Victory for the Constitution... in Illinois?!

[killerzX]

Soleron said:

This is incredibly biased. Next time just state the ruling and outcome. If you care to put an opinion, do if afterwards and make clear it's your own.

"So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals."

"Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime."

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." Contradiction.

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

--

Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed? Is the only valid interpretation of that language that i) EVERYONE, in a militia or not, can bear arms and ii) absolutely no controls can be imposed in it?

If the studies are inconclusive then maybe do some more studies on it?

i made the thread of course its going to have my opionion in it. i then gave a link to a news article with their take on it. but i only cared about mine so i wrote my opinion.

as for the bold thatt o is unconstitutional. the constitution isnt about hunting. its about defending ourselves from tyranny whether that come from an individual or the government. citizens should be as a well armed as the government. even so guns have numerous more purposes and uses than say a nuke.

 

and the constitution cant be wrong, its our laws. if you dont like it, ammend it. until then our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.