Jump to content

Illinois General Assembly 1/9/2023

mauserme

By mauserme
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 1:02 PM, DD123 said:

RvW was correcting a mistake where a previous court "created law".  It's not the job of SCOTUS to create laws through their rulings.  I wish our side would stop using RvW in this manner because 2A is specifically enumerated in the constitution, so these are two completely different subject matters.  The only way abortion can be made legal uniformly across the county is with congress passing a law.  Congress can pass gun laws, and even then they're not really safe from court rulings.  Just look at the ACA as an example.  The only way to legitimately infringe on 2A is through a constitutional amendment, and they know that.  

 


My invoking of RvW is to demonstrate that the anti-gunners are reacting to the Bruen decision much like pro-lifers reacted to the original decision on RvW.  After the RvW decision went into effect the pro-life organizations didn't just give up and stop trying to ban abortion.  They reacted similarly to how the anti-gunners are acting in response to Bruen.  They are throwing a legislative tantrum.  The pro-life activists eventually calmed down and started passing laws that survived RvW court scrutiny and chipped away at RvW, but the actions the pro-lifers took early on actually strengthened RvW. 

That is why we need to put good solid challenges up against this massive barrage of anti-gun laws.  And its why we shouldn't try to help the anti-gunners make their legislation better. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GunCollector Member

GunCollector

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 1:02 PM, DD123 said:

My suspicion around the tactics the left are using, and have been using for the better part of the last 20 years is making life miserable enough in solid blue states that causes enough republicans to flee, and with them solid democrats eventually have enough.  The end result are red states that turn purple with time.  Once they change the voting demographics of enough states, constitutional convention becomes achievable.  High taxes, high levels of crime, more laws infringing on freedoms....the writing is on the wall.  Everyone calls democrats dumb....I think it's everyone else that's dumb because they're playing a long game while our side continually calls them morons.  It's the same tactic they use for redistricting.  Find a republican stronghold district, split it off into democrat stronghold districts, and roll parts of solid democrat areas in and you lose the district altogether.  The only difference is they're doing it statewide by making life miserable knowing that while they're getting rid of their opposition (GOP voters), they'll also lose enough democrats to turn other states purple.  While we're focused on their next move, they've started at checkmate and are moving backwards from there to eventually reach it.  

I wholeheartedly agree.   Think about what is happening in FL - Covid sent all the East Coasters down to FL and it just has to be turning purple.  Same with TN, Arizona is already a mess.  Also, where are all the Californians fleeing to  - same thing.  I don't know if it is planned, or they are just lucky.

 

Also agree with the RvW - I called it when the news broke.  It was the best decision for the Dems as it was galvanizing.  They were almost a single issue platform in the last election cycle.   If SCOTUS strikes down any IL AWB bill then that's al we will hear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 2:03 PM, GunCollector said:

I wholeheartedly agree.   Think about what is happening in FL - Covid sent all the East Coasters down to FL and it just has to be turning purple.  Same with TN, Arizona is already a mess.  Also, where are all the Californians fleeing to  - same thing.  I don't know if it is planned, or they are just lucky.

 

Also agree with the RvW - I called it when the news broke.  It was the best decision for the Dems as it was galvanizing.  They were almost a single issue platform in the last election cycle.   If SCOTUS strikes down any IL AWB bill then that's al we will hear.  

Except in the midterms, Fl went even more red flipping some deep blue historically seats red.

 

Remember, the FIRST to flee these states are the Conservatives, then moderates, etc.  So all the conservatives fled CA for TX etc first.  Problem is California is going SO FAR left, it's driving out the old-school liberals, and now even some leftists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DD123 Member

DD123

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 1:31 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:


My invoking of RvW is to demonstrate that the anti-gunners are reacting to the Bruen decision much like pro-lifers reacted to the original decision on RvW.  After the RvW decision went into effect the pro-life organizations didn't just give up and stop trying to ban abortion.  They reacted similarly to how the anti-gunners are acting in response to Bruen.  They are throwing a legislative tantrum.  The pro-life activists eventually calmed down and started passing laws that survived RvW court scrutiny and chipped away at RvW, but the actions the pro-lifers took early on actually strengthened RvW. 

That is why we need to put good solid challenges up against this massive barrage of anti-gun laws.  And its why we shouldn't try to help the anti-gunners make their legislation better. 

 

 

Again, it's not a comparable case.  McDonald, Heller, Bruen, and others were correctly interpreting the founder's intentions when including 2A in the bill of rights.  

 

Abortion was only legal because SCOTUS created law through their decision.  This always should have been left to the states, or the fed to write a bill and pass it into law.  And I'm probably one of the few on this forum that really doesn't care one way or the other on the topic of abortion.  Not a fan personally, but at the same time I don't care what you do, just don't include me in it.  

 

One has been a constitutional right since the beginning, while the other has never been a constitutional right, and likely never will be since it's technically homicide, or infanticide to be more specific.  

 

Generally when SCOTUS makes a decision, they rarely, if ever go back decades later and revisit it.  The reason being that they typically don't create law out of thin air, and in the case of RvW, that's exactly what they did.  The only other case where they created law involved Robert's created law with the liberal side of the court in the ACA case.  That case will likely be revisited.  But in RvW, they had a chance to correct a mistake made where the court put on their legislators hats.  

 

To be clear, none of these gun laws should be passed, at all.  The founders were very clear why 2A was included, but it takes time to read through all of the various historical writings of the time period.  The two that give insight are the federalist and anti federalist papers.  The biggest mistake our side made was going down the path of "well regulated means in good working order" rather than what the actual intent was.  The federalists couldn't get the anti federalists on board without the inclusion of the bill of rights.  One of the fears, which is becoming clearer and clearer as time goes on and how intelligent the founders were is that because we needed a standing army to protect the country, and that standing armies in the past have been used against the citizenry when a despot took control, so naturally the people should always have the means to defend themselves, and the power to overthrow the despots.  Whenever the anti side talks about how it says "militia", we should have never gone down the rabbit hole of debates where we define who the militia was.  While there is some merit to the discussion, it's goes off into the weeds rather than looking at the bigger picture, and that is that regardless of who makes up the militia, it could be used against us and we should have the ability to fight back.  Had the founders just included "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, because of the likelihood that they can be used against the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", we probably wouldn't be where we're at today.  

 

Somehow we've gotten to a point in time where they're trying to figure out exactly what they can infringe on rather than acknowledging that the only way they can enact any sort of change to our right to keep and bear arms is through constitutional convention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Member

AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

Posted
Posted

Senate bell

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Member

AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

Posted
Posted

I wish I could work for 4 minutes then go on a half hour break.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
357 Member

357

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 2:03 PM, GunCollector said:

I wholeheartedly agree.   Think about what is happening in FL - Covid sent all the East Coasters down to FL and it just has to be turning purple.  Same with TN, Arizona is already a mess.  Also, where are all the Californians fleeing to  - same thing.  I don't know if it is planned, or they are just lucky.

 

Also agree with the RvW - I called it when the news broke.  It was the best decision for the Dems as it was galvanizing.  They were almost a single issue platform in the last election cycle.   If SCOTUS strikes down any IL AWB bill then that's al we will hear.  

Not true, in Florida the Republicans won with the biggest margins ever and increased their supermajority in the house and senate. Republicans are leaving and Democrats staying and deserve what they are creating. They have a plan and is a coordinated attack by Bloomberg and the media and the Democratic party to impose his will on us and to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GunCollector Member

GunCollector

Posted
Posted
On 1/9/2023 at 2:32 PM, 357 said:

Not true, in Florida the Republicans won with the biggest margins ever and increased their supermajority in the house and senate. Republicans are leaving and Democrats staying and deserve what they are creating.

Florida did enjoy success, you are correct.  But it remains early in the migration lifecycle.  I don't know the facts on which party is leaving, but its a valid point worth analyzing.  Anecdotal evidence of my friends who have left IL does support your theory - all republican leaning types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...