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.

  • Narauko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.