The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.

  • @Staccato
    link
    171 year ago

    So when are you getting your land mines and napalm?

    • @SheeEttin
      link
      161 year ago

      As soon as the NFA stamp gets back.

    • @sudo22
      link
      -10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t want either. But since I assume you’re implying these are illegal, landmines are legal for citizens to own with either an NFA tax stamp (about $200 each) or with a SOT/FFL (about $600/year) and napalm like substances are easy to produce yourself (I’m not sure on its legal standing, but retro enthusiast criminals who want to hurt people with napalm aren’t exactly concerned with the law).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        191 year ago

        Ooh ooh ooh, my favorite!

        criminals exist and do not follow the law, therefore law should not exist

        totally a big smart boy take and definitely NOT smooth brained nonsense

        • @sudo22
          link
          12
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not what I said. You’re extrapolating what you think someone who is pro gun rights would say.

          I can clarify or answer questions about my position, but you clearly are just looking to “own” a random person on Lemmy not actually have a conversation.

          • XbSuper
            link
            31 year ago

            Not the person you replied to, but I’ll give you a chance. I’m not American, but I do hunt and own guns.

            Why are you against the government having a licensing program before giving access to firearms?

            • @FireTower
              link
              7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The American understanding of rights is that they are inherent and bestowed upon all of not by the government but by right at birth.

              We have the right to criticize our government not because they let us but because that’s a right all humans have. Even if the government decided tomorrow that the First Amendment doesn’t apply anymore we would still have that right, because the First Amendment didn’t grant us a right it simply acknowledged the existing right.

              If your ability to practice a right is contingent on government approval your rights are being impeded.

              • Lev_Astov
                link
                51 year ago

                People just don’t understand or appreciate natural rights anymore and it saddens me.

                • @FireTower
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  Civics should be taught for much longer than it is in K-12.

                • @Torvum
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  It’s in the top 3 issues I have with the current wave of leftist populism for sure.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                11 year ago

                Are you equating owning a gun with criticizing the government? Because I’m not seeing the connection.

                • @FireTower
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  The connection is both are natural rights recognized in the Bill of Rights that should be held with equal reverence. They are the second and first amendments respectively.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    21 year ago

                    How is owning a gun a ‘natural right’ when guns didn’t even exist for the vast, vast majority of human existence? That doesn’t make sense either.

                • @Torvum
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  Owning a gun is the logical step from the natural right to defend your life. If you are under threat of death by another individual, why in the fuck would you ever willingly put yourself at a disadvantage. Does your moral grounds of guns = bad really overvalue the rest of your natural life?

                  Someone invades your home, you grab a knife, congratulations knives are far more dangerous than a gun for every participant of the struggle and you have now made it statistically more likely to accidentally kill yourself. You use your hands, disadvantaged against someone with a weapon, death.

                  The point is literally that you have a personal freedom from birth to keep yourself alive and in a world that has afforded us better and better tools to ensure that, use them.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    Statistically, having a gun in your home is more dangerous for you and your family, especially if you have young children or teens. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded having a firearm in the home, even when it’s properly stored, doubles your risk of becoming a victim of homicide and triples the risk of suicide.3

                    https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/

                    Doesn’t sound like an advantage to me.

              • @Staccato
                link
                11 year ago

                That doesn’t completely ring true. The Second was written to ensure the well-regulated militia (which has slowly morphed into a standing military) that would be needed to protect the free society.

                • @Narauko
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  The militia that was comprised of and armed by the people. That well regulated part meaning fully functional by being trained in tactics and doctrine to work with other militias and divisions. The Militia Act further confirmed the individual right to arms, outlining that the members were required to report with their own guns, ammo, and rations. While we may have a standing army now, and the reserves and Guard units, that doesn’t change the fact that the Second was and is an individual right to military arms for personal and State protection. If anyone believes that we no longer need this, then find enough people that agree to amend the constitution. Until then, we don’t get to pick and choose which rights get defended.

                  • @Staccato
                    link
                    21 year ago

                    An individual right that you yourself seem to agree requires proper training in tactics and doctrine.

                    There’s a huge gap between a well-trained, disciplined gun owner and these “guns as my personality” chucklefucks that have absolutely no discipline in their behavior.

                    Licensure is one tool to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it doesn’t violate the above percepts as long as it doesn’t impose a substantial financial burden.

            • @rockstarmode
              link
              31 year ago

              The licensing program is a defacto registration requirement. Registration = confiscation

              • Flying Squid
                link
                11 year ago

                Yeah, just like how they confiscate everyone’s cars.

                What are you talking about?

                • @rockstarmode
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What are you talking about?

                  The post I’m replying to has “assault weapons” in the title. Guns, I’m talking about guns and gun laws. You’re being obtuse and you know it.

                  If you need an example of registration leading to confiscation look at Australia and New Zealand. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws, or their effects in those two countries, it’s a fact that confiscation would not have been as effective without a national register of gun owners.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    Australia and New Zealand? You mean places that don’t have mass shootings every day but do have national healthcare? I think I will look at them. They sound like good models.

          • @Torvum
            link
            31 year ago

            CLEARLY nothing because everyone knows that misrepresenting your opponent to force your own dogma into the conversation without any level of actual intelligence just to get the heckin moral superiorityino is the proper way to discuss these days.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          41 year ago

          I love it when they say that. Guess what? Criminals don’t follow murder and rape laws when they murder and rape people. Should those laws be taken off the books too?

        • @dude187
          link
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Removed by mod

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            My firearms and I will be completely fine.

            All of the rotting corpses of school shooting victims may have an issue though

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                Care to explain your arguments there or are you just being emotional?

                Tons of children dead in America. Tons of school shootings. Once we decided Sandy Hook was fine and acceptable and did absolutely nothing to help prevent something like it from happening again, our fate was sealed. Regardless of whether you or anyone else think that’s irrelevant or invalid or moronic is all well and good, it won’t bring them back

            • @sith_lord_zitro
              link
              11 year ago

              Can you enlighten me on that? How does it work if you want to ban “assault weapons” and defund the police? Isn’t that counter intuitive? A police state is almost required to enforce the laws that are put in place like this. I have a difficult time understanding how that works.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Enlighten me on where I said those words in that order. Even paraphrasing.

                What absolutely blows my mind are the gun sucking, boot munching morons who somehow simultaneously hate any kind of government overreach but would let a cop do anything they wanted to anyone they knew without blinking an eye. Now how does that make any sense? I thought we had the second amendment to protect ourselves? Are we really always gonna rely on fucking obese white supremacist Copper Dan to help in our time of need? Those goddamn little bitch babies in Uvalde certainly didn’t rise to the occasion, what makes you think they’d do anything to help you?

                I have a difficult time understanding how that works.

                I fail to see how that’s my problem.

                • @sith_lord_zitro
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  My bad for assuming that we were engaging in mature discourse about gun restriction enforcement and who is responsible for it.

                  It’s clear now that you’re not interested in a conversation. Your just looking for someone to nod their head and agree with you instead of asking questions.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Yes, it is your bad for asking stupid questions. Gun restriction enforcement is done by the government.

                    Nice attempt to take the high road though. Acting like you’re better than everyone else on the internet won’t fix anything.

      • @money_loo
        link
        91 year ago

        Ah, so then you understand that the government is allowed to regulate and distribute the usage of some weapons, glad you pointed that out.

        • @sudo22
          link
          -51 year ago

          When did I say theyre were allowed to do this or that I approved of it? The NFA is just as unconstitutional as an AWB.