• 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!

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

I'm unsure of whether it's reasonable to allow the States to limit or restrict certain rights where they feel it's appropriate or not.

It's a healthy attitude to have. I'd answer that as "no", the rights of the individual rules over the desires and whims of the State. But it's always good to at least have that question in your head..."Is this appropriate action of the State, is it within their granted powers to do so?".
 
OK, so you CAN bring a gun into a bar. I'm not claiming to be static in this discussion in my position because I'm unsure of whether it's reasonable to allow the States to limit or restrict certain rights where they feel it's appropriate or not.
I cannot for the life of me remember the state at this time, maybe SC, but they want to allow CCW permit holders to be able to carry into bars, most states have a prohibition against such. The caviotte though is that CCW holders cannot consume alcohol while armed, I think that is reasonable considering the judgement effects alcohol can have on the human mind.
 
OK, so you CAN bring a gun into a bar. I'm not claiming to be static in this discussion in my position because I'm unsure of whether it's reasonable to allow the States to limit or restrict certain rights where they feel it's appropriate or not.

Tennessee recently made it legal for CCW's to carry in a bar, but not to do so while drinking. So far, there have been no reports of any problems relating to this practice.

I'm pretty sure TN is not the only state where this is allowed.

A prerequisite of getting a CCW is having a history of being a law-abiding citizen... the stats back up that law-abiding CCW permit holders cause far less trouble than the general population.

It is the people who are inclined to break the law who are the problem, and they don't base their decision to go armed or not on whether it is legal or not.

For decades, the pendulum swung way too far to the side of disarming honest citizens in the name of "public safety". However, now the pendulum is swinging the other way, and it has momentum. A lot of this is because people have realized that gun control laws in the US do not have positive effects on crime, but armed citizens do.
 
I cannot for the life of me remember the state at this time, maybe SC, but they want to allow CCW permit holders to be able to carry into bars, most states have a prohibition against such. The caviotte though is that CCW holders cannot consume alcohol while armed, I think that is reasonable considering the judgement effects alcohol can have on the human mind.

Tennessee recently made it legal for CCW's to carry in a bar, but not to do so while drinking. So far, there have been no reports of any problems relating to this practice.

I'm pretty sure TN is not the only state where this is allowed.

A prerequisite of getting a CCW is having a history of being a law-abiding citizen... the stats back up that law-abiding CCW permit holders cause far less trouble than the general population.

It is the people who are inclined to break the law who are the problem, and they don't base their decision to go armed or not on whether it is legal or not.

For decades, the pendulum swung way too far to the side of disarming honest citizens in the name of "public safety". However, now the pendulum is swinging the other way, and it has momentum. A lot of this is because people have realized that gun control laws in the US do not have positive effects on crime, but armed citizens do.

So States CAN and do actually restrict who can have guns in certain places and ban guns in certain places? Is this similar to the Chicago issue?
 
So States CAN and do actually restrict who can have guns in certain places and ban guns in certain places? Is this similar to the Chicago issue?
Basically in cases like this, the Federal government sets the bar and states may not be more restrictive than what the Federal government has established.
 
I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions. Like with free speech...
I agree - restictions on guns should only be allowed as far as restrictions on free speech, and for the same reasons.

What's the 2nd Amedment analogue to yelling fire in a corwded theater?
To libel? Slander?
Fighting words? Inciting a riot?
 
I guess I could say that you can't bring a firearm into a bar. Does that qualify?
Nope. That would be the same as bringing your mouth into a bar.
 
So States CAN and do actually restrict who can have guns in certain places and ban guns in certain places? Is this similar to the Chicago issue?
No, Chicago and DC banned handguns in total, couldn't be legally purchased and had limits on even home storage. Basically there are two issues with the bar ban, private establishments have every right to bar whatever they want from their premises as these are owned solely by private entities, however, businesses have to be licensed by the state and city they do business with, especially establisments that serve food/liquor to the public, so most states have asserted that they have a right to ban guns from bars due to the licensing agreement between the state and establishment, Tennessee(Thanks Goshin) basically reigned back most of the restriction to give bars more discretion on allowing firearms, but only to CCW holders, and only sober ones. I don't have a problem with requiring people to be sober when they are packing because frankly, alcohol and guns truly do not pair well together.
 
On most issues I'm pretty much a bleeding heart hippie commie liberal. (or so I'm told)

On gun control, however, I'm far more moderate, even leaning right depending on how you draw it. There's no real good reasoning for complete bans on handguns, for instance. There's no evidence to show that strict gun control saves lives, in fact, many of our cities with the strongest gun control laws actually have some of the highest gun-related crime rates. As the old saying goes, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." A man willing to rob a bank or hold up a convenience store isn't going to be stopped by laws against owning the gun.

Similarly, bans on "assault weapons" fall short a bit too. Virtually no crime is committed with "assault" weapons. You don't rob a bank with an M16. It's too big, you can't hide it under your coat, and most of the population can't shoot one properly anyway. You instead bring a smaller weapon you can conceal. Bullets are bullets. Any gun can kill someone, and any gun is a lethal threat to whoever you're trying to rob/kill.

Things start to break down with the more powerful weaponry, though. It gets harder to make a self-defense argument when it comes to a grenade launcher. Yeah, you can sure kill people with it, but the risk of collateral damage shoots up and it's not really more lethal to the burglar than your shotgun is. Similarly, a stinger missile launcher is pretty much impossible to use in self-defense. What legitimate reason could you have for shooting down an aircraft?

And there just are no circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be considered self-defense. (for an individual)

To add to the argument in favor of gun rights, conceal-carry laws seem to even decrease crime rates. If there's a possibility that any potential victim could actually be a lethal threat, a criminal is less inclined to go after them. There's a million variables involved with crime rates, so I can't make the argument that more guns = less crime directly, but there does seem to be a correlation. So, since the situation is more ambiguous, the smart thing to do is err on the side of greater individual freedoms.

Why not just ban bank robbing?
 
No, Chicago and DC banned handguns in total, couldn't be legally purchased and had limits on even home storage. Basically there are two issues with the bar ban, private establishments have every right to bar whatever they want from their premises as these are owned solely by private entities, however, businesses have to be licensed by the state and city they do business with, especially establisments that serve food/liquor to the public, so most states have asserted that they have a right to ban guns from bars due to the licensing agreement between the state and establishment, Tennessee(Thanks Goshin) basically reigned back most of the restriction to give bars more discretion on allowing firearms, but only to CCW holders, and only sober ones. I don't have a problem with requiring people to be sober when they are packing because frankly, alcohol and guns truly do not pair well together.

I certainly don't agree with an all out ban of ownership. That just seems ridiculous, people have a right to protect their homes if nothing else.

But it does appear that the government can and does put limits on ownership and possession. Whether it's not allowing them in court rooms or bars or requiring a permit to own or carry. Now, is this good or bad? I would certainly say outright banning ownership is unacceptable.
 
I certainly don't agree with an all out ban of ownership. That just seems ridiculous, people have a right to protect their homes if nothing else.

But it does appear that the government can and does put limits on ownership and possession. Whether it's not allowing them in court rooms or bars or requiring a permit to own or carry. Now, is this good or bad? I would certainly say outright banning ownership is unacceptable.
I have no problem with courts, prisons, or other government facilities banning guns on the premises, it is government property and security is an issue, I can concede some blanket laws against drunks in possession in say....a bar where other drunks could cause a situation to escalate, a fight could turn into a murder, however I think the Tennessee law was a perfect compromise. I see some merit to conceal carry law as most dishonest gun holders would conceal to gain advantage, those that would apply for a permit would be more likely to follow appropriate laws, and since they have a clean record would be the least likely to use the gun in a crime. The problem doesn't stem from government issuing bans on their own property, it's when they attempt to infringe my rights on my person or property, someone else's property, or even the public square that it becomes an overall bad.
 
Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well, because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.

Although you could fire bullets in morse code....:mrgreen:
 
Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well,
Yes it does,both are constitutional rights.

because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.

Irrelevant,both are protected individual rights under the constitution.

Although you could fire bullets in morse code....:mrgreen:

Words can sometimes get someone killed.
 
Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well, because bullets aren't speech! Guns aren't words. Apples and oranges and whatnot.

They're both Constitutional rights. Just because you don't like one those rights, does not mean it's less of a right than the other.
 
It's kinda weird when a pro-choicer comes out against the second amendment.

You don't want a woman to be able to kill her rapist, but you want her to be able to kill her own child if that rapist gets her pregnant.

Does not compute.
 
Trying to use freedom of speech as a comparative doesn't really work that well, because bullets aren't speech!
Irreelevant. The standard is sound and valid.

The first amendment does not protect 'speech' that causes actual harm (like libel and slander' or places people in a state of immediate, clear and present danger (like inciting a riot or falsely yelling fire in a theater).

This creates a perfectly good - and I would argue, as these limits are based on the precept that rights extend only as far as they interfere with the rightsof others, the the only legitimate - model for 'reasonable' restrictions on the right to arms, as they are eaxples of restricting actions on the bass that they lie outside the right itself.

So, again, I ask:
What's the 2nd Amedment analogue to yelling fire in a corwded theater?
To libel? Slander?
Fighting words? Inciting a riot?
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...
It wasn't to long ago we could do that. and the crime wasn't nearly as bad as it is today, random crime that is.
 
It wasn't to long ago we could do that. and the crime wasn't nearly as bad as it is today, random crime that is.
Do you have any statistic on that or is that your NRA propaganda opinion?
 
Do you have any statistic on that or is that your NRA propaganda opinion?

It doesn't really matter because you can't directly relate gun rights to crime rates. Correlation/Causation etc. There is a correlation but crime is such a vastly complicated sum of economic and social variables that you just can't simplify it like that.
 
Do you have any statistic on that or is that your NRA propaganda opinion?
It requires a little legwork, but if you when you have some time try the FBI violent crime database and check the time periods before heavy gun regulations and then compare them to after. You'll have to compare all violent crimes instead of just gun related, also, check those against international statistics. While England and Australia showed a drop in gun crime, overall violence stats went up, and ironically, if I remember correctly the heaviest regulated areas in the U.S. actually saw rises in gun crime.
 
It requires a little legwork, but if you when you have some time try the FBI violent crime database and check the time periods before heavy gun regulations and then compare them to after. You'll have to compare all violent crimes instead of just gun related, also, check those against international statistics. While England and Australia showed a drop in gun crime, overall violence stats went up, and ironically, if I remember correctly the heaviest regulated areas in the U.S. actually saw rises in gun crime.
OK, I'll wait while you dig it up. :mrgreen:
 
OK, so you CAN bring a gun into a bar. I'm not claiming to be static in this discussion in my position because I'm unsure of whether it's reasonable to allow the States to limit or restrict certain rights where they feel it's appropriate or not.

You can wear a firearm into a bar...but you can't drink while it's on your person. You have to remain sober.
 
It doesn't really matter because you can't directly relate gun rights to crime rates.
But, you CAN show that though the number of guns across the country increases, the crime rates stay within a relatively narrow range.

If more guns = more crime, then as the number of guns goes up, so then too does the number of crimes.
 
You can wear a firearm into a bar...but you can't drink while it's on your person. You have to remain sober.

we ought to apply that rule to posting on this board
 
But, you CAN show that though the number of guns across the country increases, the crime rates stay within a relatively narrow range.

If more guns = more crime, then as the number of guns goes up, so then too does the number of crimes.

guns last a long time--the one my grandfather carried in WWI is now mine and while I haven't shot it in years, it still works as well as any modern 1911.

The number of guns go way up because they have a service life of at least 10,000 rounds and that is more rounds than all but hard core competitiors will shoot (and that means a life before the gun needs servicing-I had a colt gold cup that finally suffered a cracked frame after 350,000 rounds) and for every gun lost or destroyed (ie confiscated by law enforcement) dozens are sold. Yet crime has not gone up

Why> because guns in the hands of honest people act to depress criminal activity while guns in the hands of criminals increase crime. Criminals have guns no matter what the law so that amount is pretty well static
 
Back
Top Bottom