Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Partisan politics is nothing new, but what I meant to say is that the intensity has increased a lot in the past 10 years. I wasn't around for previous big campaigns like the Cold War or Vietnam, and I was too young to even remember the First Gulf War. It just seems like the polarization of the nation has intensified a lot. People seem to pick their side and stick to it with everything.
    No, it hasn't intensified, people just say it has, just like they were saying the same thing twenty years ago, because they then want to paint the picture that their side would get more done if the other side wasn't so obstinate.

    It's really been an issue since the 1968 election, when the socialist loons hijacked the Democrat Party and began to seriously destroy those basic American values. The Right has made some stupid moves, too, but their moves are more like the chaotic groping of a spider squashed by a rock, whereas the Democrats are moving in a single purposeful direction.

    However, I think the majority of people have finally identified one of the core issues. They want the government to stop spending. They don't want the government to take over healthcare. They're finally realizing that the problem is the government itself.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

    ~snip~

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

    ~snip~

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
    Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
    Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


    Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

    You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-04-10 at 02:43 PM.

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Weapon In common use at the time? is dangerous and unusual?

    Pistol yes no
    Rifle? yes no
    Automatic rifle yes no
    Grenade launcher yes yes
    Patriot missile battery no yes
    Nuclear warheads no yes


    Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

    You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
    Well done.

  4. #114
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I bet that just breaks his heart in two
    No heart involved.
    The scarecrow is a fabricated representation of the worst atributes of man. Easy for the clever to do o'er the internet.
    At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....a silent majority...remember that one?
    I may be the only "liberal" on this thread....the smarter ones realize that this subject(gun rights) is not worth their time and trouble....something about arguing with fools.

  5. #115
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....
    Except for the fact that there's no substantiation for the position that gun control improves the health and welfare of those who suffer under it.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Except the Bill of Rights do not add any qualifiers to "shall not be infringed" it's plain english with no "unless you really want to because you think that for no damn good reason that criminalizing guns just to make yourself feel better." Your side must demonstrate a necessary and proper restriction that qualifies beyond a shadow of a doubt to be both necessary AND proper, so far disarming innocent gun owners hasn't accomplished anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    For some reason some people think appeal to majority is somehow superior to the constitution, it makes me wonder what has gone wrong with our educational system that they can't understand the very plain english of the constitution or our founding writings.
    Perhaps you could identify my position on gun control in this thread? Oh, you can't? Let me help you... I have guns, I like to target/trap/skeet shoot as well as hunting. I am pro gun all the way except... I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions. Like with free speech... I'm certainly not taking a position on the Chicago ban, I'm merely pointing out that we do in fact restrict things we consider rights, where appropriate.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So, you cannot describe a 2nd amedment analogue to yelling fire in a theater.
    Thanks.
    I guess I could say that you can't bring a firearm into a bar. Does that qualify?

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
    That's not we he's asking. The request was: As it concerns arms, what's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater? Would it be possessing a weapon, or something more extreme, like shooting someone? What's the equivalent act in terms of arms?

  9. #119
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Perhaps you could identify my position on gun control in this thread? Oh, you can't?
    Considering you used the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't protect the individual and the second specifically by abusing the secondary militia argument, I don't think I've made any mistakes in where you stand.
    Let me help you... I have guns, I like to target/trap/skeet shoot as well as hunting. I am pro gun all the way except... I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions.
    How can you be on board with the second amendment conditionally? The "reasonable" regulations do nothing to curb violence and have been known to in fact encourage crime spikes, "reasonable" regulations are not preemptive.
    Like with free speech... I'm certainly not taking a position on the Chicago ban, I'm merely pointing out that we do in fact restrict things we consider rights, where appropriate.
    You used the shouting fire example, the way that prohibited speech works is that there is a demonstrable danger which is immenent, clear, and present and the mere utterance of those words or phrases will cause harm, either that of body, public safety, or character, this is not compatible with saying that because people own guns other people get shot, the two are not causal on their face, whereas utterances of threats, fighting words, and panic inducing phrases are. You'll have to think of something more concrete.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #120
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    No heart involved.
    The scarecrow is a fabricated representation of the worst atributes of man. Easy for the clever to do o'er the internet.
    At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....a silent majority...remember that one?
    I may be the only "liberal" on this thread....the smarter ones realize that this subject(gun rights) is not worth their time and trouble....something about arguing with fools.
    On most issues I'm pretty much a bleeding heart hippie commie liberal. (or so I'm told)

    On gun control, however, I'm far more moderate, even leaning right depending on how you draw it. There's no real good reasoning for complete bans on handguns, for instance. There's no evidence to show that strict gun control saves lives, in fact, many of our cities with the strongest gun control laws actually have some of the highest gun-related crime rates. As the old saying goes, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." A man willing to rob a bank or hold up a convenience store isn't going to be stopped by laws against owning the gun.

    Similarly, bans on "assault weapons" fall short a bit too. Virtually no crime is committed with "assault" weapons. You don't rob a bank with an M16. It's too big, you can't hide it under your coat, and most of the population can't shoot one properly anyway. You instead bring a smaller weapon you can conceal. Bullets are bullets. Any gun can kill someone, and any gun is a lethal threat to whoever you're trying to rob/kill.

    Things start to break down with the more powerful weaponry, though. It gets harder to make a self-defense argument when it comes to a grenade launcher. Yeah, you can sure kill people with it, but the risk of collateral damage shoots up and it's not really more lethal to the burglar than your shotgun is. Similarly, a stinger missile launcher is pretty much impossible to use in self-defense. What legitimate reason could you have for shooting down an aircraft?

    And there just are no circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be considered self-defense. (for an individual)

    To add to the argument in favor of gun rights, conceal-carry laws seem to even decrease crime rates. If there's a possibility that any potential victim could actually be a lethal threat, a criminal is less inclined to go after them. There's a million variables involved with crime rates, so I can't make the argument that more guns = less crime directly, but there does seem to be a correlation. So, since the situation is more ambiguous, the smart thing to do is err on the side of greater individual freedoms.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •