The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.
The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.
I guess I should have explained my opinion. Fair enough.
Cigarettes are not reusable, are not continuously functional for a hundred years or more, and cannot end a life in a single muscle movement. This severely restricts situations in which they could potentially act analogously - they are too fundamentally different.
What makes it a good comparison in your view?
Just the analogy that you can setup laws to change the user behavior.
Just to reiterate this, there is a difference between smoking the last cigarette you could legally purchase, and the last gun you could legally purchase: The gun sticks around afterward.
I agree to the change in behavior that it will lead to a decrease in sales on legal markets, which was the basis of my comment. Now, what change in user behavior - if any - do these laws cause that would result in the non-possession of currently possessed firearm? That’s the only way the bans would be comparable.