Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #21
    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
    Gray arias where I don't agree but am willing to negotiate are background checks, registration and licensure.
    The problem with compromise on these issues is that compromise requires that both sides give something to the other. The anti-gun side has nothing to give to the pro-gun side in exchange for accepting these things.

    These items are all infringements, none of which should be accepted.

  2. #22
    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 Goobieman View Post
    U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com

    Says the mayor and the other anti-gun loons:



    So... what -is- the argument against the incorpration of the 2nd against the actions of the states, and how is it sound, given current jurisprudence regarding same?

    Hopefully the supreme court strikes down that ban for violating the 2nd amendment. Criminals and the authorities should not be the only ones with hand guns and other types of weapons. It is not the government's right to restrict 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. #23
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,406

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

    For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

    The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

    So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

    As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #24
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

    For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

    The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

    So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

    As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.
    I don't know that this is an accurate reflection of what most/many/any social conservatives have claimed. The religious clauses of the first amendment were incorporated against the states 70 years ago, and I don't know of anyone who has argued that the court was wrong to do so. I suppose it's possible that some people have objected along those lines, but I very much doubt that the view you're referring to is shared by many. In regards to Lawrence, that's not particularly analogous, since it was a far more controversial right.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 03-02-10 at 03:50 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #25
    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 Goobieman View Post
    The problem with compromise on these issues is that compromise requires that both sides give something to the other. The anti-gun side has nothing to give to the pro-gun side in exchange for accepting these things.

    These items are all infringements, none of which should be accepted.
    Well of course, but you can't get what you want by reaching for everything all at once.

    You have to take baby-steps.

    So, no more gun-free school zones and I'll register my weapon.

  6. #26
    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 SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

    For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

    The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

    So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

    As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.

    The 1st amendment just says they shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So a ten commandments plaque is not a 1st amendment violation.
    "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

  7. #27
    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

    The fact that a debate even exists is mind-boggling. To me, the argument is quite simple:

    Second Amendment + Fourteenth Amendment = Get away from my god damn guns, Daley!!!

    The idea that State and local governments can infringe upon this right is just a bunch of statist nonsense.

    Tucker, let's start a protest!!!

    P.S. - When the Chicago PD shows up we have to run away.

  8. #28
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Tucker, let's start a protest!!!

    P.S. - When the Chicago PD shows we have to run away.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #29
    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 Jerry View Post
    Well of course, but you can't get what you want by reaching for everything all at once.

    You have to take baby-steps.

    So, no more gun-free school zones and I'll register my weapon.
    Why should it be the government's business what weapon you own? Registrations are nothing more than a who has what list so the government knows who has what in the event they wish to confiscate firearms.
    "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

  10. #30
    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 SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.
    Really? Where?
    Certainly not here.

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •