Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #31
    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
    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.
    The problem with this is that you are not getting anything from the anti-gun side except a promise that they wont try to take something else. They aren't giving you anything in return for what you're giving up.
    That's a bad way to do business.

  2. #32
    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 this is that you are not getting anything from the anti-gun side except a promise that they wont try to take something else. They aren't giving you anything in return for what you're giving up.
    That's a bad way to do business.
    Ok, so....tax brakes for gun perches and I'll register my weapon

  3. #33
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,423

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    I can remember a few years ago on here when Roy Moore was being discussed, and many self identified conservatives believed the federal courts were being activist and violating Alabama's states rights when they ruled that Roy Moores actions were unconstitutional.

    I am searching through the archives, but its from like 2005. Groups like Focus on the Family and other religious / social conservative interest groups routinely use cases like that as examples of what they see as federal judiciary activism.
    "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. #34
    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

    So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?

  5. #35
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,809

    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.
    The ARC acts as if no guns is the natural state of things so they think they compromise by allowing us to keep some guns. Then in a few years they want to take half of what is left.

    One of the reasons why compromise with gun banners is not really possible is that we know owning guns does not cause crime and so do they. Thus compromises designed to increase public safety--which is how the ARC couches their arguments--are inherently dishonest. The purpose of the ARC is to ban guns owned by people who don't commit crime.



  6. #36
    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 Jerry View Post
    Ok, so....tax brakes for gun perches and I'll register my weapon
    So long as the tax break is at least 120% of the weapon's value!
    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. #37
    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 Ikari View Post
    So long as the tax break is at least 120% of the weapon's value!
    Absolutely, I mean it costs gas to get to the dealer, and then there's application/filing fees with the state.

  8. #38
    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
    So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
    Each state has its own laws to that effect, yes.

  9. #39
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    The ARC acts as if no guns is the natural state of things so they think they compromise by allowing us to keep some guns. Then in a few years they want to take half of what is left.
    Absoluely correct.
    They arent looking for compromise, they're looking for incremental capitulation.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
    No.

    The States have to comply with the Bill of Rights, too. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says.

    Oh. Gee. Golly. The Second Amendment (that's part of the Bill of Rights) says government can't infringe on one's ownership or carrying of firearms.

    Shame, isn't it, that the Magic Hispanic Twat the Messiah appointed to the USSC simply replaced some other air-head anti-Constitutionalist judge, isn't it, so the States are going to have soon stop depriving people of their rights.

Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •