Ill Gov Pritzker Calls For Gun Control After 4th of July Masacre

[Leo123]

There were police there and they never shot the shooter either. So, you think that armed civilians would do a better job? You know that's false.

Yes, more eyes more vantage points.

 

[beagle9]

No point missed, if you believe that not one member of the public took their gun, you're very credulous

Don't be stupid... What part of it being the 4th of July don't you understand ? Uhh don't firework's sound just like guns going off ????? DUH... You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, but you are making a fool of yourself. Stop please... ROTFLMBO...

 

[beagle9]

Democrats tell us that if we just increase the age to purchase an AR15 to 21 the shootings will stop.

A week later a 22 year old shoots up a July 4th parade with an AR15 legally purchased in a heavily democrat state with strict gun laws.

Democrats silent.

21 or 22 ? I heard 21, but not sure about his age. The final was 22 ? Thanks

 

[Captain Caveman]

Don't be stupid... What part of it being the 4th of July don't you understand ? Uhh don't firework's sound just like guns going off ????? DUH... You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, but you are making a fool of yourself. Stop please... ROTFLMBO...

One moment gun nuts claim why they need to be armed in public, self defence bla bla, now they're sticking up for the perpetrator and how fireworks distract you. Do you guys want to check the NRA pamphlet for which story you're supposed to stick to?

 

[Who_Me?]

21 or 22 ? I heard 21, but not sure about his age. The final was 22 ? Thanks

He's now 21 but got his FOID card in 2019 with the sponsorship of his father, who the kid threatened to kill in a prior police incident. There is no common sense to any firearm laws. It will continue because there are whack jobs out there and whack jobs have no problem getting firearms. Ridiculous. Oh, and Papa should be charged for enabling this putz.

 

[Leo123]

One moment gun nuts claim why they need to be armed in public, self defence bla bla, now they're sticking up for the perpetrator and how fireworks distract you. Do you guys want to check the NRA pamphlet for which story you're supposed to stick to?

It's really none of your business if law abiding citizens want to arm themselves in public. No one here is 'sticking up for the perpetrator' that's delusional. And yes, fireworks are distracting.

 

[Who_Me?]

Yes, more eyes more vantage points.

LOL - not one mass shooter has been challenged by those that own the 434 million guns out there. Personally I believe those that have guns are paranoid and obsessively anxious.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It's really none of your business if law abiding citizens want to arm themselves in public. No one here is 'sticking up for the perpetrator' that's delusional. And yes, fireworks are distracting.

Then according to the pamphlet, gun nuts should have shot the perpetrator.

 

[Leo123]

He's now 21 but got his FOID card in 2019 with the sponsorship of his father, who the kid threatened to kill in a prior police incident. There is no common sense to any firearm laws. It will continue because there are whack jobs out there and whack jobs have no problem getting firearms. Ridiculous. Oh, and Papa should be charged for enabling this putz.

The kid should have been incarcerated in a mental facility after he threatened suicide, was found with blade weapons, and threatened to kill his family. This is on law enforcement and the family, not guns. He could have just as well murdered his whole family with the knives.

 

[Rogue AI]

LOL - not one mass shooter has been challenged by those that own the 434 million guns out there. Personally I believe those that have guns are paranoid and obsessively anxious.

The ones that are challenged don't become mass shooters. Plenty of gunmen have been stopped by armed citizens, you folks just don't pay attention.

 

[airplanemechanic]

21 or 22 ? I heard 21, but not sure about his age. The final was 22 ? Thanks

They had said 22, now I think 21. Doesn't matter. Either is old enough to buy a gun according to the liberal age limit of 21 to purchase an AR.

 

[Leo123]

Then according to the pamphlet, gun nuts should have shot the perpetrator.

What pamphlet, the one you made up?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Who brings weapons to a party ? Kind of destroys the whole idea. If we go down that road, or should all just stop partying. There'd be nothing in life to celebrate.

I didn’t say anything about parties in that post.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

YAWN

Statement: "If a person is of age and does not have a criminal record then yes, he/she has a right to purchase a firearm."

Response: LOL The example of your ignorance was played out on July 4th in Highland Park.

Did he have a criminal record? No. Was he legally allowed to purchase firearms? Yes.

Was anything I said untrue?

Everyone has the Right of due process. You only read the 2nd Amendment, read the Bill of Rights and in this matter the 4th, 5th & 6th and Section 1 of the 14th Amendments.

Yes, everyone has the right to due process. I believe I said or implied this already so what is your point here?

 

[beagle9]

One moment gun nuts claim why they need to be armed in public, self defence bla bla, now they're sticking up for the perpetrator and how fireworks distract you. Do you guys want to check the NRA pamphlet for which story you're supposed to stick to?

You are too evil to debate on any issue, just like misconstruing something someone says to then mean something different somehow, and then you answer back in a crazy way just like what you just did, but how could you talk or think like you do, otherwise when the comprehensive value of what you just attempted as a retort is about as worthless as tits on a bull hog ?? ROTFLMBO.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Did he have a criminal record? No. Was he legally allowed to purchase firearms? Yes.

Was anything I said untrue?

Yes, everyone has the right to due process. I believe I said or implied this already so what is your point here?

My point was anyone who has been a danger to themselves or others is not a criminal; those who makes threats; those in a domestic violence situations, the batterer and the victims; drug addicts and/or alcoholics; the disaffected, those who express hate, and the haters on on social media are not all criminals.

 

[night_son]

Ad Nauseam.
Over and over we tell you why you don't need Large Capacity Magazines.
You are just too ignorant to listen, and all you have is 2A claim.

I'm very capable, you fuckers just have your weak ass talking points.
Fuck you.

Despite the fact that the Second Amendment mentions nothing about it, the magazine capacity restriction argument falls flat on its wretched face when viewed from any rational or logical angle. However, let us examine extremely lethal weapons of war which were limited to less than ten rounds ammunition capacity. During WWI a well trained American or German or French soldier could fire off 15-30 plus rounds per minute from a bolt action rifle with a magazine capacity of five bullets. In just 60 seconds or less, such a weapon, limited to five rounds capacity and with an action needing to be worked by hand to load each individual bullet into its chamber, could kill 15-30 people depending on shooter skill level. Such weapons were also far more accurate at longer ranges than higher capacity semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 in its most common calibers.

m1903 shots per minute - Google Search

www.google.com

So you want to limit magazine capacity to ONE round, you say? The Springfield model 1873, one of the first breech loading rifles used by the American military held one single bullet at a time. A skilled infantryman trained on this rifle could shoot 15 rounds per minute; that's the potential to kill one person every four seconds with a massive .45-70 caliber bullet from considerable distances, with a primitive single shot rifle.

Springfield model 1873 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thus your emphatic argument for our government to limit rifle magazine capacity completely falls on its face. Even a semi-skilled shooter armed with a single shot rifle, with adequate practice and/or motivation, could kill very nearly same number of people per minute as a shooter armed with a thirty round magazine capable semi-auto rifle.

Just admit, please, that what you really, really truly want is for our government to outlaw ALL firearms. At least be honest about it. Come on, you can do it. Can't you?

 

[night_son]

My point was anyone who has been a danger to themselves or others is not a criminal; those who makes threats; those in a domestic violence situations, the batterer and the victims; drug addicts and/or alcoholics; the disaffected, those who express hate, and the haters on on social media are not all criminals.

Then if such people as you list "are not all criminals" you should have no problem with them purchasing and owning firearms. What you really want is some kind of Dick-esque pre-crime bureau armed with the legal mandate to take firearms from Americans who might commit a crime in the near or distant future.

 

[beagle9]

Despite the fact that the Second Amendment mentions nothing about it, the magazine capacity restriction argument falls flat on its wretched face when viewed from any rational or logical angle. However, let us examine extremely lethal weapons of war which were limited to less than ten rounds ammunition capacity. During WWI a well trained American or German or French soldier could fire off 15-30 plus rounds per minute from a bolt action rifle with a magazine capacity of five bullets. In just 60 seconds or less, such a weapon, limited to five rounds capacity and with an action needing to be worked by hand to load each individual bullet into its chamber, could kill 15-30 people depending on shooter skill level. Such weapons were also far more accurate at longer ranges than higher capacity semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 in its most common calibers.

m1903 shots per minute - Google Search

www.google.com

So you want to limit magazine capacity to ONE round, you say? The Springfield model 1873, one of the first breech loading rifles used by the American military held one single bullet at a time. A skilled infantryman trained on this rifle could shoot 15 rounds per minute; that's the potential to kill one person every four seconds with a massive .45-70 caliber bullet from considerable distances, with a primitive single shot rifle.

Springfield model 1873 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thus your emphatic argument for our government to limit rifle magazine capacity completely falls on its face. Even a semi-skilled shooter armed with a single shot rifle, with adequate practice and/or motivation, could kill very nearly same number of people per minute as a shooter armed with a thirty round magazine capable semi-auto rifle.

Just admit, please, that what you really, really truly want is for our government to outlaw ALL firearms. At least be honest about it. Come on, you can do it. Can't you?

That's exactly what they want, because the first order in a war is to take away the opposing sides ability to fight. They (not us), see themselves as being at war with us, because we won't go along willingly with their radical bull crap.

 

[beagle9]

Then if such people as you list "are not all criminals" you should have no problem with them purchasing and owning firearms. What you really want is some kind of Dick-esque pre-crime bureau armed with the legal mandate to take firearms from Americans who might commit a crime in the near or distant future.

Exactly right..