• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

Tucker Case said:
Don't mind me, I'm just justifying my hypocrisy. :lol::mrgreen:
Click to expand...
You may be the only debater I've ever encountered that would own hypocracy when allowed a perfectly reasoned explanation of why he isn't a hypocrite.
 
Anyone see anything regarding the oral arguments?
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just like the purpose of speed limits is to keep race cars off the street. :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
Each state has its own laws to that effect, yes.
Click to expand...
So a State can decide that you need a permit to walk around with a gun strapped to your waist? Can they also say you can't walk around with a gun strapped to your waste?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
So a State can decide that you need a permit to walk around with a gun strapped to your waist? Can they also say you can't walk around with a gun strapped to your waste?
Click to expand...

Can they require a licence to speak in public?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, "the Magic Hispanic Twat" Hmm, bigotry against magic, racism and misogyny all in one short phrase. I'm sure you're proud.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because I think everyone should be able to stand up in a crowded theater and yell FIRE!!!
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Wow, "the Magic Hispanic Twat" Hmm, bigotry against magic, racism and misogyny all in one short phrase. I'm sure you're proud.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one bragging about having a talking hispanic vagina. That judgette your Messiah appointed to the USSC was. Take it up with her.
 
Tucker Case said:
They wouldn't release the audio.
Click to expand...

I read the transcript today. Gura was trying to argue an angle that would require overturning 140 years of precedent (Slaughter House Case) while Paul Clement-perhaps the most able appellate advocate in the USA, went with a far more traditional and straightforward argument. The Chicago Solicitor-Feldman-was way out of his league

What is interesting is all the worry about machine guns but the fact remains, machine guns are commonly used by civilian law enforcement and if you really read heller carefully as well as the predicted decision in McDonald, a good argument for overturning federal and state bans on machine guns exist
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yeah, because I think everyone should be able to stand up in a crowded theater and yell FIRE!!!
Click to expand...

stupid analogy. You are allowed to yell fire if the theater is empty or if there is a fire. You cannot fire a machine gun in a crowded theater unless you have a lawful reason. No one is suggesting banning Yelling fire under all circumstances but the hoplophobes want to ban mere possession of certain or all firearms along with use
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm not the one bragging about having a talking hispanic vagina. That judgette your Messiah appointed to the USSC was. Take it up with her.
Click to expand...

Oh hey another for the ignore list.
 
TurtleDude said:
I bet that just breaks his heart in two:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well, if I cared what people like him thought I'd have much higher blood pressure.


This is an interesting case. It's sort of the 2nd amendment combined with the 14th amendment butting heads with the 10th amendment.
 
Deuce said:
Well, if I cared what people like him thought I'd have much higher blood pressure.


This is an interesting case. It's sort of the 2nd amendment combined with the 14th amendment butting heads with the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

sort of but the tenth amendment, if properly read would completely wipe away all federal gun control provisions in their entirety. Gura tried to argue the privileges and immunities angle and noted that the slaughter-house case should be ignored which is the prevailing attitude of legal scholars including the top two con law professors in the USA-Laurence Tribe and sterling professor of law at Yale, AKhil Reed Amar who is probably the most respected con law intellectual in the USA at this point. Scalia chided Gura on pushing what the "professorship or professortate wanted". Clement-former Solicitor General and #1 in his class (the year after obama) at Harvard law argued due process which is the more standard argument.

It appears to me the justices will overrule chicago
 
Deuce said:
This is an interesting case. It's sort of the 2nd amendment combined with the 14th amendment butting heads with the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

Ironic, considering our government regularly ignores all three of them...
 
Deuce said:
They're really more like guidelines...

Click to expand...

Believe me, I wish Captain Jack Sparrow was the President right now.

Health care reform would be the last thing on his mind!
 
Ethereal said:
Believe me, I wish Captain Jack Sparrow was the President right now.

Health care reform would be the last thing on his mind!
Click to expand...

If Capt'n Jack were President, then Obama would be Lord Cutler Beckett sitting in his luxurious quarters trying to figure out what "9 pieces of 8" means, never realizing that a "piece of eight" is a Spanish dollar :doh
 
Ethereal said:
Believe me, I wish Captain Jack Sparrow was the President right now.

Health care reform would be the last thing on his mind!
Click to expand...

Must be nice to live in a world where affordable health care isn't a problem.
 
guide_to_firearms_tfb_tfb5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom