Page 22 of 27 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 264

Thread: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

  1. #211
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Its so funny how the other 9 amendments to the bill of rights were meant for ALL citizens at ALL times...but the framers inserted THIS ONE AMENDMENT...the 2nd...in...for ONLY the purpose of opposing tyrannical governments...the leftist argument against the 2nd amendment is in a word...moronic.
    If liberals read the 2nd amendment like they do the rest of the constitition, everyone would be required to have a gun, and there would be an entitlement program to give you one if you could not afford one.

  2. #212
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That was indeed the intent, but it just isn't reasonable any more.
    Really? Didnt we lose the war in Iraq because of essentially that very thing?

    There are about 28 thousand gun related deaths in the US a year. So that's about 1 in 10 thousand Americans a year. Not that many in the big picture, but not an inconsequential number either.
    That number represents 0.009% of the guns in the US.
    If you figure just the murders, it represents 0.003% of the guns in the US.
    Thats about as inconsequential as it gets.

    Like I said though, nobody is advocating taking away your guns
    The SCotUS, in the last two years, overturned two laws that do just that, amid healthy complaisn from the anti-gun side. Your statement is unsupportable.

    We're advocating responsible gun ownership is all. Accept some reasonable safety requirements and focus on something important instead.
    As long as -I- get to define what is "responsible" and "reasonabke", sure.
    Are you game for that?

    You guys just need to chill out about it.
    Yes... because Constitutionally protected rights are something to be considered lightly.

  3. #213
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Really? Didnt we lose the war in Iraq because of essentially that very thing?
    The insurgents have surface to air missles, explosives, AK-47s up the wazoo, etc. And even with all that they certainly can't overthrow the US military presense there, they can just destabilize the country....

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That number represents 0.009% of the guns in the US.
    Of the guns? That is 1 in 10,000 people. Only about 40 million households in the US have guns in them, so that is one gun death a year for every 1,428 households that have a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The SCotUS, in the last two years, overturned two laws that do just that, amid healthy complaisn from the anti-gun side. Your statement is unsupportable.
    You're talking about a different thing. Restrict gun ownership in cities? Of course, yes, we want to do that. Restrict what types of guns you can have, yes, of course we want to do that. Take away your right to have guns? No, we don't want to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As long as -I- get to define what is "responsible" and "reasonabke", sure.
    Are you game for that?
    Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion that your idea of reasonable safety regulations involves 12 year old juvenille delinquints being allowed to bring grenade launchers with them to school without a permit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... because Constitutionally protected rights are something to be considered lightly.
    How often do you make a big hype about the right to refuse to quarter troops in your home? Just because it's a right you have doesn't mean it's worth your time to get all up in a tizzy about it all the time.

  4. #214
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    The insurgents have surface to air missles, explosives, AK-47s up the wazoo, etc.
    None of these things are beyond the concept of what a militia uses or does.

    And even with all that they certainly can't overthrow the US military presense there, they can just destabilize the country....
    And that's all the needed to do go get us to tuck tail and leave.
    You can lose every battle and still win the war, just as they did.

    Of the guns? That is 1 in 10,000 people. Only about 40 million households in the US have guns in them, so that is one gun death a year for every 1,428 households that have a gun.
    So? If the issue is a number of guns relating to a number of deaths, then the only valid comparison is the number of deaths for each gun.

    You're talking about a different thing.
    No, I am not. You were talking about banning guns. In those cities, the guns were banned. They would have remained banned of not for the court, and if, God forbid, the court over overturns itself, you can bet the guns will be banned again. Banning these guns takes away the right to own them; by supporting these bans, you want to take away the right to own guns.

    Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion that your idea of reasonable safety regulations involves 12 year old juvenille delinquints being allowed to bring grenade launchers with them to school without a permit..
    This is a self-serving, baseless and unsuppotable assumption. Straw, man.
    A "reasonable" gun control law does two things:
    - Ensures that criminals will not get guns
    - Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

    Just because it's a right you have doesn't mean it's worth your time to get all up in a tizzy about it all the time.
    You say that because this particular right doesnt mean much to you.
    If the issue were a right that did mean much to you, and the anti-right people were looking to restrict in whatever way THEY found "reasonable", your attitude would change.
    As such, your commentary here means nothing.

  5. #215
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Per the article:


    According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

    As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

    For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
    Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.
    Which version of the Constitution does it violate, the original one that said only well organized militia could carry guns, or the revised one backed by the NRA that allows anyone and everybody to carry one?

    ricksfolly

  6. #216
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,578

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Nah...I'll be even more blunt. The 'civil rights groups' and liberal politicians refuse to target the violence because it makes it hard to pretend you give a **** about minorities when you are being tough on ALL criminals. Its also REALLY tough to blame white people and appeal to white guilt and point the finger of blame at everyone else if you are expecting your community en masse to stand on their own two feet, universally denounce the gang bull**** and violence, and actually do things that might make a positive difference in the minority and poor communities. Why...then you would have capable and able people succeeding..and who then would you pander to for votes?

    You look at this recent polling intimidation bull****. If ever there where an opportunity to take a stand and say...you know what? Thats WRONG and there is NO excuse for it and YOUR stupid asses belong in prison...this was the case. But no...they excuse it...justify it...pretend its no big deal...and some even applaud it. This last case involving the 'new black panthers' says ALL we will EVER need to know...not about the douchebags that did it...we already get them loud and clear-they are black Klansmen, afro David Dukes...but about the idiots on the left that dont lead the charge in burying those three pices of ****.
    back in the 60's the motivation for gun control was a shield for liberals. nixon et all were hammering them for being soft on inner city skyrocketing crime so the libs pushed gun control to

    1) pretend they were trying to do something about urban violence

    2) cover their asses without hurting a main constituent group

    going after gun owners was not the original intent for most of the gun controllers-merely collateral damage. Indeed, there were no real pro gun lobbying groups (NRA was more into training and competitions) until the dems pushed the 68 GCA. after gun owners hit back against the cover their asses legislation dems pushed, then sticking it to the NRA and gun owners became the main foal of the ARC



  7. #217
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Which version of the Constitution does it violate, the original one that said only well organized militia could carry guns...
    Not that you have any hope of doing so, but.... show this to be true.

  8. #218
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,578

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Which version of the Constitution does it violate, the original one that said only well organized militia could carry guns, or the revised one backed by the NRA that allows anyone and everybody to carry one?

    ricksfolly
    another ignorant and unsupportable misreading of the constitution

    1) the second amendment did not say the militia only has the right to keep and bear arms

    2) nor did it merely say "the several states"

    3) more importantly, the second is to be read in the context of the entire bill of rights and the constitution which clearly demonstrates that the US Government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms and thus, under the tenth amendment, EVEN IF the second only applies to those on active duty in the militia (BTW how do disarmed people muster for a militia if they don't have arms?), then the 9th and tenth cover everyone else

    YOu are clearly clueless about the constitution and you make up what you hope it should say rather than what was intended by those who wrote it



  9. #219
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,578

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not that you have any hope of doing so, but.... show this to be true.
    he'd be better off trying to outshoot Robbie Leatham in an IPSC tournament



  10. #220
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    he'd be better off trying to outshoot Robbie Leatham in an IPSC tournament
    Or me, after a bottle of Cruzan vanilla.

Page 22 of 27 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •