Current Events > Illinois town bans ARs. Citizens forced to surrender weapons or face fines.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nice, violating that good old 2nd amendment and infringing people's rights. Yep very nice.
---

not detecting sarcasm is a symptom of ________.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

Chicken posted...

Kombucha posted...

this is the first step, disarming the population. once the village leadership has gathered all of the guns they will begin the process of consolidating power and enslaving the residents. SAD!

lmao do you really think the average citizen with a gun would be able to fight off a military takeover?

This. Even if every citizen in that town had an AR. The military would wipe them out in seconds. It's the most idiotic argument for guns i've ever heard.

In this scenario, much of the military would likely desert rather than attack their own citizens. In this case the odds would even out

If the military deserted, they'd likely arm citizenry with better weapons than the AR15 making the entire point moot.

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah, I love the part where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," but somehow black people weren't included in that sentiment.

I don't support it, but slaves were considered property. Rights did not extend to them at the time. Rightfully, this was corrected.

In turn, one may say the second needs to be corrected in turn. Ok, I can see why the argument is made. I consider the two issues very different, though.

Thatuser posted...

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah, I love the part where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," but somehow black people weren't included in that sentiment.

I don't support it, but slaves were considered property. Rights did not extend to them at the time. Rightfully, this was corrected.

In turn, one may say the second needs to be corrected in turn. Ok, I can see why the argument is made. I consider the two issues very different, though.

Why are people talking about the declaration of independence as if it was a binding legal document?
---

Thatuser posted...

I don't support it, but slaves were considered property. Rights did not extend to them at the time. Rightfully, this was corrected.

In turn, one may say the second needs to be corrected in turn. Ok, I can see why the argument is made. I consider the two issues very different, though.

Yes, they're separate issues, but my point is that a document where the people who wrote/signed the damn thing didn't even believe in what they wrote/signed shouldn't be taken as gospel for hundreds of years.

Society evolves
Beliefs change

The bill of rights was written at the time when you could fire about 3 bullets per minute with guns, but hundreds of years and lots of constitutional amendments later, people are vehemently against updating the 2nd amendment to reflect today's society.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Thatuser posted...

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah, I love the part where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," but somehow black people weren't included in that sentiment.

I don't support it, but slaves were considered property. Rights did not extend to them at the time. Rightfully, this was corrected.

In turn, one may say the second needs to be corrected in turn. Ok, I can see why the argument is made. I consider the two issues very different, though.

Why are people talking about the declaration of independence as if it was a binding legal document?

Because guns
---

Pepys Monster posted...

electricbugs2 posted...

I swear half the "good ol' southern boys" here don't actually know what the Second Ammendment says.

Taken literally, not just any Johnny Appleseed should be allowed to have guns even with the amendment .

You know the National Guard is part of the United States Army, right? A "well-regulated militia" doesn't specifically mean the National Guard, imo.

Fair enough, but as far as a lot of the people "libruls" are talking about go, they certainly aren't in a militia or well regulated. They're just some fuckface fucking around.

I don't support all guns being taken, Canada is already too close to that. But any hooligan being able to own an assault weapon that I would blow up aliens with in Duke Nukem should at least have a training course and a specialized license (like Canada has with pistols/handguns).
---

Also. I don't even recall the declaration of independence mentioning guns.
---

frozenshock posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/19/us/boy-shot-sister-over-video-game-trnd/index.html

A 9-year-old boy retrieved a gun from his parents' bedroom and shot his 13-year-old sister to death, authorities said, after the two got into an argument over a video game controller.

A 9 year old just being able to find a gun in his parents' bedroom is a batshit insane situation. You can't just allow people to keep loaded guns lying around especially when you have kids. It's extraordinarily irresponsible.

Not sure exactly how much regulation is necessary, but some regulation is necessary. Guns may be a constitutional right but they aren't popsicles. They're fucking dangerous if you don't know what you're doing or if you leave them lying around with kids running about.

Not really. Most people tend to keep loaded guns lying around. Many people don't even own a gun safe to store their guns. Hell you see many a story where a kid finds a loaded gun under the couch cushions, or in the backseat of the car, and shoot their parents or other family member. Most people are not responsible gun owners.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Also. I don't even recall the declaration of independence mentioning guns.

It doesn't. Though use of force to install the changes it sets forth is implied.

fenderbender321 posted...

"The bill of rights shall be null and void if the country advances technologically"

That's not what I said at all.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Most people are not responsible gun owners.

theres an estimated 1000 deaths due to accidents (less if you only factor in some kid finding a gun and hurting themselves or others). there are 100+ million gun owners. so that means roughly .001% of gun owners are irresponsible (so far). i wouldnt call that "most".

fenderbender321 posted...

CableZL posted...

The bill of rights was written at the time when you could fire about 3 bullets per minute with guns, but hundreds of years and lots of constitutional amendments later, people are vehemently against updating the 2nd amendment to reflect today's society.

"The bill of rights shall be null and void if the country advances technologically"

-George Washington.

Okay.

If we're going to play the whole 'b-b-b-but the Founding Fathers didn't expect advanced technology' fallacy argument, why not extend that to everything else?

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't expect people having computers and smartphones. So why not start adding restrictions on people usage of those items?

Suspiria posted...

Okay.

If we're going to play the whole 'b-b-b-but the Founding Fathers didn't expect advanced technology' fallacy argument, why not extend that to everything else?

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't expect people having computers and smartphones. So why not start adding restrictions on people usage of those items?

We already have restrictions on the usage of computers and smartphones.
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

so then you understand where i'm coming from when i say "inalienable" and "universal"

Nope, because even the words in the declaration of the independence weren't followed faithfully by many of the people who wrote/signed it.

that doesn't change the concept though, it just makes them hypocrites
---

weekoldhotdog posted...

darkjedilink posted...

weekoldhotdog posted...

Rifles I'm cool with, ARs I'm not.

What, specifically, about the AR off3nds your liberal sensibilities?

Their capacity is too high, combined with it's stopping power and it's ability to be reloaded in seconds.

All of this adds up to human hunting.......not game hunting.

Unless you are in the business of having to HUNT humans (officers, marshalls, coast gaurd, military) then you really don't need to own these weapons.

Furthermore, it's not you owning the weapon that I don't like. It's the fact that troubled teenagers or theives can take your guns without your knowledge and in turn THEY are now in possession of firearms I don't want them to have. Because of you. And you didn't do anything wrong beyond purchasing the guns.

The majority of guns that commit violence against other human beings are stolen.

So, I'd rather the guns not be in the equation because that's the only fair way to treat this situation.

We only did it to ourselves and now we are to blame for this situation. Pointing fingers won't solve anything, only action will.

Dude, a fucking .45 carries more stopping power than the AR-15.

The reason why so many people keep stating that those calling the AR-5 an 'assault rifle' don't know anything about firearms is exactly that - they legitimately don't know anything about firearms.

Which is cool. You can't expect everybody to. However, if that's the case, that means you need to sit your ass out of discussion on banning certain firearms if you aren't educated enough to know their functionality.

Bet you're one of those people who calls them 'clips' instead of magazines.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

that doesn't change the concept though, it just makes them hypocrites

It's a flawed concept in the 1st place. We know what the words "inalienable" and "universal" mean, and those words do not apply to most of the stuff the constitution grants us.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

CableZL posted...

The bill of rights was written at the time when you could fire about 3 bullets per minute with guns, but hundreds of years and lots of constitutional amendments later, people are vehemently against updating the 2nd amendment to reflect today's society.

"The bill of rights shall be null and void if the country advances technologically"

-George Washington.

If you consider it from a technological advancement perspective, and the original intent being the right to self defense, then force should be equal. Unless the country were to abolish advanced weaponry on a large-scale, like disarm our military, which would put us at a serious disadvantage on a geopolitical level, it follows citizens should have the same access to technology that we empower those that govern us to possess. The government derives its power from the people.

CableZL posted...

Suspiria posted...

Okay.

If we're going to play the whole 'b-b-b-but the Founding Fathers didn't expect advanced technology' fallacy argument, why not extend that to everything else?

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't expect people having computers and smartphones. So why not start adding restrictions on people usage of those items?

We already have restrictions on the usage of computers and smartphones.

Then do away with them and make people start relying strictly on newspapers and the printing press.

After all, the Constitution was written at a time where people didn't have computers to allow children to shitpost on or allow people to quickly type up blogs spreading fake information.

Suspiria posted...

Then do away with them and make people start relying strictly on newspapers and the printing press.

After all, the Constitution was written at a time where people didn't have computers to allow children to s***post on or allow people to quickly type up blogs spreading fake information.

I'm not suggesting that we do away with guns or new technology. I'm saying certain things, like the 2nd amendment, should be updated to reflect today's technology, not that guns should be done away with.

I really don't know how that's so hard for people to understand.
---

I wonder if the leadership in this town also have a special salute, goose step, and prefer blonde hair, blue eyes.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Why does it need to be? The amendment has already been successfully violated by banning many types of weaponry that is available to our military.

Because

CableZL posted...

The bill of rights was written at the time when you could fire about 3 bullets per minute with guns, but hundreds of years and lots of constitutional amendments later, people are vehemently against updating the 2nd amendment to reflect today's society.

---

fenderbender321 posted...

Okay...but the citizens at the time it was written had access to the same type of weaponry that the military did. Since then the gap has widened.

So then maybe we can update the 2nd amendment to specify shit instead of leaving it up to the interpretation of the words of hypocrites.
---

CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Okay...but the citizens at the time it was written had access to the same type of weaponry that the military did. Since then the gap has widened.

So then maybe we can update the 2nd amendment to specify shit instead of leaving it up to the interpretation of the words of hypocrites.

Out of curiosity, how would you change it where it would still satisfy its original intent?

If being forced to abide by rules set 230 years ago by people who excluded the vast majority of their contemporary population from representation and power isn't tyranny, what is?

If being told that democratic (small-d) efforts to change the laws by which society is governed will incur a violent response from an armed sect of the population isn't tyranny, what is?
---

Thatuser posted...

Out of curiosity, how would you change it where it would still satisfy its original intent?

I won't pretend to know the exact answer to that, but we have 17 constitutional amendments that were ratified after the original 10, so I don't see why we can't have more constitutional amendments.
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

that doesn't change the concept though, it just makes them hypocrites

It's a flawed concept in the 1st place. We know what the words "inalienable" and "universal" mean, and those words do not apply to most of the stuff the constitution grants us.

i mean, a criminal losing their rights because they're in prison is not the same thing as those words being meaningless
---

CableZL posted...

Thatuser posted...

Out of curiosity, how would you change it where it would still satisfy its original intent?

I won't pretend to know the exact answer to that, but we have 17 constitutional amendments that were ratified after the original 10, so I don't see why we can't have more constitutional amendments.

Its a living document, and I agree. The requirements to do so are not easy to meet. To do what you ask is simply not something the American populace wants. Otherwise, there would be a constitutional convention and it would be done.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

i mean, a criminal losing their rights because they're in prison is not the same thing as those words being meaningless

But the fact that the rights can be lost at all means they aren't inalienable. Unless we're going to treat the word "inalienable" like we have the word "literally."
---

Thatuser posted...

Its a living document, and I agree. The requirements to do so are not easy to meet. To do what you ask is simply not something the American populace wants. Otherwise, there would be a constitutional convention and it would be done.

We're a representative democracy, which ultimately means "what the American populace wants" doesn't always translate into what our representatives do.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

If being forced to abide by rules set 230 years ago by people who excluded the vast majority of their contemporary population from representation and power isn't tyranny, what is?

If being told that democratic (small-d) efforts to change the laws by which society is governed will incur a violent response from an armed sect of the population isn't tyranny, what is?

You can't democratically violate the Constitution, so your argument died the moment you made it.
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

i mean, a criminal losing their rights because they're in prison is not the same thing as those words being meaningless

But the fact that the rights can be lost at all means they aren't inalienable. Unless we're going to treat the word "inalienable" like we have the word "literally."

The idea is that if someone is a law abiding citizens, their rights should not be taken away.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Okay...but the citizens at the time it was written had access to the same type of weaponry that the military did. Since then the gap has widened.

Because of the government.
---

CableZL posted...

Thatuser posted...

Its a living document, and I agree. The requirements to do so are not easy to meet. To do what you ask is simply not something the American populace wants. Otherwise, there would be a constitutional convention and it would be done.

We're a representative democracy, which ultimately means "what the American populace wants" doesn't always translate into what our representatives do.

No argument here. I for one would be against it. You clearly are not. We are allowed to have different opinions, and I vote according to mine as I'm sure you do. That's the voice we have.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The idea is that if someone is a law abiding citizens, their rights should not be taken away.

Even so, there are restrictions on those rights in many cases.
---

R_Jackal posted...

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

Chicken posted...

Kombucha posted...

this is the first step, disarming the population. once the village leadership has gathered all of the guns they will begin the process of consolidating power and enslaving the residents. SAD!

lmao do you really think the average citizen with a gun would be able to fight off a military takeover?

This. Even if every citizen in that town had an AR. The military would wipe them out in seconds. It's the most idiotic argument for guns i've ever heard.

In this scenario, much of the military would likely desert rather than attack their own citizens. In this case the odds would even out

If the military deserted, they'd likely arm citizenry with better weapons than the AR15 making the entire point moot.

Exactly. You know at least half those guys in the U.S. Military would be sympathetic to the civilians in this kind of scenario. So many of those guys are gun nuts themselves.
---

> "LOL you gun nuts wouldn't stand a chance against the military, so you don't need guns against tyrants!!!"

> "LOL the military would disband and arm you with better guns, so you don't need guns against tyrants!!!!!"
---

i am fine with more regulations on guns in general and the people purchasing them (as are most people) and it has already been established that we can limit weapons the like under the constitution. that said, banning ar15s is dumb and an ignorant proposal by ignorant people

also, guns will never be banned outright in the united states, anyone that thinks that is a remote possibility is not very smart tbh
---

andel posted...

i am fine with more regulations on guns in general and the people purchasing them (as are most people) and it has already been established that we can limit weapons the like under the constitution. that said, banning ar15s is dumb and an ignorant proposal by ignorant people

also, guns will never be banned outright in the united states, anyone that thinks that is a remote possibility is not very smart tbh

Yeah, the fact of the matter is that 1) The right to own guns is ingrained in our society and 2) there are too many guns in circulation and 3) we don't have enough resources for law enforcement personnel to go around collecting everyone's guns. And 4) most gun owners aren't just going to go to location X to give their guns away no matter how much the government asked them to.
---

5) There's no way to regulate the black market on guns
---

Hope the town gets sued into oblivion
---

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

Chicken posted...

Kombucha posted...

this is the first step, disarming the population. once the village leadership has gathered all of the guns they will begin the process of consolidating power and enslaving the residents. SAD!

lmao do you really think the average citizen with a gun would be able to fight off a military takeover?

This. Even if every citizen in that town had an AR. The military would wipe them out in seconds. It's the most idiotic argument for guns i've ever heard.

Yeah that war in the middle east only lasted a couple seconds ....oh wait
---

None of the Trumpster fire posters here still haven't explained why it's so bad to keep your assault weapons in a container.
---