• 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

VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah or how "the people" in several other amendments clearly means individuals and not "the several states" but somehow, the founders-who also used the term "the several states" forgot that term and meant "the several states" in the second amendment where they used "the people"
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear that you read my post...
 
teamosil said:
It doesn't appear that you read my post...
Click to expand...

Of course I did. You want to know what might REALLY make a difference? Dip**** politicians and anti 2nd amendment types focusing on the ILLEGAL firearm ownership and use of and by criminals. Its stupid that we continue to even HAVE discussions on the 2nd amendment. Its meaning...its purpose...its intent as a component of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is undeniable. So...instead if people REALLY care about gun violence they will specifically target those that are using them to slaughter so many people in Chicago and Washington DC...and California...and everywhere else the liberal agenda has made an issue of banning firearms.

Now...why do you suppose they dont put all their effort into fighting the gun violence and murders...gosh...golly...I just cant ****ing imagine...
 
teamosil said:
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...
Click to expand...

Please go away, you do not understand.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course I did. You want to know what might REALLY make a difference? Dip**** politicians and anti 2nd amendment types focusing on the ILLEGAL firearm ownership and use of and by criminals. Its stupid that we continue to even HAVE discussions on the 2nd amendment. Its meaning...its purpose...its intent as a component of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is undeniable. So...instead if people REALLY care about gun violence they will specifically target those that are using them to slaughter so many people in Chicago and Washington DC...and California...and everywhere else the liberal agenda has made an issue of banning firearms.

Now...why do you suppose they dont put all their effort into fighting the gun violence and murders...gosh...golly...I just cant ****ing imagine...
Click to expand...

1) the ARC claim that gun laws-such as the crap Bugsy Daley is trying to ram through are designed to stop criminals

2) in reality, the ARC is trying to disarm honest people for several reasons

a) disarmed people faced with high crime are more likely to cede rights to the government
b) disarmed people are less likely to kill criminals-and criminals tend to be dem constituents
c) in extreme situations, disarmed citizens are less likely to be able to do a "Hughey Long" on predatory polticians
d) by banning legitimate gun use, the ARC decreases the membership and power of pro gun groups and since pro gun groups tend to channel money towards pro gun candidates, the ARC helps anti gun politicians get elected

Trying to "convince" ARC members that gun control does not stop criminals is worthless since the ARC has no cares about criminals. The ARC KNOWS that gun laws they push don't affect criminals and they don't care because crime control is not what motivates their actions

so it is a waste of time to try to convince gun haters that their schemes don't make us safer.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) the ARC claim that gun laws-such as the crap Bugsy Daley is trying to ram through are designed to stop criminals

2) in reality, the ARC is trying to disarm honest people for several reasons

a) disarmed people faced with high crime are more likely to cede rights to the government
b) disarmed people are less likely to kill criminals-and criminals tend to be dem constituents
c) in extreme situations, disarmed citizens are less likely to be able to do a "Hughey Long" on predatory polticians
d) by banning legitimate gun use, the ARC decreases the membership and power of pro gun groups and since pro gun groups tend to channel money towards pro gun candidates, the ARC helps anti gun politicians get elected

Trying to "convince" ARC members that gun control does not stop criminals is worthless since the ARC has no cares about criminals. The ARC KNOWS that gun laws they push don't affect criminals and they don't care because crime control is not what motivates their actions

so it is a waste of time to try to convince gun haters that their schemes don't make us safer.
Click to expand...

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 ****.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

That means the restrictions on arms ownership by the citizens are unreasonably strict. The fullest intent of the Second Amendment is that the citizens will have enough cumulative fire power to deter any would be tyrant. Hence, if the citizens do not presently have that superiority, then the government has been over zealous in regulating arms.

teamosil said:
The notion that a gun provides for self defense is highly suspect. Most studies show that it actually makes you less safe, not more.
Click to expand...

And real studies, not to mention basic market theory, says that gun ownership and carrying reduces crime, even when the firearm is not itself fired.

It's amazing how so many brave rapists and robbers run away at the sight of a pistol in the hands of the would-be victim.

Also, NOT having any guns certainly made those Luby's Cafeteria customers and those Virginia Tech students so much safer.

teamosil said:
Even if it was effective for self defense,
Click to expand...

It is effective.

teamosil said:
stranger violence practically doesn't exist at all in the US.
Click to expand...

So? When it does, it's going to be reduced when the stranger victim has that chemically propelled lead pellet equalizer.

teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

What it really comes down to is some people can't face the fact that the people in this nation don't have to rely on the government to protect them from crime, they have the Constitutional right to defend themselves with deadly force, and they have to right to own the means to do so.

There's three hundred million people in this country. How many innocent people are shot and killed by lawfully licensed gun owners? One in million?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That means the restrictions on arms ownership by the citizens are unreasonably strict. The fullest intent of the Second Amendment is that the citizens will have enough cumulative fire power to deter any would be tyrant. Hence, if the citizens do not presently have that superiority, then the government has been over zealous in regulating arms.
Click to expand...

That was indeed the intent, but it just isn't reasonable any more. In order for the citizenry to be able to counter the military today would require allowing civilians to get nuclear weapons, surface to air missles, stealth fighters... Nobody actually wants that, right? Al Qaeda could just come pick up a nuke at the wal-mart.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There's three hundred million people in this country. How many innocent people are shot and killed by lawfully licensed gun owners? One in million?
Click to expand...

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. Like I said though, nobody is advocating taking away your guns. We're advocating responsible gun ownership is all. You guys just need to chill out about it. Accept some reasonable safety requirements and focus on something important instead.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
teamosil said:
That was indeed the intent, but it just isn't reasonable any more.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Yes... because Constitutionally protected rights are something to be considered lightly.
 
Goobieman said:
Really? Didnt we lose the war in Iraq because of essentially that very thing?
Click to expand...

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....

Goobieman said:
That number represents 0.009% of the guns in the US.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
As long as -I- get to define what is "responsible" and "reasonabke", sure.
Are you game for that?
Click to expand...

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...

Goobieman said:
Yes... because Constitutionally protected rights are something to be considered lightly.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
The insurgents have surface to air missles, explosives, AK-47s up the wazoo, etc.
Click to expand...
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....
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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..
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

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
 
VanceMack said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...

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
 
ricksfolly said:
Which version of the Constitution does it violate, the original one that said only well organized militia could carry guns...
Click to expand...
Not that you have any hope of doing so, but.... show this to be true.
 
ricksfolly said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Goobieman said:
Not that you have any hope of doing so, but.... show this to be true.
Click to expand...

he'd be better off trying to outshoot Robbie Leatham in an IPSC tournament
 
ricksfolly said:
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
Click to expand...

Right...they created a Bill of Rights for the sake of organized militias and NOT the rights of the individuals...

If the framers of the constitution saw the willingness that so many of todays crippled and dependent pets so willingly give up their rights and beg big government to take care of them, they would literally puke on those people.
 
VanceMack said:
Right...they created a Bill of Rights for the sake of organized militias and NOT the rights of the individuals...

If the framers of the constitution saw the willingness that so many of todays crippled and dependent pets so willingly give up their rights and beg big government to take care of them, they would literally puke on those people.
Click to expand...

ARC and Nanny state dependents realize that the bill of rights is an obstacle to most of their schemes so they just make up competing interpretations of those documents that they can use to advance their nefarious plots against our freedom
 
Goobieman said:
You say that because this particular right doesnt mean much to you.
Click to expand...

It is a right. I respect that. But you can't possibly pretend it's as important as say due process, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, equal protection, limitations on search and siezure, or protections against cruel and unusual punishment, right? So, keep it in proportion. Don't fixate on it, that's all. Protect the right, don't go around looking for excuses to try to fight against reasonable safety measures... We get it. You like guns. Maybe you have some insecurity you're trying to make up for or something, who knows. But don't make it into a big deal all the time... You can keep your guns and spend every saturday night out in your shed polishing them and fantasizing about killing people or whatever it is you guys do with them, but there is no rational reason at all to oppose safety and responsibility...
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
"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."
Click to expand...

See...I disagree. I think it is important to support and defend even the rights that DONT particularly mean that much to an individual. When people say I only care about THESE rights...well...fine...but what if people then attack those rights you DO care about? Pretty easy to see how ALL rights become diminished.
 
teamosil said:
It is a right. I respect that. But you can't possibly pretend it's as important as say due process, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, equal protection, limitations on search and siezure, or protetions against cruel and unusual punishment, right?
Click to expand...
You're right. When I state that it is every bit as important as those other rights, I am not pretending.

You pretending it isnt is nothing but a subective and self-serving means to excuse restrictions agianst it - it is impossibel for you to make a sound argument for the idea that the right to arms is somehow a 'lesser' right.

And your refusal to respond to the other points is noted, as is your concession of same.

Maybe you have some insecurity you're trying to make up for or something, who knows.
Click to expand...
Ah -- I wondered how long it would take for this ad-hom to surface.
Congrats on self-sodomizing you credibility as someone that can have an intellectually honest discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom