• 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

Goobieman said:
They said it is a "fundamental right" that is, obviously protected directly by the Constitution.
Thus, stricty scrutiny is the -only- applicable test.
Click to expand...

Where in the Consitution marriage is enumberated.
 
mikhail said:
I cant imagine the trauma of only being able to buy 1 gun a month.
Click to expand...
Imagine the traumna of only being able to go to church once a month or exercising your right to remain silent once a month or only have 2 abortions a year or...
 
peepnklown said:
This is a state issue and not a national/federal issue.
Illinois Constitution
Article 1 – Bill of Rights
Section 22 – Right to Arms
Click to expand...
That -may- have been true before the incorpration of the 2nd amendment against the states.
States do not have a right to violate the US Constitution.
 
Goobieman said:
Imagine the traumna of only being able to go to church once a month or exercising your right to remain silent once a month or only have 2 abortions a year or...
Click to expand...

Man if this were about limiting the number of cars you can buy Jay Leno would be pissed!
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not that I think you can, or that you will hinestly try, or that you even understand the request, but...
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that the restrictions laid down in the law do not violate the constitution.
 
The new law will almost certainly be challenged, and will probably end up in SCOTUS, where there will be another decision that will clarify just how far these regulations may go. Given that "strict scrutiny" is becoming the rule, I doubt the new law will pass muster.
 
Chuz Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details. And the detail of importance is that it has bee stated that marriage is a right. Combine that with equal protection and you have no more argument that marriage is a privilege.

Do try to keep up with the details, yourself.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rights cannot be limited based on moral disapproval per the Iowa case that we've discussed before. Referencing the case law that states marriage is a right does EVERYTHING for my argument.
 
Isn't this new law in direct conflict with the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment? If so, how can this law even pass? Doesn't it mean that the lawmakers in Chicago are blatantly disregarding the fed? Fed trumps State so I don't see how this can even be happening.
 
jallman said:
Rights cannot be limited based on moral disapproval per the Iowa case that we've discussed before. Referencing the case law that states marriage is a right does EVERYTHING for my argument.
Click to expand...

If marriage is a right - a fundamental right, no less - 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:
Orion said:
Isn't this new law in direct conflict with the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment? If so, how can this law even pass? Doesn't it mean that the lawmakers in Chicago are blatantly disregarding the fed? Fed trumps State so I don't see how this can even be happening.
Click to expand...
The anti-gun loons dont care about the constitutuion when it gets in the way of what they want.
 
Jerry said:
Man if this were about limiting the number of cars you can buy Jay Leno would be pissed!
Click to expand...
If this were about abotion, imagine the screaming and yelling and crying.
 
jallman said:
Rights cannot be limited based on moral disapproval per the Iowa case that we've discussed before. Referencing the case law that states marriage is a right does EVERYTHING for my argument.
Click to expand...

With Loving v. Virginia, Blacks pointed to all the other mixed race couples and claimed their right was being denied, so you must be pointing to all those heteros marrying the same sex when claiming a right is being denied gays.

No one ever had the right to marry the same sex just like no one ever had the right to marry their sister or a child and no one ever had the right to keep and bear missiles.
 
Goobieman said:
If marriage is a right - a fundamental right, no less - 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.
Click to expand...

Show me where they have and it has been upheld and I will be more than happy to address that.
 
Jerry said:
With Loving v. Virginia, Blacks pointed to all the other mixed race couples and claimed their right was being denied, so you must be pointing to all those heteros marrying the same sex when claiming a right is being denied gays.

No one ever had the right to marry the same sex just like no one ever had the right to marry their sister or a child and no one ever had the right to keep and bear missiles.
Click to expand...

If Loving were the extent of the case law in question, you would be correct. However, the accumulation of case law goes much deeper than Loving. Loving just happens to be the most famous. Sharp v Perez specifically contains language about choice of partner and why the marriage arrangement is a fundamental right.

It is obtuse to pretend that the argument over Loving, Perez, and Iowa doesn't extend to modern questions just because they weren't on the table back then. Your argument is akin to stating that no one has a right to keep and bear any arms that weren't already in production at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
If Loving were the extent of the case law in question, you would be correct. However, the accumulation of case law goes much deeper than Loving. Loving just happens to be the most famous. Sharp v Perez specifically contains language about choice of partner and why the marriage arrangement is a fundamental right.

It is obtuse to pretend that the argument over Loving, Perez, and Iowa doesn't extend to modern questions just because they weren't on the table back then. Your argument is akin to stating that no one has a right to keep and bear any arms that weren't already in production at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If those cases had the reach and power you claim they do, then polygamy would already be legal. Obviously the right is limited and the State retains the right to regulate which choices are valid choices and which are not. This remains true even after gay marriage becomes legal. Gays will not be able to marry just any person of the same sex just as heteros today can not marry just any person of the opposite sex.

Your right to make a choice exists but you are forced to make your decision from among valid options.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If those cases had the reach and power you claim they do, then polygamy would already be legal.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain that one.

Obviously the right is limited and the State retains the right to regulate which choices are valid choices and which are not.
Click to expand...

Within certain Constitutional guidelines. I never made any argument otherwise.

This remains true even after gay marriage becomes legal. Gays will not be able to marry just any person of the same sex just as heteros today can not marry just any person of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

There are no limits to whom you can or cannot marry barring those the state has a vested interest in opposing for the defense of the rights of one of the participants, as in the case of an adult trying to marry a child.

Your right to make a choice exists but you are forced to make your decision from among valid options.
Click to expand...

And the state may not limit the validity of your options unless there is a demonstrable interest in the state to do so.
 
jallman said:
Show me where they have and it has been upheld and I will be more than happy to address that.
Click to expand...
Your avoidance of the question is noted.
Msrriage as a legal institution is a pivilege granted by the laws of a state. If a state repeals those laws, marriage, as a legal institution, ceases to exist.
This utterly negates the argument that marriage is a fundamental right.
 
texmaster said:
More lies. 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.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen a thread here where you've participated and have not called someone a liar.

Funny, the people who I have personally known who have chronically done this have all been, to a person, truly pathological liars.

Not an ad hominem, just a personal observance.
 
tryreading said:
I don't think I've seen a thread here where you've participated and have not called someone a liar.

Funny, the people who I have personally known who have chronically done this have all been, to a person, truly pathological liars.

Not an ad hominem, just a personal observance.
Click to expand...

Of course its an ad hominem. I expected nothing less from you and it is easily disproven.

Here are just a handful of threads from the front page where I've participated and never even used the word lie against anyone in this forum.

Go to first new post Napolitano: ‘You’re Never Going to Totally Seal That Border’

Biden Claims a GOP 'Blitzkrieg'

Not So Neighborly Associations Foreclosing On Homes

Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay

And when someone repeats the same false statement over and over again it is a lie. Did you even bother to research if what I said was true about the ruling? Of course not. Becuase you don't have the slightest interest in the truth.

Might want to think about that when you throw out a lazy personal attack which is so easily proven laughably false.

Funny, the people who I have personally known who have chronically done this have all been, to a person, truly pathological ad hominem abusers.

Try reading your own handle next time. lol

Thanks for the laugh.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Of course its an ad hominem. I expected nothing less from you and it is easily disproven.

Here are just a handful of threads from the front page where I've participated and never even used the word lie against anyone in this forum.

Go to first new post Napolitano: ‘You’re Never Going to Totally Seal That Border’

Biden Claims a GOP 'Blitzkrieg'

Not So Neighborly Associations Foreclosing On Homes

Obama says politics to blame for immigration delay

And when someone repeats the same false statement over and over again it is a lie. Did you even bother to research if what I said was true about the ruling? Of course not. Becuase you don't have the slightest interest in the truth.

Might want to think about that when you throw out a lazy personal attack which is so easily proven laughably false.

Funny, the people who I have personally known who have chronically done this have all been, to a person, truly pathological ad hominem abusers.

Try reading your own handle next time. lol

Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

Gotta tell you, you throw out the 'l' word very easily. It's very childish. You did it to me for no reason, to Jallman on this thread for no reason. For some reason you like to do it instead of reasonably arguing a point.
 
tryreading said:
Gotta tell you, you throw out the 'l' word very easily. It's very childish.
Click to expand...

LOL From your first post to me in this thread.

I don't think I've seen a thread here where you've participated and have not called someone a liar.
Click to expand...

Please stop. You are making this too easy.

You did it to me for no reason,
Click to expand...

No Reason? You made up a false attack against me and I disproved it easily.

to Jallman on this thread for no reason. For some reason you like to do it instead of reasonably arguing a point.
Click to expand...

So you can't argue against why I used it because you never researched the argument or how often he has tried to use this.

Then you make an accusation that you can't support that I destroy with real time examples of threads from the front page.

It was a sorry excuse for an ad hominem attack you couldn't begin to support and instead of being man enough to admit your mistake you hide.

Gotta tell you, there isn't anything more childish than making up a false statement and running from responsibility when you are proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Don't make me embarrass you again.
Click to expand...

(Above is a PM from texmaster)

I don't do the PM thing. Anything you need to say to me just do it on a thread.

And I'm not embarrassed. Don't know why you think I should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom