• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Enemies of the 2nd amendment, enemies to freedom.

IOWA

IOWA

Mr. Logic Pants
Not that I agree with all of the Occupy movements, but if there is one thing they have done well is brought the spotlight on the criminal acts of the banking industry.

I think it's time to start being heard that we need our second amendment rights. The proper way to do this is to let our representatives know we're unhappy with them. It's time to be loud, be heard, and maybe even get some media attention. I am 100% serious about this, and I'll even donate some time to make a website devoted to these things. Our second amendment rights to protect ourselves shouldn't be limited by Reps taking payoffs ("contributions") from BS lobbying groups. Before I get anything started, I'm posting here and a few other sites I frequent to see who's all interested.

It's time to be heard.

The first representative on the list is Representative Edward J. Acevedo (D). He has put forth more garbage legislation that's anti-gun than I can even stomach to look at. To make things worse he's an ex-LEO and has seen the evil sides of the world, yet wants to deny us the ability to protect ourselves.

Here are some of his bills he has introduced, and are moving through congress now.

HB1294

HB1855

HB531

HB1294

HB1599

His official Government page.

Representative Edward J. Acevedo (D)
2nd District
Assistant Majority Leader

%7B251C7010-7378-4919-AF20-6C216BC1AAC7%7D.jpg


Springfield Office:
109 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-2855
(217) 557-5148 FAX
District Office:
1836 W. 35th St.
Chicago, IL 60609
(773) 843-1500
(773) 843-9500 FAX
Cook County
Years served: 1997 - Present

Let's get this clown out of office, or better, convince him that he's wrong.
 
Good luck man. You're fighting the good fight but it's discouraging when it seems nobody around you cares about what was sacrificed to gain these rights that are being stripped a pen stroke at a time.
 
I don't see the second amendment as being in any danger. You can introduce all the legislation you want, it doesn't mean it will pass. Politicians only care about getting re elected, and they won't go out on a limb to pass any gun control measures because there's nothing in it for them. There's no anti gun lobby with billions of dollars to contribute like the NRA has. There have not been any real gun control laws passed since the assault weapons ban, and that was allowed to expire. Besides, do you really think your guns protect you from the government anymore? Are these militia dorks playing in the woods with their camo and M16 rifles really going to fight against tanks, jets, Blackhawk helicopters and nukes? Relax, the government doesn't really care about your guns, they are not worried about them. Who profits when people are scared their guns are going to be taken away? The gun lobby and the NRA. Don't fall for their fear mongering.
 
Gmash said:
I don't see the second amendment as being in any danger. You can introduce all the legislation you want, it doesn't mean it will pass. Politicians only care about getting re elected, and they won't go out on a limb to pass any gun control measures because there's nothing in it for them. There's no anti gun lobby with billions of dollars to contribute like the NRA has. There have not been any real gun control laws passed since the assault weapons ban, and that was allowed to expire. Besides, do you really think your guns protect you from the government anymore? Are these militia dorks playing in the woods with their camo and M16 rifles really going to fight against tanks, jets, Blackhawk helicopters and nukes? Relax, the government doesn't really care about your guns, they are not worried about them. Who profits when people are scared their guns are going to be taken away? The gun lobby and the NRA. Don't fall for their fear mongering.
Click to expand...

Fall for their fear mongering? Try living in Illinois.
 
Gmash said:
Besides, do you really think your guns protect you from the government anymore?
Click to expand...

Yep, I sure do. Well me, my guns and the other 80 million or so citizens with firearms. I seriously doubt anyone in the US military would take up arms against the US citizens but if they did the total number of active duty US military across the branches is just a little under 1.3 million. If you think we have never been invaded because of our military you need to read up on history a little more. There's still a healthy fear of our people by the government and as long as that fear exists we will remain free. They're slowly chipping away though because as soon as that fear is gone the government can literally do whatever it wants. If you think the government is out of control now take away our firearms and watch what happens. You don't personally have to own firearms but if you cherish your freedom you should support the 2nd amendment because it's the only thing preserving your freedom.
 
I am not a gun owner for the simple reason that I would actually use it. That would put me in a place I choose not to be. So either I would have to die or get caught and live where I don't want to. I not only support the Second Amendment of the UNITED STATES I support them all. We have become fatted cows who are to busy eating the bs instead of protecting our rights.

Japanese Invade Pearl Harbor - Later the Japanese General was asked Why did you not proceed to Attack the Mainland and he stated it was terrified of the Largest army in the world (Not the Military) Hunters. Hunters have more Firearms than the Government. Yes the Government Has nukes but really will they release them on their own soil? NO why because they don't have to. They just keep taking things from us. We however are to busy worrying about keeping our toys? The men and women who have died to create and protect this country would be so disappointed in the people that they fought and gave their lives for. Instead of standing up for our rights we have allowed the Government to take them away. We have gotten so ridiculous that we even voted in a President with no credentials and a questionable citizenship. We need to wake up because if we don't the consequences will be devastating. I Love this Country won't you love it too? IOWA Count me in.
 
Plus, the only thing gun regulations do is allow criminals to know their odds of being killed by someone in self defense is that much lower. It emboldens them, which is why gun violence is actually higher (and more lopsided in favor of the criminal) in gun control districts. It is why school shootings have so many victims so often. Criminals are already breaking the law, they don't care one bit if a gun violation is tacked onto their already long rap sheet. But the law abiding citizens will do just that, and when the criminal shows up, they can't do anything to protect themselves.
 
Well I don't own any guns and don't have any plans to. If someone wanted to properly amend the constitution to place more limits on or abolish the 2nd amendment I'll at least listen to their argument. But interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean that citizens don't have the right bear arms when it clearly states that we do... To me that is not just disingenuous but also a corrosive slippery slope. If we let the government disregard the 2nd amendment what will that mean for the rest of the bill of rights that I hold more dear if the government decides they are also a nuisance, and don't mean what they say?
 
cjr72 said:
Well I don't own any guns and don't have any plans to. If someone wanted to properly amend the constitution to place more limits on or abolish the 2nd amendment I'll at least listen to their argument. But interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean that citizens don't have the right bear arms when it clearly states that we do... To me that is not just disingenuous but also a corrosive slippery slope. If we let the government disregard the 2nd amendment what will that mean for the rest of the bill of rights that I hold more dear if the government decides they are also a nuisance, and don't mean what they say?
Click to expand...

Make no mistake. If there is no 2nd amendment, there is no bill of rights. There will be noone left to defend it.

More limits is the exact opposite of what we need.
 
9to5cynic said:
I agree with this.

Without guns we'd be sitting in the United Colonies of Great Britain.
Click to expand...

Have a look Britain now.... they successfully banned guns.

..I'd hardly call it a success though..

Serious violent crime 'rising' - Telegraph

All types of Crime, especially Violent crimes like Rape, Burglary, Homicide, have all gone up since the gun ban got put into place. Even 'Gun Crimes' have gone up which should send a clear message....
 
IOWA said:
Have a look Britain now.... they successfully banned guns.

..I'd hardly call it a success though..

Serious violent crime 'rising' - Telegraph

All types of Crime, especially Violent crimes like Rape, Burglary, Homicide, have all gone up since the gun ban got put into place. Even 'Gun Crimes' have gone up which should send a clear message....
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is because of government over-reactions to a couple of random events. Assault rifles were banned after a nutjob went mad in Hungerford in the early 1990s then handguns got banned after another nutjob gunned down a bunch of children in a school in Dunblane.

They could have banned the carrying of weapons etc and stipulated that guns be kept safe in gun clubs, but no, they banned ownership completely.

Now our Olympic shooting team has to train in another country. Crazy.
 
IOWA said:
All types of Crime, especially Violent crimes like Rape, Burglary, Homicide, have all gone up since the gun ban got put into place. Even 'Gun Crimes' have gone up which should send a clear message....
Click to expand...
I often hear this mentioned by gun enthusiasts from the States but it's highly misleading because even before stricter legislation came into place in the 80s and 90s, gun ownership in the UK was extremely low.

A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK... is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-37

Compare that to the the figure stated by OstrichSak of 80 million or so American gun owners - That's 25% of the population with a large proportion of those owning handguns.

Practically speaking, gun ownership has always been so rare in the UK even prior to the bans that the argument that criminals were once deterred by the potential for a 'target' to have a gun is a non sequitur.

That's not to say violent crime isn't rising in the UK. It's probably true (in my experience) but it's a phenomenon independent of gun legislation as there simply haven't ever been enough guns among the populous for that to be a factor.

Btw, I'm not saying that mass legal gun ownership can't deter violent crime. It can but that's a complicated issue imo with a lot of factors to take into account.
 
Sak01 said:
I often hear this mentioned by gun enthusiasts from the States but it's highly misleading because even before stricter legislation came into place in the 80s and 90s, gun ownership in the UK was extremely low.

Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare that to the the figure stated by OstrichSak of 80 million or so American gun owners - That's 25% of the population with a large proportion of those owning handguns.

Practically speaking, gun ownership has always been so rare in the UK even prior to the bans that the argument that criminals were once deterred by the potential for a 'target' to have a gun is a non sequitur.

That's not to say violent crime isn't rising in the UK. It's probably true (in my experience) but it's a phenomenon independent of gun legislation as there simply haven't ever been enough guns among the populous for that to be a factor.

Btw, I'm not saying that mass legal gun ownership can't deter violent crime. It can but that's a complicated issue imo with a lot of factors to take into account.
Click to expand...

Plus, every country is different. But any country that makes it a crime to defend yourself... I'd have to question their leader's sanity.
 
IOWA said:
If you use it, you go to jail. [in England]
Click to expand...

That was the case but then they decided you were allowed one strike to defend yourself. That led to a newspaper headline "You can kill burglars but what ever you do - don't hit them twice!" :rolleyes:
 
TheBrit said:
That was the case but then they decided you were allowed one strike to defend yourself. That led to a newspaper headline "You can kill burglars but what ever you do - don't hit them twice!" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

One strike? Lol what kind of... I don't get it. :confused::confused:

"Sir, no, you already hit me once, and I hit you once. This battle is over please leave!"

...not likely.
 
IOWA said:
One strike? Lol what kind of... I don't get it. :confused::confused:

"Sir, no, you already hit me once, and I hit you once. This battle is over please leave!"

...not likely.
Click to expand...

Hence the sarcastic headline.

The law in the UK actually states that "reasonable force" can be used but that has usually had to be put in front of a jury to decide. The newer guidelines mean that prosecutors can decide that proceeding with a case "is not in the public interest" if it is a clear case of self defence. Here's an example.
 
TheBrit said:
Hence the sarcastic headline.

The law in the UK actually states that "reasonable force" can be used but that has usually had to be put in front of a jury to decide. The newer guidelines mean that prosecutors can decide that proceeding with a case "is not in the public interest" if it is a clear case of self defence. Here's an example.
Click to expand...

I still don't get the way you're government thinks. Or perhaps I do. It's a power grab IMO. Getting people ready by forcing them to be non-confrontational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom