• 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

jallman said:
As well you should be for trying to project your deranged perceptions onto the posts of others.
Click to expand...
What's that? Can't show how my assertion is false, as you claimed?
I thought not. Now, wipe your nose and run along.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Considering Chicagos gun laws have already been incredibly restrictive and considering Chicago is essentially Murder Capital USA, Id say this new ordinance will be every bit as successful as the last...a bunch of mindless assclowns making laws that target law abiding citizens while their citizens slaughter each other. ****ing morons...the lot of them.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They can win, technically, because they didn't ban guns in total.
Click to expand...

The bigger question is just what is it that they hope to 'win'? What...they want to keep their laws in place that have been SO EFFECTIVE in controlling gun violence in Chicago?
 
jallman said:
I didn't stutter in my post. You can go back and read it again if you had trouble understanding it the first time.
Click to expand...
No, it was very clear that you are admitting you can't show how my assertion is false, as you claimed.

Don't get all butthurt about it.
 
TurtleDude said:
not true since the 14th amendment imposes constitutional rights on the states
Click to expand...
I know what the 14th does and I do not agree with it but, I still believe the federal/national needs to allow the state to handle the issue.
So, since the 14th is active then yes, the 2nd applies but, the state already has Article 1, Section 22 to deal with it.
 
The city of Chicago was told that gun ownership is a personal individual right of Americans everywhere in the Country, and Chicago immediately imposes unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use.

The Aldermen of Chicago should be charged with contempt of court and put in jail.

The voters of Chicago should be wonderin why their alderman WANT them unarmed, when almost all problems with guns are caused by criminals, not law abiding citizens. So when the aldermen are out of jail after serving their sentences for contempt they can be kicked out of office.

Of course, this is Chicago, the most corrupt city in the nation, famous for corruption and Al Capone and Blago and Obama, so nothing of the sort is going to happen.
 
Mayor Daley has been rabid about "no guns" forever. He is not going to change because that's who he is. His rationale is ridiculous. His last famous quote on the subject was said to a reporter who asked something like, "Why are you so against legal guns within the city limits?" His reply (paraphrased), as he picked up a rifle that was lying on the table in front of him, was, "Let me stick this up your butt and fire it....then you'll understand." What a jackass. I agree with others here who say it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. I can't imagine why this joker keeps getting elected. Oh, yeah . . . I remember now, Chicago Politics at their finest. :confused:
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Come on, it's not even mentioned specifically in the Constitution, though not all rights are. But we are discussing a specific right to keep arms.
 
jallman said:
As well you should be for trying to project your deranged perceptions onto the posts of others.
Click to expand...

such conflict

and since this thread is about guns I would propose a duel to resolve this conflict

I will happily serve as a second to the highest bidder since I find both posters to be men of honor:mrgreen::mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
Then I don't see what your problem was and why you had to ask me "What's that?"
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to -show- how my assertion is false, rather than making your usueal baseless claims.
 
American said:
Come on, it's not even mentioned specifically in the Constitution, though not all rights are. But we are discussing a specific right to keep arms.
Click to expand...
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.
 
American said:
Come on, it's not even mentioned specifically in the Constitution, though not all rights are. But we are discussing a specific right to keep arms.
Click to expand...

Yes, that right is mentioned in the Constitution. The fact that marriage is a fundamental right comes from court rulings. Two specific ones, in fact.
 
TurtleDude said:
such conflict

and since this thread is about guns I would propose a duel to resolve this conflict

I will happily serve as a second to the highest bidder since I find both posters to be men of honor:mrgreen::mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Well then - as I am first to accept, I shall set the terms :D
 
jallman said:
That's sweet and all. But I'm a married man, goob.
Click to expand...
C'mon son - put up or shut up.
Show how my assertion is false, rather than making your usueal baseless claims.
 
jallman said:
Yes, that right is mentioned in the Constitution. The fact that marriage is a fundamental right comes from court rulings. Two specific ones, in fact.
Click to expand...
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.
 
Goobieman said:
C'mon son - put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Now there's no need to get all emotional because I spurned your advances. Maybe under different circumstances but for now, it's not me; it's you.
 
Goobieman said:
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.
Click to expand...

The ScotUS disagrees with you. I think I am gonna go with their opinions since they're the ones that count.
 
Goobieman said:
...you cannot otherwise show how I am wrong - and know it.
Click to expand...

I already have. You simply don't acknowledge reality. You like being wrong. You like being contrary and living in fantasy. That's fine just don't expect anyone to respect it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom