Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #161
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    That makes sense... No shooting in bars, no drinking on the gun range.

    One wonders what hunters carry in the huge ice coolers...
    Bologna for lunch and beer for the evening after the hunt is over.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #162
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,751

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    What about honest people selling their guns when they're hard up for cash?
    relevance?



  3. #163
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    edited..question was answered by others.
    Last edited by deltabtry; 03-19-10 at 01:03 AM.

  4. #164
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Originally Posted by hazlnut
    What about honest people selling their guns when they're hard up for cash?
    I've sold a couple of guns I no longer wanted, over the years. Private sale, no paperwork in my state.

    I wouldn't, and didn't, sell to anyone who struck me as some kind of scumbag, or even the least bit questionable. I sold to people I already knew.

    Once, a fellow of questionable reputation asked me if I'd sell him a gun. I declined.

    I expect the majority of law-abiding gun owners do much the same, but it doesn't really matter. A scumbag can always get a gun from some other scumbag, if he has the money.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #165
    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 Gill View Post
    Bologna for lunch and beer for the evening after the hunt is over.
    You treasonous right-wing agitator. Dirty liberty-lover.

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    I think this decision should be made at the Chicago city level or at the very highest the state of Illinois. The people of that city and that state have the right to decide for themselves what kind of firearm laws they will have through their representatives, its not a national issue and doesn't concern the Supreme Court. If they want to ban all firearms in the city, fine. It doesn't affect me and I personally don't think I have any right to complain about laws in Chicago when I don't live anywhere near there.

    I'm a pro-gun guy myself, and own a rifle, but still I recognize its not my business how people in Chicago feel about guns. I know many people who have posted in here that the Supreme Court should overturn the ban have also railed against the healthcare bill for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance. How can you support one Federal Body, the Supreme Court, overturning a gun ban in a single city that could have national repercussions and thus pushing out the local laws people affected by the Chicago gun ban are already happy with. While at the same time be angry at another Federal Body, the Congress and President, for wanting to impose their idea of whats good on the whole nation as well.

    Lets get back to our ideals, let the communities, cities, and states decide for themselves.

  7. #167
    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 Wiseone View Post
    I think this decision should be made at the Chicago city level or at the very highest the state of Illinois.
    Wrong. The city of Chicago cannot regulate protected speech, they may not violate the fourth amendment, they may not forceably induce self-incriminating testimony against the fifth, and they may not legally apply unequal legal rights based on differences against the fourteenth. All of this follows that they cannot violate the second amendment either.
    The people of that city and that state have the right to decide for themselves what kind of firearm laws they will have through their representatives, its not a national issue and doesn't concern the Supreme Court.
    Also false, Bill of Rights protections are individual ones, so that means the city, state, or even a group of individuals not affiliated cannot "make those decisions" against an individual right. If they fail to realize this it is the federals business in that every one of those congressmen,SCOTUS justices, and the president took a legally binding oath to uphold the constitution. Oh, and it is ABSOLUTELY a Supreme Court issue if the circuit court gets it wrong.
    If they want to ban all firearms in the city, fine. It doesn't affect me and I personally don't think I have any right to complain about laws in Chicago when I don't live anywhere near there.
    No it isn't fine. Whether it affects you personally it sets a precedent that could spill over to you, to protect an Americans right whom you've never met is to protect your own, even if you disagree with them.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated. Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual. Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s. With firearms technology being what it was, it would require a mass movement to muster enough the firepower required to do something like overthrow the gov't or split off like the CSA.

    And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction. Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.

  9. #169
    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 Wiseone View Post
    I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated. Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual. Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
    Still wrong, bullets fire using gunpowder, always have. Even when the propulsion system changes, if ever like say......a rail gun which uses magnetic impulses theorhetically, it's still THE SAME PROCESS, trigger pulled, propulsion generated, bullet fired, final destination of bullet placed. You stated this as your opinion, well, that's not good enough to satisfy anyone into surrendering their rights and without demonstrating both necessary and proper and beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not have any business to either surrendering MY rights, nor to empower someone else to do so. BTW, the "technology changed" argument is the most easily defeated of the vapid gun grabber arguments, it's been beaten since the inception of this site, so let's bury it now.
    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s. With firearms technology being what it was, it would require a mass movement to muster enough the firepower required to do something like overthrow the gov't or split off like the CSA.
    And we are less apt to government abuse why?

    And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction.
    Too bad, that's not how the constitution works.
    Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.
    First off I don't see any general consensus amongst our citizens that guns need to be regulated in any substantial way. The rest of that point is nonsense.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #170
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated.
    The need to defend yourself,family and property is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to keep a tyrannical government at bay or to possibly overthrow that tyrannical government is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to defend yourself and others against an invasion is just as important today as the day second amendment was written.


    Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual.
    The 2nd amendment says arms, it does not specifically say firearms. So that also includes other arms like cannons,grenades,rockets,mortars,mines,multi rocket arrow launchers and other weapons which they did have at the time all around the world during the revolutionary war.

    Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
    It doesn't matter if that weapon is a single shot musket or if someday someone invents a hand held solar powered laser.Constitutional rights do not require regulation. Nor do they expire just because someone thinks they are obsolete.



    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s.
    That need is still important today should the government ever become tyrannical.


    And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction. Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.
    So your argument for infringing on a right is they didn't have that back then?
    So does that mean the 1st amendment and kinds of other rights are also obsolete? They didn't have photos,internet, high speed printing presses, churches were smaller, they didn't televisions,radios,telephones/cellphones, cameras and all kinds of other ****
    "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

Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •