• 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!

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

So the anti-anchor baby people really support the failure of a bill to deny citizenship to reinforce their anti-anchor baby position? I don't know about that one.

An anti-anchor baby legislator might quietly support some radical law which would grant automatic citizenship for the anchor's family. When the redical law is shot down, the anti-anchor baby's position has a new ruling to cite in supporting his arguments.

If you're pro-choice, support pro-life laws requiring women to view an ultrasound before the abortion. Such laws reinforce the woman's legal right to have the abortion and impede any abortion ban attempt.

If you're pro-gun, support anti-gun laws requiring a 5 hour class, because such laws reinforce your right to carry.
 
Last edited:
More lies. No surprise considering the source.

Failure to understand what a lie is. No surprise considering the source.

The judgment was based on race not sexual preference. Pretty sad to see you continue to lie about this despite being exposed every time you try it.

The basis does not change the fact that the ruling specifically states the marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Pretty sad to see you continue to make idiotic statements exposing your lack of understanding of what you read and it will be spoken to every time you try it.
 
No, marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the SCotUS in at least two different rulings. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a right.

I don't believe it does pass scrutiny.

The cases you cite were cases that involved one man and one woman,.... Not same sex.
 
An anti-anchor baby legislator might quietly support some radical law which would grant automatic citizenship for the anchor's family. When the redical law is shot down, the anti-anchor baby's position has a new ruling to cite in supporting his arguments.

But that's not what the anti-anchor are doing. They are legislating a bill that directly denies citizenship to people born here who have illegal parents. COTUS clearly states you're born here you're a citizen. Getting that shutdown doesn't follow your line of thinking.

If you're pro-choice, support pro-life laws requiring women to view an ultrasound before the abortion. Such laws reinforce the woman's legal right to have the abortion and impede any abortion ban attempt.

Okay, that I understand.
 
The cases you cite were cases that involved one man and one woman,.... Not same sex.

I'm well aware of that and I spoke to nothing concerning the make-up of the marriage in those opinions. That still doesn't change the fact that both opinions state plainly that marriage is a fundamental right and not a privilege.
 
This is a state issue and not a national/federal issue.
Illinois Constitution
Article 1 – Bill of Rights
Section 22 – Right to Arms
 
This is a state issue and not a national/federal issue.
Illinois Constitution
Article 1 – Bill of Rights
Section 22 – Right to Arms

not true since the 14th amendment imposes constitutional rights on the states
 
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.

Seeing how the police are forced to remind suspects of their 4th amendment rights then perhaps there should be a federal law mandating that all politicians read out loud the whole constitution before they make or vote any laws. Because apparently Chicago needs to be reminded that the 2nd amendment exists.
 
Seeing how the police are forced to remind suspects of their 4th amendment rights then perhaps there should be a federal law mandating that all politicians read out loud the whole constitution before they make or vote any laws. Because apparently Chicago needs to be reminded that the 2nd amendment exists.

criminals hate honest people being armed

Daley is a criminal so his antics are understandable
 
criminals hate honest people being armed

Daley is a criminal so his antics are understandable

I think governments in general hate honest people being armed, not just the criminals. A unarmed population is less likely to revolt regardless of how far the government goes.
 
I think governments in general hate honest people being armed, not just the criminals. A unarmed population is less likely to revolt regardless of how far the government goes.

true-and politicians who want to loot and rape the population are the worst of all. IE collectivists and Daley is a statist scumbag of the worst kind
 
NorthJersey.com: A balanced gun ruling

Justices have also affirmed the ability of states to regulate guns. A ruling issued this week "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 5-4 split decision.

Last week's SCOTUS ruling affirmed the second amendment, but also gave leeway for regulation. It looks like what Chicago is doing is within current law.
 
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.

Is this the same legislation that I heard being proposed that will require getting a renewal on your registration every month? If so then it will be overturned because that would clearly be putting a huge financial road block in the way of exercising a fundamental right.
 
NorthJersey.com: A balanced gun ruling



Last week's SCOTUS ruling affirmed the second amendment, but also gave leeway for regulation. It looks like what Chicago is doing is within current law.

If this is the law which requires registration renewal every month it will be challenged and Chicago will lose, you can't put financial road blocks like that in the way of exercising fundamental rights, it would be like ordering people to pay $50 a month (probably more for gun registration) to register to vote.
 
If this is the law which requires registration renewal every month it will be challenged and Chicago will lose, you can't put financial road blocks like that in the way of exercising fundamental rights, it would be like ordering people to pay $50 a month (probably more for gun registration) to register to vote.

But voting is different from other fundamental rights in that the 24th amendment protects from poll taxes, so this analogy isn't really apt. It's more like charging $50 for a permit for a parade, which is not a violation of the right to peaceable assembly.
 
I'm well aware of that and I spoke to nothing concerning the make-up of the marriage in those opinions. That still doesn't change the fact that both opinions state plainly that marriage is a fundamental right and not a privilege.

Keep and carry arms is a right, that doesn't mean you can carry whatever you want.

So to is marriage a right, that doesn't mean you can marry whomever you want.

No right is unlimited so stating that marriage is a right does nothing for your argument as you're not addressing those limits.
 
I'm well aware of that and I spoke to nothing concerning the make-up of the marriage in those opinions. That still doesn't change the fact that both opinions state plainly that marriage is a fundamental right and not a privilege.

That is "marriage" as it is defined between one man and one woman is a right for any many that wants to marry a woman,... and for any woman that wants to merry her man."

Please try to keep up with the details.
 
That is "marriage" as it is defined between one man and one woman is a right for any many that wants to marry a woman,... and for any woman that wants to merry her man."

Please try to keep up with the details.

Just like "arms" in the 2nd amendment is defined as non-dangerous firearms in common use at the tame; not guided munitions, not launch weapons, not Active Denial Systems, not WMDs.

If gays want to include a new category, that's fine, let's hear arguments specifically supporting that exact category. Gays can't come out with "we want the 2nd to protect private ownership of Active Denial Systems because having 'arms' is a right". By that logic missiles should also be legal to carry. Let's hear the merits of Active Denial Systems and address that.
 
Last edited:
Just like "arms" in the 2nd amendment is defigned as non-dangerous firearms in common use at the tame; not guided munitions, not launch weapons, not Active Denial Systems, not WMDs.

While I do see your point (and agree with it for the most part),....

I don't know if I would go so far as to say "just like."

The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right with a specific purpose that pre-dates the Constitution itself. For example,... were we the people ever to again wage a "revolutionary War" against our (gone tyrannical) government,... we certainly would have the right to "carry and use any weapon of our choice." It would essentially be "anything goes."

The same arguments could never be made for 'marriage.'

The right for a man and woman to marry is on a completely different radar screen.
 
Last edited:
While I do see your point (and agree with it for the most part),....

I don't know if I would go so far as to say "just like."

The right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right with a specific purpose that pre-dates the Constitution itself.

The right for a man and woman to marry is on a completely different radar screen.

Try not to lock onto specific wording. It's a hell of a morning so far, I'm moving, the kids are stressed out and I'm bouncing on and off the forum for a brake. I'm not even trying to word my posts with the degree of precision you seem to be looking for.
 
Just like "arms" in the 2nd amendment is defined as non-dangerous firearms in common use at the tame; not guided munitions, not launch weapons, not Active Denial Systems, not WMDs.

If gays want to include a new category, that's fine, let's hear arguments specifically supporting that exact category. Gays can't come out with "we want the 2nd to protect private ownership of Active Denial Systems because having 'arms' is a right". By that logic missiles should also be legal to carry. Let's hear the merits of Active Denial Systems and address that.

Its all they've got. We went through pages of claims of genetics and now after being proven they don't have a leg to stand on they continue this fantasy that if its ruled a right based on race that covers sexual preference so they are back to their genetic claim even after they deny they are.

The right to keep and bare arms is a right for every american spelled out specifically in the Constitution. If they want gay marriage so badly, let them propose an Ammendment as it was defined by the rules of government. Thats how we abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote, set the voting age, etc. Or get a law passed through Congress, the House and signed by the president.

But they know they will fail that route since they've failed at every popular vote to even get a proposition through at the state level despite 31 tries so their only hope is to bastardize a judge's ruling on a totally different subject not related to their cause in any way to circumvent the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Its all they've got. We went through pages of claims of genetics and now after being proven they don't have a leg to stand on they continue this fantasy that if its ruled a right based on race that covers sexual preference so they are back to their genetic claim even after they deny they are.

The right to keep and bare arms is a right for every american spelled out specifically in the Constitution. If they want gay marriage so badly, let them propose an Ammendment as it was defined by the rules of government. Thats how we abolished slavery, gave women the right to vote, set the voting age, etc.

But they know they will fail that route since they've failed at every popular vote to even get a proposition through at the state level despite 31 tries so their only hope is to bastardize a judge's ruling on a totally different subject not related to their cause in any way to circumvent the will of the people.

A couple random thoughts:

I wonder how White supremacists feel knowing that their stupidity has empowered the gay marriage movement decades later.

I point of trivia: SCOTUS agreed that women did not in fact have the right to vote under US law, hence the need for an amendment.

You're right, marriage is an unspecified right, and as such is left to the state on who to regulate. If you don't like you state's laws on marriage, move. That's a wonderful thing about America, you can choose from a buffet of law combinations and switch to a new rule set at any time.
 
Last edited:
No, marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the SCotUS in at least two different rulings. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a right.
Explain, then, how a state can legally and constitionally eliminate it in full simply by passing a law that repeals the laws that create it.
 
Last edited:
Did they actually say "strict scrutiny" in the latest opinion?? If so that is AWESOME!! :mrgreen:
They said it is a "fundamental right" that is, obviously protected directly by the Constitution.
Thus, stricty scrutiny is the -only- applicable test.
 
They can win, technically, because they didn't ban guns in total.
The rigght is protected from "infringement", which includes a great many things other than outright bans.
 
Back
Top Bottom