His ban on “assault” weapons was useless since they all come from out of state anyway
I agree with much of what you post here, but not this.
Even if he’s accomplishing making it inconvenient for criminals, gun nuts, and wannabe mass shooters, that’s a good thing. Legislation on guns in this country is never going to be perfectly effective because of the Federal Government, but making things harder on the local level is 100% a good thing.
How so? Anyone who’s grown up with them respects and follows the law, respects firearms (has a healthy fear and understanding), and the law in Illinois are already some of the toughest.
Indiana has open carry (constitutional carry), so does MO, and I believe WI. BTW, NONE of the firearms banned in that list were assault rifles, aka fully automatic. That’s illegal to own without other special licensing that the ATF doesn’t just hand out to anybody. So to ban then just technically “infringes” on anyone’s else’s ability to own or purchase who rightfully follows the laws anyway. I quoted infringe bc of the constitution.
Not just the gun ban portion either, it’s the threaded barrels, the magazine capacity, chambering mechanism, the ammo types (calibers), etc. Basically, the law was written by clueless people that banned based on limited and scary sounding information thinking it does anything to stop actual criminal activity.
IF you’re a criminal, would and you’re already dying illegal stuff anyway, does this new ban effect you, realistically? Not likely, you’re already engaging in illegal purchases or other activity, so how does that effectively help? It might stop a few select people who have a slight conscious left, but probably not well enough to make a difference.
Gun ownership became a thing legally as the founding members fought off corruption- who cares how ethical (bc I’m sure someone will comment about their slave-owning rapist, etc) not the topic. They understood ownership was important to give the people a fighting chance at standing their own ground against corruption.
Personally, I can somewhat agree with something from Reddit a couple years back. The US created the military to protect the country, but it could also be used to protect itself from the citizens who may eventually rise up and challenge the Govts power, too. We also have the highest, or at least most talked about, patriotism. And I think when people have the sense of loyalty, they’ll put up with a lot more abuse and crappy conditions. This also keeps people obedient. It’s also why I think gen Z is outspoken about hating AI, or the job market, or corporations taking advantage, etc. They don’t have that sense of patriotism like older groups, so they’re more willing to stand up for themselves. It’s going to get a lot worse before the rest of the general population finally do something.
I agree with much of what you post here, but not this.
Even if he’s accomplishing making it inconvenient for criminals, gun nuts, and wannabe mass shooters, that’s a good thing. Legislation on guns in this country is never going to be perfectly effective because of the Federal Government, but making things harder on the local level is 100% a good thing.
How so? Anyone who’s grown up with them respects and follows the law, respects firearms (has a healthy fear and understanding), and the law in Illinois are already some of the toughest.
Indiana has open carry (constitutional carry), so does MO, and I believe WI. BTW, NONE of the firearms banned in that list were assault rifles, aka fully automatic. That’s illegal to own without other special licensing that the ATF doesn’t just hand out to anybody. So to ban then just technically “infringes” on anyone’s else’s ability to own or purchase who rightfully follows the laws anyway. I quoted infringe bc of the constitution.
Not just the gun ban portion either, it’s the threaded barrels, the magazine capacity, chambering mechanism, the ammo types (calibers), etc. Basically, the law was written by clueless people that banned based on limited and scary sounding information thinking it does anything to stop actual criminal activity.
IF you’re a criminal, would and you’re already dying illegal stuff anyway, does this new ban effect you, realistically? Not likely, you’re already engaging in illegal purchases or other activity, so how does that effectively help? It might stop a few select people who have a slight conscious left, but probably not well enough to make a difference.
Gun ownership became a thing legally as the founding members fought off corruption- who cares how ethical (bc I’m sure someone will comment about their slave-owning rapist, etc) not the topic. They understood ownership was important to give the people a fighting chance at standing their own ground against corruption.
Personally, I can somewhat agree with something from Reddit a couple years back. The US created the military to protect the country, but it could also be used to protect itself from the citizens who may eventually rise up and challenge the Govts power, too. We also have the highest, or at least most talked about, patriotism. And I think when people have the sense of loyalty, they’ll put up with a lot more abuse and crappy conditions. This also keeps people obedient. It’s also why I think gen Z is outspoken about hating AI, or the job market, or corporations taking advantage, etc. They don’t have that sense of patriotism like older groups, so they’re more willing to stand up for themselves. It’s going to get a lot worse before the rest of the general population finally do something.