Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 07:18:32 PM
Seriously? That's the strongest argument you have? The only thing I found in Chicago gun control laws, that includes confiscation, was the volunteer program I mentioned earlier. If I am missing something, I'm happy to be educated, and admit that I am wrong. But if you are going to support an accusation like "Proof..Democrats want to register and then CONFISCATE our guns.", you should darn well have some proof.

Again though, just my perspective for what it's worth 

CHICAGO — The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

— Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

— Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/chicago-approves-new-handgun-restrictions/#.UQDLv2dSi2c

You can have a hand gun assuming you are willing to jump through all the hoops to obtain it and even after you obtain the weapon you are not allowed to take it off your property and onto the streets of the most dangerous city in the nation. Meanwhile the criminals are walking the streets with an arsenal.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 23, 2013, 07:22:39 PM
You can have a hand gun assuming you are willing to jump through all the hoops to obtain it and even after you obtain the weapon you are not allowed to take it off your property and onto the streets of the most dangerous city in the nation. Meanwhile the criminals are walking the streets with an arsenal.

Totally agree with you on this!! It's absolutely a ridiculous amount of red tape!! I live in Texas, we love our gun, and love to shoot them! I am vehemently apposed to oppressive laws like this. However, I'm a big believer in states and local rights to decide what works best for your city or state. There is an appeals process, and repeal process, if the citizens of Chicago are apposed to this sort of law. I'm sure they could get the funding for such a campaign from the NRA. Seems odd they haven't done so yet.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 07:35:59 PM
Totally agree with you on this!! It's absolutely a ridiculous amount of red tape!! I live in Texas, we love our gun, and love to shoot them! I am vehemently apposed to oppressive laws like this. However, I'm a big believer in states and local rights to decide what works best for your city or state. There is an appeals process, and repeal process, if the citizens of Chicago are apposed to this sort of law. I'm sure they could get the funding for such a campaign from the NRA. Seems odd they haven't done so yet.

You are totally right but being a liberal city in a liberal state I doubt the people really understand that because their representatives have a specific anti gun agenda. I hate to say it but a lot of the population is uninformed.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 23, 2013, 07:38:59 PM
You are totally right but being a liberal city in a liberal state I doubt the people really understand that because their representatives have a specific anti gun agenda. I hate to say it but a lot of the population is uninformed.

Which is 100% a problem, education has always been the problem!! That would actually be an initiative I could support the NRA on. How do we get them working on an education campaign?

So, I do have to ask, since I never get the opportunity to ask a conservative this question without getting screamed at. If the unnecessary red tape deployed by Democrats to limit gun availability is appalling, is it equally appalling that republicans are using the same tactics to limit access to abortions in the states where they are in control?

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 07:35:59 PM
Totally agree with you on this!! It's absolutely a ridiculous amount of red tape!! I live in Texas, we love our gun, and love to shoot them! I am vehemently apposed to oppressive laws like this. However, I'm a big believer in states and local rights to decide what works best for your city or state. There is an appeals process, and repeal process, if the citizens of Chicago are apposed to this sort of law. I'm sure they could get the funding for such a campaign from the NRA. Seems odd they haven't done so yet.

You just described the entire reason for the 2ND Amendment.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
Which is 100% a problem, education has always been the problem!! That would actually be an initiative I could support the NRA on. How do we get them working on an education campaign?

So, I do have to ask, since I never get the opportunity to ask a conservative this question without getting screamed at. If the unnecessary red tape deployed by Democrats to limit gun availability is appalling, is it equally appalling that republicans are using the same tactics to limit access to abortions in the states where they are in control?

I can't honestly answer because I am not familiar with these restrictions

Quote from: Solar on January 23, 2013, 07:50:41 PM
You just described the entire reason for the 2ND Amendment.

was that a real thumbs up, or a facetious one? lol. I never know on these boards.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 07:52:34 PM
was that a real thumbs up, or a facetious one? lol. I never know on these boards.

Nope, it was genuine.
Few actually understand the Bill of Rights is a limitation against the Federal Govt, it's always meant to protect citizens/States against an intrusive Fed.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 23, 2013, 06:34:05 PM
We also factor in Precedent, bills in congress and what the Democrats are saying now...

Exactly! There's only one party supporting confiscation, and it's not the GOP, oh wait, I think the Communist party is aligning their support behind Husein these days.

Quote from: Solar on January 23, 2013, 08:09:19 PM
Exactly! There's only one party supporting confiscation, and it's not the GOP, oh wait, I think the Communist party is aligning their support behind Husein these days.

Here's my thing on this, it's not a party supporting confiscation, it's some members of the party. I think that's a legitimate distinction. Also, the constitution ensures, that such a law is not possible, because it would never be considered constitutional, so why is it assumed that that is was dems are pursuing? Laws and restrictions are one thing, but equating that to all out confiscation and communism, is a bit disingenuous, no?

Quote from: Solar on January 23, 2013, 08:09:19 PM
Exactly! There's only one party supporting confiscation, and it's not the GOP, oh wait, I think the Communist party is aligning their support behind Husein these days.

Well shave his head and Obama looks a bit like Lenin...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 23, 2013, 08:15:48 PM
Well shave his head and Obama looks a bit like Lenin...

alright, even I can admit that's funny! nice one 

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Here's my thing on this, it's not a party supporting confiscation, it's some members of the party. I think that's a legitimate distinction. Also, the constitution ensures, that such a law is not possible, because it would never be considered constitutional, so why is it assumed that that is was dems are pursuing? Laws and restrictions are one thing, but equating that to all out confiscation and communism, is a bit disingenuous, no?

Nope, not in the least, they are the party that back the so called gay lifestyle, but not all the members are gay, they back higher taxes on everyone, but...oh wait, they are all rich.
And yes, the communist party USA did back his reelection.


www.examiner.com/.../communist-party-usa-celebrates-obama-s-re-e... -
Nov 9, 2012 – The Communist Party USA is celebrating Barack Obama's re-election victory, according to two reports published since Tuesday.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 08:17:37 PM
alright, even I can admit that's funny! nice one 

To be honest so does my sister...

Quote from: Solar on January 23, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
Nope, not in the least, they are the party that back the so called gay lifestyle, but not all the members are gay, they back higher taxes on everyone, but...oh wait, they are all rich.
And yes, the communist party USA did back his reelection.


www.examiner.com/.../communist-party-usa-celebrates-obama-s-re-e... -
Nov 9, 2012 – The Communist Party USA is celebrating Barack Obama's re-election victory, according to two reports published since Tuesday.

Well, whoever the communist party wants to support is up to them, I don't put a lot of stake in anything the say, so its sort of a wash to me on that front. However, I get your point, though I disagree. Dems do support gay rights, and they do support higher taxes, however no higher then taxes then what existed in the 80's and 90's. The difference being that they are willing to compromise. It's not a their way or the highway kind of argument. The dems seem to understand the importance of compromise, I don't see that out the GOP.