• 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

So, again, I ask:
What's the 2nd Amedment analogue to yelling fire in a corwded theater?
To libel? Slander?
Fighting words? Inciting a riot?

Shooting a gun in a crowded theater would be comparable.

Simple ownership of a gun causes as much harm to society as simple ownership of a mouth, no more, no less. It's all in how it's used.
 
You can wear a firearm into a bar...but you can't drink while it's on your person. You have to remain sober.

Obviously not in every State.
 
guns last a long time--the one my grandfather carried in WWI is now mine and while I haven't shot it in years, it still works as well as any modern 1911.
Guns are truly 'durable goods'.

Why? because guns in the hands of honest people act to depress criminal activity while guns in the hands of criminals increase crime. Criminals have guns no matter what the law so that amount is pretty well static
It amazes me to no end that people who normally consider themseles to be intelligent will argue until they are blue in the face that making it harder for me to get a gun will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun.
 
Guns are truly 'durable goods'.


It amazes me to no end that people who normally consider themseles to be intelligent will argue until they are blue in the face that making it harder for me to get a gun will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun.

I know you understand this but for those who do not

they argue that because they are covering up their true motivation

they want it harder for people like you to get a gun

not for criminals.

criminals having guns help the leftwing

honest people having guns does not
 
You can wear a firearm into a bar...but you can't drink while it's on your person. You have to remain sober.

Interesting...

How about if you bring a case of beer to the shooting range, do you abstain from firing your weapon?
 
Interesting...

How about if you bring a case of beer to the shooting range, do you abstain from firing your weapon?

I've never been to a shooting range which didn't have a strict no-drinking policy.
 
I've never been to a shooting range which didn't have a strict no-drinking policy.

That makes sense... No shooting in bars, no drinking on the gun range.

One wonders what hunters carry in the huge ice coolers...
 
That makes sense... No shooting in bars, no drinking on the gun range.

One wonders what hunters carry in the huge ice coolers...

Don't let the cops catch you drinking and shooting ;)
 
That makes sense... No shooting in bars, no drinking on the gun range.

One wonders what hunters carry in the huge ice coolers...

Bologna for lunch and beer for the evening after the hunt is over.
 
edited..question was answered by others.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by hazlnut
What about honest people selling their guns when they're hard up for cash?

I've sold a couple of guns I no longer wanted, over the years. Private sale, no paperwork in my state.

I wouldn't, and didn't, sell to anyone who struck me as some kind of scumbag, or even the least bit questionable. I sold to people I already knew.

Once, a fellow of questionable reputation asked me if I'd sell him a gun. I declined.

I expect the majority of law-abiding gun owners do much the same, but it doesn't really matter. A scumbag can always get a gun from some other scumbag, if he has the money.
 
I think this decision should be made at the Chicago city level or at the very highest the state of Illinois. The people of that city and that state have the right to decide for themselves what kind of firearm laws they will have through their representatives, its not a national issue and doesn't concern the Supreme Court. If they want to ban all firearms in the city, fine. It doesn't affect me and I personally don't think I have any right to complain about laws in Chicago when I don't live anywhere near there.

I'm a pro-gun guy myself, and own a rifle, but still I recognize its not my business how people in Chicago feel about guns. I know many people who have posted in here that the Supreme Court should overturn the ban have also railed against the healthcare bill for requiring everyone to purchase health insurance. How can you support one Federal Body, the Supreme Court, overturning a gun ban in a single city that could have national repercussions and thus pushing out the local laws people affected by the Chicago gun ban are already happy with. While at the same time be angry at another Federal Body, the Congress and President, for wanting to impose their idea of whats good on the whole nation as well.

Lets get back to our ideals, let the communities, cities, and states decide for themselves.
 
I think this decision should be made at the Chicago city level or at the very highest the state of Illinois.
Wrong. The city of Chicago cannot regulate protected speech, they may not violate the fourth amendment, they may not forceably induce self-incriminating testimony against the fifth, and they may not legally apply unequal legal rights based on differences against the fourteenth. All of this follows that they cannot violate the second amendment either.
The people of that city and that state have the right to decide for themselves what kind of firearm laws they will have through their representatives, its not a national issue and doesn't concern the Supreme Court.
Also false, Bill of Rights protections are individual ones, so that means the city, state, or even a group of individuals not affiliated cannot "make those decisions" against an individual right. If they fail to realize this it is the federals business in that every one of those congressmen,SCOTUS justices, and the president took a legally binding oath to uphold the constitution. Oh, and it is ABSOLUTELY a Supreme Court issue if the circuit court gets it wrong.
If they want to ban all firearms in the city, fine. It doesn't affect me and I personally don't think I have any right to complain about laws in Chicago when I don't live anywhere near there.
No it isn't fine. Whether it affects you personally it sets a precedent that could spill over to you, to protect an Americans right whom you've never met is to protect your own, even if you disagree with them.
 
I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated. Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual. Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s. With firearms technology being what it was, it would require a mass movement to muster enough the firepower required to do something like overthrow the gov't or split off like the CSA.

And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction. Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.
 
I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated. Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual. Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
Still wrong, bullets fire using gunpowder, always have. Even when the propulsion system changes, if ever like say......a rail gun which uses magnetic impulses theorhetically, it's still THE SAME PROCESS, trigger pulled, propulsion generated, bullet fired, final destination of bullet placed. You stated this as your opinion, well, that's not good enough to satisfy anyone into surrendering their rights and without demonstrating both necessary and proper and beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not have any business to either surrendering MY rights, nor to empower someone else to do so. BTW, the "technology changed" argument is the most easily defeated of the vapid gun grabber arguments, it's been beaten since the inception of this site, so let's bury it now.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s. With firearms technology being what it was, it would require a mass movement to muster enough the firepower required to do something like overthrow the gov't or split off like the CSA.
And we are less apt to government abuse why?

And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction.
Too bad, that's not how the constitution works.
Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.
First off I don't see any general consensus amongst our citizens that guns need to be regulated in any substantial way. The rest of that point is nonsense.
 
I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated.

The need to defend yourself,family and property is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to keep a tyrannical government at bay or to possibly overthrow that tyrannical government is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to defend yourself and others against an invasion is just as important today as the day second amendment was written.


Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual.

The 2nd amendment says arms, it does not specifically say firearms. So that also includes other arms like cannons,grenades,rockets,mortars,mines,multi rocket arrow launchers and other weapons which they did have at the time all around the world during the revolutionary war.

Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.

It doesn't matter if that weapon is a single shot musket or if someday someone invents a hand held solar powered laser.Constitutional rights do not require regulation. Nor do they expire just because someone thinks they are obsolete.



The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to, it actually fit perfectly into the situation that existed in the late 1700s.

That need is still important today should the government ever become tyrannical.


And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction. Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days, I think its better for smaller government to decide what that regulation should be as opposed to overarching federal laws which might not be the best laws for everywhere in the country.

So your argument for infringing on a right is they didn't have that back then?
So does that mean the 1st amendment and kinds of other rights are also obsolete? They didn't have photos,internet, high speed printing presses, churches were smaller, they didn't televisions,radios,telephones/cellphones, cameras and all kinds of other ****
 
I look at the 2nd Amendment differently than the others, specifically because I think its out-dated. Now before you go and get your panties in a bunch I mean that at the time it was written firearms were limited to musket barrel loaded weapons, things that could achieve perhaps a rate of fire of 1 shot per 20 seconds in the hands of a trained individual. Today however technology has changed that and given the destructive potential certain firearms can provide an individual or small group of individuals there needs to be some regulation.
This is the old, tired, 'technology' argument.
The founders could never have imagined cable news networks, the telephone or the internet -- and yet, the bill of rights still covers these things.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with a means of violently overthrowing their gov't if they choose to or were forced to...
Um... no.
It was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means necessary to protect their rights, thru the right to arms and the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.

And I believe that regulation should decided by local and state governments who can make reasonable laws for their jurisdiction.
States have no right to violate the Constitution.

Since everyone agrees there must be some form of regulation on weapons these days...
No one disagrees that the right has limits.
However, to see what limits might apply to the right to arms, I suggest you look to the right ti free speech as a giude.
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...

Move to Virginia,Montana,South Dakota... just to name a few. We would like to have you carry and protect here!
 
The need to defend yourself,family and property is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to keep a tyrannical government at bay or to possibly overthrow that tyrannical government is just as important today as the day the second amendment was written. The need to defend yourself and others against an invasion is just as important today as the day second amendment was written.




The 2nd amendment says arms, it does not specifically say firearms. So that also includes other arms like cannons,grenades,rockets,mortars,mines,multi rocket arrow launchers and other weapons which they did have at the time all around the world during the revolutionary war.



It doesn't matter if that weapon is a single shot musket or if someday someone invents a hand held solar powered laser.Constitutional rights do not require regulation. Nor do they expire just because someone thinks they are obsolete.





That need is still important today should the government ever become tyrannical.




So your argument for infringing on a right is they didn't have that back then?
So does that mean the 1st amendment and kinds of other rights are also obsolete? They didn't have photos,internet, high speed printing presses, churches were smaller, they didn't televisions,radios,telephones/cellphones, cameras and all kinds of other ****


-------Original Message-------

From: National Association for Gun Rights
Date: 3/14/2010 6:12:54 PM
To: Donna Arthur
Subject: Papers please




Dear Vigilant Gun Owner,

What is it again the anti-gun politicians say would be “all ours” if we’d just give up our guns?

“Safety,” right? “Security?”

That’s the gun grabbers’ Big Lie.

And it’s the same Big Lie the anti-gunners are using to try to ram through a new “REAL ID” Bill (more appropriately named, DANGEROUS ID).

That’s why I hope you’ll agree to help me fight back TODAY.

You see, President Obama and the rest of his anti-gun administration are upset.

Thanks to your help -- and help from folks just like you from all over the country -- 23 states have come to their senses and REFUSED to comply with the original DANGEROUS ID Bill!

But Barack Obama and the gun grabbers aren’t giving up.

In fact, they’re going all out to ram “PASS ID” -- the new DANGEROUS ID Bill -- into law.

That’s the LAST thing we need.

In fact, we should do everything we can to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether!

But that can’t happen unless you act TODAY.

The fact is, the Obama Administration is trying to sell the new “PASS ID” bill introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) as a “softer, more palatable” version of the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

Not surprisingly, it’s anything but.

Just like the old bill, the new DANGEROUS ID Bill is nothing more than a transparent attempt to establish a National ID System.

And since drivers’ licenses are required to buy firearms, DANGEROUS ID will almost certainly be used to create a national gun registry.

Have a concealed carry permit? Well, concealed carry information is commonly included in state police databases...

...so you can bet your permit would be “registered” in the Federal Government’s new National ID system as well.

And just consider the incredible authority Congress would transfer to Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano should the new DANGEROUS ID Bill pass.

If passed, she could establish virtually any standards she wants!

Retinal scans. Fingerprints. DNA data. RFID tracking chips so anti-gun government goons can watch your every movement. You name it.

Are you feeling “safe” and “secure” yet?

I know I’m not.

In fact, after reading all those Homeland Security “memos” and “directives” calling patriotic Americans like you and me “terrorists,” all this sends shivers down my spine.

If you agree, please act today: Click here to sign the petition urging your Congressman and Senators to stop PASS ID, and instead repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

But as bad as all this is, it gets way worse.

You see, the anti-gunners tipped their hand during the debate over the original DANGEROUS ID Bill.

In the original draft of the legislation, the proposed National ID database would have been linked to Mexican and Canadian ID databases.

And the photograph requirements in the current “PASS ID” act follow the United Nations’ biometric formatting standards to a tee.

Under these standards, government software can analyze facial characteristics and generate a unique identification number that includes not only your identity...

...but virtually any other information an international bureaucrat might want to know about you as well...

...like gun ownership, for example.

You and I both know the anti-gunners ultimate goal is to strip EVERY private citizen of the right to own ANY gun.

And if they have to use the UN or another world government body to succeed, so be it.

Need I remind you that right outside United Nations headquarters in New York City stands a sculpture of a handgun with a knotted barrel?

The fact is, you and I MUST do everything we can not only to defeat the new “PASS ID” act, but to repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether.

The good news is the National Association for Gun Rights has a plan to do exactly that.

First, I’ve planned a massive take-no-prisoners grassroots mailing to really turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

With any luck, this will slow “PASS ID” down, and -- just as importantly -- begin building the support for a total repeal.

But that’s far from all I have planned.

You see, if we’re going to win, you and I are going to have to go toe-to-toe with the gun grabbers with a full-scale media campaign.

You know the deal.

Targeted leafleting. Guest editorials. Blogging. Media interviews. Even newspaper, radio and TV ads if possible.

And just in case the U.S. Senate doesn’t get the message right off the bat, we’re going to be ready to hammer them with mailing after grassroots mailing until they finally “see the light.”

But none of this is cheap.

In fact, a massive program like this will be very expensive.

Trust me, I know how tough things are for many folks right now, and I didn’t make the decision to launch a fight to stop “PASS ID” and repeal DANGEROUS ID altogether lightly.

At the same time, the decision to fight DANGEROUS ID wasn’t hard.

You and I don’t have a choice. We simply must win this fight.

If you agree, please click here to sign NAGR's petitions to your Congressman and Senators.

In addition to your signed petitions, I hope you’ll also rush me a generous contribution of $250.

I know that’s a lot to ask. But I wouldn’t even consider asking for $250 if this fight weren’t so critical.

If $250 is just too much right now, I hope you’ll agree to make a contribution of at least $150, $100 or $50 instead.

We’ve made some good headway in the last couple of years against DANGEROUS ID, and more and more Americans are aware of the danger.

But Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and the rest of the Second Amendment’s sworn enemies aren’t happy -- and they’re determined to get their way.

That’s why we MUST fight back now.

So please make a generous contribution of $250. If that’s too much, please help out with a contribution of $200, $100 or $50 TODAY.

For Liberty,



Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. The Obama Administration and the gun grabbers in Congress are doing everything they can to ram a new DANGEROUS ID into law.

If passed, this new version -- called “PASS ID” -- will almost certainly be used to create a national gun registry and could even include mandated RFID-tracking chips so government goons can track your every move.

That’s why it’s vital you sign NAGR's petition urging your Congressman and Senators to STOP "PASS ID” and instead repeal the original DANGEROUS ID Bill altogether!

And please help NAGR in this critical fight by making a generous contribution of at least $200, $100 or $50 TODAY!


To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
 
My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument. The reasons you can't own an F-15, along with all the weapon systems that go along with it all relate to its destructive capacity, not to mean national security implications if individuals had access to the kind of secret technology on those things. An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm," a full automatic machine gun is an arm. But no one has a right to purchase one of these things because the destructive potential one can provide an individual is too great to allow them to be freely available.

I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation. I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.

I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is. Its inclusion in the Constitution was a direct result of the Revolutionary War, the British actions regarding private gun ownership prior to that war, and national security considerations. And of course individual security and protection of rights and property were considerations. But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered. The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin. Its a malleable document that is meant to be changed, has been changed(not just with amendments but with judicial rulings and interpretation, and comes with procedures for how to change it. The 2nd Amendment itself is a change, thats why its called an amendment.
 
My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument. The reasons you can't own an F-15, along with all the weapon systems that go along with it all relate to its destructive capacity, not to mean national security implications if individuals had access to the kind of secret technology on those things. An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm," a full automatic machine gun is an arm. But no one has a right to purchase one of these things because the destructive potential one can provide an individual is too great to allow them to be freely available.


So since they had canons, grenades,rockets, multi rocket arrow launchers, mortars and other various other weapons back then it is okay for private citizens to own those things?

I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation. I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.

I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is. Its inclusion in the Constitution was a direct result of the Revolutionary War, the British actions regarding private gun ownership prior to that war, and national security considerations. And of course individual security and protection of rights and property were considerations. But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered.

So since there were no computers, color magazines, TVs, video, mass printing printing presses, telephones and various other things that were not around 220 years ago then the government should be free to impose any "reasonable" restrictions they want? They also didn't having hidden cameras and microphones when the 4th amendment was written, so the 4th amendment does not apply with the government placing phone taps and other things to spy on you?


It always amuses me when some anti-2nd amendment nut tries to argue that since they didn't have such and such thing back then the government is free to ban them. The right to defend yourself is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written, the need to defend against or remove a tyrannical government is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written, the need to defend against an armed invasion is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written(especially as porous as our borders are), and the need to defend your property and others is just as important today as when the 2nd amendment was written.It doesn't matter if there single shot muskuts or one day someone invents a solar powered hand held laser. Constitutional rights do not go away.

The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin.

I think most people's beef with the anti-2nd amendment loons is the fact that a lot of liberal states just ignore the constitution instead of actually changing it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom