Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
Yes, but it has the function of cutting up meat, which every house-hold will need. I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
The Reincarnation wrote:
I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
Of course the US Constitution doesn't mandate that you must own a gun. Nor does it mandate what you must do with it. And others do of course see other reasons for owning one. Such as hunting, simple recreation, security and/or just a cool factor. But the US Constitution also says nothing about the reasons one might choose to own one. Just as it doesn't mandate that you must make use of the the right of free speech, nor why one chooses to do so or why one chooses not to do so.
-
The states don't have any business restricting *any* rights enumerated in the Constitution. I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
Rationalized nonsense. The States and Federal government does in fact have the right to set limits on all the rights. They do and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. For example there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech.
-
So you don't claim that this specific law will fix that. Do you think it will impact it in a measurable and significant way?
jschell wrote:
So you don't claim that this specific law will fix that.
what i don't claim is your "completely eliminate".
jschell wrote:
Do you think it will impact it in a measurable and significant way?
yes.
