Mistake by the Lake?

For as long as I've been a politically minded individual, I can remember hearing Republican and Right-leaning individuals in Illinois blame all of Illinois' problems on Chicago...citing Chicago's huge population that heavily leans "Democrat" as the reason that they believe their vote does not count.

Something always struck me as odd about that, it always seemed like a weak minded statement to me...but for a long time, all I had to go on was a hunch.  That all changed this week when I finally decided to put my money where my mouth was and actually go dig through all of those numbers and attempt to put them together to prove my point.

After all of my research, I am more convinced than ever than my hunch is true:  Illinois does not have a Mistake by the Lake of which we can blame all of our bad results.  The only mistake in Illinois is we have become lethargic and chose to turn Chicago into the scapegoat we needed to justify inaction.

The essence of our country is that "Majority Wins"  ... so if 51% of the population THINKS one way, then they should win?  Right?  But what if only 10% of that majority bother to show up to vote?  Voting is where it counts, and "We the people" in Illinois have chosen, for far too long, to opt out of that one chance we have, every few years, to make a change. 

And when I say "We the people" I am referring to anyone who disagrees with the current political establishment in Illinois.  Whether you consider yourself Democrat or Republican, or, like me, neither, I am talking about all of us fed up with record Debt, no Concealed Carry, no Class III, no Gambling, oppressive Government oversight restricting our teachers and putting our officers of the law in harms way...many of us believed Bill Brady embodied most, if not all, of those ideals, but regardless if you agree with that statement, if you are "We the people" it seems to go without saying that Brady was a much better option than Quinn where individual freedoms were concerned (Especially for 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!)...I could go on all day, but to put it simply:  "We The People" are the problem:  Not Chicago.  And I'm going to prove it to you.

In the 2010 Election, there were two "Primary" candidates (I love 3rd Party Options, but for the sake of argument, and since their numbers were disappointingly low, we are going to concentrate on the top two)  Patt Quinn v.s. Bill Brady.

In 2010, The State of Illinois had a population of 12,830,632 (According to the U.S. Census in the same year)

Of the 12.8 million, there are 8.7 million people who are old enough (and eligible) to vote.

Of the 8.7 million people able to vote in the State of Illinois in 2010, only 3.7 million bothered to show up in 2010 and actually cast a vote for one candidate or another.  That's less than half voter turn out (42.5%)

As far as the Governor goes, Quinn won by a very narrow margin (these numbers according to the New York Times)

Pat Quinn: 1,745,219 (46.8%)

Bill Brady: 1,713,385 (45.9%)

That's 31,835 votes shy of Bill Brady becoming our next Governor in Illinois.  Not many elections are that close at all, and to some, it might suggest that "We the people" are waking up...but to me, it suggests that "They" are becoming complacent...in other words, they're not showing up to vote.  Our time is now!

So, that's all of the basic info...but so far I haven't proven my theory...I'm getting there, I promise.

In order to see the tree through the forest, we have to do some BIG TIME data digging, number crunching, and investigating...and here is the fruit of that labor...election results, by County, in Illinois, in 2010.

You can click here to view a chart of all the raw data in one image

If you look at the election results on a red/blue map of Illinois, it looks to paint a big picture

 Red = Brady

Blue = Quinn

So it's easy to see, looking at this map, how one might draw the conclusion that "Chicago decides our elections" because all but 3 County's voted for Brady, but Quinn still won.  But it requires a little more discipline to look past it and see that it is, indeed, our fault.

In Illinois, we don't use the Electoral College...instead Governors are elected by popular vote...not how many red states or blue states, and the color of the state is not entirely representative of the voter turn out (In other words, if you have 500 people in a county, 20 show up, 15 being republican, then the county is red, but only 15 votes went the republican candidate...why didn't the other 480 people show up?  And how many of those 480 would have voted Republican?)

Well, obviously there's no way to know "How many would vote Republican" we can only draw on theories, and my theory is that too many republicans are refusing to show up, choosing instead to blame their problems on Chicago.

If we remove Chicago (more pointedly, Cook County) from the picture, we're left with these results, in theory

Quinn	844,381
Brady	1,313,100

And here we can see why it's easy to say "Just get rid of Chicago" because without Chicago, "We Win" ... but are we pulling a Bill Buckner here?  

Are we blaming the outcome of the game on one single mistake made before the game was even over?  Before the series was ever even concluded?  Are we forgetting about the terrible pitching from a tired, scared pitcher, that led to 3 straight singles?  Or the pitching change to bring in a cold arm that gives up the tying run on the first pitch?  Why does Buckner get all of the blame?  He could have stopped the ball, but the pitcher could have thrown a better pitch, or the catcher could have caught the ball...yet people chose to single out Buckner because he was the best example, and the easiest scapegoat for the moment.

This is no different.  *IF* We get rid of Chicago, then the rest of us can have our way without having to change anything.  Those who set on their asses on election day, don't have to leave.  Those who voted, but didn't vote for a Governor, have to change nothing.  People don't have to talk and debate, we just remove Chicago and holy shit planet Earth spins around the Sun once again.

But that isn't plausible.  Chicago is not going any where.  There is no 51st State, no chance of it ever happening (after all...where does that 51st star go?  Certainly it'd be a boost for the flag Industry...most of which Made in China...)

No.  Chicago is not the problem.  Looking at the chart above will reveal why

Will County has a population of 677,560 people.  Of those, only 177,617 people voted.  

79,786 for Quinn

97, 831 for Brady

Where were the other 499,943 people?  How would they have voted?  We can only speculate, for sure, but we can draw some pretty broad conclusions to paint a point...remember how we discussed earlier than Quinn only won by >32,000 votes?  If only 10% of the remaining 500,000 people in Will County had showed up to vote and happened to be Republican, Brady would have won.

Kane County has a population of 515,269 people.  Of those, only 117,005 people voted.

48579 for Quinn

68426 for Brady

Where were the 398,264 other people?  How would they have voted?  We can only speculate, for sure, but we can draw some pretty broad conclusions to paint a point...remember how we discussed earlier than Quinn only won by >32,000 votes?  If only 10% of the remaining 400,000 people in Kane County had showed up to vote and happened to be Republican, Brady would have won.

Now, I can literally do this all night long to paint the narrative, and there are only 3 county's that this doesn't apply to, so you can take my word for it, or you can figure it out for yourselves. 

At this point, I know the skeptics might be thinking "But the remaining population doesn't break down the number of people eligible to vote, it's too broad of a number" and to a degree, I would agree.  So lets look at a number that is not generic and broad.

Of the 12.8 million people in the State of Illinois, 8,780,681 are eligible to vote (of voting age, not a felon, not incarcerated, etc)  Of the 8,780,681 people that CAN vote, only 3,792,770 bothered to show up at all...that leaves a balance of 4,987,911 people remaining that CAN vote but CHOSE NOT TO.

Are you starting to get the picture?  Well, if not, don't worry, there's a lot more to go...  So there are 4.987 million people in Illinois that CAN VOTE but choose not to.  Now, of those people, there is no doubt some are Democrat, some are Republican, some are "Other".

Lets go back to Cook County for a second...Cook County has 5.194 million people, and 1,301,123 chose to vote, leaving 3.893 million people who CAN VOTE but chose NOT TO.  Of the people remaining, SOME are Democrat, SOME are Republican, and SOME are "other".

So even if we assume that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the people in Cook County who CAN vote but chose NOT TO would have voted for Quinn, but chose not to, and we subtract THAT number from the over all people in the entire State that chose not to vote, we still end up with 1.094 million people in the State of Illinois to choose from that have a greater chance than not to vote republican.  And even if we only reached out to 10% of those 1.094 million people, we would have had 300% more votes than needed to win the election.

This is worst case scenario type of stuff we're talking about here...and even when choosing bottom of the barrel scenarios here, it's still very easy to win if we can only convince a small number of people who say "My vote doesn't count, Chicago decides Illinois politics" that they're doing nothing but creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and making the problem MUCH worse.

Now, of course, if you don't like Brady OR Quinn, then your argument of "My vote doesn't count" might actually hold some water, but from my experiences, that's never the case.  From my personal life experiences, the issues we look for in a Governor of Illinois center around Business, Taxes, and the 2nd Amendment.

Illinois is the only State in the Union to not allow some sort of Concealed Carry.  The only one.  Concealed Carry is such a passionate and deep seated debate in this State that we even have Democrats in the House & Senate that are writing legislation, teaming up with republicans, and trying to pressure Quinn into signing the bill.

But time after time, Quinn, and those like him, continue to turn it down.  Brady promised to change that, among many other things.  Was he lying?  Maybe.  But we know for sure Quinn won't support it, so isn't it better, if Concealed Carry is an important issue to you, to vote for an unknown, than not vote and allow in certain doom?

In fact, many opinions on this race were that Quinn and Brady were exact opposites of each other (A good article written here)

So if "We the People" wanted Concealed Carry in Illinois, all we had to do was convince 10% of the 20% of remaining voters in the state to vote for Brady.  That's it.  Of the 1.094 million people to choose from, all we have to do is convince 32,000 to vote for Brady.  Just convince them to show up and vote.  Nothing more.  If everyone reading this convinced 1 person, and that person convinced at least 1 other person, it would not take long at all to get the slim numbers we needed to put Brady in office and firearms in our holsters.

Now, the Skeptics are no doubt going to bring up that a Governor does not have the authority, alone, to pass Concealed Carry, which is true, but remember, we've already talked about all of the Democrats who support Concealed Carry, and when added to all of the Republicans in the House and Senate, we have a very healthy team assembled for pro-concealed-carry rights, all that is missing is a competent and law abiding Governor.

In the end, the absolute worst case scenario is that every last citizen that is ELIGIBLE to vote shows up to vote, but someone like Quinn still makes it into the election because 50.001% of voters voted Democrat.  But that's how a democracy works.  Chicago doesn't have the numbers to decide.  

Cook County have a lot of numbers, sure, but their ideals are almost entirely exclusive to Cook County...the rest of the state never follows suit..."We the people" just never show up to vote.  Remember, just because a county is red doesn't mean more than a handful of voters chose to show up.

Majority wins.  We are the majority, we can prove it to ourselves, we just have to show up.

Think of all of your personal friends and gun enthusiasts.  Now think of at least one of them who refuses to vote because they believe Chicago decides the elections.

Now go convince that person to vote.

If we can all do that, we *WILL* win.  The numbers prove it.  We have to stop blaming Bill Buckner and realize that the only people to blame is ourselves.  Chicago does not decide anything that "We the People" don't want them to.  Get vocal.  Be active.  Educate and assimilate.

We ARE the majority.  It's time we started acting like it.

Read More

Fact v.s. Fiction (Part 1)

Well, the tone has settled a little bit in the mainstream media.  It's not 100% about those "Evil Guns" right now, at least until the next instance when some criminal happens to use a firearm to commit a crime (notice how they hardly ever report when a citizen uses a firearm to PREVENT a crime?)

So at this point, i'm either preaching to the choir, or talking to myself.  So far, there's been several "hits" to this page, but little interaction, yet, I still feel compelled to help spread a little truth.  All of this information is "out there" already, it's just a lot of people are either incapable, or unwilling, to go find it for themselves.  So it is with those people in mind, that I decided to dive into an ocean of statistics and present some information to destroy a lot of the hyperbole and flat out LIES you may read/hear about in the media...since there's a lot of them, I decided it might be best to tackle in several parts.  So this post will be the first of many...if you have any suggestions on other lies to dispel, please leave them in the comments section below!

Myth:  The Clinton AWB of 1994 caused the crime rate to go down

FACT:  This is a recurring theme in the National Main Stream Media these days, at least since the Aurora Colorado shootings.  Ill-informed gun grabbers love to pass this along and say that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban by the Clinton Administration was responsible for the crime rate decrease.  However, as you're about to see, this is another underhanded lie that is easily exposed by looking at the same facts that THEY chose not to present to you.

But let's not take their word for it, let's look at those facts available from the 1994 through 2010 FBI crime reports.

In the time frame DURING the Assault Weapons Ban, the average number of homicides, nation wide, due to a "rifle" firearm were 493.

Now when we compare that to the years after the ban expired, we see that the number of homicides, nation wide, attributed to "Rifles" is actually 420.  Now, I don't know about you, but 420 is less than 493 where I come from.

But how can that be?  How is it possible that MORE people were murdered by a rifle when those rifles were BANNED?  The answer is quite clear, and is actually given to us by the United States Government its self...more pointedly, the US Department of Justice.  According to them, the AWB did not have an impact on crime in the US nor did it support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more murders.

Myth:  The U.S.A. has the highest homicide rate in the world because of insufficient Gun Control.

FACT:  According to the United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, The United States is not even in the top 10 country's world wide of number of Homicides.  The U.S.A. is not even in the top 100.  Nope.  We rank #110 world wide, according to the UNODC for homicide rate.

Well, how can that be?  If you look at guns per capita, The United States comes in at #1 world wide with 90 Firearms per 100 citizens, and the #2 (Yemen) trails far behind with 60 per 100 citizens followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

So what's going on here?  How can the U.S.A. have more firearms than any other country (In both categories:  Per Capita and Over all number) yet rank far below the majority of the rest of the world for homicides?  A fact seen in the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies which showed that the United States of America possesses 270,000,000 of the ENTIRE WORLD'S 875,000,000 known firearms.  I'll tell you how:  Because the idea that the USA needs more Gun Control is pure, 100% authentic BULLSHIT.

Myth:  Most gun crimes in the United States are committed with a firearm that was purchased legally.

FACT: This one gets me more than most, as I'm sure it'll get you after reading a few facts.  To put it in simple terms, according to the Bureau of Alcohol of Tobacco and Firearms, 93% of all "Crime Guns" (A firearm used to commit a crime) are purchased ILLEGALLY. 

Myth:  The 2nd Amendment only applies to a militia

FACT:  It does not take a Constitutional scholar to realize how flawed this myth is.  It's a sure-fire sign that you're arguing with an idiot when they pull this one out of their verbal arsenal.  Let's take a very deep look at this, to put this one to rest once and for all  (A few of the examples that follow are inspired the writings of J. Neil Schulman.  I will merely do my best to reiterate and reconstruct them here, for ease of reference at later dates)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

These people always point to the first part of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia" and will tell you that this phrase is nothing more than a clause...a prerequisite if you will...but they let themselves down on an intellectual level by choosing the easy way out of this evaluation, and I argue, they do so intentionally.

If we evaluate that sentence, which was written in 1776, and translate it to a more modern understanding, it'd be written as

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged

 So, as it is written, a "Well regulated militia" is not a clause, in fact, it's actually an understood principal.  Well-regulated is used as an adjective in order to modify "militia".

But, who does the regulating?  Where does this regulation come from?  It's found in the main clause of the sentence:  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is what is essential to having a well-regulated militia.  We, the people, ARE the militia.  After all, do these people REALLY expect us to believe that a well regulated militia, to be put in place to keep government in check, should be regulated by the same government?  *Sigh*

Or to put it in simple terms, the people regulate the Government (the Military), and in order for the Government to be well-regulated, then we, the citizens of this country, have a right that is not GIVEN by the 2nd Amendment, but is IDENTIFIED by the 2nd Amendment, and is stated that this right is NOT to be infringed. 

But we really don't have to evaluate words and debate their meaning.  That's where 99% of these arguments stem from:  "What did the founding fathers and the people of their era mean?"  But we don't have to ask that, they've already left the answers:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson 1776

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

-Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.
-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
-Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787

But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.
-Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.
-Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)

We could keep going on all day, one thing that can't be argued is that there is no shortage of quotes from our founding fathers on what the 2nd Amendment really means. The reason there is no shortage is because they believed so strongly in the importance of it. A feeling that has all but become lost in today's America and is threatened by the highest offices in the land, all in favor of robbing you of your naturally inherited freedoms in favor of gaining a little more comfort for themselves while they continue to rob this country blind.

Earlier, I prefaced this by saying that 99% of the arguments stem around this, but there's still 1% left, and that's the people who don't deny the intentions of the 2nd Amendment. They don't argue how it's written, or anything of the sort, instead they argue its relevance in today's world. They argue that it's not needed any longer, or that it only applies to the weapons of the era, and proceed to exclaim "The founding fathers could never have envisioned something like an AR15"  Well lets be honest for a moment:  If the 2nd Amendment only applies to the technology of the day, then the 1st Amendment must apply to the same.  So good by 1st Amendment on the radio, TV, and internet....

These people are intellectual deviants who take the short way out of the argument, doing themselves a great injustice by ignoring the teachings of yesterday in favor of their own version of reality for tomorrow, in other words, they don't like guns, so you shouldn't be allowed to own them.  They call themselves tolerant, but once you become the face of opposition, watch how fast their tolerance fades.

Intolerant and Angry.  Bill Maher, and people like him, are after YOUR rights

These people are very open about the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. They say get rid of it, it shouldn't exist. They're for shredding the Constitution and replacing it with their own biased, ill informed, and hateful version of how the country should proceed. It is with those people in mind that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

This is what drove our founders to create their own country with their own rules. Rules that put power in the hands of the majority. Rules that protect the country by putting it in the most capable hands. The hands of WE...the people.

And our most important Rights are not given to us, but are inherited through the mere act of being born. We receive them by participating in this experiment called life. Whether you believe in God or not, is not relevant, as the statement of "God Given rights" implies nothing more than something you are born with. We are all born with that right, and our BILL OF RIGHTS is nothing more than a set of rules by which our GOVERNMENT must abide, and the 2nd entry to these rules guarantees that our Government is not allowed to infringe on our right to be armed and protect ourselves from ALL enemies, both foreign and especially domestic.






That about does it for Part 1. If you have more myths you'd like to talk about in future installments, please leave some ideas in the comments.

Read More

The Brady Campaign

The Brady Campaign

I am a fan of Stephen Colbert's late night show...I don't watch it every night, especially during election years, since things tend to get a little too bleeding-heart liberal for me, but tonight's show caught me by surprise.

I had the TV on in the background while I was messing around on my computer and I heard them say "On tonights show, such and such guy from The Brady Campaign" ... my blood pressure spiked.

My first thought was to turn it off.  If Colbert can have a certifiable psychopath on his show, then I don't want him to have my ratings.  My own little way of "speaking my opinion"...but I decided to stick around to see what he had to say.  Let's just say - I was not surprised, and Brady Campaign pundit, Dan Gross, did not let me down.

 

Now, before we go forward, some of you may be setting there wondering "who the hell is the Brady Campaign??"  There's a long answer and a short answer, but for the sake of this post, a short answer will suffice:  The Brady Campaign, from their own website:

"The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we represent victims of gun violence in the courts. We educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities."

 And it is from here, that we begin this evenings rant.  A better definition of the Brady Campaign is a bunch of self absorbed snake oil salesmen who have little better to do with their time than travel around the country spouting off one-liners about evil guns and they try to pass off their rendition of reality as proof that gun control works.  Here's a few examples of what I mean:

On tonight's Colbert Report, Dan Gross made the claim that the Brady Campaign is interested in passing gun laws that save lives.  That's really about it.  Gun Laws That Save Lives.  Sounds catchy doesn't it?  After all, who in their right mind can argue with SAVING LIVES!?

Nobody can argue with it, there is no argument to be had in a moral society about whether or not we should "save lives".  And this is the number one weapon in their arsenal...they prey on the gullibility and ignorance of anyone they can get their scales wrapped around.

And in case you're wondering - Yes.  I am saying that AT LEAST half of the people in this country are gullible morons who will believe anything that they're told by someone wearing a suit pretending to be a professional.  This isn't just my opinion, there have been studies done to prove it.  For your viewing pleasure, I'd like to insert into evidence, Exhibit A:

The Milgram Experiment

Great study, wasn't it?  Too bad science can't be that raw any more...too many idealists today call it unethical.

So how did I arrive at saying "At least half of the people in this country are gullible morons who will believe anything they're told"?  Quite simple:

Think about how you view the average American, and now realize that by pure laws of nature, that HALF of the people...are dumber than that.  It's a pretty simple concept, yes? Well, it is, and the Brady Campaign knows this and exploits it to the max.  But don't just take my word for it, I urge you to do your own research.  There are many sources of raw information online.  Don't just listen to what the Television tells you...take what you hear from TV and use it as a launching point for your investigation, after you do this enough, you'll begin to arrive at the same conclusion I have:  TV is 100% completely full of shit...especially *any* program claiming to be News.

But enough of those ramblings, let's take a look at some of the things that the Brady Campaign points to and says "See?  Gun Control works!"

Background Check

If you pay attention to any time these people speak, they keep bringing up a statistic that has many people raising their eyebrows, and it goes like this:

"40% of all guns sold in the U.S. are done so without a background check"

And, to some people, the initial reaction is "holy shit, really?"  Because, of course, this sounds bad.  The Brady Campaign takes this a step further by suggesting that this leads to criminals getting their hands on guns.  Which...is true!  If there's no background checks required, then anyone with a rap sheet can buy a firearm.

However, we're back to the ol' "say one thing that means another" tactic, because what the Brady Campaign is not telling you is not only is their 40% number completely made up and has absolutely no evidence to back it up, but it literally has no basis in reality, what so ever...it's completely made up!

They don't offer any information to back up this number.  No studies have been done.  For all I can tell from my research on their research...they made the whole damn thing up.

Several Brady Campaign supporters will tell you that this number reflects Face to Face sales.  Well, if it's a sale done in private, and there's no paper trail, then how do they arrive at 40%?  How can you count something that is impossible (literally impossible) to count?  A "gut feeling"?  An "educated guess"?  Well, if there's one thing you're about to learn about the Brady Campaign ... it's that they're both Gutless and Uneducated, so you can safely rule out either possibility for arriving at that magic 40% number.

As a side note - this is one of those things that's difficult to prove.  How do you prove a negative?  In order to have a % of something, you must first know the whole number, in this case, the number of transactions made every year, then you must know how many of those transactions were done in private on the street or in someone's home.  This is like asking someone "How many bags of pot were sold in the US last year?" ... it's just not possible to know.

Intermission

(Here's some more information on the Brady Campaign)

Moving onto their next talking point....

"Assault Weapons" are bad

At the 3:30 mark of that video, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, is quoted as saying

"I've gotten reports back from the police that they were being outgunned, responding to robberies, where the assault weapons were firing bullets through their police cars"

 Well, this is total bull shit in several ways.  First off, this type of argument is directly akin to a little kid.  When we are all little, we view the world different ways.  We see things in a magical way, ways that, as adults, we know simply aren't real.  We may conjure up stories to tell our parents of the magical adventures we had in our back yard with our friends.

Maybe we were tracking Dinosaurs?  Who knows...regardless, we'll swear up and down to our parents that we saw one.  We'd stick to the story because, in our heads, our parents can't prove that we didn't see a dinosaur...the concept of extinction doesn't make sense to us yet.  The concept of impossibility isn't in our understanding.

Whatever the case may be, this quote from Helmke is absolutely preposterous, and once I tell you why, you'll be left with the same decision to make:

"Does he know what he's talking about and is just banking on the hope that YOU won't know, and maybe believe him"

or

"Does he really not know what's going on and is just repeating disinformation he's heard from someone else that was banking on the hope that Mr. Helmke would be too stupid to figure out the truth for himself?"

You're about to discover the #2 Battle Tactic used by the Brady Campaign in order to make them feel like they matter in this country:  Disinformation.

Let's break down his quote again, which is ground zero of the Brady Campaigns crusade to ban those evil "assault weapons"

"I've gotten reports back from the police that they were being outgunned"  Really?  The police report to Mr. Helmke?  I'd love to see those reports.  Many have asked, and so far, Helmke has refused to produce any sort of document.  Perhaps Mr. Helmkes parents never told him that just because you say something, it doesn't make it true.  Maybe he still believes he really was hunting dinosaurs in his back yard as a kid?

"responding to robberies, where the assault weapons were firing bullets through their police cars"

This is very interesting to me.  First off, the term assault weapon is a pejorative when talking about civilian weaponry.  People like the Brady Campaign use this term assault weapon to paint the image of a big scary gun the minds of someone who may never have held a gun, let alone fired one or know anything about them.  So here we go again, another clip vs magazine misrepresentation of the facts, only now it's got the element of intentional deception involved in order to trick you into think some guns are worse or scarier than others.

But the most glaringly and disgustingly inaccurate part of this whole line is simply this:

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAD

"where the assault weapons were firing bullets through their police cars"

This is exploitation of the idiot masses 101.  It's scary language - "Oh my god, those guns were firing through POLICE CARS???"  But now, what would one say if they learned that the average squad car is no different, in terms of bullet protection, than your car, or mine?

What would they say when they learned that no matter which gun you hand me, I could put holes through those cars.  The type of gun used makes no difference.  At all.  None.  What so ever.  "Assault Weapons" and "Military Style Weaponry" are misleading language.  John Q. Public does not have unrestricted access to "Military Style Weaponry" or anything resembling an "Assault Weapon"

(The M4 - commonly mistaken for the M16 - see M16 vs M4 )

True Military Style Weaponry, or weapons commonly themed "assault weapons", like the M4 or M16, are only available to be purchased, legally, by an American Citizen that passes rigorous background checks...basically, here's a check list if you want to buy a fully automatic firearm in the United States:

1.) Find what you want to purchase. Lets say its a M16. You're most likely looking at between $11000 to $15000  (Yes, that's dollars)

2.) Arrange a payment with the seller (most are 100% up front but some may agree 50% now and 50% when item is picked up).

3.) If firearm is out of state, you need to have it shipped to a suitable dealer (who works with MG's and such) inside state of of which you reside.

4.)  Fill out TWO (duplicate) Form 4 from the ATF

5.)  Get official fingerprint cards

6.)  Get passport-type photo for each Form 4

7.)  Get Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signoff on rear of each Form 4 (this is your chief of police in your area - if you live in small towns usually your county sheriff)

8.) Make out a $200 check to ATF

9.) Mail all of above to ATF. After a 30 to 90 day waiting period,  ne of the Form 4's with a special treasury stamp and signature on the form will be sent to your local dealer who is holding the firearm for you.

10.) Go pick up your firearm and enjoy.

So there you have it - a TEN STEP process with 30 to 90 days waiting period, many forms of verification and several checks in our government along with a price tag that is out of reach of most citizens in this country.  This is why full auto are not used in crimes.  They're simply too expensive.  In other country's, sure, you have Drug Cartels in Columbia that have more money than most Governments...or if you're a Drug Lord in Mexico, you actually have Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, Mmm, Mmmm) The President of the United States of America sending you these types of weapons for free.

And remember, this is Federal Law.  You cannot (legally) purchase a weapon like this in any other way.  So if the Brady Campaign wants to make it tougher to "Get an Assault Weapon" ...what are they suggesting we add to this 10 step process to make it any more difficult for a criminal to get one?

This background check applies to any legal purchase made at any Firearms Dealer.  You cannot walk into your local pawn shop, Dicks Sporting Goods, or Joe Bobs Gun Store and buy *any* firearm without going through a Background Check.  Period.

Well, when you ask them this, they bring up that magic number of 40% again.  They'll tell you that 40% of all firearms sold in this country are legally sold without a single background check.  They'll tell you that we must ban assault weapons because of this fact.  They'll tell you we need stricter background checks, and many of them will tell you we need a national firearm registry, because of these facts....but wait a second...why are they calling them...."Facts"?


Fact [fakt]
Noun
1.) something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.) something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

HUH????

But we've just learned that it's 100% impossible to legally purchase an "assault weapon" without going through rigorous background checks.  So is the Brady Campaign suggesting that 40% of the gun sales in this country are being done illegally?  For the record, no, they always say "Legal gun sales" But for the sake of argument, lets pretend they mean illegal sales...which is really worst case scenario...how is further gun law, going to stop people already breaking them?

So...what is going on here, Brady Campaign?  Why the double talk?  The Brady Campaign is a two headed serpent that slithers its way into the minds of unsuspecting every day citizens...the only problem from the Brady Campaign is that each head has a mind of its own, and neither head can remember what the other said the day before.






What does that leave for their "Scary Guns"? Semi-Automatic. What they're talking about, and inaccurately describing once again as an assault rifle, is a gun like this one:

AR15 Semi Automatic Rifle.

The Brady campaign will straight up tell you that they're not going after "Hunting Rifles" or "Shotguns" ... guns like these:

 But lets look at these for a moment.  The Remington 750 is typically what an average person pictures in their mind when they hear "Hunting Rifle"  It's tradition is, after all, hunting.  It fires a 30-06 (That's thirty-aught-six)  It's a powerful round of rifle ammunition.  Not used in an AR15.  Not used in an AK47.  But used in a rifle like the Remington 750.  A hunting rifle.

For comparison, the AR15 fires a .223.  If you go to buy a .223, lets say at Wal-Mart, you'll find that it comes in at 55 grains.  (The M16/M4 both fire a 5.56 NATO which is essentially a .223 but with a higher charge of powder... The U.S. Military uses the 5.56 NATO with a standard 77 grain load)

The .30/06, from the same source, comes in at 180 grains...quick side note for those of you going "What the hell is a grain??"

"Grains" is what measures the size of ammunition.  The larger the projectile (The bullet) the more grains of powder needed to send it down range.  1 grain equals 64.8 milligrams.  "Grains" is a measure of weight. So is "Grams" but they are not the same. 1 gram = 15.4324 grains. 1Lb. equals 7,000 grains...or to put it simply...more grains = more power.

So if a hunting rifle packs more of a punch (much more!) than those scary assault weapons" like the AR15...then why isn't the Brady Campaign going after the Hunting Rifle?  Well, because it goes back to the fact that most American's will buy into anything they see on TV in the form of News.  It's easy to make you afraid of something called an "Assault Rifle"...those two words conjure up mental images of war, death, and destruction...a Hunting Rifle, to the uneducated listener, seems much less powerful, much less capable...yet...as we see here, hunting rifles can be MUCH more powerful than something like an AR15 or an M16/M4.

The answer to "why" is easy - because it's a starting point.  They know that most Americans feel as though hunting rifles are fine.  Shotguns are fine.  These two weapons go way back in our history...They know that most Americans are not for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, and so the Brady Campaign has learned to pick their battles.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

If they get you to buy into the idea that an AR15 is evil and should be banned because it can "shoot fast" (which we'll get to in just a second) then they've won.  If they get those banned, then next they're going to tell you that this hunting rifle can also shoot fast.  And this handgun can actually shoot FASTER than the AR15.  Well, now you're stuck with a decision to make - if you hated the AR15 because it shoots fast, shouldn't you also hate this handgun because it shoots faster?  Shouldn't you also hate this hunting rifle because it shoots faster and has a larger punch?  That's what they're banking on getting you to believe... When it comes to "speed" of a firearm, the Brady Campaign loves to give you, the listener, some very BAD information, and they rely on you to not look into what they're saying.  They're relying on you being too busy with your children, or your job, to take the time to do all of the research necessary to have an educated & responsible opinion on the topic.  They rely on you to take them at their word, which is why they provide no evidence to substantiate their claims...  If they did...  The Brady Campaign wouldn't exist.

Here's what I mean about "Fire Power".  Automatic weapons have their fire rate measured in a three different ways (From this Wikipedia article.  If you're a person who says Wikipedia isn't a good source, do yourself a favor and stop looking like a moron - check out the reference links within a Wikipedia article to find the relevant information.  Wikipedia isn't the source.  It's the hub to take you to all the sources you need!)

Cyclic rate

This is the mechanical rate of fire, or how fast the weapon "cycles" (loads, locks, fires, unlocks, ejects). Measurement of the cyclic rate assumes that the weapon is being operated as fast as possible and does not consider operator tasks (magazine changes, aiming, etc.). When the trigger is squeezed, the rate at which rounds are fired is the cyclic rate. Typical cyclic rates of fire are 450–900 RPM for assault rifles, 900-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,200 RPM for machine guns. M134 Miniguns mounted on helicopters can achieve rates of fire of over 50 rounds per second (3,000 RPM).

Sustained or Effective rate

This is the rate at which the weapon could reasonably be fired indefinitely without failing. In contrast to the cyclic rate, the sustained rate is the actual rate at which the weapon would typically be fired in combat. Sustained rate considers several factors, time spent reloading, aiming, changing barrels if necessary, and allowing for some cooling. Knowing the sustained rate of fire is useful to know for logistics and supply purposes. Machine guns are typically fired in short bursts rather than in long continuous streams of fire, although there are times when they must be fired in very long bursts (see rapid rate below). Sustained rate also applies to box magazine fed assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles. In these weapons it refers to the rate at which the typical rifleman can effectively engage targets in a combat situation. The rate is usually 12-15 rpm, except for barrel changes it considers most of the same factors as for the belt fed MGs.

Rapid rate 

Rapid rate is a rate of fire between Cyclic and Sustained. It is usually much faster, although less accurate, than the sustained rate and is only used in emergency/final defensive line situations. The Rapid rate is not sustainable for long periods because it eats up a significant amount of ammunition (more than the gunner or assistant gunner are likely to carry on a patrol), the heat generated requires barrel change times to be reduced, and because machine guns are only issued with one spare barrel prolonged rapid fire will result in shortened weapon/barrel life.

 So, when you're listening to the news, or some idiot from The Brady Campaign, speak about these "Assault Weapons" something you'll hear a lot goes a little bit like this:

"This weapon can fire up to 800 rounds per minute"

 What this number represents is the Cyclic Rate.  It's basically a theoretical number says if you had a gun that had an infinite supply of ammunition, never had to be reloaded or aimed, and all you did was hold the trigger down without the barrel ever over heating and the weapon failing, then your gun could fire "800" rounds of ammunition in 60 seconds.

Think of Cyclic Rate like this:
The worlds fastest runner is Maurice Greene who reached a sprinting speed of 26.7 miles per hour.

Now, this is just a measurement, it's not an accurate depiction of how fast Maurice Green can actually run in an entire hour.  His body simply could not sustain the pressures and would shut down and he could die.

In other words, if you put Maurice on a 30 mile long stretch of road, and told him to run as fast as he could for 60 minutes, without stopping or slowing down for anything, he could most certainly not achieve 26.7.  26.7 is Maurices CYCLIC RATE.

It is the theoretical speed at which he could travel if he didn't have to worry about something called reality (Fatigue, endurance, death, etc)

Well, a firearm is no different, regardless of what kind.  It can suffer from fatigue.  It can suffer from human error as well.  When measuring a real world rate of fire for any automatic firearm, you use what is called the Sustained Rate of Fire (sometimes referred to as the practical rate of fire).  This rate of fire takes into account all of the obstacles one must confront in order to fire a weapon.  Aiming, reloading, barrel temperature, endurance, etc.  To illustrate my point, let's look at one of the Brady Campaigns favorite weapon to misrepresent, the M16

M16 has a cyclic rate of 700-950 rounds per minute, according to the US Government.  But remember, this is like Maurice Sprinting at a speed of 26.7mph.  The Sustained Rate of Fire, for the M16 is actually much lower...according to The United States Government, the M16 Sustained Rate of fire is just 12 to 15 rounds per minute....starting to get the picture?

And these rates only apply to a full-auto weapon, because when dealing with a semi-auto, the rate of fire is only as fast as you are psychically able to pull the trigger...so speed will vary from person to person, however keep in mind, if you're only concentrating on speed, and pulling the trigger as fast as possible, then you don't have time to recapture your point of aim for an accurate shot...thus missing the majority of your shots as your firearm begins to point towards the sky (recoil!)

Another talking point from the Brady Campaign, that will take much less time to dispel, is the Brady Campaigns hatred of "High Capacity Magazines"  (note, they call them clips ... there's a huge difference between a magazine and a clip.  This is a pretty easy way to identify the people who don't know what they're talking about v.s. the ones who do.)

As I said - this will take much less time.  The whole concept here is that "High Capacity Magazines allow for more death & destruction".  It's as if their logic is saying "A higher capacity magazine allows a person to shoot more rounds" but that is simply not true.  100 rounds of ammo is 100 rounds of ammo, whether that's in 10 magazines or 5.  It simply makes no difference...and if you watched the video of "Brady Campaign Lies" above...you'll even heard the President of the Brady Campaign agree that High Capacity Magazine bans DO NOTHING.  Reloading is not a cumbersome process, you push a button, the magazine falls, and you slam another into place.  With lots of practice...you can get REALLY fast at reloading any weapon

And please note - the world record is set not with a semi-automatic.  Not with a fully automatic.  Nope.  It's set with a Revolver.  A simple Revolver that shot 12 well aimed shots in 3 seconds.  4 shots a second.  So the concept that full-auto or semi-auto are more dangerous than something like a "Hunting Rifle" or "Revolver" is simply asinine.  No gun is bad.  No gun is good.  Only people are bad and good.  Guns are tools.  Guns are tradition.  Guns are a way of life, and more importantly, responsible gun ownership is the 2nd Amendment of The United States of America.  Without the 2nd, you simply cannot have the first.

So in the end, as a nation, we are left with one decision to make.  We either get rid of all guns or we get rid of no guns.  We've already went over the lead oppositions most central talking points:

They've tried to tell you that Assault Rifles are more dangerous and more powerful...but that was easily dismissed.

They've tried to tell you that high capacity magazines equal more death and destruction, but even the President of The Brady Campaign conceded that it was not true.

And they've tried to make up a whole bunch of numbers to pass off to you as information to make you believe that nearly half of all the guns sales in this country are done legally but with no background checks...and we've proven that to be 100% false as well.

So if their approach is honest, and their goal is true & genuine, then why do they have to continue to lie to you in order to get you to believe them?  Why can't they give you anything factual to back up a single thing that they say?  It's because what they're telling you is NOT true.  They have to lie, and you have to willingly believe them, having done no research of your own, to buy into it.  You have to be an irresponsible American citizen in order to give them any clout.

But no cause is greater, no fact more genuine, than in our founding documents, a little paragraph written a long time ago with as much wisdom and foresight as any human could ever image, the Second Amendment was written with one very specific, very guarded, and very simple purpose:  To keep our Government at bay.  James Madison knew full well, at the hands of the British, what a government too big for its britches was capable of when its citizens have no way of defending themselves...and so they including something in our founding documents, something that doesn't just rise above interpretation of moral authority, it actually defines it.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

But if you still need more reasons to demonstrate the importance of the American Second Amendment, if you feel as though people like me are too biased because I'm an American and because I own firearms, then please, look no further than this:

 

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

Read More

Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Today we're going to look at this disgrace of political process, and evaluate, line by line, this proposal sent forth by Governor Quinn. First, let it be known that this really has no chance in hell at being passed, as the bills Author and sponsor have to agree to the amendment before it can be put BACK UP to ANOTHER vote. No way in hell that will happen. This is a move by Quinn to stop passage of a bill without having to veto it so two years down the road, when he's running for re-election, he can say "Well, I never vetoed the ammunition bill! The author did, and he's a REPUBLICAN!" It's political bull shit. Vote this man out of office.


You can view the official bill here, but for ease of reference, I'll be copy/pasting the entire thing here and breaking it down to help everyone understand (if you already understand a lot of these terms, please don't be insulted and think i'm condescending to you, I'm just trying to be as informative as I can to those who may not otherwise understand the differences) The bill will all be casted in red font, my comments will not. I will provide links to pictures and cited references within the bill its self...my recommendation is reading them...Gun Control is a disease. Knowledge is the cure.

THE BILL

SB0681

Governor Amendatory Veto Message 

July 31, 2012 To the Honorable Members of the Illinois Senate97th General Assembly Pursuant to my constitutional powers as Governor of the State of Illinois, I hereby return Senate Bill 681 with specific recommendations for change. In doing so, I propose to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in our state. As Governor, it is my foremost duty to protect the citizens of Illinois, especially our children, from deadly violence. 

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution– the right to bear arms.

Oh? Is that a fact? Then why does your state have more gun control laws than ANY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION. Why is it that 49 other states have Concealed Carry? (that's right, Quinn, YOUR STATE is the ONLY ONE LEFT)

However, the proliferation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines undermines public safety and the right of personal security of every citizen.

But he just said he is a "Strong" supporter of the 2nd Amendment...which is it? You cannot be for our 2nd Amendment RIGHT and be for GUN CONTROL at the same time. That's like saying you're for our 1st Amendment Right as long as nobody ridicules you as Governor. The Second Amendment does not, nor has it ever, made any "Buts" when referring to the "proliferation" of *any* firearm that can be beared.

Right now, anyone with a FOID card in Illinois is permitted by law to purchase an assault weapon. Illinois also does not impose any restrictions on the purchase or possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines, which automatically feed ammunition into a firearm chamber to allow the user to fire repeatedly without reloading.

Actually, this is false. Currently, in Illinois, there is no such thing, in legal terms, as an "assault weapon". Since we are writing law here, we cannot, by law, deal in pejoratives unless those words considered as such are given a legal definition...not to mention criminals don't need a FOID card to purchase a firearm.  They're criminals.


This is more flaky Illinois "law" that is as poorly written with as many loopholes as the FOID law. We, the people, have let ourselves down by allowing people like this to be voted into office.

Banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines will make Illinois a safer place to live.

That's funny, not one of those Murders that are responsible for the crime spike in Chicago are done with these so called "Assault Rifles" ... so I challenge Quinn to offer one shred of evidence - ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE - to prove this statement to be anything other than his own uneducated opinion.

Other states including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York all have such bans in place.

So wait, wait, wait...Quinn's idea of "Protecting children" is to mimic similar laws of other states like California & New York by banning "Assault Weapons"? But we don't mimic them when they decide to pass Concealed Carry? So really, this isn't about "Protecting Children" it's about cherry picking. It's about pointing to the only 5 States in the Union who ban certain kinds of "Assault Weapons" ...none of which to the extent Governor Quinn is proposing. Well, lets figure up a few things real fast.

• California Ranks #1 in the nation for homicide rates. Of their Homicides, 72.2% are committed with a firearm...yet...they have a similar weapons ban...
• New York Ranks #3 in the nation for homicide rates. Of their Homicides, 57.8% are committed with a firearm...yet...they have a similar weapons ban...
• Added to that, Illinois Ranks #5 in the nation for homicide rates, even though they don't allow Concealed Carry or Class III firearms, and is one of only two states in the Union that requires a FOID card for legal possession of ANY firearm.
• Of all homicides in Illinois, 75.2%...yes, you read that correctly, SEVENTY FIVE point TWO percent are committed with a firearm.

Illinois, hands down, has the strictest Gun Control in the country...yet it ranks #5 in overall Homicide, with a 75.2% rate of those homicides being committed with a firearm...so if "Gun Control" works...why isn't it working? The answer is simple: Disarming law abiding citizens does nothing to disarm criminals. Moving on...

The ban would not pertain to law enforcement officials or members of the military. There is no place in the State of Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range.

Ummm...seriously, are you even proof reading this before submit it, Quinn? You just said "There is no place for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range" but Law Enforcement and Military can own them (For personal use) ? There either is a place or isn't. Make up your mind, Quinn.

My action today gives the members of the General Assembly an immediate opportunity to protect the people of Illinois by banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

That's funny, because according to the United States Department of Justice and the FBI, a reinstatement on an "assault weapons" ban:

"Effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are very rarely used in gun crimes" [Source]

So if they are very rarely used in crime, and Illinois bans all Class 3 firearms, does not allow Concealed Carry, and prohibits the lawful ownership of ANY firearm without a FOID card (Which cannot be obtained with a history of Mental Illness or a Criminal Record) ... then how does Quinn propose his "Assault Weapons" ban will protect the citizens of Illinois? We already have tons of gun laws, but rank #5 in Homicides and have a 75.2% rate of Homicides with a firearm...I mean, am I the crazy one here, or does this proposal seem like a solution seeking a problem?

Therefore, pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 681, entitled “AN ACT concerning regulation.”, with the following specific recommendations for change:
By replacing everything after the enacting clause with the following:
“Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding Sections 24-1.9 and 24-1.10 as follows:
(720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 new)
Sec. 24-1.9. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale and purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.
(a) Definitions. In this Section:

Here comes the good part.  You might want to get a drink and a snack before continuing.  We're about to take a ride.

(1) “Semi-automatic assault weapon” means:
A. Any of the firearms or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as:
i. Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
ii. Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
iii. Beretta AR-70 (SC-70);
iv. Colt AR-15;
v. Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
vi. SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
vii. Steyr AUG;
viii. INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; and
ix. Any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

Aaaaaand here it starts.  *ANY* firearm in *ANY caliber* is banned by this proposal.  And it is here we begin to learn that by these flaky definitions, Governor Quinn will be allowed, by ILLINOIS LAW, to remove every firearm in this state, regardless of what it is, INCLUDING Air Rifles (Pellet Guns, BB guns)  I am not shitting you, and I'm going to prove it.


The State of Illinois FOID law defines a firearm as:

"Firearm" means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas; excluding however:

(1) any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun or B-B gun which either expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter and which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second or breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors;

(2) any device used exclusively for signalling or safety and required or recommended by the United States Coast Guard or the Interstate Commerce Commission;
(3) any device used exclusively for the firing of stud cartridges, explosive rivets or similar industrial ammunition; and

(4) an antique firearm (other than a machine-gun) which, although designed as a weapon, the Department of State Police finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. [Source]

So possession of THIS Air Rifle is a felony.

And THIS Air Rifle will land you in prison too

So will THIS one

And THIS one

Oh, and THIS Air Gun is also banned...I could literally do this all night, but I wont, you can look for more if you're interested, there are literally thousands to choose from. 

AND OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF ANY OF THESE AIR RIFLES WILL RESULT IN A CLASS 3 FELONY AS THE VERY FIRST OFFENSE

(Class 3 Felony is 2 to 5 years in PRISON with a fine up to $25,000) ... for an AIR RIFLE 

B. A semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; or

iv. A fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

C. A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any of the following:

i. A folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;

ii. A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

iii. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside the pistol grip;

iv. A fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

v. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or

vi. A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;

D. A semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or

iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine.

“Semi-automatic assault weapon” does not include:

A. Any firearm that:

i. Is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

ii. Is an “unserviceable firearm” or has been made permanently inoperable; or

iii. Is an antique firearm;

B. Any air rifle as defined in Section 1 of the Air Rifle Act.

Here's where things require some critical thinking, because at first glance, it looks like "HEY!  They allow Air Rifles, Tactiler, you freaking LIAR!"  But!  Look again.  This "Air Rifle Act" Prohibits any "Air Gun" that "impels a breakable paint ball containing washable marking colors or, a pellet constructed of hard plastic, steel, lead or other hard materials with a force that reasonably is expected to cause bodily harm"

Well, what the hell is "reasonably expected"?  They define it earlier as anything above 700 fps...but as you seen earlier, there are TONS of BB Guns & Pellet Guns that far exceed that.  700 fps is NOT very fast.

  [Section Truncated for relevance. Please Refer to Link above for full passages]  

(e) Sentence.

(1) A person who knowingly manufactures, delivers, sells, purchases, or possesses or causes to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon in violation of this Section commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent violation or for the possession or delivery of 2 or more of these weapons at the same time.

  [Section Truncated for relevance. Please Refer to Link above for full passages] 

With these changes, Senate Bill 681 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.

Sincerely,

PAT QUINN

Governor

Read More