• 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

SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.
Click to expand...


The 1st amendment just says they shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So a ten commandments plaque is not a 1st amendment violation.
 
The fact that a debate even exists is mind-boggling. To me, the argument is quite simple:

Second Amendment + Fourteenth Amendment = Get away from my god damn guns, Daley!!!

The idea that State and local governments can infringe upon this right is just a bunch of statist nonsense.

Tucker, let's start a protest!!!

P.S. - When the Chicago PD shows up we have to run away.
 
Jerry said:
Well of course, but you can't get what you want by reaching for everything all at once.

You have to take baby-steps.

So, no more gun-free school zones and I'll register my weapon.
Click to expand...

Why should it be the government's business what weapon you own? Registrations are nothing more than a who has what list so the government knows who has what in the event they wish to confiscate firearms.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.
Click to expand...
Really? Where?
Certainly not here.
 
Jerry said:
Well of course, but you can't get what you want by reaching for everything all at once.
You have to take baby-steps.
So, no more gun-free school zones and I'll register my weapon.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that you are not getting anything from the anti-gun side except a promise that they wont try to take something else. They aren't giving you anything in return for what you're giving up.
That's a bad way to do business.
 
Goobieman said:
The problem with this is that you are not getting anything from the anti-gun side except a promise that they wont try to take something else. They aren't giving you anything in return for what you're giving up.
That's a bad way to do business.
Click to expand...

Ok, so....tax brakes for gun perches and I'll register my weapon :mrgreen:
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't know that this is an accurate reflection of what most/many/any social conservatives have claimed. The religious clauses of the first amendment were incorporated against the states 70 years ago, and I don't know of anyone who has argued that the court was wrong to do so. I suppose it's possible that some people have objected along those lines, but I very much doubt that the view you're referring to is shared by many. In regards to Lawrence, that's not particularly analogous, since it was a far more controversial right.
Click to expand...

I can remember a few years ago on here when Roy Moore was being discussed, and many self identified conservatives believed the federal courts were being activist and violating Alabama's states rights when they ruled that Roy Moores actions were unconstitutional.

I am searching through the archives, but its from like 2005. Groups like Focus on the Family and other religious / social conservative interest groups routinely use cases like that as examples of what they see as federal judiciary activism.
 
So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
 
Goobieman said:
The problem with compromise on these issues is that compromise requires that both sides give something to the other. The anti-gun side has nothing to give to the pro-gun side in exchange for accepting these things.

These items are all infringements, none of which should be accepted.
Click to expand...

The ARC acts as if no guns is the natural state of things so they think they compromise by allowing us to keep some guns. Then in a few years they want to take half of what is left.

One of the reasons why compromise with gun banners is not really possible is that we know owning guns does not cause crime and so do they. Thus compromises designed to increase public safety--which is how the ARC couches their arguments--are inherently dishonest. The purpose of the ARC is to ban guns owned by people who don't commit crime.
 
Jerry said:
Ok, so....tax brakes for gun perches and I'll register my weapon :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

So long as the tax break is at least 120% of the weapon's value!
 
Ikari said:
So long as the tax break is at least 120% of the weapon's value!
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I mean it costs gas to get to the dealer, and then there's application/filing fees with the state.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
Click to expand...
Each state has its own laws to that effect, yes.
 
TurtleDude said:
The ARC acts as if no guns is the natural state of things so they think they compromise by allowing us to keep some guns. Then in a few years they want to take half of what is left.
Click to expand...
Absoluely correct.
They arent looking for compromise, they're looking for incremental capitulation.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
So it's up to the States to decide if citizens can strap up like a cowboy and walk through town?
Click to expand...

No.

The States have to comply with the Bill of Rights, too. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says.

Oh. Gee. Golly. The Second Amendment (that's part of the Bill of Rights) says government can't infringe on one's ownership or carrying of firearms.

Shame, isn't it, that the Magic Hispanic Twat the Messiah appointed to the USSC simply replaced some other air-head anti-Constitutionalist judge, isn't it, so the States are going to have soon stop depriving people of their rights.
 
What I find hilarious in a disturbing way are the audio clips of elected officials arguing for infringement because of a safety issue and that they are right to do it. I'm sorry, but I don't remember anything after "shall not be infringed" along the lines of "unless you really really think it's okay" or "well unless it's a safety issue". No, I'm pretty sure it ended at "shall not be infringed". It's amazing how these simpletons in Chicago, and these anti-gun loons don't seem to comprehend that.
 
LaMidRighter said:
What I find hilarious in a disturbing way are the audio clips of elected officials arguing for infringement because of a safety issue and that they are right to do it. I'm sorry, but I don't remember anything after "shall not be infringed" along the lines of "unless you really really think it's okay" or "well unless it's a safety issue". No, I'm pretty sure it ended at "shall not be infringed". It's amazing how these simpletons in Chicago, and these anti-gun loons don't seem to comprehend that.
Click to expand...
Imagine their response to the idea that news reporters should need a license to report the news, a person need a license to post a blog, or a woman need a license to get an abortion.
 
Goobieman said:
Imagine their response to the idea that news reporters should need a license to report the news, a person need a license to post a blog, or a woman need a license to get an abortion.
Click to expand...
They'd have a stroke.
 
I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
Click to expand...
You make this hard on yourself on purpose, dont you?:mrgreen:

Whatever the original intention of the BOR might have been, the 14th changes all that.
 
Tucker Case said:
I have mixed feelings on this issue, to be honest.

My anti-federalist side prefers that Chicago be allowed to make their own laws in this regard. The bill of rights was designed to be a limitation of federal authority, not of state and municipal authority.

If there was a chance that not incorporating the second could lead to stricter limitations on the federal authority, I'd be very much in favor of this ruling going in favor of Chicago, regardless of my own personal desire to not have my gun rights infringed any longer.

But seeing as this is extremely unlikely, I'm somewhat hypocritically hoping that the laws get struck down. If the way of things is that my anti-federalist mentality will never be realized, I might as well have all the protections of the bill of rights instead of just most of them.

So in this instance, I admit that my desires are, in fact, hypocritical and run absolutely contrary to my professed political philosophy.

Essentially, adding the second amendment to the existing list of federally-imposed legislative restrictions upon the states won't make my anti-federalist goals any more difficult to achieve, so I'm basically being pragmatically hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Actually Tuck, you aren't being hypocritical in the least. Anti-Federalism does prefer state and local sovereignity over the national, this is true, however the philosophy also recognizes that state, local, and federal government are charged with upholding all protections within the Bill of Rights so therefore in very limited instances of violations of those protections the federal government not only can, but must intervene against the local authority.
 
Goobieman said:
You make this hard on yourself on purpose, dont you?:mrgreen:

Whatever the original intention of the BOR might have been, the 14th changes all that.
Click to expand...

True on both counts. :lol:

LaMidRighter said:
Actually Tuck, you aren't being hypocritical in the least. Anti-Federalism does prefer state and local sovereignity over the national, this is true, however the philosophy also recognizes that state, local, and federal government are charged with upholding all protections within the Bill of Rights so therefore in very limited instances of violations of those protections the federal government not only can, but must intervene against the local authority.
Click to expand...

To a point, I agree, but my own stance is that egregious violations of the common protections could/should lead to a revocation of membership within the republic, voted on by the respective states.

That would be the approach that I feel that the Federal governemnt should take on these matters.

In that case, it leaves it up to the State to decide whether or not common defense and the ability to have simple interstate trade is worth sacrificing over any such rights-violating legislation.

If a state decided that it was worth the risk, they could be removed from the Union, at which point the Union could implement an embargo ( or worse) upon the State if they felt the violations were egregious enough.

The State would retain it's sovereignty, but it could potentially receive unpleasant consequences for the choices it makes.




Editted to add: since none of that seems likely, I just want my rights back. :)
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
True on both counts. :lol:



To a point, I agree, but my own stance is that egregious violations of the common protections could/should lead to a revocation of membership within the republic, voted on by the respective states.

That would be the approach that I feel that the Federal governemnt should take on these matters.

In that case, it leaves it up to the State to decide whether or not common defense and the ability to have simple interstate trade is worth sacrificing over any such rights-violating legislation.

If a state decided that it was worth the risk, they could be removed from the Union, at which point the Union could implement an embargo ( or worse) upon the State if they felt the violations were egregious enough.

The State would retain it's sovereignty, but it could potentially receive unpleasant consequences for the choices it makes.




Editted to add: since none of that seems likely, I just want my rights back. :)
Click to expand...
Goobie's right, you do want to do things the hard way.:rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom