Dick Durbin Quotes

I support an assault weapons ban, and I'll tell you why. We already have one in California, so I don't support doing anything above what we do in California.

I don't think there's any reason on Earth why people should have access to automatic and semiautomatic weapons unless they're in the military or in the police.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal for 78 years. Did the ban make them 'more' illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

You can have a Second Amendment right, but not a Second Amendment right to an AR-15.

Once they ban rifles, they're gone forever.

I definitely think there should be stronger gun safety laws, including prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, probably banning the sale of certain magazines that allow you to fire a large amount of bullets.

I'm the original co-sponsor of an assault weapons ban.

I'm supporting plans in Congress to fully ban bump stock devices and prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines.

We must permanently reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban and the restrictions on high capacity magazines.

We need to digitize gun-sales records, mandate universal background checks, close gun-show loopholes and straw-man purchases, ban high-capacity magazines, and push for a comprehensive assault weapons ban with an extensive buyback system.

I've come to the conclusion that military style weapons really don't have any place in our society. We ought to reinstate the assault weapons ban that served us well for 10 years from 1994 to 2004.

We need to ban assault weapons. We need to ban the high-capacity clips and magazines. We need serious background information, system upgrade.

Semi-automatic weapons have no socially redeeming purpose.

Plenty of gun opponents have pointed out the obvious: that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the kinds of 'arms' that exist today - Washington, Jefferson, and the rest had never even seen a bullet. Musket balls for guns that required constant reloading were the 'arms' of the day.

Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers or terrorists who think nothing of breaking the gun laws.

When the Bill of Rights was written, no one owned a MAG5100, 100-round magazine for an M-16. The concept of a mass slaughter carried out over a matter of minutes was incomprehensible.

Reasonable regulations regarding the ownership of weapons are appropriate.

I have no problem with responsible gun owners who own weapons for self-protection, hunting, or just sport. The ones who believe they have a constitutional right to 100-round magazines to fight off I don't know what - a zombie apocalypse? - try to shut down dialogue with threats and other macho posing because of their flawed beliefs.

When President Obama first unveiled his gun control proposals recommending a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and better background checks, there seemed to be momentum behind the effort. But then the proposals ran into a wall.

Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Common sense should tell us that there is no reason for civilians to have access to easily concealable handguns with the capability to shoot through body armor.

People are hurting out there, perhaps they are ready to start a conversation about whether an AR-15 belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able 6,000 rounds on the internet.

I don’t think there is a Constitutional right for individuals to bear arms. But I’m against gun control. So there!

If people have assault weapons, they're going to use assault weapons.

If gun control worked, the District of Columbia would be the safest place in America.