
1 votes:

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


It therefore follows that you haven't met very many people to begin with.
2013-04-20 05:29:30 PM
1 votes:

mizchief: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson


You're aware that's not a real quote, right?
2013-04-20 05:15:40 PM
1 votes:

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Haven't attended any competitions, have you?
2013-04-20 05:07:36 PM
1 votes:

scotty425: edmo: namatad: Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?

Please please please

I think a really good civil rights lawyer could effectively argue that the fee on FOID cards is in fact a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional.


It's not a poll tax, but it is a tax on the exercise of a civil right.  The 24th Amendment makes poll taxes illegal, but there is adequate precedence for banning taxes and fees having to do with firearms.  Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Comm i ssioner.  In that case, it was decided that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. In that and related cases referenced from that page, taxes were imposed on newspapers or newspaper consumables with a direct aim to punish influential newspapers.  Following this logic, it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on the means of exercising a civil right.
2013-04-20 04:56:05 PM
1 votes:

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing.  But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers.  The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number.  Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers?  I know that I would.  But they did not explain how they weighted the answers.  So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.


Ah, so have an unreasonable burden of proof.
2013-04-20 04:00:14 PM
1 votes:

udhq: What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.


Then what would put a check on power of the government? You forget what it means to be free. We are not ruled by the government  we as free people tolerate the government to the extent required to maintain a free society. This is the reason we have a Constitution. We give the government a strict set of rules in which they may operate and if those in power decide to violate those rules it is therefore not a crime but the duty of everyone who wants to live free.
2013-04-20 04:00:14 PM
1 votes:

udhq: ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys".  The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.


So the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, would be bad guys.  Based on your statement, that would be true.

The fact is that, yes - firearms can function as a check on the power of the government without ever actually being used.  Just their existence provides that check.  That being said, if things got to be so shiatty that they were physically needed, then their use would be a good thing.  That's because the level of oppression would be psychotic.

Now, to the last argument, I might take exception with that.  One point to that - the fact that the mere potential for the presence of firearms can cause criminals to think twice.  Note that just because the use wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Same could be said of crime, especially if it's criminals preying on criminals.  However, again, note that when restrictions were removed in areas, homicide rates dropped.  That wouldn't be a direct DGU, but it's still a prevention.

As such, I'll stand by my statement that firearms are responsible for more crime prevention than actual crimes.
2013-04-20 02:45:11 PM
1 votes:

snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked


Boy, you sure showed me with all that "evidence" you posted.....
2013-04-20 02:40:57 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.


Hmmm, so an institution that produces an academic study that fails to reinforce your preconceived beliefs can be summarily dismissed as "overtly pro gun control", but YOUR OWN STATISTIC comes from a non-academic paper (that's a significant word, notice how it's a "paper", and not a "study") produced by a self-identified gun lobby?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of living in an ideological bubble.
2013-04-20 02:33:02 PM
1 votes:

ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.


Or Mexican drug cartels

m5.paperblog.com

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

resources0.news.com.au

Like with any other form of prohibition, you end up with a totally unregulated black market.
2013-04-20 02:13:07 PM
1 votes:

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


What they don't address , however is the cause behind it.  Are those deaths because the people getting the firearm live in a higher crime area, therefore putting them at more risk to begin with (which leads them to getting a gun)?  Or is it being killed by their own gun?  Defending themselves from a home invasion?  Stating that someone with a gun in their home is more likely to be killed by a gun loses some of its validity without the supporting information.
2013-04-20 01:52:54 PM
1 votes:

udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.


Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.
2013-04-20 01:07:01 PM
1 votes:

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


Farkage was countering the assertion, issued by JoanHaus, that absolutely no armed citizen would have the ability to use their firearm in self-defense in a stressful situation. Only a single example is necessary to disprove the assertion, and Farkage presented five.
2013-04-20 12:54:08 PM
1 votes:

People_are_Idiots: JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.

Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).


Be aware that JosephFinn is himself "unreasonable", as he has repeatedly lied about Constitutional issues in previous discussions.
2013-04-20 12:29:41 PM
1 votes:

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Your statement is astute, and I am certain that no one will be able to dispute it by referencing even a single incident where a lawfully armed citizen was able to stop a crime in progress.
2013-04-20 12:23:03 PM
1 votes:

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Your poor little world is so incredibly small.
Do get off yer ass and get out there.
2013-04-20 12:07:24 PM
1 votes:

trappedspirit: Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?


People are dying in traffic collisions, many multiples of those killed with guns.

And traffic is an area of plenary state control. And yet, legislators fail to enact laws to prevent the roughly 90-100 people who die daily on the state's roads, along with the many more who are maimed and disabled.

These same legislators also enact drug laws that are the root cause of most gun crime.

Rather than prevent or greatly reduce deaths by (a) repealing drug laws or (b) enacting better car safety measures, over which the state has 100% control, the state insists on pushing for even greater restrictions on guns, over which it has very little real control, and which in the process inhibits the legitimate, defensive use of guns far more than it curbs crime.
2013-04-20 12:07:12 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


www.psiopradio.com
2013-04-20 12:00:41 PM
1 votes:

scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.


The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom.  "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...."  Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw).  How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the NY SAFE act?  They want home-rule when it comes to pro-gun legislation, but they're fine with a simple majority when it comes to inflicting their gun laws on the rest of the state.  Brandon Phelps and the farking NRA have bent over backwards to appease Chicago, and they've basically taken their ball and gone home.
2013-04-20 11:51:12 AM
1 votes:
They simply need to remove the emotion from the argument. It serves no purpose in matters of life and death.

Unfortunately for Chicago lawmakers, without emotion, they have no argument.
2013-04-20 11:41:34 AM
1 votes:

Giant Clown Shoe: Fark It: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.

There has been discussion about this on CPD blogs.  They aren't sure what to do at an administrative level.


I can understand. Currently, they can be assured that the only individuals in public who are armed, without exception, are criminals.
2013-04-20 11:39:13 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.


As many citizens legally carry concealed firearms and do not commit crimes with them, your claim is demonstrably false. As you are relying upon a false premise, your conclusion is unreliable.
2013-04-20 11:28:57 AM
1 votes:

JungleBoogie: 1) Criminals already concealed carry.

2) The more guns in the hands of the law abiding means more guns in the hands of criminals.


I am certain that you will be able to justify your second statement through reference to statistical data derived from states that have enacted "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems. Please do so.
2013-04-20 11:28:25 AM
1 votes:

Fark It: I'm sorry, I can't hear you over that dog-whistle.


Oh that's right.  I forgot that all mentions of Chicago and culture were inherently racist.  It's so hard to keep up with the current list these days.

Seriously, though, Chicago has a gang/criminal violence problem.  It is not solely a racial issue, but race does play a part in it.  I've been on Fark a few years and haven't had much interaction with you or Silly Jesus.  If he's a troll then fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But it's going to be very difficult to have any type of reasonable discussion, here or elsewhere, if people are going to jump to the worst conclusions about each other.
2013-04-20 11:22:56 AM
1 votes:
Gun laws have long divided Illinois along geographical lines, not necessarily political ones. Democrats in Chicago worry about street violence, while Democrats and Republicans in other parts of the state stand by the 2nd Amendment.

Really, Chicago? Really? 532 murders in 2012, and you worry that allowing law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is going to make it worse?

Wow.
2013-04-20 11:22:21 AM
1 votes:

Farkage: I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??


Those voices in your head, they aren't really very bright. Maybe some new meds?

/Why is it the most ardent "gun rights advocates" always seem to be in need of help with their brains?
2013-04-20 11:21:19 AM
1 votes:
And bad news for reasonable citizens.
2013-04-20 11:20:22 AM
1 votes:

CaptainCliche: Lionel Mandrake: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

And what's the solution?

If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.


We have that now with for-profit prisons and the drug war...
2013-04-20 11:19:52 AM
1 votes:
I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it
2013-04-20 11:11:03 AM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

And what's the solution?


If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
2013-04-20 11:06:04 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: Illinois Democrats can't manage to pass anything except tax increases, so I wouldn't expect that they'll resolve this any time soon.

Someone should throw a CC party in Chicago if the legislature can't get their shiat together.


CC?  Why not open-carry?  The city of Chicago is close to 9-figures when it comes to payouts for police brutality/misconduct settlements this year, a bunch of open-carriers getting abused would vault them into oil-spill/poisoning groundwater territory....
2013-04-20 11:05:07 AM
1 votes:
Guns are gay.
2013-04-20 11:01:25 AM
1 votes:
Illinois Democrats can't manage to pass anything except tax increases, so I wouldn't expect that they'll resolve this any time soon.

Someone should throw a CC party in Chicago if the legislature can't get their shiat together.
2013-04-20 09:00:09 AM
1 votes:

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.

/a lot of anti-gun politicians are under the impression that by allowing concealed carry, they're in a position to get "compromise" and attach a slew of anti-gun proposals to a concealed carry bill
//Illinois is getting concealed carry regardless of what the legislature does
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report