Illinois General Assembly 12/20/2022

[mab22]

On 12/20/2022 at 11:34 PM, kevinmcc said:

Really wish Todd would rethink the " "Yes, there are certain arms, hand grenades, explosives, other things like that that do not belong in civilian hands."

 

In text, history, and tradition those items were legal.

 

You could buy dynamite at the hardware store until the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and after that only a $5 license was needed until the Safe Explosives Act of 2002 when the government got paranoid about terrorists.

That said gunpowder is an explosive, although not technically a high explosive, but we shouldn't be telling them they can restrict any common weapons or components a soldier would use, otherwise you might was well cross off the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

Yep, I think it was in Bruen where they mentioned cannons if you owned a ship. I believe the whole idea was that you/I would be "the backup" military. So things that go boom would still be allowed, you just don't need to be carrying them with you all the time for self defense. Defense of the nation is another thing.

[evilbrownrifle]

On 12/20/2022 at 11:34 PM, kevinmcc said:

Really wish Todd would rethink the " "Yes, there are certain arms, hand grenades, explosives, other things like that that do not belong in civilian hands."

 

In text, history, and tradition those items were legal.

 

You could buy dynamite at the hardware store until the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and after that only a $5 license was needed until the Safe Explosives Act of 2002 when the government got paranoid about terrorists.

That said gunpowder is an explosive, although not technically a high explosive, but we shouldn't be telling them they can restrict any common weapons or components a soldier would use, otherwise you might was well cross off the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

 

I researched this a bit a number of years ago. I found army logistics documents from the early 1800s that clearly described the difference between arms and ordinance. Cannons are ordinance, not arms. You could own them then, and even today, but likely as an allowed privilege and not a right. The main point of differentiation and one for legal debate would be crew-served machineguns. Perhaps grenades (thrown and launched) and hand-deployed explosives. 

[Ashdump]

Great job, everybody!

 

I was talking with a guy at work about these hearings. He said his wife made a comment, directed at the"moms demand action" (red shirts) To paraphrase...

 

"I'm not willing to cower in a corner with a phone like you girls will in the event of a attack.. I have a gun and know how to use it. My life and the lives of my loved ones is worth way more than that". 

 

Maybe next time those and their ilk are in one of those hearings, perhaps Molly could lay that on 'em! It sounds just like something she would say anyway!

[Tvandermyde]

On 12/20/2022 at 11:34 PM, kevinmcc said:

Really wish Todd would rethink the " "Yes, there are certain arms, hand grenades, explosives, other things like that that do not belong in civilian hands."

 

In text, history, and tradition those items were legal.

 

You could buy dynamite at the hardware store until the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and after that only a $5 license was needed until the Safe Explosives Act of 2002 when the government got paranoid about terrorists.

That said gunpowder is an explosive, although not technically a high explosive, but we shouldn't be telling them they can restrict any common weapons or components a soldier would use, otherwise you might was well cross off the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

The reasoning is simple, things we actually aim vs things that explode. The first are directed at a specific target. The later when the ordinance goes off, its not aimed and collateral damage is uncontrollable. A handgrenade is indiscriminate about what it hits/goes after. A rifle shot goes where its pointed there is a difference. ANd exposive devices that are indiscriminate in their targets seems like fair answer to the question

[steveTA84]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:13 PM, Ashdump said:

Great job, everybody!

 

I was talking with a guy at work about these hearings. He said his wife made a comment, directed at the"moms demand action" (red shirts) To paraphrase...

 

"I'm not willing to cower in a corner with a phone like you girls will in the event of a attack.. I have a gun and know how to use it. My life and the lives of my loved ones is worth way more than that". 

 

Maybe next time those and their ilk are in one of those hearings, perhaps Molly could lay that on 'em! It sounds just like something she would say anyway!

She is absolutely correct about Moms Demand Action. They are all of “victim” mentality. They are weak minded useless eaters that bring no net positive to society, as they are not only sheeple (all spew the same nonsense and use the same arguments/emotional blabber, on top of all being exactly like-minded), but their advocacy is actually dangerous. They do not have the thought capacity to think 2 steps ahead in what their positions, if enacted, can cause via negative consequences (erode rights and freedoms because they rely on emotions and fear). Further, they are just plain stupid. Can anyone explain to me how a corporate entity that is funded by a billionaire is “grassroots”? It’s not, they are pawns to Mike B and Shannon W, but they are either too clueless (at best) or ok with it (at worst), and therefor should be discarded as nothing more than a NPC (non-playable character with pre-programmed responses and actions).

 

anyways, gullible women have been used by the anti-gun lobby leaders (men) for decades. Nothing has changed, and these women will never learn that they are just cannon fodder for people that don’t give a cr*p about them

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/TCSPP/137/TCSPP-137-009

[davel501]

The YouTube algorithm thought I would enjoy this video and it turns out they were right. Lots of good points here. I love how he points out that red flag laws are flawed because they identify people in crisis, take their guns away and stop. If people are having troubles enough to qualify for a red flag removal they clearly need some help to get through whatever it is they are going through.

 

 

[G214me]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:06 AM, steveTA84 said:

She is absolutely correct about Moms Demand Action. They are all of “victim” mentality. They are weak minded useless eaters that bring no net positive to society, as they are not only sheeple (all spew the same nonsense and use the same arguments/emotional blabber, on top of all being exactly like-minded), but their advocacy is actually dangerous. They do not have the thought capacity to think 2 steps ahead in what their positions, if enacted, can cause via negative consequences (erode rights and freedoms because they rely on emotions and fear). Further, they are just plain stupid. Can anyone explain to me how a corporate entity that is funded by a billionaire is “grassroots”? It’s not, they are pawns to Mike B and Shannon W, but they are either too clueless (at best) or ok with it (at worst), and therefor should be discarded as nothing more than a NPC (non-playable character with pre-programmed responses and actions).

 

anyways, gullible women have been used by the anti-gun lobby leaders (men) for decades. Nothing has changed, and these women will never learn that they are just cannon fodder for people that don’t give a cr*p about them

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/TCSPP/137/TCSPP-137-009

100 % correct. I sat through a "moms" meeting awhile back. It was a man and a woman ( the paid ringleaders ) trying to keep emotions high and keep discussions of real problems from happening. It was more than obvious that the ringleaders were grooming useful idiots to put on a red shirt and help destroy their own rights. It's despicable that professional con artists such as these use emotion and fear to exploit women.

[steveTA84]

^^^
truth

[jim123]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:12 PM, G214me said:

100 % correct. I sat through a "moms" meeting awhile back. It was a man and a woman ( the paid ringleaders ) trying to keep emotions high and keep discussions of real problems from happening. It was more than obvious that the ringleaders were grooming useful idiots to put on a red shirt and help destroy their own rights. It's despicable that professional con artists such as these use emotion and fear to exploit women.

[thekahoona]

On 12/20/2022 at 1:24 PM, Upholder said:

Rep Stoneback: asks about gun safety training.  "Yes or no only"  "Would you like to see every gun owner well trained on how their firearm operates safety."

 

Ed: yes

Stoneback: would you be willing to mandate that training as part of a FOID card applciation

Ed: no

Stoneback: Is the answer with your first question consistent with the second?

Ed: yes

 

Stoneback: asks NRA member about constitutionality.  Todd chimes in he testified.  Stoneback wants the 2nd amendment recited.   Todd complies.   "is there any mention of an individual's right in the second amendment."  "there is not a single word about an individual's right for self defense or recreation in the second amendment."  Asks about what was on the side of NRA headquarters in the 1950 as if that has anything to do with the law in question.

A lesson on the history of the drafting and passage of the 2nd Amendment would have been appropriate here... The Senate at the time tried to tie the Right to the "common defence" (eliminating the individual right). It was rejected.

[steveTA84]

On 12/27/2022 at 9:16 AM, thekahoona said:

A lesson on the history of the drafting and passage of the 2nd Amendment would have been appropriate here... The Senate at the time tried to tie the Right to the "common defence" (eliminating the individual right). It was rejected.

Aaaaaand sourced 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

[thekahoona]

On 12/27/2022 at 9:58 AM, steveTA84 said:

Aaaaaand sourced 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

Yep! It is always amazing to me how prescient Madison was... 

[steveTA84]

On 12/27/2022 at 10:06 AM, thekahoona said:

Yep! It is always amazing to me how prescient Madison was... 

this one is nice too. The gun grabbers can kiss mandated training proposals to own a gun goodbye 

[kevinmcc]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:50 AM, Tvandermyde said:

The reasoning is simple, things we actually aim vs things that explode. The first are directed at a specific target. The later when the ordinance goes off, its not aimed and collateral damage is uncontrollable. A handgrenade is indiscriminate about what it hits/goes after. A rifle shot goes where its pointed there is a difference. ANd exposive devices that are indiscriminate in their targets seems like fair answer to the question

 

Yes, but smokeless power and black powder are explosives. The anti-gun groups would be more than happy to ban them, and let you still own air rifles, maybe. I get what you are saying, but those items weren't a problem in the past and should not be today either. We should not give up rights because of urban social decay. The founding father were clear about that point. We should not give an inch on the 2nd Amendment. I would like to see the day when there is no such thing as NFA items. Only weapons that are banned are chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction that even the military should only use defensively and as a last resort.