• 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:
No, no its not. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it any more true.
Click to expand...
The fact that you lied makes my statement true.
 
jallman said:
The ScotUS disagrees with you. I think I am gonna go with their opinions since they're the ones that count.
Click to expand...


I would guess that it depends on whether or not you believe that rights are something bestowed on us by our creator, or something that government grants.


j-mac
 
jallman said:
Oh but I didn't.
Click to expand...
This is a lie.
You can repeat your lie till you choke on it but it's not going to be accepted as true
 
jallman said:
The ScotUS disagrees with you. I think I am gonna go with their opinions since they're the ones that count.
Click to expand...

Boy you do love this lie don't you?

Was the right based on race? Survey says yes.

Was the right based on sexual preference? Nope.

Come back real soon.
 
texmaster said:
Boy you do love this lie don't you?

Was the right based on race? Survey says yes.

Was the right based on sexual preference? Nope.

Come back real soon.
Click to expand...

Boy you do love this false premise, don't you?

Where in the constitution does it state that equal protection is confined to race only?

Tuck tail and run like you did last time you were faced with that question.
 
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...

What are they?
 
American said:
What are they?
Click to expand...

you aren't aware of the "if I feel its a right" it must be in the constitution?

sort of like the general welfare clause authorizing income redistribution and free health care
 
TurtleDude said:
you aren't aware of the "if I feel its a right" it must be in the constitution?

sort of like the general welfare clause authorizing income redistribution and free health care
Click to expand...

Oh, those.
 
Seems everything that comes out of Chicago is stupid and corrupt, except the Blues and pizza.
 
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...

Do I have to take 5 hours of training every month that I buy a gun? Does this mean if I buy 12 guns this year that I will have had 60 hours of training? The law is already unclear.

With all these gun restrictions, it sure hasn't stopped crime. I laughed at the alderman's complaint about the supreme court justices not having lived in Chicago and not knowing how bad the crime is. The crime would have been non-existent had law-abiding citiziens been allowed to have guns since 1982.
 
What were y'all arguing about again? I forgot. :mrgreen:
 
bicycleman said:
I laughed at the alderman's complaint about the supreme court justices not having lived in Chicago and not knowing how bad the crime is. The crime would have been non-existent had law-abiding citiziens been allowed to have guns since 1982.
Click to expand...

I laughed because Washington DC, not Chicago, has been named "Murder Capital of the World". You know, the other city that had their complete ban on guns taken to the Supreme Court and had it rejected.
 
The second amendment is the most disproportionately hyped amendment... The original rationale of allowing the people to overthrow the government if need be is no longer relevant. Military capabilities just radically exceed anything you could counter with over the counter firearms. The notion that a gun provides for self defense is highly suspect. Most studies show that it actually makes you less safe, not more. Even if it was effective for self defense, stranger violence practically doesn't exist at all in the US. Your odds of being murdered by a stranger are approximately 1 in a million each year... So, it basically just comes down to people like guns because they think they're cool or they have some insecurity they're trying to make up for or whatever.

So, fine, we get it. Some people like guns and the right to have them is protected by the constitution. Cool beans. Nobody is trying to take away the right to have guns, they just don't want you to use them responsibly and to put some limits on them in high population density places where it's really easy for a stray bullet to hit somebody. No big deal, just chill out and focus your energies on something useful instead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom