Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #131
    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 NoJingoLingo View Post
    I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions. Like with free speech...
    I agree - restictions on guns should only be allowed as far as restrictions on free speech, and for the same reasons.

    What's the 2nd Amedment analogue to yelling fire in a corwded theater?
    To libel? Slander?
    Fighting words? Inciting a riot?

  2. #132
    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 NoJingoLingo View Post
    I guess I could say that you can't bring a firearm into a bar. Does that qualify?
    Nope. That would be the same as bringing your mouth into a bar.

  3. #133
    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
    So States CAN and do actually restrict who can have guns in certain places and ban guns in certain places? Is this similar to the Chicago issue?
    No, Chicago and DC banned handguns in total, couldn't be legally purchased and had limits on even home storage. Basically there are two issues with the bar ban, private establishments have every right to bar whatever they want from their premises as these are owned solely by private entities, however, businesses have to be licensed by the state and city they do business with, especially establisments that serve food/liquor to the public, so most states have asserted that they have a right to ban guns from bars due to the licensing agreement between the state and establishment, Tennessee(Thanks Goshin) basically reigned back most of the restriction to give bars more discretion on allowing firearms, but only to CCW holders, and only sober ones. I don't have a problem with requiring people to be sober when they are packing because frankly, alcohol and guns truly do not pair well together.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #134
    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
    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.
    Why not just ban bank robbing?

  5. #135
    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
    No, Chicago and DC banned handguns in total, couldn't be legally purchased and had limits on even home storage. Basically there are two issues with the bar ban, private establishments have every right to bar whatever they want from their premises as these are owned solely by private entities, however, businesses have to be licensed by the state and city they do business with, especially establisments that serve food/liquor to the public, so most states have asserted that they have a right to ban guns from bars due to the licensing agreement between the state and establishment, Tennessee(Thanks Goshin) basically reigned back most of the restriction to give bars more discretion on allowing firearms, but only to CCW holders, and only sober ones. I don't have a problem with requiring people to be sober when they are packing because frankly, alcohol and guns truly do not pair well together.
    I certainly don't agree with an all out ban of ownership. That just seems ridiculous, people have a right to protect their homes if nothing else.

    But it does appear that the government can and does put limits on ownership and possession. Whether it's not allowing them in court rooms or bars or requiring a permit to own or carry. Now, is this good or bad? I would certainly say outright banning ownership is unacceptable.

  6. #136
    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
    I certainly don't agree with an all out ban of ownership. That just seems ridiculous, people have a right to protect their homes if nothing else.

    But it does appear that the government can and does put limits on ownership and possession. Whether it's not allowing them in court rooms or bars or requiring a permit to own or carry. Now, is this good or bad? I would certainly say outright banning ownership is unacceptable.
    I have no problem with courts, prisons, or other government facilities banning guns on the premises, it is government property and security is an issue, I can concede some blanket laws against drunks in possession in say....a bar where other drunks could cause a situation to escalate, a fight could turn into a murder, however I think the Tennessee law was a perfect compromise. I see some merit to conceal carry law as most dishonest gun holders would conceal to gain advantage, those that would apply for a permit would be more likely to follow appropriate laws, and since they have a clean record would be the least likely to use the gun in a crime. The problem doesn't stem from government issuing bans on their own property, it's when they attempt to infringe my rights on my person or property, someone else's property, or even the public square that it becomes an overall bad.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #137
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well, because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.

    Although you could fire bullets in morse code....
    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.

  8. #138
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well,
    Yes it does,both are constitutional rights.

    because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.
    Irrelevant,both are protected individual rights under the constitution.

    Although you could fire bullets in morse code....
    Words can sometimes get someone killed.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #139
    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 Deuce View Post
    Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well, because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.
    They're both Constitutional rights. Just because you don't like one those rights, does not mean it's less of a right than the other.

  10. #140
    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

    It's kinda weird when a pro-choicer comes out against the second amendment.

    You don't want a woman to be able to kill her rapist, but you want her to be able to kill her own child if that rapist gets her pregnant.

    Does not compute.

Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •