MicroWaveIllinois Supreme Court finds assault weapons ban constitutional
money_looFinally, some good fucking news.
Sucks… everyone should be permitted to be armed. Why would you want to walk around not protecting yourself ? It’s a dog eat dog world, like it or not…
girlfreddyComing from a nation with exactly zero right-to-carry I disagree.
I have visited the US before but honestly won't again. I'm just not comfortable walking around with people who have become immune to the violence they perpetuate by carrying guns just about everywhere.
It makes no sense to me to live in that kind of constant fear. Like seriously, I don't know how all you aren't dead because your amygdala and hypothalamus are exploding from the stress.
It's just a different mindset. People carrying don't have to be fearful or stressed out like you assume. They just want to have the ability to defend themselves or loved ones. Police simply cannot protect everyone all the time and violence is a thing that can happen sometimes. Violence certainly doesn't happen all the time but many people prefer to carry and not need it then need it and not have it.
The people who are actually a danger are still going to be dangerous regardless of how unarmed others choose to be.
Maybe you feel like you can depend on your police or your local criminals are less violent.
Cops are as bad here as they are in America, as are criminals and crime -- with the notable exception of gun-related crime and deaths.
The only difference between your nation and mine, in this context, is open-carry is NOT allowed.
Criminals don't care about carry laws as breaking laws is kinda their whole deal.
Normal people carrying isn't a problem unless you assume normal people get murderous the second they have the opportunity.
You do realize that open carry doesn’t mean you can just walk around with a gun in your hand, right? The gun has to be on a sling or in a holster. Holding it in your hand in any way that looks like you immediately intend to use it is brandishing and results in a charge.
FireTowerYou haven’t said your country but I’m willing to wager that there’s more difference between your country and ours than you’re led to believe.
Unfortunately there isn't because we share a very long undefended border with you.
It’s not fear, lmao, it’s prevention. Do you wear a seatbelt because you fear dying in a car crash every day you enter it? Or is it preventing the possibility of that hypothetical serious injury?
No licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire. They simply understand there are humans in this world that would take advantage of you if they could, and if that situation occurs, why handicap yourself.
Government data itself from the DOJ shows you’re less likely to be a victim of injury in crime by having a gun compared to simply not doing anything, hell having a personal knife could be more likely to get you killed. The point made is it’s not the government’s right to decide for us if we want to arm ourselves. The individual is enough to make that decision.
Prevention is acting out of fear.
That’s contradictory. Prevention is preparedness. As in pre-emptive. As in it’s not an action to be ready for something before it happens, as the action only comes when needed. I keep a first aid kit not for fear, but use. Do I fear coming along to someone with a deep wound that needs suturing because I own it? Obviously not. You must have never heard the phrase, better to have it and not need it than be without.
When a risk is so small, there’s no reason to be prepared. That’s fear acting.
If you truly believe situations needing a gun are as common as needing a first aid kid or being in a car crash, then I would quickly move somewhere else.
Besides that, being prepared is not always the solution.
When hiking, you can stuff your backpack for every little risk you might take, but your hike won’t last long, as you’ll quickly realise you won’t get far with the weight you’ve carried. You’ve even increased the risk of injury.
This is what gun carriers are to me. By unnecessarily preparing, they actually increase the risk of falling victim to what they prepared for.
You might not carry out of fear, but you’ll learn to fear soon, because you’re contributing yourself to the problem.
Flying SquidNo licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire.
That sounds exactly like a lot of Republicans, so are you sure about that?
I mean, do I have to start listing people getting shot because they pulled into the wrong driveway or delivered a package while being black?
That sounds exactly like a lot of Republicans, so are you sure about that?
“Believe me guys, I know most Republicans! Swear!”
Did I say most? I’m pretty sure the thing you quoted didn’t use the word most. Again- I can start listing people being shot for pulling into the wrong driveway or existing as a black person if you like…
No need. I think it’s clear we’re not going to change eachothers minds. I will ask though about people who shoot recreationally. Do they not deserve to own your standard run of the mill ar15?
Flying SquidNo. “I enjoy this” does not equal “I deserve this.”
I can also list all kinds of things some people enjoy which they don’t deserve. Like sex with women who don’t consent. I could go on…
Good, never come back. Your ignorant fear has no place here
Agree with one exception: It’s a dog eat dog country. It’s not like that anywhere else in the industrialized world
Yeah but Russia, North Korea, China are all industrialized, see where they are? Government screws them daily… It’s about individual lives and freedoms. About me. And about you. More discernment to gun purchases are needed, if anything. To keep them away from nutsos
Now list all the industrialized countries that don’t have widespread gun ownership and do have individual lives and freedoms. I mean according to you they should all be like Russia, China, and North Korea right?
Now do this again but with a country you’d like the USA to be compared to.
No country is on USA’s level- we are a world leader. Pioneering the way. Yes some individuals make wrong decisions but at least we can make our own choices to speak and act how we want and learn from the consequences; we can overturn our governments in the courts if they violate our constitutional rights at this point- let’s keep it that way.
I was just talking about countries that forbid you to protect yourself (as a strong example of my point of our rights being taken away).
If no county is on our level, why are you comparing us to the worst in the world, instead of the best of the world? That is, in my opinion, the most damning part of your argument.
If no other country is on our level why are we not leading in the way in life expectancy, human rights index, prison population, suicide rate, gun violence, murder, paid time off, parental time off, health care outcomes, childbirth survival rates, equality indexes, and many many more?
ChozoWe get screwed by the government in the US, too. Yet, people aren't actually taking up arms against the government out here. They're taking up arms against each other. It really seems that we've missed the mark on why we're supposed to be such a pro-gun nation in the first place.
What exact situation do you expect to get into where a shotgun, handgun, and/or hunting rifle is insufficient for the task? This isn’t a movie.
It’s just step one, they want to disarm us. This isn’t a romance novel
Who is they
Illinois supreme Court , in this instance
Who ruled on the constitutionality of a law passed by elected members of government. It’s not like they made it up. Is “they” the people who elected the politicians who voted for the law? Seems like a lot of “theys.” Are you sure you don’t just hold an extremist belief about guns that most people in Illinois seem to want legislation to protect themselves from?
If you read the article the court didn’t rule that the actual law was constitutional. The court’s ruling was that there was no constitutional issue with the law particularly as it related to the equal protection clause. This ruling doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other constitutional issues that arise from it, such as 2a or 4a violations.
It’s not “unconstitutional until proven constitutional” lol
You clearly think this law is unconstitutional and hasn’t been shown to be constitutional yet but that’s just not how laws work.
I don’t believe this law Would survive the Bruen test. I’m not suggesting that every law must be proven to be constitutional in court before it may be employed. I was stating that the question at had in the court wasn’t if it was constitutional or not it was whether it violated the Equal Protections Clause. Which the court found it didn’t violate.
Where is the equal protection clause written
The 14th Amendment, this case was about this the plaintiff was arguing on 14th amendment grounds not 2nd per the article.
I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Pritzker then also passed a bill that lawsuits regarding this anti-gun bill (among others) could only be tried in the courts of Chicago and Springfield, the only two courts willing to allow this dogshit. Right, it was really a fair trial.
I’m from Illinois, every county outside those has stated their dislike and contempt for this law enough that sheriffs have made mention they will not zealously enforce this. It is overwhelmingly a hated bill and there are piles upon piles of lawsuits in the lower courts that are now invalidated thanks to Pritzker’s bullshit. They will be up for federal review and hearings on why the upper courts have made this faulty judgement despite the contempt, citing those lawsuits.
I’m sure it was also a coincidence that right after it was passed, the Pritzker family made notice they would be building a giant megaplex gun range and firearm museum directly on the border in Wisconsin where the banned items would be available for rent.
So most of the people in the state support the law, but the land outside of those cities doesn’t? Sounds like voting worked.
I’ll be waiting with bated breath for the giant scandal coming out of Illinois. Sounds like these Pritzkers have subverted the entire state court system, what a big scandal. Any day now that very real and not at all made up scandal is gonna come to light. Aaaaaany day
You know…them, those people, and the man
God damn patriarchy
Intermediate .22 caliber semiautomatic rifles excel in home defense applications.
They are softer to fire shotguns or bolt action rifles and can be fired more accurately with less training than pistols as you have a stock to stabilize them.
And their cartridges are designed for high velocity low weight projectiles which have a lesser capacity to penetrate walls and injury those beyond them than it’s alternatives.
It’s not a matter of which options could be sufficient. It’s a matter of which options are best.
Even the wild West has gun bans in large towns, wake the fuck up
The Wild West is not the place you want to look at for constitutional (or even just moral) government practices.
Yeah, the one part of the country in the 19th century that accepted black people as equals after the Civil War- we sure shouldn’t look to them for how the country should be today.
Tell that to the Buffalo Soldiers in Brisbee, AZ. Racial prejudices where unfortunately brought West.
Compared to the rest of the country? Black people could hold the same jobs as white people, including law enforcement and other powerful roles, and this was tolerated. Do you think they would have tolerated Bass Reeves anywhere else in the country?
My point is that racism still existed in the West, often in various levels depending on the specific location. Pre civil war Southerns flocked West to claim states as slave states to attempt to secure the future of the institution of slavery.
I didn’t mean to suggest that there was no racism in the West, just that there was a lot of equality compared to the rest of the country. The rights of black people were, in many parts of the West anyway, on or close to parity with white people as far as local governments were concerned.
not in civilised countries it’s not mate. sounds like a shithole if you need an AK47 to go to the shops
I’m pretty sure all of the people you don’t want having assault weapons in states like Illinois already have them.
I’m not so sure the ones those people dream of targeting have yet acquired reciprocal defenses.
Happy to see less guns around, but I do worry about the pre-existing distribution of them.
That’s the big problem. There are a bunch of gun stores in East Chicago, because it’s in Indiana. People just cross over state lines, buy guns, and go back to Chicago proper.
Well if you’re a resident of Illinois you can’t go to another state and buy a gun from a licensed dealer. You’d have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state. Since this rule is in effect then the FFL in Illinois wouldn’t sell it to you.
The only way you can go to another state and get a gun is if it’s a private sale.
Not legally, and not through any licensed dealer. So if you know of anyone doing that, feel free to report their crimes to the police so you can do your part to reduce gun crimes.
yes but everyone who wanted to smoke in the 80s and everyone who wants to smoke today does- but there are only less smokers and less smoke inside nowadays because it was legislated.
change can only come through attempting change
Horrible comparison tbh.
It actually is a pretty fair comparison.
I guess I should have explained my opinion. Fair enough.
Cigarettes are not reusable, are not continuously functional for a hundred years or more, and cannot end a life in a single muscle movement. This severely restricts situations in which they could potentially act analogously - they are too fundamentally different.
What makes it a good comparison in your view?
Just the analogy that you can setup laws to change the user behavior.
Just to reiterate this, there is a difference between smoking the last cigarette you could legally purchase, and the last gun you could legally purchase: The gun sticks around afterward.
I agree to the change in behavior that it will lead to a decrease in sales on legal markets, which was the basis of my comment. Now, what change in user behavior - if any - do these laws cause that would result in the non-possession of currently possessed firearm? That’s the only way the bans would be comparable.
First, you have to start somewhere. If one person legally purchased a nuclear bomb, I don’t think they shouldn’t pass a law preventing anyone else from purchasing a nuclear bomb.
Second, you’re not going to be carrying around any long gun. Those will be for home defence at most, likely just a range toy (and also to be shown during a protest to make sure other people know your people are armed). Maybe it’ll be useful if we end up in a civil war or something, idk. A handgun is nearly as good at killing people and can be carried around easily. If you want protection from these people then you want a handgun.