Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #171
    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 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.
    This is the old, tired, 'technology' argument.
    The founders could never have imagined cable news networks, the telephone or the internet -- and yet, the bill of rights still covers these things.

    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...
    Um... no.
    It was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means necessary to protect their rights, thru the right to arms and the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.

    And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction.
    States have no right to violate the Constitution.

    Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days...
    No one disagrees that the right has limits.
    However, to see what limits might apply to the right to arms, I suggest you look to the right ti free speech as a giude.

  2. #172
    User Uncas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-30-10 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    25

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...
    Move to Virginia,Montana,South Dakota... just to name a few. We would like to have you carry and protect here!
    Land of the Free...Because of the Armed...

  3. #173
    User Uncas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-30-10 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    25

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.




    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.



    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.





    That need is still important today should the government ever become tyrannical.




    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 ****

    -------Original Message-------

    From: National Association for Gun Rights
    Date: 3/14/2010 6:12:54 PM
    To: Donna Arthur
    Subject: Papers please




    Dear Vigilant Gun Owner,

    What is it again the anti-gun politicians say would be “all ours” if we’d just give up our guns?

    “Safety,” right? “Security?”

    That’s the gun grabbers’ Big Lie.

    And it’s the same Big Lie the anti-gunners are using to try to ram through a new “REAL ID” Bill (more appropriately named, DANGEROUS ID).

    That’s why I hope you’ll agree to help me fight back TODAY.

    You see, President Obama and the rest of his anti-gun administration are upset.

    Thanks to your help -- and help from folks just like you from all over the country -- 23 states have come to their senses and REFUSED to comply with the original DANGEROUS ID Bill!

    But Barack Obama and the gun grabbers aren’t giving up.

    In fact, they’re going all out to ram “PASS ID” -- the new DANGEROUS ID Bill -- into law.

    That’s the LAST thing we need.

    In fact, we should do everything we can to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether!

    But that can’t happen unless you act TODAY.

    The fact is, the Obama Administration is trying to sell the new “PASS ID” bill introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) as a “softer, more palatable” version of the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

    Not surprisingly, it’s anything but.

    Just like the old bill, the new DANGEROUS ID Bill is nothing more than a transparent attempt to establish a National ID System.

    And since drivers’ licenses are required to buy firearms, DANGEROUS ID will almost certainly be used to create a national gun registry.

    Have a concealed carry permit? Well, concealed carry information is commonly included in state police databases...

    ...so you can bet your permit would be “registered” in the Federal Government’s new National ID system as well.

    And just consider the incredible authority Congress would transfer to Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano should the new DANGEROUS ID Bill pass.

    If passed, she could establish virtually any standards she wants!

    Retinal scans. Fingerprints. DNA data. RFID tracking chips so anti-gun government goons can watch your every movement. You name it.

    Are you feeling “safe” and “secure” yet?

    I know I’m not.

    In fact, after reading all those Homeland Security “memos” and “directives” calling patriotic Americans like you and me “terrorists,” all this sends shivers down my spine.

    If you agree, please act today: Click here to sign the petition urging your Congressman and Senators to stop PASS ID, and instead repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

    But as bad as all this is, it gets way worse.

    You see, the anti-gunners tipped their hand during the debate over the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

    In the original draft of the legislation, the proposed National ID database would have been linked to Mexican and Canadian ID databases.

    And the photograph requirements in the current “PASS ID” act follow the United Nations’ biometric formatting standards to a tee.

    Under these standards, government software can analyze facial characteristics and generate a unique identification number that includes not only your identity...

    ...but virtually any other information an international bureaucrat might want to know about you as well...

    ...like gun ownership, for example.

    You and I both know the anti-gunners ultimate goal is to strip EVERY private citizen of the right to own ANY gun.

    And if they have to use the UN or another world government body to succeed, so be it.

    Need I remind you that right outside United Nations headquarters in New York City stands a sculpture of a handgun with a knotted barrel?

    The fact is, you and I MUST do everything we can not only to defeat the new “PASS ID” act, but to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

    The good news is the National Association for Gun Rights has a plan to do exactly that.

    First, I’ve planned a massive take-no-prisoners grassroots mailing to really turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

    With any luck, this will slow “PASS ID” down, and -- just as importantly -- begin building the support for a total repeal.

    But that’s far from all I have planned.

    You see, if we’re going to win, you and I are going to have to go toe-to-toe with the gun grabbers with a full-scale media campaign.

    You know the deal.

    Targeted leafleting. Guest editorials. Blogging. Media interviews. Even newspaper, radio and TV ads if possible.

    And just in case the U.S. Senate doesn’t get the message right off the bat, we’re going to be ready to hammer them with mailing after grassroots mailing until they finally “see the light.”

    But none of this is cheap.

    In fact, a massive program like this will be very expensive.

    Trust me, I know how tough things are for many folks right now, and I didn’t make the decision to launch a fight to stop “PASS ID” and repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether lightly.

    At the same time, the decision to fight DANGEROUS ID wasn’t hard.

    You and I don’t have a choice. We simply must win this fight.

    If you agree, please click here to sign NAGR's petitions to your Congressman and Senators.

    In addition to your signed petitions, I hope you’ll also rush me a generous contribution of $250.

    I know that’s a lot to ask. But I wouldn’t even consider asking for $250 if this fight weren’t so critical.

    If $250 is just too much right now, I hope you’ll agree to make a contribution of at least $150, $100 or $50 instead.

    We’ve made some good headway in the last couple of years against DANGEROUS ID, and more and more Americans are aware of the danger.

    But Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and the rest of the Second Amendment’s sworn enemies aren’t happy -- and they’re determined to get their way.

    That’s why we MUST fight back now.

    So please make a generous contribution of $250. If that’s too much, please help out with a contribution of $200, $100 or $50 TODAY.

    For Liberty,



    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director

    P.S. The Obama Administration and the gun grabbers in Congress are doing everything they can to ram a new DANGEROUS ID into law.

    If passed, this new version -- called “PASS ID” -- will almost certainly be used to create a national gun registry and could even include mandated RFID-tracking chips so government goons can track your every move.

    That’s why it’s vital you sign NAGR's petition urging your Congressman and Senators to STOP "PASS ID” and instead repeal the original DANGEROUS ID Bill altogether!

    And please help NAGR in this critical fight by making a generous contribution of at least $200, $100 or $50 TODAY!


    To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

    To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

    Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
    Land of the Free...Because of the Armed...

  4. #174
    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

    My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument. The reasons you can't own an F-15, along with all the weapon systems that go along with it all relate to its destructive capacity, not to mean national security implications if individuals had access to the kind of secret technology on those things. An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm," a full automatic machine gun is an arm. But no one has a right to purchase one of these things because the destructive potential one can provide an individual is too great to allow them to be freely available.

    I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation. I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.

    I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is. Its inclusion in the Constitution was a direct result of the Revolutionary War, the British actions regarding private gun ownership prior to that war, and national security considerations. And of course individual security and protection of rights and property were considerations. But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered. The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin. Its a malleable document that is meant to be changed, has been changed(not just with amendments but with judicial rulings and interpretation, and comes with procedures for how to change it. The 2nd Amendment itself is a change, thats why its called an amendment.

  5. #175
    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
    My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument. The reasons you can't own an F-15, along with all the weapon systems that go along with it all relate to its destructive capacity, not to mean national security implications if individuals had access to the kind of secret technology on those things. An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm," a full automatic machine gun is an arm. But no one has a right to purchase one of these things because the destructive potential one can provide an individual is too great to allow them to be freely available.

    So since they had canons, grenades,rockets, multi rocket arrow launchers, mortars and other various other weapons back then it is okay for private citizens to own those things?

    I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation. I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.

    I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is. Its inclusion in the Constitution was a direct result of the Revolutionary War, the British actions regarding private gun ownership prior to that war, and national security considerations. And of course individual security and protection of rights and property were considerations. But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered.
    So since there were no computers, color magazines, TVs, video, mass printing printing presses, telephones and various other things that were not around 220 years ago then the government should be free to impose any "reasonable" restrictions they want? They also didn't having hidden cameras and microphones when the 4th amendment was written, so the 4th amendment does not apply with the government placing phone taps and other things to spy on you?


    It always amuses me when some anti-2nd amendment nut tries to argue that since they didn't have such and such thing back then the government is free to ban them. The right to defend yourself is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written, the need to defend against or remove a tyrannical government is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written, the need to defend against an armed invasion is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written(especially as porous as our borders are), and the need to defend your property and others is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written.It doesn't matter if there single shot muskuts or one day someone invents a solar powered hand held laser. Constitutional rights do not go away.

    The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin.
    I think most people's beef with the anti-2nd amendment loons is the fact that a lot of liberal states just ignore the constitution instead of actually changing it.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-30-10 at 12:13 AM.
    "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

  6. #176
    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

    Owning rockets, grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.. one would have to look at the circumstances, and I really don't see how its relevant to what we are discussing.

    Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same? Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive. Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm. However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
    You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? What if causing the deaths of thousands of people was as simple as walking into a store, buying the proper equipment, because there is no regulation on arms, and using it? Sure it might be expensive but a terrorist with international backing wouldn't have a problem with it.
    What security is there in that? How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can. One only has to look at the LA bank robbery where those two men with fully automatic RPKs fought off a hundred police for 4 hours. Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.

    What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned. And again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment entirely, I'm a gun owner myself. Please don't lump me into whatever neat little lines and stereotypes you've built into your head.

  7. #177
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? .

    2 little tiny points:

    1. 50 cal machine gun IS an ASSAULT WEAPON and has been banned since long before 1974.

    2. Being a murderous psychopath has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.


    There is NO justification to trample the Constitution... irrational fear isn't even reason for a discussion.. just therapy!
    CROUCH DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU; MAY YOUR CHAINS WEIGH LIGHTLY UPON YOU; AND MAY PROSPERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE MY COUNTRYMEN. -SAMUEL ADAMS

  8. #178
    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 thought we were arguing that such a ban is a breach of the 2nd Amendment? Which it actually is technically. But it still exists for an important reason, that reason being the kind of destructive power such weapons can provide such a single person.

    I have no problem with gun laws the way they are now, Federal gun laws are reasonable for me, and I believe states and communities should have the right to make gun laws based on how they want to live in their state or community. Just like I don't want some guy from California coming into Arizona and messing with our gun laws, making them stricter, I don't want some guy from Arizona going to California or Chicago and changing their laws. Its their state, its their community, its their life.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I have no problem with gun laws the way they are now, Federal gun laws are reasonable for me, and I believe states and communities should have the right to make gun laws based on how they want to live in their state or community. Just like I don't want some guy from California coming into Arizona and messing with our gun laws, making them stricter, I don't want some guy from Arizona going to California or Chicago and changing their laws. Its their state, its their community, its their life.
    And they are all free to do so as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of the individual in the process.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #180
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I its their community, its their life.
    True'dat... BUT the SCOTUS is now offering waivers for the uS Constitution to local municipalities... another slippery slope...

    Let's say OK locals can pass laws to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, where do you then draw the line? Nothing is now sacred and the states can just do damnwell as they please IE: Cal.'s legalization of marijuana... or for giggles let's say slavery in Alabama...

    We can't demand adherence to PART of the Constitution, and we should damnwelll repeal any past laws that do so.. The Constitution is a signed (ratified) contract and the Federalist Papers where the "Bill of Goods" which was "sold" to the States.. Which I for one, DEMAND adherence to... ALL of IT, NOT PART of IT.
    CROUCH DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU; MAY YOUR CHAINS WEIGH LIGHTLY UPON YOU; AND MAY PROSPERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE MY COUNTRYMEN. -SAMUEL ADAMS

Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •