Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

you can go to war as easily with a pen as you can with a gun, where is the benevolence in that?

 

Would you have us live in an age without drama? Would it befit the idea of "America," if the story became boring?

Of course, I jest. While it is good to have an idea of what may lie ahead, one should not overly focus upon that, to the point of losing tabs on the present. With every week we look ahead, there is a greater potential for unexpected developments, to change the calculus.

If Biden wins re-election, and the Dems can re-gain the House, while picking up a couple of more Senators-- all well within the odds of probability-- I would fully expect measures to be taken to fight back against the apocalyptic visions you have, of our Right wing High Court, run amok.

 

so who protects the constitution and laws from violations within?

 

if the best they can come up with is desantis, yeh biden will get in for 4 more terms

 

You can't kill someone with a pen
(Not unless you're John Wick anyway)

 

a pen orders troops to a various love-ins of total benevolence around the world, Iraq, Quait, and now Ukraine.

 

Our gun deaths are absolutely NOT involved in protection of the constitution!

Our propensity for carrying guns has led to mass killings at the rate of slightly more than 1 per DAY for the entire Q1, 2023.

 

This is just one more case of you ignoring that the 2nd amendment was written about national defense through use of well regulated militias.

And, the problem we have has NOTHING TO DO with national defense.

And, our death rate is not being reduced by well regulated militias, either.

In fact, militias are NOT being regulated and are a serious part of the problem, as stated for a good number of years by the FBI and others.

 

But if you take away the guns then people will just start using bombs.

Guns don't cause gun deaths people do.

So your solution is to fix ****ed up people by getting rid of guns?

It's organic law will.
So then you believe the supreme Court has the authority to overrule the Constitution is that correct?

That's only partially true, yeah in the case of national defense including self-defense.

The object is to have guns in the hands of all the people outside of government control that was the whole objective of our right to own and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So tell me will when you take the guns away who are you going to called to protect you, someone with guns?

The problem we're going to have if you get your way has to do with national defense.

Maybe we should have a militia in every state that takes care of these issues instead of banning them.

the Alaska militia was pretty well regulated.

Oh yeah, the same FBI that gave terrorists live explosives to blow up the world trade center in 1993, that FBI?

The same FBI that wrote up a brochure in Arizona stating that constitutionalists are domestic terrorists?

That FBI right?

 

yet lefties use laws to promote violence. and you prefer governmental control over freedom is the real issue

 

wrong, the second amendment was a negative restriction on a government that was never given gun control powers in the first place

 

Depression does not come from a gun. We treat depression with drugs that list "suicidal thoughts or actions" as side effects.

Kids always got booze. I just waited outside and asked people to buy it for me.

Attacking the rights of non-violent people is not trying.

 

leftwingers want to "DO SOMETHING" but that is to harass lawful gun owners while not impeding criminals. Leftwing politicians figure if it placates the howling mob and harasses gun owners, then it is a good law.

 

most americans cannot tell anyone what an assault weapon is-what makes it different than "non-assault weapons" and why the cosmetic features move the weapon away from being "in common use for lawful purposes" to "unusually dangerous"

 

I've pointed out more than one solid reason to believe that the interpretation of the second amendment by the Republicans on the SC is absolutely ridiculous.

The idea that we're not allowed to use public safety as a justification for ANY laws related to guns is preposterous.

 

Imagine the audacity, the sheer bloody cheek, to IMPLY much less actually STATE that minors have a hard time getting black market alcohol.

 

That's just ridiculous.

There is ONE objective - lowering America's rate of gun death.

Do you believe that is a legit objective???

 

This version of the SCOTUS is still a walking-talking joke, but this is a rare good move, not to do anything, which is what they do best.

Seems like a good law... wish my state would consider something similar, but my state is led by NRA owned politicians, like many are...

 

Oh you can!
Amend the Bill of Rights!

 

The problem isn't the Bill of Rights.

It is this SC and their multiply ABSURD interpretations.

 

A well regulated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

Who may keep and bear books?

 

You mean with illustrations? How many pages will the text be allowed to be?

Certainly they can't have more than ten illustrations or three thousand words. And photographs are worth 1,000 words. The photographs must be limited to only two, lest chaos ensue. And of course there is a waiting period to check out books at the library, and all books must be limited to library ownership.

Because when they say "The right to keep and bear books shall not be infringed", "shall not be infringed" means absolutely can be infringed upon.

 

Not schools in Florida.

But, you meant this as a joke, I'm sure.

 

Fire SCOTUS

 

Do you believe that reducing gun deaths is a legitimate public safety objective?