(October 3, 2017 at 10:05 am)Brian37 Wrote:(October 3, 2017 at 9:43 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That city is used not because of racial composition, but because it has such a high rate of firearms crimes despite having some of the strictest local gun-control laws in America.
Um no, that is certainly the excuse used yes, but it is still dog whistle bullshit for assholes like 45 to call black NFL players "sons of bitches".
But we can go there if you wish. It isn't a matter of the laws being strict, it is a matter of not having a nationwide standard. Of course the laws wont work because guns don't magically stop working in transport.
It still amounts to access. Not legal vs illegal.
This is simply more bullshit the nutters use to make excuses to do nothing. So when they cant flat out sell bigotry, they make it about states rights.
And again, I live in the sticks and I hear stories in NC in a rural area, about gun violence here too. The only reason you hear about more in the city is because it has a bigger population. It isn't a mater of strict, it is a matter of a flooded market nationwide.
Chicago is in Illinois. The Illinois State Constitution bill of rights gives people the right to own guns.
"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm
So the question is does the use of police power become unconstitutional if it deprives people of their constitutional rights? If the clause "Subject only to the police power" is added to all of the other rights would the people have any real rights?
