Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #191
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    At the cost of infringing upon which arms I can have. Which violates the Constitution.
    The amendment doesn't set any specifics either way and that is where the wriggle room lies. One can argue that a stick with a nail in it meets the qualification of armed, and therefor banning everything else but that does not make you disarmed. ie follows the letter of the amendment.

    Now we are into the territory of exactly where the line should be drawn, and that is best left up to individual municipalities IMO.

  2. #192
    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
    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.
    All those things are arms.

    Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same?
    They are both constitutional rights. So they are the same.

    Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive.
    So should the 2nd amendment. The need to defend against a tyrannical government or to remove that tyrannical government, to defend oneself,property, others and against a armed invasion do not go away.

    When you try to use the BS technology argument regarding rights you are opening the door for other rights to be infringed up. For example they didn't have color magazines back then so the government can regulate what you can and can not print, they didn't have computers,phones, TV and other communication devices so the government can put bugs in those devices to spy on you, The Mormons did not exist back when the 1st amendment so the government can ban Mormons, they didn't have mass printing presses when the first amendment was written so the government can restrict what you use those things to print and so on.


    Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm.
    You can spill national secrets,slander someone, have someone killed and so on with words.



    However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
    Irrelevant. I single person back then could kill multiple people with a grenade,bomb, rocket, Hwacha( a multi rocket arrow launcher, it had two wheels so it could be pulled by one individual), and other weapons.





    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?
    Not if everyone else has a 50 cal machine gun,rifle or some other high powered weapon.Plus you sitting there firing such a large,loud and cumbersome weapon would make you an easy target for someone with a smaller weapon.



    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.
    You can do that already. With the right know how you can make such weapons.


    What security is there in that?
    Security is not freedom.If you want security then have yourself locked up in a supermax prison.


    How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can.
    How are our freedoms protected when only the government and thugs/criminals have modern arms?

    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.
    That is just a prime example of how strict regulation does not work and police not being adequately armed and protected. What next are you going to use Chicago a city with some of the most anti-2nd amendment laws in the country to prove that we need gun control?


    Besides they had three Romanian AIM rifles (an AKM copy), a modified HK91 and an AR-15. They also possessed two 9 mm Beretta 92F pistols, a .38-caliber revolver, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines.(according to wikipedia)

    Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.
    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

    I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned.
    The only change I would advocate is making the" shall not be infringed" part in bold and perhaps much larger that the rest of the 2nd amendment seeing how many of you anti-2nd amendment loons fail to notice that part.

    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.
    If you advocated hate speech laws, a restriction of religion, a restriction on who can peacefully assembly and petition the government for a redress of grievances,what you can print in color magazines and what exactly the press can and can not report would you be considered pro-1st amendment.

    What if you were for the government putting bugs inside every electronic communication device, would you be considered pro-4th amendment?

    What if you were for the government housing troops inside people's houses without asking the property owner's permission, would you be considered pro-3rd amendment?

    What if you for citizens being tried more than once for the same crime, being arrested with no charges and other things that blatantly violated the 5th amendment, would you be considered pro-5th amendment?

    Owning a gun, knife, bow and arrow,sword,pipe bomb or what ever else does not make you 2nd amendment proponent. When you advocate the restriction/infringement of a right you are not amendment proponent of that right you wish to have restricted/infringed. The Technology argument is nothing more than a load of hogwash that rights opponents use try to justify restricting rights.
    "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

  3. #193
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    The amendment doesn't set any specifics either way and that is where the wriggle room lies. One can argue that a stick with a nail in it meets the qualification of armed, and therefor banning everything else but that does not make you disarmed. ie follows the letter of the amendment.
    No it doesn't. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean you can infringe any way you like so long as you leave one option. It means shall not be infringed.
    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."

  4. #194
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Here have a stick with a nail in it.

    Your armed.

    Have a nice day.
    Or a baseball/cricket bat, or sword, or knife, or lead pipe, or pencil, or shoe lace or __________.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #195
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is no different than arguing the banning of Catholocism does not violate the 1st amendment, as you can still be a Lutheran.

    Or that banning criticism of the President does not violate the 1st amendment becaus eyou can still criticize Congress.
    Yes it is exactly like that isn't it. Just like you can't marry a person of the same gender, after all you are free to marry a person of the opposite one.

    Don't you just love grey areas.

  6. #196
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Yes it is exactly like that isn't it. Just like you can't marry a person of the same gender, after all you are free to marry a person of the opposite one.

    Don't you just love grey areas.
    Well marriage isn't covered in the Constitution, but freedom of religion is. So it's not so much a gray area as much as it is stupidity to suggest that the government can legitimately act against our rights.
    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."

  7. #197
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Or a baseball/cricket bat, or sword, or knife, or lead pipe, or pencil, or shoe lace or __________.
    The only one that qualifies there is a sword. The others are dual use.

  8. #198
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well marriage isn't covered in the Constitution, but freedom of religion is. So it's not so much a gray area as much as it is stupidity to suggest that the government can legitimately act against our rights.
    No it's not covered in the constitution, but the net result of the choice is. ie, equally unpalleteable

  9. #199
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Yes it is exactly like that isn't it.
    Good to see you agree that your 'as long as you have access to a stick' argument is unsound.

  10. #200
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    The only one that qualifies there is a sword. The others are dual use.
    False, proving again you know nothing about tactical weapons training. Anything that can be used as a weapon is an arm. This is why, if a pencil was used as a murder weapon we would say "The assailant armed himself with a pencil".
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 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
  •