• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes.. that's my point.
 
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 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...
Click to expand...

You may note that the only time it gets brought UP is when assholes try to TAKE it. Typically, most people that believe in their second amendment rights arent running around forcing it on others, they are fighting people trying to infringe on their rights.
 
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 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...
Click to expand...

more people exercise their second amendment rights than some of those you mention

but its the second amendment that is the back up support for all the rest.

people whine that you cannot beat the army with a bolt action rifle

however if things get nasty, shooting a few of the main instigators of nastiness is a most effective solution.
 
TurtleDude said:
people whine that you cannot beat the army with a bolt action rifle

however if things get nasty, shooting a few of the main instigators of nastiness is a most effective solution.
Click to expand...

That sounds like something Lee Harvey Oswald would say.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That sounds like something Lee Harvey Oswald would say.
Click to expand...

or the guy who took out Hughey Long or the patriot who shot a british general in one of the revolutionary war battles. Brits complained that yankee sharpshooters shot officers first. Its an effective tactic and while it was fictional-Mel Gibson's "Patriot" told his sons to take out the officers first. If the poop hits the fan, the people to target are the political leaders that cause the problems, not some 22 year old staff sgt running a tank or a infantryman patroling the streets.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously? The right to bear arms is as important to you as the right to free speech? Or due process? If you had to choose between giving up the right to bear arms and the right to free speech you would be torn?
 
VanceMack said:
You may note that the only time it gets brought UP is when assholes try to TAKE it. Typically, most people that believe in their second amendment rights arent running around forcing it on others, they are fighting people trying to infringe on their rights.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge no federal elected official has every tried to ban all guns. I dunno. Maybe there is some case out there where some nut did, but certainly there is zero chance of that actually happening... What you are talking about isn't people trying to take away the right to bear arms. It is people trying to attach reasonable safety restrictions- prohibitions in high population density areas, trigger locks, gun safety course requirements, background checks, etc...
 
teamosil said:
Seriously? The right to bear arms is as important to you as the right to free speech? Or due process? If you had to choose between giving up the right to bear arms and the right to free speech you would be torn?
Click to expand...


I don't have to give up either, because I am armed and can resist such tyranny.

You don't have a clue what it would take to resist gov't tyranny. I told you to look up Fourth Generation Warfare. And who says that the entire military would be on the government's side?


What you are talking about isn't people trying to take away the right to bear arms. It is people trying to attach reasonable safety restrictions- prohibitions in high population density areas, trigger locks, gun safety course requirements, background checks, etc...
Click to expand...

No.

These things are not acceptible. They are not acceptible because they don't work as proclaimed, are not Constitutional, and are anti-liberty.

I will therefore resist them with every means at my disposal to my last breath. You will never persuade me to acceed to your demands.

Also, I hate to tell you, for the past 20 years the US has been strongly trending AWAY from gun control, and the odds of you getting your way are very very slim.

This makes me happy. :mrgreen:
 
teamosil said:
To my knowledge no federal elected official has every tried to ban all guns. I dunno. Maybe there is some case out there where some nut did, but certainly there is zero chance of that actually happening... What you are talking about isn't people trying to take away the right to bear arms. It is people trying to attach reasonable safety restrictions- prohibitions in high population density areas, trigger locks, gun safety course requirements, background checks, etc...
Click to expand...

1) no one would call for a complete ban because they would be destroyed politically but that is why they use an incremental approach

2) what you call reasonable restrictions merely demonstrate you have no reasonable knowledge about firearms

3) do you think women being told to wait a day before having an abortion was designed for anything other than an attempt to deter abortions?
 
Guy Incognito said:
You means the assassin and criminal? Yeah, I buy that.


You mean a member of the military in a time of war?

Forgive me, but I don't see the similarities.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't
 
teamosil said:
If you had to choose between giving up the right to bear arms and the right to free speech you would be torn?
Click to expand...

I'd shoot the bastards trying to take my free speech and keep both. All rights are equally valuable and all must be upheld to their maximum.
 
Goshin said:
I don't have to give up either, because I am armed and can resist such tyranny.

You don't have a clue what it would take to resist gov't tyranny. I told you to look up Fourth Generation Warfare. And who says that the entire military would be on the government's side?




No.

These things are not acceptible. They are not acceptible because they don't work as proclaimed, are not Constitutional, and are anti-liberty.

I will therefore resist them with every means at my disposal to my last breath. You will never persuade me to acceed to your demands.

Also, I hate to tell you, for the past 20 years the US has been strongly trending AWAY from gun control, and the odds of you getting your way are very very slim.

This makes me happy. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

years ago I was at a Party with family friends including One Rob Portman-then a congressman and currently the Ohio GOP senate candidate. The topic of gun control was being raised by a pampered poodle masquerading as some rich man's wife and she was whining to Rob how he should vote for the clinton gun bans because she was afraid of blacks with guns stealing her mercedes. When I interceded she gave me the same crap that 100 million armed citizens couldn't stop a communist government etc. So I asked Rob--I said, hey Rob if you knew that if you voted for a law making anyone who owned a gun a felon facing a 10 year sentence for mere possession and you also knew someone like me was going to do everything possible to kill you and your children in retribution would you vote for that law because such a law would turn us into slaves?

(he's very pro gun so we both were secretely laughing as the poodle looked shocked) He said of course not and he said that such thoughts actually worry some of the gun haters on the left.
 
teamosil said:
To my knowledge no federal elected official has every tried to ban all guns.
Click to expand...

You don't throw the frog into a pot of boiling water. You throw the frog into a pot of cool water and then turn on the heat.
 
Ikari said:
I'd shoot the bastards trying to take my free speech and keep both. All rights are equally valuable and all must be upheld to their maximum.
Click to expand...

ultimately, when push comes to shove the only way to protect rights is with the threat of deadly force.
 
Well, whatever. I don't really care that much about gun control anyways... But seriously, you guys are just talking crazy gun nut talk... It's like somebody having a big protest because they aren't allowed to sell pornography in a grade school and claiming it's about free speech... It's just dumb...
 
teamosil said:
Well, whatever. I don't really care that much about gun control anyways... But seriously, you guys are just talking crazy gun nut talk... It's like somebody having a big protest because they aren't allowed to sell pornography in a grade school and claiming it's about free speech... It's just dumb...
Click to expand...

what is seen as sane and rational in most of the country is probably seen as crazy gun nut talk in San Franciso.

But you clearly don't have much in the way of knowledge when it comes to guns. Do you own a gun (or are you allowed to even own one in the land of fruits and nuts?)
 
teamosil said:
To my knowledge no federal elected official has every tried to ban all guns. I dunno. Maybe there is some case out there where some nut did, but certainly there is zero chance of that actually happening... What you are talking about isn't people trying to take away the right to bear arms. It is people trying to attach reasonable safety restrictions- prohibitions in high population density areas, trigger locks, gun safety course requirements, background checks, etc...
Click to expand...

Au contraire...there is a 5-4 supreme court balance CURRENTLY. If that ever changes to 4-5 with the 5 being liberal I GUARANTEE they will dust off the Clinton era Brady efforts. and there are LOTS of feds who believe guns should be banned.

And for someone that says "I dont care about this anyway but you guys are all a bunch of gun nuts"...how many posts have you made on this thread that you care so little about?

How would ANY of those things you mentioned have prevented the "7 months period from January to July, 291 people had been killed and 62-65 of them in July alone been killed"...in CHICAGO ALONE...??? You see a whole lot of bangers using safety locks...going to gun safety classes...following background checks...etc? Its pure bull****. And you and people like you advocate these 'harmless' gun 'safety' laws...'for the children'...knowing damn good and well it does NOTHING to combat crime.
 
teamosil said:
Well, whatever. I don't really care that much about gun control anyways... But seriously, you guys are just talking crazy gun nut talk... It's like somebody having a big protest because they aren't allowed to sell pornography in a grade school and claiming it's about free speech... It's just dumb...
Click to expand...

Or worse some asshole trying to ban the swimsuit issue of SI claiming they REALLY just want to end child pornography...
 
teamosil said:
Well, whatever. I don't really care that much about gun control anyways... But seriously, you guys are just talking crazy gun nut talk... It's like somebody having a big protest because they aren't allowed to sell pornography in a grade school and claiming it's about free speech... It's just dumb...
Click to expand...


Your ignorance on this topic apparently knows no bounds.

The only way to fight incrementalism, whose goal stated by its own proponents (ie Sarah Brady) is total removal of a fundamental right, is to fight every attempt to add on an increment.

Well fortunately most people in this country, even most liberals, seem to have wised up and realized the value of the 2A.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing but red herrings here. If that were true, they wouldn't be worried about armed citizens. You don't know what you're talking about.


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.
Click to expand...

Neither is the fact that more people die in cars. Let's outlaw cars. Again, you've come to a debate unarmed. You're not advocating responsible gun ownership at all, because registering and banning guns doesn't solve that problem. And BTW, you're the one that needs to chill out and show respect for the US Constitution for once in your life.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is NOT a privlege. That is bull****. The who marriage law concept was created by a bunch of douchebags so they could charge a fee for a license. PERIOD.
 
Mayor Daily and his liberal nazi city council are simply acting on partisan bias and took their action to retaliate after their unconstitutional rule was shot down.

Chicago's handgub ban is completely illegal, totally improper, and is an ABSOLUTE violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Consitution. Esentially, Mayor Daily is a degenerate liberal idiot who cannot deal with the fact that he and his butt buddies are trumped by the 2nd Amendment. As such, he and all of his ball-juggling cronies need to be tossed out of office.

Mayor Daily's ordinance CLEARLY AND DELIBERATELY violates the 2nd Amendment. This is unacceptable and now HE IS UNACCEPTABLE. He needs to be recalled and then barred from politics FOR LIFE.

The 2nd Amendment of the Consitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mayor Daily is his liberal douchebag buddies need to read and adhere to the bold section above. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This trumps Daily and his collection of liberal moron buddies.

It's time for Chicago's liberal dictator to be removed from office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom