National IL Gun Confiscation Bill - Close to Passing

[etrain16]

Splitting hairs over shock and awe term posting "they're coming to take it away" meaning "the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure." verses you can't possess it is not under any circumstances the same, especially since there are exemptions to <21 being allowed to 'possess'!

There is absolutely no 'taking or seizing' by agents of the state of Illinois as is the spirit and tenor of this thread since the <21 citizen has the long firearm and only uses it as provided under the exemption provisions previously discussed, w/o fear of judicial repercussions.

So for example, every citizen > 16 of this country understands if they are caught by law enforcement driving while "under the influence of substances' in violation of their state statutes. Oh, the nice judicial system just took away the citizen's access to their vehicle possibly due to inability to pay court costs/finds by invalidating their DL. How does the citizen get to work, school, grocery store, etc.?

Now, why isn't there extreme outrage about this denial of a citizen's access to their personal vehicle by state governance which is prevalent across the country?

A 16 year old knowingly breaking an existing law is far different from a legal adult, legally owning an item they have been lawfully allowed to own and suddenly made illegal by the government. Are you telling me you really don't see the difference? Let's also not forget that owning a car is not a constitutionally protected right - it is a privilege - owning a gun is a right.

I get the distinct impression you just want to be contrary. But the facts are the facts. There is no hyperbole here. The government suddenly declaring a lawfully owned object illegal and threatening the lawful owner of that object with a felony arrest and conviction for no other crime than the government changing the law, yeah, it's a problem, a big one, with potentially far reaching consequences far beyond just gun rights.

But go ahead, if that's what you want from government, maybe you'll consider changing your mind when they outlaw something that directly impacts you. Odd that some folks are happy to hand the rights of legal 18-20 year olds over to the government on a whim.

 

[bbbass]

Finally, it is interesting to note the under tone of sedition from this membership on a public forum!

"Silent acquiescence in the face of tyranny is no better than outright agreement."
― C.J. Redwine, Defiance

"Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly "free" state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors? It cannot."
― Tiffany Madison

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
― [URL='https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/31693.Samuel_Adams']Samuel Adams[/URL]
[URL='https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/31693.Samuel_Adams'][/URL]
I read somewhere that as U.S. citizens we have not only the "right" but also the "duty" to resist tyranny of the state.

BTW, are you even a gun owner or did you just come here to troll? You trying to trigger people?

 

[justcuz]

bbbbbbbssss
thank you for that playground taunt, it is noted with interest as well as your quoted material basically substantiating my observation regarding my previous comment about sedition.

Tho your quoting from random sources as you were, you might be taken a bit more seriously if one wasn't a fairy tale reader wanting to wear tights and a cape; one wasn't mistaken for a erotic writer; or one wasn't a founding father arguing a point in the mid 1700s in an out of context speech in Philly!

c.j.- C.J. Redwine loves fairy tales, Harry Potter, and going to the movies. If the novel writing gig ever falls through, she'll join the Avengers and wear a cape to work every day. C.J. Redwine (Author of Defiance)

Tiffany - Please do not confuse me with "Tiffany Madison", the erotica writer often filed under my profile here. Tiffany Madison (Author of Black and White)

tell how many and type you have and your creds first !

 

[IOM]

Let's just stay on topic shall we...???

 

[Kentfjr]

Ditto!!!!!!

 

[jrd541280]

Has anyone asked any 18,19 and 20 year old service members how they feel about this?
Or, does their opinion not matter?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Our God given rights should not so easily be given away or bargained for. We should require no justification or qualification to excersize those rights! Owning a Firearm IS a right, and should be seen as such, PERIOD!

Let's not forget something here, it's young men who go and fight and die for our country, many are younger then 18 years old, and yet they carry that responsability with courage and honor! I'm damn pizzed that THIS is being allowed to gain traction, and I'm damn pizzed that the politicians who are on board and ok with this walk free, as free men, because of "Kids" prepared to fight and die for them!

 

[jrd541280]

Amen Brother Ura-Ki !!!

 

[Izzy1321]

Confiscation: State Congress Orders Once Legal Owners to Turn in Guns

 

[IOM]

Yep, all of the politicians using this to attack the 2nd amendment, no more laws are needed...

Enforce the current laws in it's entirety, no more slective enforcement...

 

[best defense]

If you folks haven't seen it yet, look at what Illinois is close to getting through as law - not only preventing 18-20 year olds from buying guns, but creating a mandatory turn-in of guns they already own.

When the anti's say "no one is coming for your guns" they are lying - and this bill proves it. Spread this story everywhere you can. They are coming for our guns, one step at a time.

Anyone believe OR and WA wouldn't be up for doing the same thing?

Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid.

According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.

"The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership," Breitbart explained.

It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you.

 

[best defense]

Yep, all of the politicians using this to attack the 2nd amendment, no more laws are needed...

Enforce the current laws in it's entirety, no more slective enforcement...[/QUOTE]

Guns have two enemies, rust and politicians.

 

[best defense]

If 18 year old people cannot own guns they cannot serve in the military either.
Makes sense to me.

 

[lonegunman]

The left always wants to brand their enemies, in Germany is was a Star of David sewn onto your clothes and a tattoo on your arm. Every socialist has the same dream, to demonize your political or economic enemy, steal their possessions and wealth and eventually run them into a gas chamber. It won't be any different here unless we fight back. That is why disarming the population is critical for them.

 

[justcuz]

A 16 year old knowingly breaking an existing law is far different from a legal adult, legally owning an item they have been lawfully allowed to own and suddenly made illegal by the government. Are you telling me you really don't see the difference? Let's also not forget that owning a car is not a constitutionally protected right - it is a privilege - owning a gun is a right.

I get the distinct impression you just want to be contrary. But the facts are the facts. There is no hyperbole here. The government suddenly declaring a lawfully owned object illegal and threatening the lawful owner of that object with a felony arrest and conviction for no other crime than the government changing the law, yeah, it's a problem, a big one, with potentially far reaching consequences far beyond just gun rights.

But go ahead, if that's what you want from government, maybe you'll consider changing your mind when they outlaw something that directly impacts you. Odd that some folks are happy to hand the rights of legal 18-20 year olds over to the government on a whim.

Sorry, the 16 yo driver is less apt to violate the driving laws than an adult due, in part, on parental interventions. Btw, losing 33k a year on our nation' highways mainly due to legal adults driving while impaired isn't a small thing!

I'm sorry, owning a gun is a right? Who on the this here earth grants this right?

Strange don't ya think etrain, since before there was a 'constitution' the good folk who settled here responsibly OWNED firearms, without a blessing from a document called a constitution stating it was a 'right' being bestowed!

Good heavens etrain, responsibly owned, personal citizenry muskets and flintlocks were used during the revolutionary war, wait for it, before the constitution was written giving citizens the right you speak of!

Sorry, your 'rant' about the sky is fallin' over what ifs, could bes, maybe far reaching fate hyperbole going to befall 18>21 yo in the state of IL is magnanimous at best, but probably misplaced rhetoric!

Contrary no, but speaking up after an adult's application of unemotional critical thinking skills as well as a capacity to discern information based on a life time of hearing shock & awe hyperbole does provide, at times, a bit of clarity to see through someone's crappy pessimistic outlook!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights can trace much of their origins to the Magna Carta and The English Bill of Rights...So the idea of people being free and able to defend themselves with speech , representation or arms has a historical basis....before our Revolution.

Regardless of this...
The 2nd Amendment states :
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please note that no where does it state a age or type of arm...
That said with the current laws in place:
If you are a law abiding US citizen and wish to own a firearm , you should be able to do so , if you can pass the questions on the form 4473...
And with that said , some folks might even take the filling of a form to exercise a right as a type of infringement...But that might be a topic for a different thread...

I for one find the idea of taking away someone's firearms or any other right , without due process and diligence frightening.
If one right can be made to "go away" , then it is that much easier to make all of them go away.
One of the many reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to safeguard all the other Amendments.
Andy

 

[etrain16]

Sorry, the 16 yo driver is less apt to violate the driving laws than an adult due, in part, on parental interventions. Btw, losing 33k a year on our nation' highways mainly due to legal adults driving while impaired isn't a small thing!

I'm sorry, owning a gun is a right? Who on the this here earth grants this right?

Strange don't ya think etrain, since before there was a 'constitution' the good folk who settled here responsibly OWNED firearms, without a blessing from a document called a constitution stating it was a 'right' being bestowed!

Good heavens etrain, responsibly owned, personal citizenry muskets and flintlocks were used during the revolutionary war, wait for it, before the constitution was written giving citizens the right you speak of!

Sorry, your 'rant' about the sky is fallin' over what ifs, could bes, maybe far reaching fate hyperbole going to befall 18>21 yo in the state of IL is magnanimous at best, but probably misplaced rhetoric!

Contrary no, but speaking up after an adult's application of unemotional critical thinking skills as well as a capacity to discern information based on a life time of hearing shock & awe hyperbole does provide, at times, a bit of clarity to see through someone's crappy pessimistic outlook!

Once again, you're attacking me, not my argument. And that simply doesn't fly with me. And no, I don't need a history lesson from you, I am quite aware of what happened in this country. And I'm quite aware of what's happening now.

I never said anything about the constitution 'bestowing' us a right - I understand the difference between a natural right and a privilege. We have a natural right to self defense, to preservation of our own lives, and whatever means it takes to do that. The constitution simply provided what should be a protection of that natural right, specifically in the form of gun ownership, from the government. And that right is under attack by some very powerful people.

Clearly you don't agree that this is a potential threat to our rights. That disagreement doesn't make this hyperbole. That's simply your attempt to discredit any claim made by those of us that do see a threat for what it is. Some folks would rather dig their heads into the sand than recognize that there are plenty of folks in this country that would like to strip us of our rights - some of them would like to see the 2nd completely abolished - that is neither speculation nor hyperbole. Since they can't, at this time, abolish the 2nd, they will take every step they can to incrementally remove parts and pieces of that right. And they will do it over and over and over again until they achieve their goal. If you can't see that, I certainly can't help you.

 

[justcuz]

Once again, you're attacking me, not my argument. And that simply doesn't fly with me. And no, I don't need a history lesson from you, I am quite aware of what happened in this country. And I'm quite aware of what's happening now.

I never said anything about the constitution 'bestowing' us a right - I understand the difference between a natural right and a privilege. We have a natural right to self defense, to preservation of our own lives, and whatever means it takes to do that. The constitution simply provided what should be a protection of that natural right, specifically in the form of gun ownership, from the government. And that right is under attack by some very powerful people.

Clearly you don't agree that this is a potential threat to our rights. That disagreement doesn't make this hyperbole. That's simply your attempt to discredit any claim made by those of us that do see a threat for what it is. Some folks would rather dig their heads into the sand than recognize that there are plenty of folks in this country that would like to strip us of our rights - some of them would like to see the 2nd completely abolished - that is neither speculation nor hyperbole. Since they can't, at this time, abolish the 2nd, they will take every step they can to incrementally remove parts and pieces of that right. And they will do it over and over and over again until they achieve their goal. If you can't see that, I certainly can't help you.

etrain, sorry you believe anyone who challenges you is personally attacking you as i can see it causes tremendous personal turmoil but...life at times is like that now isn't it

It is with interest you have changed the term in your last post from right to natural right...two different meanings and concepts, now aren't they!

As for what ifs, could bes, maybes type shoch & awe hyperbole please read your last paragraph again on your use of 'us' 'them' 'they'!

Now, without taking this as a personal attack, who are these nebulas 'us, them they' ?

Now for an example of dialogue, your kind attention to review Andy's first paragraph in response to my post, chocked full of unemotionalized objective & viable info on the subject matter without hyperbole, and he ending with his Opinion.

 

[etrain16]

etrain, sorry you believe anyone who challenges you is personally attacking you as i can see it causes tremendous personal turmoil but...life at times is like that now isn't.

It is with interest you have changed the term in your last post from right to natural right...two different meanings and concepts, now aren't they!

As for what ifs, could bes, maybes type shoch & awe hyperbole please read your last paragraph again on your use of 'us' 'them' 'they'!

Now, without taking this as a personal attack, who are these nebulas 'us, them they' ?

Now for an example of dialogue, your kind attention to review Andy's first paragraph in response to my post, chocked full of unemotionalized objective & viable info on the subject matter without hyperbole, and he ending with his Opinion.

Did you misunderstand what I said? Or completely ignore it? I didn't change the term, I clarified it because you're attempting to put words into my mouth. You are the one that claimed I said the constitution 'bestowed' rights - I never said that, anywhere. I clarified that in my response and you deflect. How about you quote me where I said rights are bestowed by the constitution?

Who are "us" and "them"? I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary. Considering the forum you're on and who the general audience here is, I think it's quite clear: "Us" are the citizens that care about defending their 2nd amendment rights. "Them" and "They" are those that are seeking to take those rights away from us. Want examples too since you're playing like you don't really know? Anti-Gun Democrat politicians. Everytown. Mothers Against Gun Violence. Bloomberg.

You quote @AndyinEverson to me as an example, yet you respond to me with a condescending response - as an example: "I can see it causes tremendous personal turmoil" - a 10-year-old can see that snarky quip for what it really is. Your post is hardly an example of facts and rational thought. You're trying to get rise out of me, and it's not going to happen. I won't indulge your petty and childish tactics.

I'm done with your condescending attitude and passive/aggressive comments. It's clear a rational conversation isn't going to work with you.

 

[IOM]