Best
203 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    Highest rate of violent murders is in Chicago. Most stringent controls on firearms is in the State of Illinois....Coincidence? You Betcha.
  • #12
    !
    No...not really. The gun violence in Chicago is mostly gang-related. Even if every citizen in Chicago carried a gun...There would still be this (or more) gun violence there...You Betcha!
  • #19
    !
    @Sonny

    Bullshit. Even drugged up criminals don't want to have to face an armed victim. The problem now is they know they won't.
  • #39
    !
    @Sonny you should look at the UK's crime statistics since their gun ban in 1997. Within 4 years their violent crime rate more than doubled, and they are now amongst the world's highest violent crime rate nations (they're either ranked #1 or 2). The US, by comparison, isn't even ranked in the top 10 nations for violent crime, has the #1 gun ownership rate in the world, and is ranked only #28 in the globe for gun violence.
  • #54
    !
    @Sonny And never forget, almost a hundred or so unarmed people couldn't prevent people with box-cutters from hijacking airplanes.
    9/11 is what happens when you take away guns and people still have knives.
    Not that people should carry guns on aircraft, just sayin.
  • #62
    !
    @Sonny And what do gangs use to commit their violent acts with?!!Ding Ding Ding!! Firearms!!....You Betcha!!!
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    That's not the question is it? There are restrictions in every state on where you can carry concealed. And if you think for a moment Chicago's gangsta give a red rats ass whether they can carry concealed or not I have a bridge you might like to buy.
  • #3
    !
    "I have a bridge you might like to buy." More interested in solid land in southern Florida. Got any of that for sale? ;-)
  • #4
    !
    @stepped_in_it Got some that might be called solid land if you brought in a few hundred thousand trucks of soil. No biggie. Just needs a little mopping up.
  • #140
    !
    All this is really doing is showing a total lack of respect for the majority of illinois residents by the corrupt intrenched self rightous goverment. When they show this kind of contempt for their conconstituents,there can be NO good reason to keep them in office.
  • #9
    !
    Land of Obama. How messed up can you make it? It's a shining example of every wrong thing to do.
  • #26
    !
    @martydotcom I don't believe you can prove I've ever said anything like that. But even if I did, welfare is not a right. Why are you so set on ignoring the constitution? That's the real question.
  • #28
    !
    @martydotcom Lets apply your standards to voters also. We should apply blanket tests equally. What other constitutional right requires evals and background checks? I have no issue about drug tests....i've passed all of them i've been given.
  • #30
    !
    @NTBFW referred to the generic right wing, not you specifically -apologies
    " we'll regulated ". not ignoring constitution What happened to common sense?
    Have we lost out minds not implementing universal background checks and mandatory training
  • #31
    !
    @martydotcom I have explained my position on universal background checks. I'm sure you've read them. You have even commented on the thread. Do I need to say it again? I don't mind. I know you have issues comprehending things.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    The best way to dissuade a lunatic from shooting up a room full of people is to make it clear that law abiding citizens can lawfully carry firearms in said room.
  • #11
    !
    It didn't stop Charles Whitman, it didn't stop them in Alabama, and it didn't stop them in Mississippi.
    A nutter doesn't think things through logically, if they did they wouldn't think there was nothing wrong with murder. The same reason they are killing people in the first place is why this is not true.
  • #14
    !
    @Fishbone345

    If they don't care, so be it, but concealed carriers would have a chance of stopping them before the lunatic increases their total victim count.
  • #17
    !
    @Fishbone345-- Sorry dude. I'm not convinced that James Holmes was "lucky" when he chose a "gun-free" movie theater.
  • #43
    !
    @Meanie Notice how Bobo discusses what I said with me before assuming I'm a Gun Control person. I miss Bobo. One of the real thinkers of this site.
  • #46
    !
    @Bobolinsky Possibly. I'm more convinced he chose it because of the movie playing. He thinks he is a Batman villain. Not exactly the stable of sanity that one.
  • R Load more replies

  • #166
    !
    I hope more firearms companies join the growing movement to restrict sales to government agencies. several smaller companies have refused to sell certain weapons to state and federal agencies in areas that restrict same weapons to eligible citizens. If the bigger manufacturers join this effert it will end obamas gun grab.
  • #170
    !
    I agree! Over 40 companies now are restricting sales to law enforcement and government agencies in states and cities that restrict access and ownership of firearms! This trend is growing rapidly, and is a just action. There are still foreign manufacturers however that will always sell to the highest bidder.
  • #193
    !
    @ZombieMedic yeah but I'm hoping some of the big boys will jump on board with this... that will really send a message.
  • #25
    !
    When( not if concealed )carry is allowed in Illinois those killed or wounded will be far fewer law abiding citizens.Watch if the murder rate does actually decline..Keep tract of the numbers when Concealed carry goes into affect and get back to me.
  • #51
    !
    When concealed carry is approved and talking about non-law abiding citizens, get use to the thought of kill instead of wound and get lots of training. The biggest problem law abiding citizens will have as in most anti-gun liberal areas is that you may be held liable for the criminals medical expensess and disability even though they were in the commision of a crime.
  • #142
    !
    The bottom line is, everyone should at least have the chance and opportunity to choose if and how they want to defend themself.
  • #195
    !
    I voted yes because the way the question is worded it's too broad. I certainly don't think guns should not be allowed in entertainment venues and government facilities, to name two. Otherwise, law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry for self-defense. The problem, however, with allowing essentially unfettered access to carry permits is that there must be clear laws governing when using a gun in self-defense is permissible.
  • #201
    !
    I would agree
    I do think, though it may be stupid, that store owners should be able to set up no gun signs on their private property. No gun zones at public schools is waaay different. With all the mass shootings at schools, the shooters obviously aren't following the no gun signs. The teachers should be allowed to bring guns.
  • #57
    !
    Should there be restrictions on where people can carry concealed weapons?
    I say "Only Bars" where people are getting drunk.
    In AZ I carry everyday, every place I go.
    I am a legal citizen with a Military/Law enforcement background.
    I carry a Colt 1911.
  • #50
    !
    I visit Chicago twice a month. I deserve the right to carry a weapon while I'm there. It's a very dangerous place and our law enforcement and government can't help me. I prefer to take care of myself anyways!
  • #189
    !
    It's pathetic how many people have closed eye's. The more they try to de-legalize our guns, the more the bad guy gets away with it. I am as a US Citizen who believes that the more places you make it a law against carry the more places the bad guy goes because there is no worry.For God's sake people, Wake up and fight back.
  • #175
    !
    Nuts with guns know where to find butts without guns: movie theater in Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, other schools and other places where law-abiding citizens are banned from carrying guns.
  • #171
    !
    I vote Yes but only at state level. The Federal Government has no Authority to regulate guns except for interstate commerce when they are sold across state lines and the states may have disputes over such commerce... No Authority in the least on type, number or any laws regarding an individuals gun ownership...

    On the other hand the State is bound by the State Constitution and in my view if a state wanted to totally ban all firearms they can.

    I think the SCOTUS got this one wrong because they acted as if we had a National Government instead of a Federal Government which is not the intent of the Founders and the States that ratified it... They had that debate between those that thought we should have a National Government where power resided in the National Government and was given to the states as it saw fit and those that thought a Federal Government should be the design where The States held the Power and allocated it to the Federal Government specifically... Federalists Won...

    So my view is a State can Ban fire arms or about anything they wish and the people of that state then have the option to leave that state. This allows experimentation and competitions between the states to see what assorted governance works and what does not... If Banning firearms in a state causes the crime rate to skyrocket the people of that state can see what such laws cause and if another state allows it's citizens to have Full Automatic Machine Guns and their crime rate goes down other states can see the experiment and choose their own course...
  • #172
    !
    >>>State can Ban fire arms or about anything they wish<<<

    States have agreed in their Constitutions to be bound by the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. Ultimate decisions on states rights are made by federal law. We had that debate. It was called the Civil War. The South won by losing.
  • #180
    !
    @WMCOL .... I am not saying that is not the fact, but it's not what was intended in the Constitution... What you are saying is that By Force of Arms the Civil War forced the US into becoming a Nationalist Government instead of a Federal Government the Constitution was written to form... Again not disagreeing with that, because it is exactly what happened.... And later Social Programs have moved us closer and closer to a National Socialist form of governance... We are getting closer and closer to the end result of such conversion and that is that the Power that once was held by the states and is now held by a National Socialist government is transferred to the control of a single individual..... As our President just said in a comment ""The problem is that I’m the President of the United States,” President Obama told the online audience.“I’m not the Emperor of the United States."".... Sorry I remember the last time that was tried....

    So I prefer the Actual Constitutional Republic which formed this nation as a Federal Government that was held in check by the limits placed on it by that Constitution... And no matter the National Socialist agenda ....
  • #184
    !
    @Quantummist
    States rights are usually claimed depending on how it is perceived ones Ox is being gored. Other times it is the make-up of the judiciary that appeals to a certain side. It teetors and totters but always seems to find a balance of power with checks and balances. A President or Congress can say anything but what they can actually do is substantially somewhat less as the ultimate decision still rests with the people who democratically elect Congress and the representatives who choose the electors of the President.
  • #185
    !
    @WMCOL that's fine until the point comes that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Franklin...... At that point Congress and Presidential Elections become a moot point...
  • #190
    !
    @Quantummist
    Which proves my point that the ultimate decision rests with the people. We get the governance we deserve. Our system has always contained within it the seeds of its own destruction.

    It is why Franklin when asked by a woman what kind of government did we have, he replied,“A republic, madam – if you can keep it.” We choose our representatives by a democratic process, who then make decisions by a democratic process. We amend the Constitution by a democratic process.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post