Jump to content

47th IL House candidates address gun violence at forum


InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

...About 80 people listened as 47th Illinois House District candidates Deanne Mazzochi and Jim Caffrey discussed state issues including gun control during the League of Women Voters of Elmhurst's candidate forum Sept. 16 at Elmhurst City Hall...

 

...The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

"If we can learn to understand the other side's position and why they feel the way they do, I believe we can find more common ground than we have in the past and make a compromise," Caffrey said.

 

Mazzochi said the guns debate is an emotional, multi-level issue that needs multi-level solutions in order to be resolved.

 

"What I don't want to see is knee-jerk proposals that will only increase the number of illegal weapons that are out on the street," she said.

 

Mazzochi said she wants to see safe schools and workplaces and less gun-related crime, but she does not want to take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

 

She said state and federal prosecutors should enforce existing laws, and creating new laws will not "make a dent" in crime statistics without serious enforcement....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

 

Well stated :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

 

Well stated :-)

 

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... Mr. Caffrey - did you know that a number of cannons used in not only the Revolutionary War, but the Civil War as well, were privately owned?

As a matter of fact, one man who owned cannons was John Stark of the New Hampshire regiments who fought at Bunker Hill. One of his privately owned cannons is still fired ceremoniously on occasion and another is mounted at the top of the Bunker Hill Monument in Boston. It was he who said, "Live Free or Die", which adorns the NH license plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

I'm sorry, but this is about as bad as when "gun grabbers" say foolish things about AR's...like that the shoot 100 rounds a second....or show a picture of an AR with a carry handle in the wrong spot.

 

The AR-15 was a military weapon...used in combat, and is the older brother of the M-16/M-4....still using that same .223/5.56 round.

 

The key difference is the selector, but our modern military does not use full auto on such weapons anyway. Suppressing fire is what SAW's are for.

 

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

I think everyone is better off with the "armed civilian against the government" angle than trying to claim that it really isn't a military weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

I'm sorry, but this is about as bad as when "gun grabbers" say foolish things about AR's...like that the shoot 100 rounds a second....or show a picture of an AR with a carry handle in the wrong spot.

 

The AR-15 was a military weapon...used in combat, and is the older brother of the M-16/M-4....still using that same .223/5.56 round.

 

The key difference is the selector, but our modern military does not use full auto on such weapons anyway. Suppressing fire is what SAW's are for.

 

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

I think everyone is better off with the "armed civilian against the government" angle than trying to claim that it really isn't a military weapon.

 

 

 

The AR-15 was never a military weapon in any country outside of a few third world locales ruled by despots.

 

It's also definitely NOT the precursor to the M-16.

 

Here's a 50 year old ad, selling the MSR as the same thing as it's sold as today:

 

1466085466000371.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

I'm sorry, but this is about as bad as when "gun grabbers" say foolish things about AR's...like that the shoot 100 rounds a second....or show a picture of an AR with a carry handle in the wrong spot.

 

The AR-15 was a military weapon...used in combat, and is the older brother of the M-16/M-4....still using that same .223/5.56 round.

 

The key difference is the selector, but our modern military does not use full auto on such weapons anyway. Suppressing fire is what SAW's are for.

 

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

I think everyone is better off with the "armed civilian against the government" angle than trying to claim that it really isn't a military weapon.

 

 

 

Also, you're wrong about that as well...

 

https://www.deguns.net/I-O-INC-SPORTER-ECONOMY-AK-47-7-62x39-p/econ0001.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The AR-15 was never a military weapon in any country outside of a few third world locales ruled by despots.

 

It's also definitely NOT the precursor to the M-16.

 

Here's a 50 year old ad, selling the MSR as the same thing as it's sold as today:

 

1466085466000371.jpeg

 

 

It is either a misconception, or misinformation...but AR-15's were used by our military.

 

The AR-15 was indeed used in combat by OUR military.

Colt 601's, 602's, 603's, and 604's said Armalite AR-15 right on them. The USAF used AR-15's for quite awhile.

 

These are 601's shown. See the link at the bottom for more pics of other models.

601-Left-601x451.jpg

601-Markings-12-482x358.jpg

 

DF-ST-92-10241-633x395.jpg

https://bpullignwolnet.dotster.com/retroblackrifle/ModGde/RflGde/601.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Was the 606, not the 603, which said AR-15 on the side.

 

As for sporting rifles.....maybe it is just me, but when i think of the term "modern sporting rifle", the AR comes to mind, but not the AK. Mostly because a bigger push has been made to get the AR away from the "assault rifle" term.

Double edit....looks like some 603's did say AR-15 on the side as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military weapons intended as the main arm of the ordinary soldier are either full auto or three round burst ... PERIOD. Titanium alloys, aluminum alloys and other such alloys were developed by the military for warplanes, so do we ban those materials from civilian use??? Playing right into the Antis' hands and their false "logic."

 

Hey, jet engines were developed for use by Hitler's Luftwaffe -- BAN THEM FROM OUR SKIES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW...

Shotguns used in Vietnam that I personally saw soldiers carry were:

 

Ithaca Model 37 (with bayonet!)

Winchester Model 12

Stevens Model 77

 

These "military weapons of war" have no business on our streets, in our duck blinds or at our trap ranges!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

There are in fact people that call AK variant rifles 'sporting rifles' just because it's not as common as it is with AR variant rifles, doesn't equate to 'no one'

 

There is a logical explanation for this, the term was coined by an American trade organization for American manufacturers of modular rifle platforms, and lets be honest the AK isn't exactly an American design and the AK platform is not nearly as modular as the AR platform, but that doesn't mean that many modern variants of the AK don't fit the definition and are thus called sporting rifles by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The AR-15 was never a military weapon in any country outside of a few third world locales ruled by despots.

 

It's also definitely NOT the precursor to the M-16.

 

Here's a 50 year old ad, selling the MSR as the same thing as it's sold as today:

 

1466085466000371.jpeg

 

It is either a misconception, or misinformation...but AR-15's were used by our military.

 

The AR-15 was indeed used in combat by OUR military.

Colt 601's, 602's, 603's, and 604's said Armalite AR-15 right on them. The USAF used AR-15's for quite awhile.

 

These are 601's shown. See the link at the bottom for more pics of other models.

601-Left-601x451.jpg

601-Markings-12-482x358.jpg

 

DF-ST-92-10241-633x395.jpg

https://bpullignwolnet.dotster.com/retroblackrifle/ModGde/RflGde/601.html

In the top pic note the THREE position selector. It was full auto, regardless of the manufacturer's designation - hence, would be a restricted Class III weapon in civilian hands.

 

What major military today uses semi auto rifles for frontline infantry service? None, that I'm aware of, and the last non select fire rifle the USA fielded in large numbers was the M1 Garand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military weapons intended as the main arm of the ordinary soldier are either full auto or three round burst ... PERIOD. Titanium alloys, aluminum alloys and other such alloys were developed by the military for warplanes, so do we ban those materials from civilian use??? Playing right into the Antis' hands and their false "logic."

 

Hey, jet engines were developed for use by Hitler's Luftwaffe -- BAN THEM FROM OUR SKIES!

 

 

 

In the top pic note the THREE position selector. It was full auto, regardless of the manufacturer's designation - hence, would be a restricted Class III weapon in civilian hands.

 

What major military today uses semi auto rifles for frontline infantry service? None, that I'm aware of, and the last non select fire rifle the USA fielded in large numbers was the M1 Garand.

 

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

My point was this:

I often see AR folks mention that AR's were never military weapons or never used in combat as some type of point that they are not battlefield weapons. That is false, they WERE military weapons that WERE used in combat.

 

True, they are not full auto or burst capable (the ones made today), but the US military does not train front line infantry to use full auto anyway....it was deemed a waste of ammo. Full auto/burst are for very specific situations by very specific groups (at least for the US military).

 

If you want to have an "honest conversation", you have to be honest. No one wants to be honest because it is admitting that the beloved AR is basically a battlefield weapon, and that gives "ammo" (pun intended) to those who want to take them away. That is why I say that you have to go with the "armed civilian against the government" route.

 

I'm working from home this morning and my 10.5" pistol (decked out in FDE) with it's red-dot and light is leaning against to wall next to me as I type this. My favorite AR (16" middy decked out in OG Green) has a vertical foregrip and flip-to-side 3X, as well as a light and red dot (it sometimes rocks a 60 round drum). Come on....who would I be trying to fool in saying that these are not basically military weapons? Think about how often the term "mil-spec" is thrown around with AR's or how nearly everything from a SOPMOD kit can go right on to the AR platform (203 excluded unless you have the right barrel) or how they run NATO rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

There are in fact people that call AK variant rifles 'sporting rifles' just because it's not as common as it is with AR variant rifles, doesn't equate to 'no one'

 

There is a logical explanation for this, the term was coined by an American trade organization for American manufacturers of modular rifle platforms, and lets be honest the AK isn't exactly an American design and the AK platform is not nearly as modular as the AR platform, but that doesn't mean that many modern variants of the AK don't fit the definition and are thus called sporting rifles by some.

 

 

True...it is really an American term, which is probably why I think of the AR first.

 

Here is the problem IMO. If we add in the AK platform, the AR (well, the M16/M4) and the AK have been fighting each other all over the world for the last 50 years. It is hard to not call them battlefield weapons when pretty much anyone can recognize an M16 and an AK47 from. Vietnam usually comes to mind. People may not know the technical differences between an AR-15 vs an M-16 vs an M4, or an AK-47 vs an AKM vs and AK-74....but the overall designs say "military/war". You can't really shake that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Funny....no one calls a civilian AK-47/AKM a "sporting rifle".

 

There are in fact people that call AK variant rifles 'sporting rifles' just because it's not as common as it is with AR variant rifles, doesn't equate to 'no one'

 

There is a logical explanation for this, the term was coined by an American trade organization for American manufacturers of modular rifle platforms, and lets be honest the AK isn't exactly an American design and the AK platform is not nearly as modular as the AR platform, but that doesn't mean that many modern variants of the AK don't fit the definition and are thus called sporting rifles by some.

 

 

True...it is really an American term, which is probably why I think of the AR first.

 

Here is the problem IMO. If we add in the AK platform, the AR (well, the M16/M4) and the AK have been fighting each other all over the world for the last 50 years. It is hard to not call them battlefield weapons when pretty much anyone can recognize an M16 and an AK47 from. Vietnam usually comes to mind. People may not know the technical differences between an AR-15 vs an M-16 vs an M4, or an AK-47 vs an AKM vs and AK-74....but the overall designs say "military/war". You can't really shake that.

 

 

Honestly, I call it a distraction that should not be focused on because the anti-gun will never concede if they manage to get 'assault weapons' aka 'weapons of war' banned they will just continue to broaden the term to fit agenda to include more arms, I mean many soldiers carry a sidearm an knife so clearly they are weapons of war to, right? At the time of the authoring of The Constitution, the arms so-called civilians carried and used where 100% identical and even the actual firearms that had been or would be used on battlefields, thus the founding fathers were well aware that the 2nd implied protections for 'military and war' arms, a trivial history lesson of what lead to the 2nd like the Battles of Lexington and Concord will prove this beyond a doubt to anyone that doesn't deny what is obvious that the founding fathers did not have two classifications of arms in mind when they authored the words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

 

And that is the difference. It's the difference between a $700 rifle legal for civilians to own and one that now costs > $20,000 for a pre-1986 model and is illegal in Illinois anyway. No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst. It is indeed a large differentiator and the difference between a "military" and "non-military" carbine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

 

And that is the difference. It's the difference between a $700 rifle legal for civilians to own and one that now costs > $20,000 for a pre-1986 model and is illegal in Illinois anyway. No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst. It is indeed a large differentiator and the difference between a "military" and "non-military" carbine.

 

 

First and foremost. The line in question:

weapons designed for the battlefield

 

The AR-15 (and AK-47) was originally designed for the battlefield. No if's, and's, or but's. It is the shrunken down version of the AR-10 (which was designed first, and was to compete) to replace the M-1. Designed for the battlefield. It has made its way to civilians by removing the full/auto burst mode because of current laws, but that does not change the history or origin of the weapon.

 

Full auto is a difference indeed, but again....we don't currently train (most of) our infantryman to use full auto or burst ANYWAY. And the dollar amount you mentioned is based on the rarity and law. The difference between a semi vs full auto capable weapon in terms of actual parts is just a few bucks. Nearly every part on a civilian AR-15, and an M-4 some grunt is humping right now is interchangable.

 

For a lot of M4's and M16's deployed right now, you could swap in an AR-15 lower receiver, FCG, and BGG, and they could be used, in combat, in the exact same way......semi auto. I wish I would have kept them, but it is crazy to think that the mags from my dad's M-16 would fit my AR's.

 

I get that AR's and AK's and Tavors that go to civilians do not have full auto/burst....but trying to argue they are not somehow military weapons when they were all originally designed as military weapons, are used by current armies around the world today, and with the exception of features required by law, are identical to their military counter-parts is ridiculous IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

 

 

 

And that is the difference. It's the difference between a $700 rifle legal for civilians to own and one that now costs > $20,000 for a pre-1986 model and is illegal in Illinois anyway. No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst. It is indeed a large differentiator and the difference between a "military" and "non-military" carbine.

 

 

 

 

First and foremost. The line in question:

weapons designed for the battlefield

 

 

The AR-15 (and AK-47) was originally designed for the battlefield. No if's, and's, or but's. It is the shrunken down version of the AR-10 (which was designed first, and was to compete) to replace the M-1. Designed for the battlefield. It has made its way to civilians by removing the full/auto burst mode because of current laws, but that does not change the history or origin of the weapon.

 

Full auto is a difference indeed, but again....we don't currently train (most of) our infantryman to use full auto or burst ANYWAY. And the dollar amount you mentioned is based on the rarity and law. The difference between a semi vs full auto capable weapon in terms of actual parts is just a few bucks. Nearly every part on a civilian AR-15, and an M-4 some grunt is humping right now is interchangable.

 

For a lot of M4's and M16's deployed right now, you could swap in an AR-15 lower receiver, FCG, and BGG, and they could be used, in combat, in the exact same way......semi auto. I wish I would have kept them, but it is crazy to think that the mags from my dad's M-16 would fit my AR's.

 

I get that AR's and AK's and Tavors that go to civilians do not have full auto/burst....but trying to argue they are not somehow military weapons when they were all originally designed as military weapons, are used by current armies around the world today, and with the exception of features required by law, are identical to their military counter-parts is ridiculous IMO.

Origins and interchangeability aside, the ones that we can buy were designed for civilian use, not military.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1911's and CZ 75's were designed for the U.S. and Czech militaries; are they "weapons of war?"

 

Many early muzzleloading rifles and pistols, were also designed for the US military or another world military use, are they 'weapons of war' as well?

 

Ironic because many anti-gunners would like us to believe those early 'weapons of war' are exactly what the 2nd protects, in their historic freeze frame version of Constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1911's and CZ 75's were designed for the U.S. and Czech militaries; are they "weapons of war?"

 

Many early muzzleloading rifles and pistols, were also designed for the US military or another world military use, are they 'weapons of war' as well?

 

Ironic because many anti-gunners would like us to believe those early 'weapons of war' are exactly what the 2nd protects, in their historic freeze frame version of Constitutional rights.

Hypocrites ... funny how the film gets speeded up to light speed when it comes to abortion and gay marriage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post #4 of this thread clearly stated "light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield".

Post #22 stated "No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst"

 

Hence the entire argument of the selector switch, the term "modern sporting rifles", and why it has been centered around the AR-15, and to an extent the AK-47.

 

1911's, CZ-75's, and anything muzzle loading are not modern carbine/rifles being called modern sporting rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1911's, CZ-75's, and anything muzzle loading are not modern carbine/rifles being called modern sporting rifles.

 

"but the overall designs say "military/war". You can't really shake that."

 

Dude....that wording came from a direct exchange between the two of us.

The entire exchange was specifically in regards to the AK, your explanation of "sporting rifles in regards to the AK" (which I agreed with), and the AR.

 

 

The entire sentence:

People may not know the technical differences between an AR-15 vs an M-16 vs an M4, or an AK-47 vs an AKM vs and AK-74....but the overall designs say "military/war". You can't really shake that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...