Jump to content


Photo

Convicted of Animal Abuse? No Guns For The Rest of Your Life!


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,971 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:52 PM

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

I think he's right about some opposition.


http://stlouis.cbslo...om-owning-guns/

 

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 


.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#2 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,906 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:54 PM

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#3 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:35 PM

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#4 itscold

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:00 PM

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

#5 Nod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 15

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:04 PM

 

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

+1



#6 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:17 PM

I think studies have shown that people who use guns to commit armed robbery and armed carjacking, go on the eventually kill people, so how about we start locking them up for 70 or 80 years before they do murder someone.


 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#7 tnertb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 15

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:37 PM

So if you don't support this bill you agree puppies and kittens should be beat up.  I see the angle they are going with this one. 



#8 Neumann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 736 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:57 PM

Suppose you are attacked or threatened with imminent attack by a dog and you take defensive measures. Half the people on this forum would side with the dog.



#9 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 12,907 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:17 PM

” but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.”

Using this logic he should support national reciprocity, eliminating the 23 restricted carry locations and allowing non-resident permits.
Heck, if it saves even one life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#10 WitchDoctor

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 16

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:18 PM

 

I shudder to give more power to take away rights to the gov. If they are not to be trusted with firearms, why are they in public?

Because the Supreme Court has told us that we can't put them away and throw away the key. It is true that those who abuse animals are more likely to become violent criminals, but a scant few become Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey.

Some underage **** cut the throat of a puppy here, nearly killed him, and it took a local media and social media backlash like nothing I've ever seen to get the SA to entertain felony charges. Some kid a county over from me viciously beat a puppy to death and was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. These scumbags should be felons. And they should be in prison. Anyone who bashes a dog's skull for kicks is unfit for society. And I don't wanna hear the "I was abused as a child" (really? So was I, but I didn't become a sociopath) since it would shock me that the scumbag WASN'T abused as a child.

Just charge em with a felony and convict if the crime reaches that level. Now we have a reason to make em a prohibited person. They should be looking into enhancing penalties for those who commit animal abuse. Not looking into adding more prohibitions on gun ownership. Enforce the law as it is now and they don't have to add to it (I suppose this is called "job security").

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

I am with you Skinny. Remember that pos Michael Vick? Where is his dog killing a**?


IC Sponsor

ISRA Member

NRA Life Member

Airborne

3/504 P.I.R

25 years US Army

Proud Parent to a Wonderful Kid...

Tired of Chicago B.S.

 

 


#11 sfdoc5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 08

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:28 PM

In illinois some animal cruelty laws are a felony and most are a felony upon a second conviction..... 

So, once again they are making laws to make laws......idiots!!!!!!



#12 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:39 PM

Whenever I hear the phrase " first-of-its-kind law in the nation" its never good...


 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#13 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:38 PM

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban." All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse. Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem. FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#14 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:07 PM

People who drive slow in the far left lane should be disqualified from owning a firearm.

 

That's what I say...


 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#15 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,221 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 15 November 2017 - 12:41 AM

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

I think he's right about some opposition.


http://stlouis.cbslo...om-owning-guns/

 

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 

 

If that is the case, then I will take the Illinois Constitutional Carry law that will undoubtedly save many more than one life by allowing those who are unable to afford the expense and red tape of getting a CCL to carry a firearm to protect themselves from criminals intent on doing them harm or, in many cases, fatal injury. Remember, if such a law saves even one life, then it will have been worth the effort.


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#16 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,259 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:51 AM

Is the abuse of children a disqualifier?  What if someone pled down to a misdemeanor for that? 

 

If not, then we have a huge double standard, when it comes to this bill. 

 

Then again, the left always put animals above human beings.   They humanize animals and animalize humans. 


Edited by BobPistol, 15 November 2017 - 05:51 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#17 luckydawg13

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,970 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 15 November 2017 - 06:27 AM

I wonder if they can still get / keep a drivers licences or Vote

Kid's that Hunt and Fish don't Mug old Ladies 


#18 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,804 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:55 AM

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.


Edited by Hap, 15 November 2017 - 07:57 AM.

Ad utrumque paratus


#19 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:29 AM

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

Not that simple.

 

Lets say your dog runs on a line, you have a fenced yard, put your dog on a line in your yard, etc.  You let your dog out to do his/her business.  It's coldish out, 28-30 degrees.  You get an emergency call, call from work, something happens that you slightly lose time.  You DON'T have a dog house in your yard.  An animal rights activist drives by and reports you for leaving that dog outside over 30 minutes with no shelter.  You are now cited/charged for animal abuse.

 

I have seen the above scenario happen.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#20 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:32 AM

If they make every criminal act a disqualifier, the only difference is that we'll have a bunch of criminals who cannot ever own a gun (hmmmmmmmm...is THAT what this is about?). If they drop the hammer on those who abuse animals (without adding to the list of disqualifiers) then maybe at least some people will think twice about it. The rest, well, if they want a gun then they'll get one regardless of some "lifetime ban." All of this predicting criminals crap is nonsense. My opposition to this is due to what I know about those who hate guns with a passion and would do anything to keep civilian ownership at a virtually non-existent level. They simply wish to make everyone a prohibited person and they are "beginning" (this started a long time ago) with the stuff that most people won't argue about. I mean, one cannot truly understand what the true motivation behind this is if one doesn't know the endgame. They start at "well, no felon should own a gun" (I believe that is unconstitutional as applied, but not on its face for obvious reasons) and end at "no one can own a gun," all while filling in the blank space between those two. "No one convicted of animal abuse should own a gun" is a lot more palatable to the general public than "No one who's ever received a speeding ticket should own a gun" but they could and would love to get to that point. I don't think that would stand up in court (now) but if they sufficiently screw up the heads of kids, who go on to become judges, it is definitely possible. Meanwhile, they continue with slaps on the wrist for those convicted of animal abuse. Guns are not the issue. Creating psychopaths is the issue and not dealing with them before they go on to become murderers is the problem. Taking away guns from a budding serial killer is...it's utterly pointless. They're psychopaths. And it isn't like animal abuse just started. Good Lord some politician is gonna sit there and tell me this is something new? It isn't new. It's only publicized more frequently because of social media. That's it. Notice how everyone gets outraged at crap that has always taken place? This isn't new. Stop trying to predict stuff, acting like this is some new trend, and actually deal with the true problem instead of take away constitutional rights yet not do a thing to address the true problem. FWIW I also don't believe the Lautenberg crap is constitutional as applied to the entire class of offenders. I have an acquaintance who's got a lifetime bar because of the Lautenberg crap and it's because his ex tried to beat the snot out of him, he held her back (didn't strike her at all), called the cops himself, and ends up with a DB conviction. She tried it five more times until he left her based on advice from the police who finally wised up to her being completely unhinged and stopped taking her seriously. He's a huge guy with sleeves of tattoos. Basically the perfect defendant. The way I see it, anyone who believes that suspending his right to keep and bear arms is constitutional is also condoning violence on men, excusing violence perpetrated by women. The thing is that it doesn't even bother him much because he wouldn't be where he is in life (happily married family man with a good paying blue collar job) if that hadn't happened to him. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

DING DING DING


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#21 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,216 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:22 AM

This will be an interesting read when the bill gets filed.

I think he's right about some opposition.


http://stlouis.cbslo...om-owning-guns/

 

 

Proposed Ill. Bill Would Keep Animal Abusers From Owning Guns

November 14, 2017 9:45 AM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A proposed first-of-its-kind law in the nation would ban gun ownership for anyone in Illinois convicted of animal abuse.

“People that have abused animals, every study has said they abuse women, they abuse children, they’re serial killers. … So what we’re saying is if you’re convicted of animal abuse, no guns for you the rest of your life,” says Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission.

He says Illinois also led the way on banning gun ownership for those convicted of domestic battery.

Under the proposed law, those convicted of abusing an animal would be denied a Firearm Owners ID card, or have their current license revoked.

Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort.

 

 

Be interesting to read based on how it's worded. If it's properly worded, any opposition will make those who oppose seem like evil, heartless and vile. Which probably is absolutely the intention of the bill. 

Remember perception is reality. "Oh my god you hate animals. You want these evil heartless butchers to have guns! Don't you know those people who abuse animals grow up to be serial killers! You want serial killers to have guns! blah blah blah"

 

"saves just one life" LMFAO


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#22 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,216 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:24 AM

Hey, just a thought, don't kick your dog and you have nothing to worry about.

Slippery slope, my friend.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#23 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,216 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:26 AM

So if you don't support this bill you agree puppies and kittens should be beat up.  I see the angle they are going with this one. 

Yes. Exactly. I doubt they give a care if the bill passes or not. They want pro gun politicians on the voting record as voting against it and they want to be able to paint the NRA and other gun rights groups who oppose it as evil heartless etc... This is a publicity and propaganda bill, nothing more. 

It's lose lose once this bill gets introduced.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#24 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,836 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:12 AM

The goal is clearly to expand the set of prohibited persons until it includes everyone who is not a law enforcement officer or a member of the military on active duty. The tactic is to do this one hard-to-object-to step at a time. Each one of these laws that slips through makes the next one easier to enact. Before you know it, we'll be down to defending the 2A rights of serial parking ticket scofflaws.

 

Yes.  That has always been their goal, and this is one step toward that goal.  They know that no-one want to defend animal abusers, so they can add one more checkbox to the "prohibited persons" list.  The end goal is that virtually everyone will be prohibited.  This should stop!


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#25 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,322 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:29 AM

Lets try this ...

Every Study finds Muslim, more than any other religion, tend to be terrorist. Ban them from owning guns or entering US.
Every Study finds transgender things, much more than any other, tend to ........
Every Study finds homosexuals, much more than non-homosexuals, tend to ......
Every Study finds women who have had at least one abortion tend to think its ok kill babies.

Ban them All ...... from voting!!!

Edited by TomKoz, 15 November 2017 - 10:32 AM.

Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#26 TRJ

    Joyful Stoic

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,846 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:35 AM

Last I checked dogs were considered property under the law. So do I lose my rights if I break a plate too?

Edit to add that I love animals and donate to aspca every month to support Sarah McLachlan.

Edited by TRJ, 15 November 2017 - 10:38 AM.


#27 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,606 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:51 AM

Another effort to slowly chip away our rights.

 

If someone is found guilty of intentionally killing a pet, they deserve a felony conviction at minimum.  Therefore, no longer aloud to own guns.  Seems pretty simple but not surprising that  a liberal wants more laws created.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#28 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,971 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:54 AM

It will be interesting to see Mr. Elsner try to factually demonstrate what every study shows, and that they are all in agreement.

 

I wonder how many every actually is.


.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#29 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:01 AM

Hes not a member of the Senate or House so he wont be submitting the bill. Curious to see which member of the legislature decides to go along with him to introduce it.

An interesting combination...

ILLINOIS STATE CRIME COMMISSION / POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS

..."Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission."...

..."Elsner admits he will likely face a stiff backlash from the NRA and defenders of the Second Amendment, but says if such a law saves even one life, it will have been worth the effort"...

Edited by InterestedBystander, 15 November 2017 - 11:04 AM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️

#30 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,607 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:04 AM

It will be interesting to see Mr. Elsner try to factually demonstrate what every study shows, and that they are all in agreement.

 

I wonder how many every actually is.

zero


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users