Group turns tables on Chicago gun turn-in, uses money for gun camp

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/13484760-418/group-turns-tables-on-chicago-gun-turn-in-uses-money-for-gun-camp.html

Group turns tables on Chicago gun turn-in, uses money for gun camp

BY FRANK MAIN

Staff Reporter

[email protected]
Last Modified: Jul 1, 2012 11:04AM

A Downstate pro-gun group says it turned payouts from Chicago’s firearm buyback program last weekend into a fund-raiser for a youth summer camp — a National Rifle Association shooting camp, that is.

The city collected 5,500 guns last Saturday in the annual buyback. The city gave out $100 MasterCard gift cards for each gun and $10 cards for BB guns and replicas.

Sixty of the guns and several BB guns were turned in by the Champaign-based Guns Save Life. In return, the group received $6,240 in gift cards, said John Boch, president of the group...

Most of the money will go toward buying ammunition for an NRA youth camp in Bloomington. The rest will pay for four bolt-action rifles that will be given away to campers.

My word, TPTB in Chicago just can't seem to stop giving money to the NRA. The comments are rather amusing, as a few people are rather incensed that GSL took the City of Chicago at
its word- I guess "those people" weren't supposed to take part...

[Hoyt]

1. Whatayabet "guns saves lives" supports defeat of Obama and other right wing causes.

They'll probably have role models like NRA board members Ted Nugent, Grover Norquist, John Bolton, Ollie North, and worse, address the kids.

[bongbong]

5. Most likely

We know the tactics of the anti-American NRA & other right-wing organizations.

Amazing how the right wing has a foot-hold into DU. I guess money buys "respect".

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Hoyt *supports* giving the NRA money, whereas they haven't gotten a dime from me in years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246417#post19

19. A Million dollars paid to you buddies a month, must be considered better than allowing guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. That's odd, you were happy to give them millions of $ just the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246417#post19

19. A Million dollars paid to you buddies a month, must be considered better than allowing guns.

I suppose you dislike GSL because they made the Chicago city government look like the fools and poltroons they are...

[Hoyt]

11. Iconoclast, the best they got is reimbursed for money they spent. So they ended up with zero

Last edited Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

additional funds. Besides, they'll just go to the gun manufacturers and right wingers and ask for more money as they try to defeat Obama and promote right wing causes unrelated to guns.

I support fighting the greedy right wing bastards at every turn. Apparently Chicago does as well, and finds the fight worthwhile. Who the heck wants a bunch of right wingers running around in town with guns to "defend" (supposedly) themselves against what you guys refer to as thugs and gang bangers.

[permatex]

13. But Chicago keeps losing

and the good citizens of Chicago have to pay for the foolishness of Rahm and Co.. Matter of fact, I saw a pic of that check that Rahm had to pay for another loss in court to a gun rights org., don't you think that that money could have been put to better use, say like, education, police dept., fire dept, gang intervention and such?

[Hoyt]

14. I saw check too. It's a whole lot less than the cost of a few extra shootings a week or so.

I know the check is only partial payment.

Cost of shootings, law enforcement, accidents, intimidation, spousal abuse, etc., is worth the fight against manufacturers, gun culture, and other right wing causes supported by the NRA.

[permatex]

15. But Chicago keeps on losing

When does Rahm say enough is enough and lets get on with trying to fix the educational system, address poverty, properly fund the police and fire services. The writing is on the wall there will be a conceal carry law in place in IL. pretty soon. Chicago needs to quit wasting the taxpayers money and get on the winning side of the gun rights issue.

[Hoyt]

19. Chicago keeps winning when they throw up roadblocks to more guns. It will cost more to open doors

to more guns, more yahoos carrying, etc.

[permatex]

20. Your completely incorrect

Chicago has lost every court battle since Heller v Chicago. All they are doing is giving away money that could be used for better purposes, and Chicago will soon have no say over it as soon as concealed carry passes the IL. legislature and override the Gov's threatened veto.
What roadblocks are you talking about? The roadblocks preventing gangbangers, criminals and thugs from acquiring guns? Or the roadblocks preventing honest citizens from being able to defend themselves from said gangbanger, criminals and thugs?

The checks that Rahm has handed out and will be handing more out to the gun rights orgs. are far better spent on things like improving Chicago's education system, more police and fire services, tackling the poverty crises in Chicago's inner city.

Sooner or later, after Chicago has been kicked in the balls enough times, Rahm will say enough is enough.

[Hoyt]

24. What you don't get is the city will have to pay for more gun crimes, more shootings, etc.

The longer they stall the people who think more guns on the streets and in homes, the better.

A million or so a year to fight right wing law suits is money well spent and, IMO, saves the city money in the aggregate and saves lives.

[permatex]

27. How do you figure

that allowing honest upstanding citizens to own and carry guns is going to cost the city more money? Your not making any sense at all. Whats costing the city of Chicago is not funding the police and fire services adequately, not fixing the inner city problems, instead, Chicago and Rahm would rather fight a losing battle.

So you don't care that the money spent fighting these lawsuits is better spent on social services? You would just rather piss the money away?

And whats wrong with having a weapon in your home for self defense?

Pretty soon Rahm and Co. are going to have no say in this. Cook County doesn't have the clout it used to have and concealed carry is going to pass.

[Hoyt]

34. Because some of those supposed "law abiding citizens" will pull a Zimmerman or worse.

Plus, more guns will flow into the city and be available for criminals; kids who will imulate their yahoo gun carrying dads, Columbine wannabes, accidents waiting to happen, and a general debasing of society.

Don't really have a problem with "a weapon" or two for HOME defense.

I do have a problem with people who have a bunch of "tactical, assault" type weapons. And, no, I will not waste my time answering the old right wing talking point, "define assault weapon?" They know what it is because they drool over them and need them to feel whole.

I also have a problem with right wing gun organizations from the big NRA to smaller ones who promote more guns, etc., and are just fronts for right wing ideology on a host of issues that have nothing to do with guns.

[rl6214]

51. WTF does "imulate" mean?

[rl6214]

50. It's not hoyts money, make him take it out of his pocket and I'll bet he changes his tune

He's more than happy to piss away the city and people of chicago's money.

[PavePusher]

31. Please support your claim with evidence.

Please cite to where this has occured elsewhere.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. He can't. Apparently he believes Chicagoans are ready to turn the place into 1990's Mogadishu...

...if the laws get changed.

[permatex]

21. FYI

I'm going today to start the process for my concealed carry license, wish me good luck although I will have no problem as I am a honest, upstanding citizen who lives in a shall issue state.

[Hoyt]

25. I would not brag about having to stoop to carrying a gun in public to enjoy life.

[permatex]

28. No bragging here

just stating a fact. I will enjoy having the option to defend myself if needed.

We are just going to agree to disagree on this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. "Cost of shootings, law enforcement,...etc., is worth the fight against manufacturers, gun culture"

Wow.

The cost (human and financial) of those failed laws is worth it to you, as long as it results in 'sticking it to the right wingers'?

Well, not exactly "to" you as it doesn't cost *you* a dime, does it?

[Hoyt]

26. Do you live in Chicago? If not, what do you really gain by putting more guns on the street?

I know the thought of yahoos walking around with guns excites you guys -- but other than that, what do you really get by enabling more guns in more places?

[permatex]

30. What do you get by disarming

honest people? Victims. You leave honest people defenseless against those that would do us harm.

[Hoyt]

35. Well too bad you didn't disarm Zimmerman, Loughner, Stawicki, the fucker who shot someone in

driving dispute, the guy who played cowboy and hit innocent store clerk in the head, right wingers who use guns to intimidate, and a bunch more.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. No law stopped *you* from becoming a criminal- but you claim laws will stop others?

Suuure they will...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245202#post43

43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[Hoyt]

46. Another out of context quote from those who can't see beyond their front sight.

By the way, don't you think it is a little weird when you guys keep a file of people's posts -- whether they are serious or jesting with those lacking comprehension skills?

[Clames]

52. Little weird?

You buddies ellisonz and Starboard are equally as industrious in pulling up posts of other's made here. Maybe you should do a better job of thinking before you post if you don't like your own words being used against you. Those lacking comprehension skills? When are you going to start developing them?

[bongbong]

61. It is weird

I can imagine the gun-religionists sitting it their personal "Fortress Of Solitude", walls lined with guns. They have lists of posters they hate and all their posts. They cross reference them so they can keep a handy list of "GOTCHA!" rebuttals since they have no logical argument to use.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. It's *such* a bummer when inconvenient posts and quotes can't be put down the Memory Hole.

Posts like these, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002475470

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:18 PM

Logical (4,975 posts)
Zimmerman, you POS, you cannot harass, question and try to detain someone, who was not...
committing any crime,...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002475470#post21

Hoyt (7,389 posts)
21. Exactly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=471849#471995

Hoyt Sun Oct-23-11 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
32. Excellent example of why police need to be check out anyone suspected of carrying a gun.

I know those who carry in public think the police are just supposed to wink at those who might have a weapon. But, this shows why police need to stop and check out anyone toting in public.

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive.

Take heart, bongbong- for $60 you can not only help DU, but also turn the tables on me as your donation will unlock the advanced search function...

[bongbong]

66. Wow

You gun-relgionists sure spend a lot of time defending your Precious.

Amazing you do it for free .... maybe .... maybe not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. I see you've discovered "The Protocols of The Elders of The NRA"...

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. How much does it pay, and where might one sign up?

[permatex]

90. Holy shit

I just read this whole thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=471849#471995
I can't believe he actually said that crap.
WTF, is he an idiot?
If he EVER tried that with me, he would end up

1. Getting shot.
2. Getting the shit kicked out of him, or
3. Ending up in jail and getting sued into oblivion.

I much, much prefer option #3.
I'm just speehless at his stupidity. I hope to hell he doesn't still believe this.

[shadowrider]

83. Do you live in Chicago? If not, why does it matter to you citizens there

have the right to defend themselves?

[PavePusher]

29. Really? You think that lawful carry will increase crime?

Surely you can back that up with historical fact and stats, right?

Or is this more of your personal omniscience?

[Hoyt]

36. Problem is Pave, people like Zimmerman, Stawicki, Loughner, etc., were all "lawful carriers."

Do you think it reduces crime? You darn sure don't have any stats for that, just your need to rationalize carrying guns in public.

[PavePusher]

38. Your magnificence fails again.

Stawicki and Loughner were not legal carriers, as I'm sure you well know. IIRC, it is illegal to carry with intent to commit a crime in every state.

Zimmerman probably was a legal carrier... until the point he decided to initiate a confrontation.

[Hoyt]

39. They carried legally right up to point they decided to shoot people.

[PavePusher]

40. You assume they carried before they made that decision.

As always, your assumptions are comedy gold.

[Hoyt]

47. Well go read about their love of guns -- up until they shoot people, they sound like many members

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

of the gun culture.

[pipoman]

57. Nonsense..

most bought their guns specifically to commit the acts they committed, practiced very little or not at all, and were too enthralled with their ideology to concentrate on anything else...the guns were simply acquired to commit crimes..with the exception of Zimmerman..

[petronius]

2. If the ammunition is used for training and education, that will likely be the largest share

of any safety-enhancing outcomes resulting from the buyback.

(Seems a little tacky to boast about it though; I think I'd just keep on quietly doing it, and share the good idea with other organizations in similar need...)

[kelly1mm]

3. Should have kept quiet about it. This is done all the time by RKBA supporters turning in non-

functioning weapons that are bought cheap (non functioning .22 can be had for under $25). Frees up funds for purchasing functioning/better quality weapons/more ammo.

Hope this story does not get out too far and wide as I would hate for this cash cow to go away.

[NewMoonTherian]

4. Question regarding the buybacks.

Do you have to be an Illinois resident to participate? Depending on how many junk guns I could find and fit in my truck, it might be worth the drive!

[bongbong]

6. The right wing

The right-wing sure knows how to scam people. Whether it's Palin, or Beck, the NRA, or any of the other grifters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Or maybe the city of Chicago is collectively too stupid to be allowed to regulate firearms.

Ever consider that?
The NRA has cost them upwards of three million dollars so far, while their much vaunted gun laws haven't slowed the violence very much, if at all.

[bongbong]

42. More logic fails

I just can't get over how little gun-religionists know about logic! Post after post after post after post .....

> while their much vaunted gun laws haven't slowed the violence very much, if at all.

Completely illogical statement, because: Who knows how bad it would've been WITHOUT the gun control laws now in place?

LOGIC! Try it for a refreshing change!

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. How about looking at Houston's murder rate- half that of Chicago's?

Of course, you are free to argue that for reasons unknown, Chicagoans are disproportionately violent and the current gun laws are the only thing preventing them
from reenacting Mogadishu circa 1994...

[bongbong]

49. Read my post

You should really try reading my post before responding to it. Your "rebuttal" doesn't address your logic-fail, just adds to it.

Gun-worship has clouded your brain!

[Euromutt]

54. Logic? u r doin it rong

Who knows how bad it would've been WITHOUT the gun control laws now in place?

Argument from ignorance: asserting that something must be true because it hasn't been proven false (or that it's false because it hasn't been proven true). See also: shifting the burden of proof.

In the scientific method, if the validity of a proposition may be expected to produce some evidence to that effect, the absence of such evidence is a reasonable (though not conclusive) indication that the proposition is not true; absence of evidence is evidence of absence. While there may be a valid explanation for the absence of evidence, "you can't prove it's not" is not an adequate explanation.

The premise underlying gun laws is that legal availability of firearms to private citizens is a--indeed, the--major causal factor in violent crime. Therefore, reducing the legal availability of firearms to private citizens will result in lower violent crime rates, compared to other urban areas with similar population densities with less stringent gun laws. In the case Chicago, this is not the case. When you trot out the argument "well, maybe without the gun laws it would be even worse" you have to implicitly accept that, not only are there other factors that drive violent crime rates, but those factors have a greater effect than legal availability of firearms to private citizens, for instance levels of socio-economic inequality, (sub-)cultural attitudes toward violence (especially lethal violence) as a means of resolving conflicts, etc.

In other words, in defending gun laws with the "maybe without the gun laws it would be even worse" argument, you have to discard the premise that forms the rationale for gun laws in the first place!

You want logic? That's how it's done!

[PavePusher]

58. Oooooo........

[bongbong]

60. Yep!

> The premise underlying gun laws is that legal availability of firearms to private citizens is a--indeed, the--major causal factor in violent crime.

Prove it. You said "the major causal factor" in violent crime. Show me this statement - not once, but in a majority of the hundreds (since otherwise it is anecdotal) - in gun control law. You got some work to do!


> In other words, in defending gun laws with the "maybe without the gun laws it would be even worse" argument, you have to discard the premise that forms the rationale for gun laws in the first place!

ANOTHER logic fail from the gun-religionists! (Why am I not surprised?) Your "argument" only holds water if you accept the binary theory (beloved by repigs) of life, where nothing happens on a continuum but instead everything is either black or white. In this case, either crime is caused by guns or by other factors, not a combination. And you have to mix up reasons-for-gun-laws with reasons-for-crime.

You gun-religionists are quite silly. It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb.

[Marengo]

63. How about a link to the site from which Euromutt cut and pasted the content of his post.

"You gun-religionists are quite silly. It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb."

You can prove your assertion, correct?

[permatex]

64. Of course bongbong can't

all he/she has are insults. He/she gets taken to the cleaners everytime but is not smart enough to realize it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. He's kind of...

...an argument version of:

[bongbong]

67. Of course I can prove it!

You should read my post before responding to it.

Do you understand the phrase &quot or where ever you got it from)"?

Spend some time on it. Really think about that phrase. Take some time off from worshiping your Precious (AKA gun) and use your noggin.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Than by all means, go ahead and do so. We'll wait.

Of course, I'll have translated Proust's A recherche du temps perdu into Linear B (with commentary) in the meantime...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. You may have hit upon...

...the explanation for that one, lost time. I suspect an alien abduction.

[Marengo]

74. Where did he get it from?

"It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb."

Okay, so Euromutt's response is a cut-and-paste from either the NRA's website or some other source. Cut-and-paste means to copy a body of text, not to author original thought.

I asked you to provide a link to the source he copied it from:

"How about a link to the site from which Euromutt cut and pasted the content of his post."

And your response:

"Do you understand the phrase &quot or where ever you got it from)"?

Yes, absolutely. I don't know what the source of the cut-and-pasted material is. You apparently do, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a statement. This is why I asked you.

So, I ask again...

Can you provide a link to the source Euromutt cut-and-pasted his material from?

[bongbong]

85. Spin, spin, spin!

> Cut-and-paste means to copy a body of text, not to author original thought.

Prove it. Take your time. Remember, you'll have to prove that no one has ever used it to mean pasting something they authored.

You've got a lot of work to do. HOP TO IT!


> You apparently do, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a statement.

I'm sorry you don't understand "where ever you got it from". I think they teach the meaning of phrases like that in 3rd or 4th grade. Did you miss something?

[Marengo]

86. I'm still waiting for a link...

"It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb."

Where did he cut-n-paste his content from?

Or perhaps I should be asking why you won't, or can't, answer this simple question.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. We'll get over your insults. It's better to be effectual than liked...

[Marengo]

89. Let's try again..What did he cut & paste, and where did he cut & paste from?

Or, may I safely assume from the content of your hidden post that you can't provide evidence for your accusation?

[DonP]

91. Pity the gun control supporters

Show a little pity and mercy to them.

They have no websites or organizations they can cut and paste from. None of them actually support gun control except online. No Brady memberships, no donations to gun control believers like Rahm or Bloomie nothing but online lip. They get frustrated and start having their posts hidden and eventually they get TS'd, then they come back as an even poorer sock puppet version.

Poor guys. Gun control is so unpopular now there aren't any places, except maybe Brady, where they can even find any other control freaks that agree with them to whip up a phony moral outrage.

The shrinking handful of them seems to be focused on trying to be as condescending as they can, with little or nothing to support that tenet.

No legislative wins, no judicial wins, no electoral wins and now the Dem Governors are signing NRA backed bills, so the old "Real Dems support gun control" crap doesn't even cut it any more.

So we should all show the poor ignorant dupes a little kindness.

[Euromutt]

75. I'm glad you acknowledge u r doin it rong

Because in trying to rebut my points, you commit the same fallacy not once, but twice.

You want evidence that "the premise underlying gun laws is that legal availability of firearms to private citizens is the causal factor in violent crime"? How about every time the mayor, or police chief, or a self-appointed "community leader" in some major city has asserted in the wake of some shooting something to the effect of "there are just too many guns on the streets"? For example, Mike Bloomberg, last September; minister Donald Perryman of Center of Hope Community Baptist Church in Toledo, OH in June 2011; Madison, WI police spokesman Joel DeSpain last May; Charleston, SC police chief Gregory Mullen at an unspecified date; Boston mayor Tom Menino last November; Seattle mayor Mike McGinn last May. Note in that last instance, McGinn stated that ending the violence is "also going to take a focus on the laws that make it too easy for people to acquire guns."

I should acknowledge that, throughout the past century and a half, reducing violent crime has typically been the pretext for introducing gun laws; in actual fact, restrictions on private gun ownership, particularly those involving licenses granted at the discretion of law enforcement officials, have generally been intended to keep certain segments of the population (e.g. blacks, recent immigrants, left-wingers) from getting out of line. Most European countries that adopted gun control laws in the wake of the first world war did so in an effort to forestall left-wing revolutions such as those in Russia and Germany; Italy adopted its laws to prevent the socialists and communists from mounting armed opposition to Mussolini. Of course, these laws were generally still touted as serving the purpose of curbing violent crime because it's better PR.

Really, what other socially acceptable rationale is there for gun control laws, if not to (supposedly) improve public safety? The very fact that you feel the need to resort to challenging me to prove something that's glaringly evident is evidence you can't produce an actual argued response.

Your "argument" only holds water if you accept the binary theory (beloved by repigs) of life, where nothing happens on a continuum but instead everything is either black or white.

Wow, that's just meta. In accusing me of committing the fallacy of bifurcation (aka the "black or white fallacy&quot , you commit it yourself, by asserting that my argument can only be anything other than derision-deservingly wrong in one rather contrived set of circumstances. You blithely skate over any nuance I attempted to insert in order to avoid acknowledging that I migth have at least a partially--albeit it not necessarily entirely--correct point.

Admit it, bongbong; you don't know how to wield logic. You're like a eunuch in a harem: you understand in theory how it's done, you've seen it done, but you don't have the means to do it yourself, and (to switch similes) all you can do is fling shit. Your own shit, because it's the only shit available. The only reason you don't copy-and-paste responses (as you so readily accuse others of doing) is that you haven't mastered the art of holding down the CTRL key while pressing the C and V keys.

Speaking of which, do you have an answer yet as to where I allegedly copied and pasted my earlier post from? This might help.

[bongbong]

84. Funny stuff

Some anecdotes from some mayors is your "great argument"?

You gun-religionists should stick to your Precious, your religious beliefs, and above all your fear. Logic is not your forte. In fact, it is rather foreign to your preferred argument, which consists of NRA Talking Point parroting.

[47of74]

10. Next time offer grocery store gift cards

[Remmah2]

22. The gift cards can be sold for cash.

I know that welfare debit cards and food stamps are sold for cash to buy alcohol and drugs.

It's not the lawful gun owners that need watching.

[kelly1mm]

33. Check ebay. Gift cards are easily converted to cash at a 5-10% discount. nt

[Callisto32]

37. When I get gift cards for grocery stores....

I sell them at 90%+ value to someone who actually shops there.

Won't stop anything.

[permatex]

12. At least some good came out of the buyback program

Chicago's draconian gun control laws are obviously not working, only the lawful citizens are impacted by these draconian laws.

Well, at least from what I've been reading, IL. will soon have a concealed carry law in place and then lawful Chicago citizens can tell Rahm to stuff it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Of course, it wouldn't do at *all* for Rahm to chat up Houston mayor Annise Parker...

a city of almost identical size, and ask how Houston manages to have a murder rate half of Chicago's without those 'vital' gun control laws he loves.

(Added on edit) I wonder if he'll ever figure out that the Black Knight really isn't a very good role model?

[Remmah2]

23. Truly, an unarmed man. nt

nt

[Marinedem]

17. I love these threads.

Warms my heart!

Nothing like helping kids practice safe firearm fundamentals.

Not so sure about those evil bolt actions though. I believe that design was originally meant for war!

[PavePusher]

32. They are probably "high-powered military sniper rifles" with laser sights.

For shooting people in the back at night, at long range...

But well played, Marine.

Semper Fi from the Air Force.

[shadowrider]

48. Using heat seeking bullets n/t

[Euromutt]

53. You believe correctly

The raison d'être of bolt-actions is that they allow the firer to cycle the action while prone without taking the weapon off the target, which could not be done with a lever-action.

[4th law of robotics]

56. It's funny:

abstinence only is seen as idiotic when it comes to sex ed but brilliant when it comes to guns by many people.

Well you see one is ubiquitous, perfectly safe if you're knowledgeable but potentially dangerous if you aren't. Refusing to talk about it only sparks more interest among young people and there's really no reason for grown ups to act embarrassed when the subject is brought up.

The other is sex.

[Marinedem]

72. LOL, very nice.

Going to steal this.

[Meiko]

41. BWAHHHH

Gun buy backs.......

[4th law of robotics]

55. That summer camp will be like the old west

blood running in the streets!

Just you wait . . .

/heh.

[Meiko]

59. Quick pass a law

That say's only "certain" people can sell guns to a "gun buy back scheme", and the people who devised the "buy back scheme" in the first place get to decide who can buy and who can't. Somehow I get a feeling this isn't over yet.

[PavePusher]

70. Chicago Prohibitionists......

PWNED again....

[Loudly]

76. I saw this story and had a few questions.

Did somebody from this "group" show up with sixty guns? Or did they send sixty strawmen with one gun each?

If somebody showed up with sixty guns, that ought to be enough to get them arrested on the spot.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any such "group" listed on the Secretary of State's registry of either profit or non-profit corporations.

So if Lisa Madigan isn't investigating just who this "group" is and how they are running their organization, she probably should.

[gejohnston]

77. according to what I read,

there were a couple of guys. Why should that get them arrested? Are you saying they stole the guns? Since they held valid FOIDs, that made them more legal than most of the people showing up at the sale.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/guns-save-life-uses-chicago-buyback-send-kids-nra-gun-camp/
Ms. Madigan can start here.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/

[sarisataka]

78. Now there is an idea

we will let gang bangers drop off weapons, no questions asked but if someone brings in a bunch of old,legally owned guns, 'arrest them on the spot'

Is this the true colors of the pro-control side?

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. sharesunited/Loudly has always been one the more, ahem, 'vigorous' gun control advocates here.

His most memorable proposal was to have (unarmed) Canadian and Mexican troops disarm American civilians.
I still can't tell if it was sincere proposal, or a Kaufmanesque piss-take on the the more extreme anti-gun folks...

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Arrested? On what charge? They broke no laws.

Seems like you're advocating deprivation of civil rights under color of law, Shares...

[Clames]

81. You obviously aren't paying attention here.

Go back and actually read the rules for that gun buy back. What part of "no questions asked" are you falling to understand? Pretty plain language to have trouble with really.

[Renew Deal]

79. Isn't this a win-win for both groups?

The spokesperson said something about turning in junk. But the point was to collect old/illegal guns. So the guns are off the street and young people learn about weapon safety. Both sides get something.