Illinois Gun Law Dead On Arrival

[otto105]

When those that are tasked with enforcement of laws know it's unconstitutional you should probably realize you you created an unconstitutional law.

Dozens of Illinois sheriff's offices vow to defy governor's assault weapons ban

Dozens of Illinois sheriffs vow to defy governor's assault weapons ban

At least 74 sheriff in Illinois have posted statements vowing to defy gun-control legislation signed into law by Gov. Pritzker earlier this year.

www.foxnews.com

Fire all of them if they fail to carry out the law.

And then arrest and prosecute.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

.




I'll tell you in a week or two.

Please remember to get your booster.






.

 

[Blaster]

I'm dying to see how this plays out. The governor made threats against these 9/10 sheriffs if they don't do their jobs. Yeah, just what we need, defunding the police all over the state. That oughta help the crime rate.

The Governor can eat shit.

 

[Concerned American]

Worked in Seattle, lived in Renton.

I live in solidly red NE WA and I am here for the duration--my last stand so to speak. The kids got fed up with living in crime ridden blue Spokane, packed up and moved to ID.

 

[Concerned American]

.


Exceptional idea!

Except the cross border buying and selling. Democratland will never produce anything worth buying and they will never produce enough money to buy what we have for sale.



.

Except I love living in the wide open west.

 

[Doug1943]

I think we should expand the electoral college from the state level to the county level. That would reduce the power of the blue cities to dominate local and national politics.

Well ... I'm not so certain about the Electoral College Rule, unless it's amended in each state to let each state return electors for each party, proportional to the vote their candidates got in that state.

In the long run, we must have majority rule. The problem is, that in America, we are growing an anti-democratic, anti-American majority ... people who believe that the essence of America is slavery, that females can have male genitalia and then these penis-bearers can shower with real women, that the reason young Black males commit most of the murders in the US is white supremacy, that having a real border is wicked ... in other words, people who are close to being clinically insane.

So why not have an amicable separation ... we can run our part of the old Republic the way we want, they can run theirs the way they want. (Which should be fun to watch.) Our new country will quickly have a problem with refugees, of course.

Okay, it sounds radical now. But look -- fifty years ago, if you had told me the Army was issuing instructions to its female soldiers on how to deal with a 'female' with a penis who wanted to shower with them ... I would have thought you were utterly mad. And so would everyone else.

So let's start raising this idea now. In a friendly, best-for-both-of-us, it's-not-you-it's-me, sort of way. They hate us, and want to see us dead. They laugh and cheer when they hear that one of us dies. They call the Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit a 'traitor', while passing resolutions honoring Ethel Rosenberg, the executed Soviet spy who helped Stalin get the atom bomb.

So much better if we were apart. Several previously-united countries have separated in the 20th Century:the British Raj lost Pakistan which then lost Bangladesh; Yugoslavia fractured into five countries. Cyprus split into the Greek part and the Turk part. Scotland will leave the UK before the end of the decade, and Northern Ireland, after a brief civil war, will join the Irish Republic. The Kurds of Iraq and Turkey would like their own country, and so would many other minorities [ Joe Biden wanted to split up Iraq into Sunni and Shia, and he was right], and we'll probably see more fractures -- the Chechens will maybe have another go, plus some of Russia's other Muslim republics. Etc etc etc.

Why should America be different from all these Third World or near-Third World examples? If a liberal objects, tell them that they're a racist ...saying we're better than Pakistan. Shocking.

 

[Doug1943]

I live in solidly red NE WA and I am here for the duration--my last stand so to speak. The kids got fed up with living in crime ridden blue Spokane, packed up and moved to ID.

We need to re-adjust state boundaries. Eastern California, Oregon and Washington should secede and join their neighbors to the East. They in turn might try to work out an arrangement where their Blue cities could secede and join the Left Coast. Let's be creative and out-of-the-box here!

 

[Doug1943]

We had that.
Jim Crow

Yes.

The new 'Blue America' would finally be able to actually formalize the different treatment of the races on things like college admissions, and push out all those Jews and Asians in favor of its pet client minority groups.

'Red America' could finally formalize the idea that we are all equal, regardless of skin color.

 

[Missourian]

No, they are elected as LEO.
Law enforcement is part of their duty. Sworn duty.
Despite the court halting enforcement the governor would be well within his responsibilities to remove them from office.

and

Say the majority in a county in a Red state decides it wants to permit abortions the sheriff of that county would be obligated to enforce that position despite whatever their own opinion or state law may dictate?

Upholding the Constitution is their sworn duty. Protecting their citizens Constitutional rights is their sworn duty.

Abortion isn't a Constitutionally protected right...back when it was you might have had a point.

 

[Flash]

Fire all of them if they fail to carry out the law.

And then arrest and prosecute.

I agree. Impeach the stupid Democrat filth that voted for the bill that violated Constitutional law.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I live in solidly red NE WA and I am here for the duration--my last stand so to speak. The kids got fed up with living in crime ridden blue Spokane, packed up and moved to ID.

.



I sometimes miss the variety of WA.



.

 

[otto105]

I agree. Impeach the stupid Democrat filth that voted for the bill that violated Constitutional law.

Where in the constitution does it mention assault weapons?

I’m like looking, but can’t find the language…

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where in the constitution does it mention assault weapons?

I’m like looking, but can’t find the language…

Assault weapons are arms, and yes, look closer. Right to bear arms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well ... I'm not so certain about the Electoral College Rule, unless it's amended in each state to let each state return electors for each party, proportional to the vote their candidates got in that state.

In the long run, we must have majority rule. The problem is, that in America, we are growing an anti-democratic, anti-American majority ... people who believe that the essence of America is slavery, that females can have male genitalia and then these penis-bearers can shower with real women, that the reason young Black males commit most of the murders in the US is white supremacy, that having a real border is wicked ... in other words, people who are close to being clinically insane.

So why not have an amicable separation ... we can run our part of the old Republic the way we want, they can run theirs the way they want. (Which should be fun to watch.) Our new country will quickly have a problem with refugees, of course.

Okay, it sounds radical now. But look -- fifty years ago, if you had told me the Army was issuing instructions to its female soldiers on how to deal with a 'female' with a penis who wanted to shower with them ... I would have thought you were utterly mad. And so would everyone else.

So let's start raising this idea now. In a friendly, best-for-both-of-us, it's-not-you-it's-me, sort of way. They hate us, and want to see us dead. They laugh and cheer when they hear that one of us dies. They call the Air Force veteran Ashli Babbit a 'traitor', while passing resolutions honoring Ethel Rosenberg, the executed Soviet spy who helped Stalin get the atom bomb.

So much better if we were apart. Several previously-united countries have separated in the 20th Century:the British Raj lost Pakistan which then lost Bangladesh; Yugoslavia fractured into five countries. Cyprus split into the Greek part and the Turk part. Scotland will leave the UK before the end of the decade, and Northern Ireland, after a brief civil war, will join the Irish Republic. The Kurds of Iraq and Turkey would like their own country, and so would many other minorities [ Joe Biden wanted to split up Iraq into Sunni and Shia, and he was right], and we'll probably see more fractures -- the Chechens will maybe have another go, plus some of Russia's other Muslim republics. Etc etc etc.

Why should America be different from all these Third World or near-Third World examples? If a liberal objects, tell them that they're a racist ...saying we're better than Pakistan. Shocking.

The problem is they can't do without us. They know where their radicalism would eventually lead. That's why you don't see an exodus of Republicans to blue states like you do with Democrats running for red states to live. AOC didn't take her vacation in Commiefornia, she went to Florida instead, where she could go to a bar or diner with no mask on.

The only way it would work is my idea: Draw a line from north to south dividing the east and west. Have a national election on who gets what side. All the Democrats have to move to their country and the Republicans the same. Then erect a huge Trump wall on our new border to keep the Democrats out and ruining things for us.

 

[Doug1943]

Where in the constitution does it mention assault weapons?

I’m like looking, but can’t find the language…

They're called "arms". Okay, you thought they were the things your hands are attached to, but there is another meaning.

They didn't say, "the right to bear muskets", or "the right to bear weapons that are not effective beyond a hundred yards or so and which take almost a minute to reload".

They said "arms", the things necessary to protect the security of a free state, by which they meant being able to prevail in war.

They wanted the people to be as well-armed as the government, coming as they did from a tradition which distrusted centralized government -- in their time, monarchies -- whose soldiers in their 'standing armies' were often foreign mercenaries.

This is not possible today. Joe Biden is correct. But that spirit is absolutely justified, and needs to be carried on in other ways.

I've asked this question before, and no one has answered, so I'll ask it again. When some friends of mine and I raised money (and delivered it in person) to help some men buy ammunition in a situation where they believed their government was oppressive and felt they needed to be able to defend themselves ... were we wrong to do so? Or should we always trust our governments?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Infections and Hospitalizations​

Vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including the risk of severe illness and death among people who are fully vaccinated. In addition to data from clinical trials, evidence from real-world vaccine effectiveness studies show that COVID-19 vaccines help protect against COVID-19 infections, with or without symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations has remained relatively high over time, although it tends to be slightly lower for older adults and for people with weakened immune systems.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? I said the vaccines do help people deal with covid when they get it.

 

[Doug1943]

The problem is they can't do without us. They know where their radicalism would eventually lead. That's why you don't see an exodus of Republicans to blue states like you do with Democrats running for red states to live. AOC didn't take her vacation in Commiefornia, she went to Florida instead, where she could go to a bar or diner with no mask on.

The only way it would work is my idea: Draw a line from north to south dividing the east and west. Have a national election on who gets what side. All the Democrats have to move to their country and the Republicans the same. Then erect a huge Trump wall on our new border to keep the Democrats out and ruining things for us.

Actually, this would be a problem in optimization ... not my field but similar to the 'closest packing problem' or the 'travelling salesman problem'.

Like this: first make a map of the country with as much granularity as possible ... down to precinct level, if possible, Congressional District level at a minimum. Then fill in each geographical unit with the number of Red and Blue voters.

Then run a computer model whose task is to draw a boundary that 'gerrymanders' the whole thing, so that you have boundaries dividing Blue and Red units which require the minimum relocation of the inhabitants.

You could also put in a few constraints like both areas have to be contiguous, both have to have some seafront on each coast, etc. I could probably find a grad student to do it. ... might make a good Master's thesis. Until we get quantum cmputers I don't think an optimal solution could be guaranteed -- it's probably what Computer Science people call "NP-complete" -- but we could probably get a pretty good solution.

Of course, it's not a new idea. Greece and Turkey did something like this at the end of WWI, and again in 1974 in Cyprus. Then it was done again in the former Yugoslavia.

The real problem is not the mathematical optimization, it's getting people to move. This can happen but it has always happened in such a way that there are piles of corpses left behind, because too many people think that, well, that line showing that I have to move didn't take into account me and my buddies' guns. They have a vote too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, this would be a problem in optimization ... not my field but similar to the 'closest packing problem' or the 'travelling salesman problem'.

Like this: first make a map of the country with as much granularity as possible ... down to precinct level, if possible, Congressional District level at a minimum. Then fill in each geographical unit with the number of Red and Blue voters.

Then run a computer model whose task is to draw a boundary that 'gerrymanders' the whole thing, so that you have boundaries dividing Blue and Red units which require the minimum relocation of the inhabitants.

You could also put in a few constraints like both areas have to be contiguous, both have to have some seafront on each coast, etc. I could probably find a grad student to do it. ... might make a good Master's thesis. Until we get quantum cmputers I don't think an optimal solution could be guaranteed -- it's probably what Computer Science people call "NP-complete" -- but we could probably get a pretty good solution.

Of course, it's not a new idea. Greece and Turkey did something like this at the end of WWI, and again in 1974 in Cyprus. Then it was done again in the former Yugoslavia.

The real problem is not the mathematical optimization, it's getting people to move. This can happen but it has always happened in such a way that there are piles of corpses left behind, because too many people think that, well, that line showing that I have to move didn't take into account me and my buddies' guns. They have a vote too.

The problem with your idea is we would still have to put up with their complaining. We would still be one country instead of two, just with heavy segregation. It wouldn't stop Democrats from leaving their areas unless we built fences around each and every one.

They would still be complaining about pollution and climate change citing us for it. Still be blaming us for guns in their areas claiming they came from us. Still be complaining about race and discrimination. Still have open borders that we too would have to suffer with like we are today. It simply couldn't work.

With two countries instead, they'd have no room to complain. They could go as green as they want, have a law that nobody in their country is allowed to own a gun, have as many illegals flood their country without affecting us, that's the only way a separation could work.

 

[jackflash]

Get outside of Chicago and Illinois is basically a red state.

The right hand column in the below link illustrates a VERY blue state. I am sorry to say.

Illinois - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Doug1943]

The problem with your idea is we would still have to put up with their complaining. We would still be one country instead of two, just with heavy segregation. It wouldn't stop Democrats from leaving their areas unless we built fences around each and every one.

They would still be complaining about pollution and climate change citing us for it. Still be blaming us for guns in their areas claiming they came from us. Still be complaining about race and discrimination. Still have open borders that we too would have to suffer with like we are today. It simply couldn't work.

With two countries instead, they'd have no room to complain. They could go as green as they want, have a law that nobody in their country is allowed to own a gun, have as many illegals flood their country without affecting us, that's the only way a separation could work.

Yes, two separate countries is definitely the right idea. To get there will be very difficult.
If we're serious -- and not just giving our emotions an outlet while we see America destroyed from within -- we have to think about how to get this idea into general circulation.

One of the first steps is to undermine the idea of the sacredness of borders. Borders were made by men under one set of circumstances, and can be re-made under another. Let's start with proposing the idea that counties can transfer themselves to the adjoining state, if, say 75% of their voting population vote to do so, and if the adjoining state accepts.

Talking about two nations, we have to think about things like who inherits how much of the National Debt. Also National Defense: the model here is NORAD, a joint US/Canadian air and aero-space defense system.

The whole idea is that we will get along better if we separate -- we have a country, they have a country.