You know, if you are that upset about your representatives, you can always write them, and complain to them instead of doing it here, which does nothing. Just a thought. Everyone wants to complain about this story, which is actually a nice change of pace from the same old stuff, yet everyone tolerates what our state and federal representatives are doing to us on a daily basis with almost zero regard.

Dear Mr. Barbieri:
My legislative agenda has nothing to do with whether private stores hire armed guards. My legislative agenda focuses on pension reform, the state's financial health, job creation, education, health care, support of small businesses, social services for the less fortunate, energy security, protecting the environment, helping our veterans, protecting children and families and myriad other important issues.
A reporter called me to ask me a question, and I answered it. I told the reporter I thought stores had every right to hire trained and armed security guards, evidently the same position you stated. So why are you "disturbed"?
Representative Karen May

I think you are right. I haven't been to north brook court in a while, but I do remember a guard there in the past.

Because she, and her kind, believe the government should control what happens in a private business and that only law enforcement and active military should be allowed to "keep and bear arms"!!

She did not get involved. She was asked by a reporter what she thought and she told the reporter to ask the jewelry store why they have an armed guard? Why would she know?

Who's the ARA? Just what is an "assault rifle" anyway? Some cosmetic characteristic that offends? If someone doesn't want a firearm, that's their business - but they shouldn't be able to dictate whether another law-abiding citizen can own one or not.

Honestly, I think the whole concept of having a guard, armed or not is a non-issue. It's a jewelry store, in a mall, near an expressway, during a lousy economic period. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to say "Gee, maybe we should have a guard to give criminals pause before attacking us, and to defend us right away if they do." Recall that the US Sup. Ct. has said that the Police have no duty to protect an individual (or a particular business) - so if you call, they don't have to respond in a particular timeframe, or at all. It's up to the individual to defend oneself.

More than cosmetic, an assault rifles main characteristic is that it can be fully automatic. You would not need one to defend your home from an intruder and it's over kill to squirrel hunt with one. They are the go to weapon for gangs when they can get their hands on them. Yes, I was wrong about the name it's not the American Rifle association it's the National Rifle Association. Nothing American about them. They are one of the Republican parties large Contributors that believe assault rifles are okay....ask most police chiefs and they will tell you that civilians should not have them. Cosmetic? More than cosmetic.

As far as the guard, I don't have an issue with a guard at a jewelry store having a gun. It was a very odd article and weird that they posted the picture in patch and even asked the question.

Virtually any semi-automatic rifle or handgun COULD be modified to be fully automatic. If one does so without the proper license, it's a Federal Offense. One can't have a fully-automatic weapon w/o possessing a Class 3 FFL. That said, the requirement is not going to stop criminals from possessing whatever they want, nor stop them from taking a weapon and illegally modifying it.

What evidence do you have that the 'go to' weapon for a gang is a so-called assault rifle? From what I've observed, they're not walking around with rifles strapped to their backs, they've got handguns in their pants.

Regardless - banning a particular weapon doesn't stop criminals from getting it, or from committing criminal acts. Witness Great Britain - they've banned virtually all firearms. So they have lots of knife attacks. Their response? Try to ban the sale of sharp-pointed steak knives (as if a crook wouldn't simply sharpen a point on a "safe" version). Ban knives, people go to bats. In fact, during the recent GB riots, citizens wanting to protect themselves purchased aluminum baseball bats in record numbers from AmazonUK

Banning firearms makes us less safe because it creates victim zones. Crooks know their intended victims are very likely unarmed and take advantage of that situation. When they don't know if they're armed or not, they take pause and crime goes down - this is a proven fact in State after State. IL is the lone hold out...for now.

Generally speaking - the "general public" can't have full auto weapons. However those who apply for, and receive a Class 3 FFL CAN have full auto weapons There's many requirements that go along with the Class 3 - but it's not just cops and military who can have them.

Stats, facts, university studies, FBI, Justice Department, etc. would dispute your position statements "I am not for everyone carrying fire arms." and " States like Texas still have terrible crime problems, and they have concealed carry."

Here are a number of links to educate the public on gun ownership:

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100707-concealed-carry-effects

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9928

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/114035-texas-study-affluent-neighborhoods-have-far-higher-rate-ccw-permits.html

In states like VT where they don't even have gun registration requirements, VT enjoys some of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

The type of weapon wasn't specified in the Amendment. Weapons could be manufactured for military use only and still end up on the black market - witness the fact that drug cartels around the world have access to bazookas and grenade launchers. More guns do equal less crime - you may wish to Google for studies done by John Lott, U of Chicago researcher. As for the fear that "every bar fight becomes a shoot out" - that's an irrational fear that's proven to be irrational because of the evidence from 49 other States with concealed carry on the books. That fear was trotted out when Florida proposed concealed carry - the reality of it is that less than 1% of the MILLIONS of concealed carry permitees ever commit any sort of criminal act (source: State of Florida and FBI). As gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down - and that's from the FBI.
Here in Illinois, the criminals already have de facto concealed carry, they know this and use it to their advantage. It's long past time to level the playing field - crime doesn't only happen at one's home or business, it can, and does, happen anywhere at any time, and it's a creator-endowed right enshrined in common law, long before the USA was ever Constituted, that one can and should defend oneself, family, loved ones, fellow law-abiding citizens, and property against criminal onslaught.

They are when the Federal Government comes knocking on your door to detain you indefinitely.

Donny, you have that right today. I would suggest you reconsider your action.

What action RB?

Tom, I don't believe you need an assault type weapon to defend yourself. I also don't want the general population walking around with any type of gun in a concealed carry scenario. We have citizens that get drunk and drive...do we really want them to carry a fire arm? Unfortunately, those that would misuse the right make it impossible to safely implement concealed carry in Illinois. You may have a properly registered gun in your home to defend your family. 'seconds' do count. Have you gone out and purchased a defibrillator?

You may be correct in your assumption in a typical situation. However, if you recall the LA Riots - there were several shopkeepers atop their stores, armed with rifles. Their stores weren't burned or looted. There are times where the Police are unable to respond (and indeed, they have no duty to respond to anyone for anything - source: US Sup Ct), so it's incumbent upon the individual to defend oneself.
If you want to see what happens during riots where the individuals and the Police were disarmed - look to the UK - during their most recent riots, the only people with weapons were their version of the SWAT, and there weren't nearly enough of those officers to defend against the onslaught of rioters. People took to ordering aluminum baseball bats from Amazon UK (it was their best selling item during those riots). The fact that the UK has virtually banned gun ownership and still has a high crime problem is telling. And it's practically unbelievable because during WW II, the USA air dropped handguns for use by the individual against the Nazi's. We also provided many, many other weapons to the UK which helped to turn the tide and win the war. Sadly, those lessons seem to have been forgotten.
Sweden - a neutral country - they don't stay neutral because they want to, it's because everyone there is armed with a rifle and given several thousand rounds per year by their government. They have to practice every year. No one would invade Sweden -their forces wouldn't make it.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I believe that "militia" is still defined as every able bodied individual between the ages of 18 and 45 (45 being a geezer back in the 1700's). "Free state" being a state which isn't necessarily a defined locale such as Illinois, or Florida - but rather one in which the individual isn't under the thumb of a claimed Soverign - and in which one is self-governing.

Recall that the Constitution of the United States begins with: "WE, The People..." - that's you and me and every other citizen in the land. WE, US, YOU AND ME, WE created the Government. We have certain unalienable rights, and WE decided to give the Government certain rights, jealously reserving the rest for ourselves.

Certain things needed to be clarified - hence the Amendments to the original Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Right to Assembly, Right against Self-Incrimination, etc. all of that means nothing if you have no way to defend those rights. That's what firearms are for - it keeps everyone honest.

Look at Hitler and other despots throughout the ages to see what happens when the populace is disarmed.

Well said David, firearms even the playing field or keep citizens honest.

Hey Pedro, who are these people that take offense with you because you didn't grow up speaking the same religion or culture?  also, are you saying that the socioeconomically disadvantaged want to kill?  It sure reads like that.  If that is so that people that take offense at you because you are different and the socioeconomic ally disadvantaged want to shoot people then I think we need guns to protect ourselves.

I don't take offense with anyone because of their religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, culture, or the language they speak. About the only thing I do take offense to are people who don't bathe regularly ;->

Seriously though, the whole "shoot that guy because he has the wrong color shoe laces on" is a distraction to the real issue at hand - control of territory for offering illegal items and services - which the Government has declared "War" on because it's a threat to something offered by some other company that happens to donate well to a Congresscritter...