Let’s see if i understand the logic everyone is talking about.
The city council, fearing what appear to be assault rifles, pass an ordinance that requires members of their community to get rid of or turn in their assault weapons. By law, the deliberations on such ordinance is in the public domain meaning you could have gone to the publicly held meetings and gave your opinion but most did not. Now you’re complaining your city council, whom you elected to represent the city of Deerfield, has somehow developed an ordinance that doesn’t serve the greater good.

Playing devil’s advocate here, if you didn’t go to the public meetings, contact your councilman with your opinions or get involved in any opposition to this ordinance, what are you complaining about now?

Until the law/ordinance is proven unconstitutional or voted down, it is the law of Deerfield. To not turn in/sell to a buddy you're now declared illegal gun makes you a Lone Ranger, which is just what the law hopes to stop by getting rid of the guns in the first place. America doesn’t need lone rangers anymore. Those days are gone. And personally, I don’t think America needs civilians to have high capacity magazines, bump stocks, silencers, cop-killer ammunition or armor piercing bullets in this day in age. I’ve never seen a duck, deer, squirrel, rabbit, coyote, pheasant or any other game animal harvest that needed any of these things. Nor do I see the need for this level of fire power to keep intruders out of my house. I’m not against gun ownership at all. I have a couple pistols I use for trapping. What I’ve never understood is the mindset that throws up the second amendment and doesn’t recognize that this country is protected by an army, navy, Air Force, marines, hundreds of thousands of police officers, FBI, NSA, CIA, state and local equivalents of the Justice departments and so on. More assault (type) rifles in untrained hands doesn’t make ME feel any safer.

Let’s see if i understand the logic everyone is talking about.
The city council, fearing what appear to be assault rifles, pass an ordinance that requires members of their community to get rid of or turn in their assault weapons. By law, the deliberations on such ordinance is in the public domain meaning you could have gone to the publicly held meetings and gave your opinion but most did not. Now you’re complaining your city council, whom you elected to represent the city of Deerfield, has somehow developed an ordinance that doesn’t serve the greater good.

Playing devil’s advocate here, if you didn’t go to the public meetings, contact your councilman with your opinions or get involved in any opposition to this ordinance, what are you complaining about now?

Until the law/ordinance is proven unconstitutional or voted down, it is the law of Deerfield. To not turn in/sell to a buddy you're now declared illegal gun makes you a Lone Ranger, which is just what the law hopes to stop by getting rid of the guns in the first place. America doesn’t need lone rangers anymore. Those days are gone. And personally, I don’t think America needs civilians to have high capacity magazines, bump stocks, silencers, cop-killer ammunition or armor piercing bullets in this day in age. I’ve never seen a duck, deer, squirrel, rabbit, coyote, pheasant or any other game animal harvest that needed any of these things. Nor do I see the need for this level of fire power to keep intruders out of my house. I’m not against gun ownership at all. I have a couple pistols I use for trapping. What I’ve never understood is the mindset that throws up the second amendment and doesn’t recognize that this country is protected by an army, navy, Air Force, marines, hundreds of thousands of police officers, FBI, NSA, CIA, state and local equivalents of the Justice departments and so on. More assault (type) rifles in untrained hands doesn’t make ME feel any safer.

From what I’ve read and heard about this ordinance, it’s not about pistols, shot guns or 30-06 deer rifles. It’s about assault type rifles. Your right to defend your castle is not being infringed upon, its to limit what guns you use to defend it.

Danny, I don’t recall the Deerfield ordinance had anything to do with voting rights. The second amendment isn’t being infringed upon either. You can still own firearms in Springfield but assault (type) weapons are no longer acceptable.

From what I’ve read and heard about this ordinance, it’s not about pistols, shot guns or 30-06 deer rifles. It’s about assault type rifles. Your right to defend your castle is not being infringed upon, its to limit what guns you use to defend it.

Danny, I don’t recall the Deerfield ordinance had anything to do with voting rights. The second amendment isn’t being infringed upon either. You can still own firearms in Springfield but assault (type) weapons are no longer acceptable.