comment: >
  
  I'm just really not following what point you're trying to make here, especially in context of the other person's post above you were originally responding to.
context: This is a non issue equivalent to the gays in bathroom or covid.
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue. >
  
  
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue.
  
  This is the most likely outcome. The law has already been enjoined statewide. With the post Bruen legal landscape I doubt it's going to survive.
  Democrats will get to say that they tried.
  However, it won't necessarily end there. Democrats absolutely loath Bruen, and many elected Democrats have never met a gun control law that they didn't like, so I expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  
  expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment
  
  And not just in Illinois either, California and New York are also edging towards finding a way to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  There is no functional or procedural process for the US to become 'separated America'. Unfortunately I fear that the growing polarization and unwillingness to listen and compromise with each other may lead us to a point of open violence. 
  I earnestly hope that doesn't happen though. >
  
  Not having a process doesn't mean we can't easily make one. >
  
  The southern states tried to make one...didn't turn out well for them. Expecting a civil dissolution of the US into separate entities is naive and exceptionally unlikely. >
  
  "It didnt happen when it was tried that one time 150 years ago, so it won't happen now" isn't a very good rebuttal. >
  
  Ok, fair. Let me try it another way then. 
  In the 1860s, when this was last tried, the country very much was effectively a close association of states rather than one fully unified nation. Most Americans identified by their state vs as Americans and most never traveled far from home. The Civil War was the catalyst that changed that, and after the war it very much became a more unified nation. Obviously there were still plenty of issues and there still are.
  The country as a whole therefore has grown and developed interdependently and the states actually rely on each other a great deal. For one state to want to leave, or a group of them, it would cause negative impacts on the remaining states which would incentivize an attempt to keep them from leaving through the use of force. That is essentially true regardless of what state is being discussed or the reason for leaving.
  Now, add to that most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state and the complexities of the US separating peacefully become unlikely. It would effectively have to happen at the county level (or lower) and trying to codify boundaries would almost certainly compel the use of force somewhere. >
  
  
  most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state
  
  This is really important.  California, for example, sent more votes to Trump than most every other state, blue or red.
  Where I live in rural Washington state (but still on the coast) we have a pretty even mix of ideologies. >
  
  The way to solve this is to cut state and federal funding to counties that refuse to enforce the law. Why are we spending millions of dollars on a militarized police force if they aren't doing their job? >
  
  Should we start with leftist states and counties who declared they would not enforce the law on immigration? >
  
  Okay, but that doesn't actually do anything. States and cities aren't required to enforce federal laws for the federal government. That's why there is a federal law enforcement apparatus.
  However state law enforcement are absolutely required to enforce state laws for the state, it's kinda in the name 'state law enforcement.' >
  
  But the Sheriff is elected at the county level. If the state legislature passes a law and the governor signs into law a bill that is beyond hated in a certain county are you saying the Sheriff of that county has to ignore the voters they answer to? >
  
  Counties are not separate legal entities from the state. They are just a part of the state. The state can dissolve counties if it so chooses.
  The feds cannot dissolve a state.
  Yes, sheriffs are beholden to the state legislature and governor and the laws they pass, and must enforce those laws. >
  
  Yes, counties are part of the state, but technically, they are separate government entity. A lot of political power exists at the county level.
  Some simple examples include:
  -School districts are ran at the county level
  - County DA's office
  - Waste management 
  - Sheriff's Department 
  It may be possible in some state for the legislature to dissolve a county. I can not speak to 50 state constitutions. I only know in my state that it is not possible. 
  The Sheriff of my county is supposed to enforce the laws of the state, but again, in every county, the Sheriff has a wide latitude in choosing how they do that. If they choose not to enforce a state law in several states, there is not a lot the governor or legislature can do about it except send in state police to enforce the law. >
  
  Local governments only have the power that the state legislature allows them. All of that power has been delegated by the state and can be taken back.
  They can either dissolve a county or de facto dissolve a county by reclaiming its powers. >
  
  Depends on if the legislature has that power in its state constitution. 
  If such a power is not specifically granted to a state legislature in its state constitution, that is a textbook power grab. >
  
  No, it’s the opposite.
  The state legislature is the governing body that defines the law of the land.
  Unless the constitution Limits its powers- it has that power already. Full stop.
  It’s not a “power grab”, that is wrong. >
  
  Eliminating those who disagree with you is not a power grab? >
  
  Personally think it’s awesome the sheriffs aren’t enforcing that assault weapons ban (blatantly unconstitutional since “assault weapon” can mean literally any gun) and if the amount of counties that refuse to enforce it means anything, the chances of the state government forcing them into doing most likely won’t happen (if you get rid of the sheriffs, what’s stopping people from just voting for another one who won’t enforce it?) >
  
  The assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional. >
  
  It is based on the shall not infringe part as well as the recent Supreme Court ruling of DC V Heller. Which ruled that any firearm that is commonly used is protected by the second amendment. Now ar 15s are americas most popular rife so they definitely fall into that category making the law unconstitutional. >
  
  DC v Heller ruled that firearms are legal in defense of hearth and home. The court emphasized the home and self defense justifications for having handguns in the city. It did not rule on any basis of "common use." 
  The United States v Miller ruling still stands that regulation of certain firearms and firearm types does not intrude on the infringement clause. 
  The militia clause also keeps being stepped over for some reason. >
  
  “Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the second ammendment.” 
  Couldn’t that logic also be applied to ar-15s because they are common place and used for home defense. As well as semi auto rifles due to how popular they are.
  Couldn’t getting rid of a weapon like the ar-15 infringe upon the well regulated part of the second amendment. Due to that meaning well trained, well armed, and well disciplined in that time period.
  [ok last edit] the miller case states that they ruled the sawed off shotgun was not related to the efficiency or preservation of a well regulated milita. With the assault weapons ban getting rid of an entire class of rifle that undoubtedly effects the efficiency of a well regulated milita. >
  
  No, the whole point is that the handguns are commonly  used for protection. The idea that someone needs an AR-15 for home defense or self defense has never been supported by the Supreme Court. Ar-15s aren't as effective as shotguns for home defense and aren't as easy to carry as handguns. AR-15s only serve as target-shooters or people-shooters. They work better than handguns or shotguns at mass shooting people. They just aren't necessary. >
  
  I’d say I disagree with how you view the ar but even if you are correct the assault weapons ban would still be unconstitutional because it violates the well regulated part of the second amendment. The second amendments main purpose as proved in the Supreme Court is to allow the people to fight back against tyranny. Getting rid of a gun that as you put it is a people shooter would effect a militias ability to defend itself against tyranny and the miller ruling stated the milita means any able bodied man(I think it said man maybe it said individual but anyways). >
  
  The court found that possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. AR-15s are not necessary to fight tyranny. If the people who argue from your standpoint still believe that this little militia could defeat the US military, that is a delusional idea. 
  It's for the court to decide eventually, but the chance of the feds or some local tyrants attacking somebody is lower than the chance of the AR-15 being used to murder people. The militia is also not truly defined by the Supreme Court, so arguing that it's a force to fight tyranny is just as valid as saying that it's a force for tyranny.
  Nowhere in the amendment does it mention an AR-15. >
  
  Yeah it’s probably extremely rare possibility that the military or federal government would turn tyrannical. In terms of the people vs the military I think people don’t understand what would happen.  It would probably be a coup or some type of big revolution that’s in secret. A lot of unconventional warfare and spy stuff would happen not an all out war like Russia v Ukraine. When it comes to the milita is not defined to fight tyranny that’s not true based on the historical context of when that amendment is made it’s purpose was to be a last resort against tyranny.
  The amendment also doesn’t mention muskets or cannons but those are widely regarded as protected by the second amendment. There were grenade launchers(hand mortars) made before the constitution was written so should I be allowed to own that. The second amendment doesn’t state what you can or can’t own just that you can be armed and like you said it is up to the court to define that. While the Supreme Court has said the the second amendment protects handguns and that the amendment protects the right to self defense it also stated that the right was not unlimited but never defined a line. >
  
  The 2nd amendment was made because the British were taking our guns and using them against us. This was also during the time of muskets. Also, the public didn't really own grenade launchers. 
  Until SCOTUS makes another judgement, AR-15 regulation will come down to people's opinions and the state government. >
  
  What is the point of making laws if they are only going to be enforced if so and so local elected official likes it. >
  
  Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >
  
  It should mean that there are going to be a lot of cops getting fired, but unfortunately, their union will block that. >
  
  even if you wanted to fire them for not enforcing the law, now what? 
  you have zero cops in certain counties? how do you plan on filling those positions and protecting the citizens of said counties? >
  
  Seriously? You hire different cops. This isn't rocket science. >
  
  what an ignorant statement. 
  there is not an unlimited supply of cops. you cannot just fire an entire department and expect to find replacements quickly. there's simply not enough cops. >
  
  You realize people become cops, right? Cops make up about 1% of the population. Replacing all of them wouldn't take even half of those who are unemployed. >
  
  Oh man, being scrutinized for your behavior is enough to make someone not become a cop?
  That's an unvarnished good thing. If lack of scrunity was important to you in any way you absolutely should not be in law enforcement.
  You want to fix morale? Maybe start by not preaching 'killology' and telling cops they'll fuck like machines after executing someone. Give them a job that they can actually feel proud to do. >
  
  you jump to way too many conclusions. 
  they're not leaving because they're being scrutinized, they're leaving because nobody supports them. they show up to a call to help people only to be yelled at for doing their job. you have an extremely biased and naive view of police officers and it's quite obvious. 
  why the fuck would you want to show up to work every day just for everyone to tell you to fuck off when you get to the scene? do you genuinely not see their perspective?? 
  
  Give them a job that they can actually feel proud to do
  
  this is quite the ironic statement. if people actually supported cops who did their jobs, they probably would be proud. but when everyone says ACAB and screams at them when they're around, it's pretty hard to have high morale. a lot of people don't even want them around, so it's difficult to be proud when everyone hates you. 
  stop being so ignorant. use your 2 brain cells to put yourself in different perspectives and try to understand where others are coming from. 
  your current view is extremely narrow. the defund the police movement made a lot of cops realize they're not appreciated, and have no reason to protect people who don't appreciate the things they do for society, and i don't blame them. people shit on them all day while having no clue what they're talking about. you're a perfect example of that. >
  
  You accuse me of a narrow view and then just declare I hold all of these views I've never articulated. Amazing, it's almost like you've decided what it's convenient for me to support, and how I support it, so you can easily tear it down. That's called a strawman, for those in the audience. 
  There's no point in attempting to even open a dialogue with someone like that. It's a tactic used by fundamentally dishonest people who are pushing agendas, not engaging in discussions. >
  
  did you even read what i said? the only views i put on you are the ones i quoted, which you wrote yourself. 
  the only strawman argument is the one saying it's a strawman argument so you don't have to actually dismantle the comment. just dodging the entire comment using strawman as your come back, is quite literally the definition of a strawman argument.
  this is hilarious. if you have a counter argument for the actual comment i'd love to hear it, because i imagine it'll be quite lack lustre in truth. saying your view is narrow is not putting things on you, it's simply stating a fact based on the things you've said, which are quite biased. >
  
  It's unconstitutional. Any weapon can be used in an assault, making it a slippery slope while ignoring that pesky "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment.  Also, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle it stands for Armalite Rifle. There are many other guns that are more effective or cause more damage, but whatever. The 2nd amendment is there not for hunting only but to ensure the government stays beholden to the people. The moment the government decides its citizens are irrelevant, what is there for the people to protect themselves? >
  
  I'm in favor of counties refusing to enforce such laws.
  I would also support counties refusing to enforce anti abortion laws. >
  
  Can someone first define what an “assault weapon” is?  Are we talking about a rifle with a scary hand grip? >
  
  At this point it's just any semi-automatic rifle that accepts a box mag. They've also started pushing "assault pistol" >
  
  Laughs. I dunno. I'm still back in Law Enforcement refuses to Enforce Law. I think the USA has incredibly unprofessional policing so this isn't surprising as much as disappointing. What happens? More dead humans than are necessary. 
  I'd say drone strikes. Is that an overreaction? /S >
  
  Pritzker (the governor of Illinois) has said that he plans to send the state police in to enforce these laws. When you have the state police coming in to take people’s guns and the citizens and sheriffs saying they’re not going to give up those guns, your state is primed for widespread violence. I predict a lot of people in Illinois will be killed because of this.
  We’ll probably also see state lines being redrawn as the culture between the city and rural areas grow wider. This is happening in Eastern Oregon, Northern California, and Northern Colorado, with many counties in these areas voting to secede from their states. >
  
  Yeah I mean when over 80% of your state is refusing to enforce the law that you passed sending a state trooper or two isn’t gonna end well and that’s if the state trooper is even gonna follow those orders. Hopefully what will happen is that it will get shot down by a Supreme Court whether that’s the state or federal one. Personally I think that with the urban and rural political divide there needs to be some sort of change so those rural voices are heard or else this situation will just keep happening. >
  
  Rural voices are heard. They are proportionally more represented in congress than Urban voters. Wyoming gets two senators for less than 1 million people. There’s just a lot less of them. They are just outvoted in their states like blue voters in Texas or Florida, which both individually make up more people than rural voters in Illinois >
  
  Wyoming gets two senators because they are state, just like every other state which are equal in power before the federal government they came together to form. The Senate represents the interest of states as their own entities. The House of Representatives is where the population is represented and where Wyoming gets the least possible amount of representation, one representative.
  If you want to argue that the limited size of the house makes representation unfair, that's a completely valid argument and I would say that we should uncap the house to implement the Wyoming rule. But arguing that our systems of checks and balances needs to be further eroded to suit your own ends isn't okay >
  
  Yes the 50 million people in California get the same voice as 800k in Wyoming, that seems even. I know it’s in the constitution but the constitution was only written that way in order to get small states to sign it and doesn’t make sense anymore >
  
  The same voice only for certain things.
  There is plenty of proportional voice in the House for most other subjects. >
  
  These laws have little to no affect on criminals.  Basically they serve to make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves. >
  
  How often do you defend yourself with a rifle? >
  
  One thing that makes laws like the assault weapon ban in Illinois hard for people to take is when it’s not put on the ballot. I don’t understand for the life of me why this was not voted on rather than politicians making the decision. The way they pushed this through makes the divide worse and only reinforces idiots. >
  
  Yeah I agree we need to be a bit more democratic in order to fix these divides. We should be able to vote on local policies via state and county wide. >
  
  Setting aside the issue of the guns or the ban itself, any state that cannot enforce its own laws in certain areas isn't actually the end-all of state power in those areas. Quite a lot of Illinois (sheriff's offices) just declared themselves separate from the state govt. >
  
  Huge problem trying to make felons out of Americans!!
  DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!! >
  
  With Sandy Hook, dozens of children died. Look what they did with that.
  Nothing will ever change in regards to guns in this country. >
  
  Nothing. They are pouring across the state lines from stupid states as always. Those who are elected to uphold the law break it when they don’t enforce it. >
  
  It's going to be resolved in the next election for sheriff.  Most polls i've seen have a sizable majority wanting a new ban on assault rifles, so this could work out eventually in favor of sanity in our gun laws.
  Quick check of recent Illinois polls shows 48% D, 33% R and 19%I with 77% D, 34%R and 11%I FAVORING a ban on assault rifles. Looks like Land of Lincoln may have new SheriffS  in town come election day. >
  
  How does that go by county though? Because I have also seen polls which show that the ban is highly unpopular in pretty much every county besides like two. >
  
  Good point, but since 34% of R's favor banning assault rifles along with 49% of Indies, I'd say over 30 of the red counties will have a new Sheriff. This is more like Women's Rights v Dobbs than a simply D v R split. >
  
  I'll bet their tune would change if armed black people started marching through their towns. There is historical precedence for my speculation.
  ​
  
  do you think that we will start heading towards a more separated America?
  
  Yes. I do not see it getting better. People on the right have become so inundated with hate and insanity through their media sources that they actually believe things like "democrats support abortion so that they can harvest the adrenochrome from the fetuses so that they can live forever." 
  How does one even begin to approach a reasonable conversation with a person who believes that stuff? And there are 10s of millions in this country who have been brainwashed to this extent. >
  
  If you actually believe what you are saying you are just as brainwashed as your hypothetical republicans. >
  
  Except he can point to history when, for example, Ronald Reagan passed gun control because scary armed black people.
  That's in my lifetime.  It's not ancient history.  An awful lot of those people are still voting. >
  
  True but same can go for liberals I mean we got someone who voted pro Jim Crow laws as the president. Even now we’ve got extreme left leaning people wanting only black dorms at colleges.