Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 213

Thread: Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

  1. #41
    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

    What I find hilarious in a disturbing way are the audio clips of elected officials arguing for infringement because of a safety issue and that they are right to do it. I'm sorry, but I don't remember anything after "shall not be infringed" along the lines of "unless you really really think it's okay" or "well unless it's a safety issue". No, I'm pretty sure it ended at "shall not be infringed". It's amazing how these simpletons in Chicago, and these anti-gun loons don't seem to comprehend that.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #42
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    What I find hilarious in a disturbing way are the audio clips of elected officials arguing for infringement because of a safety issue and that they are right to do it. I'm sorry, but I don't remember anything after "shall not be infringed" along the lines of "unless you really really think it's okay" or "well unless it's a safety issue". No, I'm pretty sure it ended at "shall not be infringed". It's amazing how these simpletons in Chicago, and these anti-gun loons don't seem to comprehend that.
    Imagine their response to the idea that news reporters should need a license to report the news, a person need a license to post a blog, or a woman need a license to get an abortion.

  3. #43
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Imagine their response to the idea that news reporters should need a license to report the news, a person need a license to post a blog, or a woman need a license to get an abortion.
    They'd have a stroke.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #44
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    They'd have a stroke.
    Well, its a really good idea, and it benefits public safety - so their argument is moot.

  5. #45
    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

    I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

    My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

    If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

    But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

    So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

    Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 03-03-10 at 02:35 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #46
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

    My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

    If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

    But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

    So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

    Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
    You make this hard on yourself on purpose, dont you?

    Whatever the original intention of the BOR might have been, the 14th changes all that.

  7. #47
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

    My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

    If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

    But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

    So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

    Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
    Actually Tuck, you aren't being hypocritical in the least. Anti-Federalism does prefer state and local sovereignity over the national, this is true, however the philosophy also recognizes that state, local, and federal government are charged with upholding all protections within the Bill of Rights so therefore in very limited instances of violations of those protections the federal government not only can, but must intervene against the local authority.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #48
    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 Goobieman View Post
    You make this hard on yourself on purpose, dont you?

    Whatever the original intention of the BOR might have been, the 14th changes all that.
    True on both counts.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Actually Tuck, you aren't being hypocritical in the least. Anti-Federalism does prefer state and local sovereignity over the national, this is true, however the philosophy also recognizes that state, local, and federal government are charged with upholding all protections within the Bill of Rights so therefore in very limited instances of violations of those protections the federal government not only can, but must intervene against the local authority.
    To a point, I agree, but my own stance is that egregious violations of the common protections could/should lead to a revocation of membership within the republic, voted on by the respective states.

    That would be the approach that I feel that the Federal governemnt should take on these matters.

    In that case, it leaves it up to the State to decide whether or not common defense and the ability to have simple interstate trade is worth sacrificing over any such rights-violating legislation.

    If a state decided that it was worth the risk, they could be removed from the Union, at which point the Union could implement an embargo ( or worse) upon the State if they felt the violations were egregious enough.

    The State would retain it's sovereignty, but it could potentially receive unpleasant consequences for the choices it makes.




    Editted to add: since none of that seems likely, I just want my rights back.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 03-03-10 at 02:52 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #49
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    True on both counts.



    To a point, I agree, but my own stance is that egregious violations of the common protections could/should lead to a revocation of membership within the republic, voted on by the respective states.

    That would be the approach that I feel that the Federal governemnt should take on these matters.

    In that case, it leaves it up to the State to decide whether or not common defense and the ability to have simple interstate trade is worth sacrificing over any such rights-violating legislation.

    If a state decided that it was worth the risk, they could be removed from the Union, at which point the Union could implement an embargo ( or worse) upon the State if they felt the violations were egregious enough.

    The State would retain it's sovereignty, but it could potentially receive unpleasant consequences for the choices it makes.




    Editted to add: since none of that seems likely, I just want my rights back.
    Goobie's right, you do want to do things the hard way.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #50
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Goobie's right, you do want to do things the hard way.
    Don't mind me, I'm just justifying my hypocrisy.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •