60 days to turn in your guns!

I would personally call them . And tell them to come get my assualt rifle. I will be the guy in tatical gear standing by the mailbox!

Want it over with quick, huh. lol

Maybe someone should start a Black Guns Matter protest......

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 your 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.

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.

Sure glad I didn't have Teachers like you.

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.

Sure glad I didn't have Teachers like you.

Time to change that Getting There. I've had a belly full of people that think the world be safer if they just pass a few more laws. I am not going to be polite anymore to those who want to take my liberty.

Flynn is correct, full autos should be able to be purchased over the counter as well as suppressors and anything else I want. Once legal for everyone the price will take care of itself. If these illegal laws keep being enacted the people doing so might find themselves on the wrong end of the very weapon they are trying to ban.

There are some great teachers out there but far and I mean far more of them are anti.

Teachers like this is what is poisoning our future generations.

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.

In 59 days we start hanging public officials in Deerfield. That will be the new story now !!



That Teacher fella sucks eggs !!!

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.

Did I mention there's a fifty foot wide creek going that way .

There are some great teachers out there but far and I mean far more of them are anti.

Teachers like this is what is poisoning our future generations.

Re-read teachers posts and you will understand how millions of Jewish people walked into gas chambers, oven and camps without a fight...

_________________________

Why do you people say that Indians should only be allowed to exercise their treaty rights with tools that were only available when the treatys were written,but it is OK for you to have modern tools to exercise your legal right to bear arms,and not just those available when your legal document was written?
Hypocrits.

Why do you people say that Indians should only be allowed to exercise their treaty rights with tools that were only available when the treatys were written,but it is OK for you to have modern tools to exercise your legal right to bear arms,and not just those available when your legal document was written?
Hypocrits.

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.

How many AR rifles are owned in this country ? Well it will blow your mind more than our military. But these are most owned by law abiding citizens who have never hurt anyone they committed no criminal crimes but you would take there fire arms from them. We have the right to bear arms. This could very well start a civil war.
I will never turn my guns over.
This really blows my mind that this could happen.

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.

Why do you people say that Indians should only be allowed to exercise their treaty rights with tools that were only available when the treatys were written,but it is OK for you to have modern tools to exercise your legal right to bear arms,and not just those available when your legal document was written?
Hypocrits.

Oh good, the Indian messiah has decided to weigh in.

The obvious divide within America grows daily and it will keep growing.

What will happen?

The obvious divide within America grows daily and it will keep growing.

What will happen?

Bernie will be elected president and we'll all hold hands while singing "Kumbaya" and turning in our firearms.

The obvious divide within America grows daily and it will keep growing.

What will happen?

The time has come for blood of traitors to be spilled !!! Send a cold hard message to them, and the rest of the world, that our rights are not up for debate, or compromise. Those continually seeking ways to infringe upon our rights will be labeled as traitors, and handled accordingly.


RTT

I expect bloodshed in IL at anytime now. They'll lead the way .

Why do you people say that Indians should only be allowed to exercise their treaty rights with tools that were only available when the treatys were written,but it is OK for you to have modern tools to exercise your legal right to bear arms,and not just those available when your legal document was written?
Hypocrits.

Sarcasm...sorry

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.

We didn't give the British any rites or privileges when they lost. Get sick of the poor me while their hand is out for more of the demon whitemnans money.

Just wondering who will truly stick to there guns if it passes. That would be millions of guns to turn over.

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....

Bingo!! Some of the people trying to control others with jurisdiction they do not, and should not, have!!

My choice of weapon is not 'theirs' to make!

This is interesting:

Why do you people say that Indians should only be allowed to exercise their treaty rights with tools that were only available when the treatys were written,but it is OK for you to have modern tools to exercise your legal right to bear arms,and not just those available when your legal document was written?
Hypocrits.

Boco,

Put The Bottle Down, and Step Away From The Crack Pipe.


w

Whatever they plan on doing I hope it's before I'm too old to do anything about it. I don't want to leave crap clean up to my kids. lol

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.

I feel the same way. Let it hit the fan while I can lead my family through it.

As bad as our government is its going to be the only way I am afraid

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/de...-htmlstory.html

Here is the Deerfield Ordinance, it appears to me any weapon that has a detachable magazine is up for grabs!

I’ve been off Tman for a couple days. Had some teaching to do! I’m back to Tman to defend myself and remind those on here that your right to lynch me is guaranteed by our government. But by the same token, I have the same rights to express my opinions to the contrary.

Again, I haven’t read the Illinois ordinance language. But, I suspect neither have most of you. With that being said, I’ll bet “assault” rifles and similar guns are defined in that ordinance. The fact remains that this community, for the safety of the community, decided certain firearms were no longer wanted in their community. Just because you can buy something doesn’t mean the majority of your neighbors have to like it. Barking dogs, loud mufflers, driving while drunk and too many deaths because seatbelts weren’t being worn are the 4 that come to mind.

I Live in town. I trust my police department has my safety in mind and I don’t need an automatic style firearm to protect myself.
I believe neither I or anyone in my community needs a gun with more than 5 shots to the clip or magazine. These are my beliefs. I also believe in the rule of law whether you do or not. If my community passes a law that serves the greater good I don’t have to like it. But, the attitude of “they’ll get my gun when they peel my cold dead hand off it” doesn’t do anyone any good.
The best way to get something changed is to give city managers, council people and county board members something reasonable to do about your complaint. It’s amazing what can be done with positive examples that show positive thinking rather than constant complaining.

I’ve been off Tman for a couple days. Had some teaching to do! I’m back to Tman to defend myself and remind those on here that your right to lynch me is guaranteed by our government. But by the same token, I have the same rights to express my opinions to the contrary.

Again, I haven’t read the Illinois ordinance language. But, I suspect neither have most of you. With that being said, I’ll bet “assault” rifles and similar guns are defined in that ordinance. The fact remains that this community, for the safety of the community, decided certain firearms were no longer wanted in their community. Just because you can buy something doesn’t mean the majority of your neighbors have to like it. Barking dogs, loud mufflers, driving while drunk and too many deaths because seatbelts weren’t being worn are the 4 that come to mind.

I Live in town. I trust my police department has my safety in mind and I don’t need an automatic style firearm to protect myself.
I believe neither I or anyone in my community needs a gun with more than 5 shots to the clip or magazine. These are my beliefs. I also believe in the rule of law whether you do or not. If my community passes a law that serves the greater good I don’t have to like it. But, the attitude of “they’ll get my gun when they peel my cold dead hand off it” doesn’t do anyone any good.
The best way to get something changed is to give city managers, council people and county board members something reasonable to do about your complaint. It’s amazing what can be done with positive examples that show positive thinking rather than constant complaining.

J Staton, None!
Again, the constitution grants us rights, not to be infringed upon. It does not limit us on the weapons needed to fight against the tyrannical government as King George, or Obama, was directing us. SO many do not see the real threat to this country is the "Dumocrats" and their hope of a U.N run global government. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights,is the biggest hindrance int he world to that goal. And I'm a teacher.

"I Live in town. I trust my police department has my safety in mind and I don’t need an automatic style firearm to protect myself."

By Supreme Court ruling law officers are NOT required to protect anyone.
Let's not forget that was ruled on more than once.

I'm not sure if teacher is really a "teacher".

I'm not sure if teacher is really a "teacher".