" What a waste of time. If the state or the federal government were to pass any firearms legislation it would supersede anything the county did. This was a typical feel good action, and while it may make the guns owners feel good, in reality, it means nothing. It makes about as much sense as having the local city council pass a similar proclamation. It did prove one thing though, and that is, it showed that all politicians are scared to death to be seen as anti-gun. So you folks can relax, I think your guns are safe for now. There are certainly those out there who would like to outlaw guns, but as you can see from the 12 to 0 vote, the politicians aren't listening to them. Look for ads showing all of the politicians in hunting attire in the upcoming presidential elections. Everyone of them will be trying to show that they are hunters, and will be wearing the requisite hunting clothing and toting a shotgun or rifle. I can't wait to see Hillary in her camouflage outfit carrying a gigantic shotgun. I'm sure someone on her staff will make sure she is carrying the correct firearm. Obviously, the not so subtle message is that your guns are safe with me as your president. Speaking of that, I'm glad that Al Sharpton has decided not to make a fool of himself, by running again, can you imagine ad showing him carrying a gun? Talk about scary. The strongest anti-gun candidate has to be Rudy, and given his stances in the past, he is going to have to flip flop or at least be very careful how he handles gun issues. As we get closer to the election, I look for him to flip flop, as many remember Bush Sr did with the abortion issue. When he though it was to his advantage to go from on side to the other on that issue. "

" Early Bird, just in case you miss this on yesterday's comments, I'll post it again if the moderators will allow. *************************************** The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It does not give us any right. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right granted to citizens by virtue of their citizenship. The Second Amendment simply affirms that right. It can be argued that the tenth amendment actually prohibits the states from regulating the right to keep and bear arms since that right is mentioned in the Constitution and "shall not be infringed". The Second Amendment affirms that we all, as citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, and yes, our country against against any and all enemies. If we find ways to use those arms as recreation, i.e. target shooting, hunting, plinking, collecting, investments, etc. then that's OK too. Read through the papers written and published by our founding Father's at the time of the revolution and Constitution. Their "aim" of the bearing of arms is pretty clear. If you, as a citizen, choose not to exercise that right, then so be it. Not all exercise their First Amendment rights either. But it is theirs to use as long as they cause no other person harm. Same with the Second, if you don't want to own, bear, carry or obtain arms, that's fine. But if I do, and I don't use them to break laws, then I have the right to own them without having to justify them to anyone!! Check out the gun laws in Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri just to name our neighbors. I think you'll find that Illinois resembles a socialist state regarding firearm laws compared to them. While you're at it, check out the rest of the 48 states that have some form of permit allowing law-abiding citizens to use firearms to protect themselves and their families. Then check out some third party, unbiased crime statistics. You'll find that the areas with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates in the country. The least restrictive state in the CONUS?? Vermont. Vermont's ranking in violent crime?? 49th lowest. Coincidence??? I think not. T "

" Earlybird: Obviously you're not paying attention to Illinois politics. Yes this is a "feelgood" measure. In response to the attempted bans on everything from semi-auto rifles, handguns, shotguns, magazines, ammunition, etc from the state legislature. Most of these measures have only failed by a vote or two. Yet you think we should feel "safe"? Try looking at the proposed legislation by all the reps and senators from Chicago. You know, the city where handguns are banned and has recently passed a bill outlawing semi-auto rifles. Rudy has already flip-flopped. That's been going on for weeks now. Old news. If you think he's the biggest anti-gunner, you obviously haven't seen the voting records of Hillary. She won't be courting the pro-gun vote, I guarantee you. "

" Perhaps you're right, RAK. Not being a gun owner or a hunter, I will admit that I don't keep up on the status of gun legislation. You're right about Illinois politics being controlled by Chicago. It has always been that way, and unfortunately that is a fact of life that we have to live with, given the state population distribution. I'll ask you this question: what proposed legislation would effect the rights of hunters? It's been my impression that gun advocates always use the slippery slope argument, when it come to any restrictive legislation concerning guns. If not that argument, it's often the constitutional argument, but I would point out that another constitutional guarantee, freedom of speech, has by necessity, some limits too. The old adage about yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind here. I have never seen any justifications given for such weapons as assault weapons, like AK 47's or Uzis for instance, other than the old slippery slope argument. For the record, I am not a anti-gun person. Guns possessed for home protection, sport shooting and hunting purposes are fine with me. I have a nephew who is into competitive shooting, and I wholeheartedly support his right to do that. I have always had a problem understanding why certain weapons, that were obviously design for the purpose of killing humans, have any place in a civilized society. Total gun bans are obviously not the answer here, but it seems that some common sense rules make should be in place. It seems to me that pro-gun folks feel that there should be absolutely no regulations regarding guns. Using that logic, we should have no speed laws or any other traffic laws. I guess I should have the right to drink all I want to and get behind the wheel of a car, right? I will agree that we are sometimes over regulated, but don't buy the idea that guns, like a lot of other things should not have any regulations. Personally, I like Billie's idea about not adding more laws, but better enforcement of the one we have now. I think there are a lot of extremists on both sides of this issue. "

" EarlyBird: You have fallen for the anti-gun groups classic "baitnswitch" that's hyped by the media. An "assault weapon" is not an Uzi or an AK-47 no matter what the papers say. "Assault weapons" are just semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull) rifles and handguns that look like the military versions. They cannot be made fully automatic (multiple shots per trigger pull)without extensive modification that is more likely to cause the firearm to explode than fire. The definition of said firearms is expanded regularly to include more and more types of firearms including those used most often in competitive target shooting ,hunting, and home defense. The recent federal bill pushed by Rep. McCarthy was so broad in its terminology it would have included every semi-automatic rifle made. Here's a good starting link on legislation: http://www.isra.org/legislation/ "

" RAK- Take the standard stock off of an ordinary rifle, put a pistol grip on it and then take a picture of yourself with it. A whole bunch of people will SWEAR you are holding an assult rifle! It "looks" MORE sinister and more like the AK47's and UZI's they see in pictures. "

" I don't think I have "fallen" for anything. That response seems typical for the average pro-gun type, such as yourself. Once again the nasty old left wing media gets the blame. I attempted to establish a dialog over this issue, and your response was to infer some sort of intelligence deficit on my part. While I don't keep up on gun legislation, I can assure you that I do have the ability to decide things for myself and am not duped by the media, as you seem to think. Did my comment about extremists on both side somehow go over your head. I suppose the only extremists that you would acknowledge would be on the anti-gun side, right? "

" Early bird: I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to explain the difference between an AK-47/Uzi and an "assault weapon" which, by your very words, you didn't know and provided references so you could read up on the issue. You resorted then to personal attacks and red herrings against me based on your assumptions. I didn't say anything about the "left wing media" but I can show you dozens of cases where the mainstream media is blatantly anti-gun and spreads misinformation and outright lies about firearms. The only thing I'm going to accuse you of is having a chip on your shoulder. "

" Does anyone know what was behind the second amendment? The left tries to tell us it relates only to a "national guard" or police force. The right talks about criminals, etc. Actually our forefathers were only afraid (and wanted to be armed against) one thing--government--big invasive government. They wanted to be assured of some way to protect themselves, not against foreign invasion, but from their own government. Other articles in the Constitution tries to protect us from Big Brother. I do find it ironic that the anti-gun people are on the left and they are also in favor of--guess what--Big Invasive Government. Personally I'm not a fan of the NRA, I think their a little psycho, but I fear those on the anti- side. "

" For my friend RAK, this chip on my shoulder is getting rather heavy, so I will concede that I am entirely wrong, ignorant and you are all knowing and I bow to your great wisdom. We should all be allowed to have any weapon we want, including tanks if we can afford the gas. Do you have any idea where I can purchase a machine gun? "