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.
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.
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?
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.
People just don’t understand or appreciate natural rights anymore and it saddens me.
Civics should be taught for much longer than it is in K-12.
Removed by mod
It’s in the top 3 issues I have with the current wave of leftist populism for sure.
Are you equating owning a gun with criticizing the government? Because I’m not seeing the connection.
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.
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.
The natural right to own arms is nested in the natural right to defend oneself with the best means available. A few thousand years ago that might have only extended to sticks and stones, a few thousand in the future that might extend to laser rifles and plasma pistols.
Who gets to decide what the best means available is? What if I decide the best means to defend myself is a glass vial of ricin and a gas mask? Okay to use it if I feel threatened?
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.
https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/
Doesn’t sound like an advantage to me.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Someone might choose to own a firearm because they feel like they’re at an elevated risk for victimization (ex. they’ve been threatened by a crazy ex) or someone who has suicidal ideation might go out an purchase a firearm for the purpose of commiting suicide. The acquisition of the firearm didn’t cause either preexisting condition.
Please explain why exactly we shouldn’t be doing everything we can to prevent suicide. This should be interesting.
My personal opinion on the matter is that we should target the motivation not the means. People are miserable, isolated, and feel less upwards mobility. We wouldn’t try and solve the issue of people jumping off buildings with suicide nets.
Funny, people like you always say that, and yet when it’s suggested that we massively fund mental health care, people like you always balk at that.
Removed by mod
Or… and stop me if this is too complicated… we could make it so that it isn’t as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a plate of pancakes.
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.
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.
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.
You have my perspective slightly backwards. The trained militia is contingent on having an armed populace to draw from, not the other way around. It is not the right to be trained and then armed as a soldier, but the general right to bear arms. I do think that gun safety, training and handling should still be taught in school like it used to because there are more guns than people in this country, but don’t believe that any of your natural rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights have any requirements to meet to practice. The “guns as a personality” chuckle fuck has the same right to bear arms that you or anyone else does, until or unless such time as he loses that right through criminal conviction. I also don’t support losing voting rights, gun rights, or any rights for non-violent offenses, especially non-violent drug offenses which shouldn’t be criminalized anyway. Innocent until proven guilty, without a need to establish a baseline of innocence first through taking a test or being investigated by the police.
Requiring licensure is an infringement that no other constitutional right requires. There is a huge gap between an educated journalist and a wacked out conspiracy theorist making vaccine conspiracy their entire personality too, but even though they indirectly or directly caused or contributed to an unknown percentage of millions of deaths, it is unconstitutional to require them to go take classes and get a license to speak on TV or on the internet or in public. If you have to ask permission from a governing body to exercise it, it’s not a right it’s a privilege. Freedoms come with risk, the founders knew this and thought it was worth it, which is why it was enshrined in our founding documents.
Removed by mod