• 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

guide_to_firearms_tfb_tfb5.jpg

years ago they had Ted Kennedy's guide to handguns

Raven 25=saturday night special

Walther PPK=saturday night special

Smith and wesson Model 10, 4" barrel=saturday night special

Smith and wesson model 27 6 inch barrel=saturday night special

Colt Python=Saturday night special

Colt Gold Cup=saturday night special

Thompson Contender with 10" barrel=saturday night special
 
Must be nice to live in a world where affordable health care isn't a problem.

Haha! I ain't rich buddy. I can't afford health care insurance right now either. That doesn't mean I want the Federal government to "reform" our entire health care system. Many of the solutions I would propose would be rejected by you and Obama, so why do you resent me for not agreeing with your agenda?
 
Anytime someone wants to limit my rights over "safety", I become highly suspicious. When are people going to stop falling for this tired old line?

You can't gather in public for your safety.

You can't enter this national park for your safety.

Don't stop paying taxes, otherwise we can't keep you safe.

You can't say certain things that we think are unsafe.

You can't own a gun because you might shoot yourself.

I mean really.

To me the Constitution is pretty clear. I know the legal minutae makes this case more complicated, but how complicated can it really be? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.
 
Anytime someone wants to limit my rights over "safety", I become highly suspicious. When are people going to stop falling for this tired old line?

You can't gather in public for your safety.

You can't enter this national park for your safety.

Don't stop paying taxes, otherwise we can't keep you safe.

You can't say certain things that we think are unsafe.

You can't own a gun because you might shoot yourself.

I mean really.

To me the Constitution is pretty clear. I know the legal minutae makes this case more complicated, but how complicated can it really be? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

anything that makes someone less dependent on government is anathema to the left. Many libs outsource to the government their rights and responsibilities including making personal safety an individual responsibility
 
That ak-47 picture is hilariously close to accurate. The media calls anything bigger than a squirt gun an "assault rifle" or "machine gun."

Another favorite is "armor piercing Teflon coated bullets."
 
anything that makes someone less dependent on government is anathema to the left. Many libs outsource to the government their rights and responsibilities including making personal safety an individual responsibility

The right does it too though when it comes to social politics. Both sides are to blame for statism. People are losing freedoms because of the bipolar partisan pissing contests that have flamed to extremes in the last 10 years.

The right will detest Chicago for restricting gun rights but will promote restriction to civil liberties such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, airport scanners, and same-sex civil unions.

Both sides run crying to government for intervention anytime something happens that they don't agree with.
 
That ak-47 picture is hilariously close to accurate. The media calls anything bigger than a squirt gun an "assault rifle" or "machine gun."

Another favorite is "armor piercing Teflon coated bullets."

in 1987 or so Josh Sugarmann, a little known marxist agitator of the "new right watch" and once a Brady stooge, circulated a paper to the news media telling them to start confusing semi autos and "assault weapons" with machine guns. Pretty soon the media was showing pictures of that famous scene in Rambo (the LMG off the chopper shooting up the radio room) and acting as if these were "semi autos". Up until that time you would have to spend hours combing through Lexis-Nexis data bases for "semi auto" after that almost every incident of gun violence reported on the news had some reference to "semi auto" including "semi auto revolver, semi auto pump shotguns etc
 
The right does it too though when it comes to social politics. Both sides are to blame for statism. People are losing freedoms because of the bipolar partisan pissing contests that have flamed to extremes in the last 10 years.

The right will detest Chicago for restricting gun rights but will promote restriction to civil liberties such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, airport scanners, and same-sex civil unions.

Both sides run crying to government for intervention anytime something happens that they don't agree with.

true but the left targets honest people and the industrious. The right targets suspected criminals and stuff many people consider deviant (not supporting it just noting the difference)
 
The right does it too though when it comes to social politics. Both sides are to blame for statism. People are losing freedoms because of the bipolar partisan pissing contests that have flamed to extremes in the last 10 years.

You think the problem is only ten years old?

The problem starts with Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, Teddy with his monumental government land grabs, Woody with his Progressivism and urge to be a War President in a war that wasn't any of our business.

The last ten years are but petty squabbles between two hyenas over who gets to eat the anus, the rest of the Zebra of Freedom is pretty much gone.
 
To me the Constitution is pretty clear. I know the legal minutae makes this case more complicated, but how complicated can it really be? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

O'reilly had a half-wit on yesterday who was fatuously claiming that the "shall not be infringed" refers, not to "the people" included in the clause, but in the State's authority to run regulated militias.

The lies from the Left never stop.
 
If Capt'n Jack were President, then Obama would be Lord Cutler Beckett sitting in his luxurious quarters trying to figure out what "9 pieces of 8" means, never realizing that a "piece of eight" is a Spanish dollar :doh
At least he would be trying to figure something out, unlike the last brainfart we had in office who couldn't count to 11 without bare feet.

Tit for tat, you understand. :)
 
At least he would be trying to figure something out, unlike the last brainfart we had in office who couldn't count to 11 without bare feet.

Tit for tat, you understand. :)

Yeah iss that the same guy that thought there were 57 states.
 
You think the problem is only ten years old?

The problem starts with Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, Teddy with his monumental government land grabs, Woody with his Progressivism and urge to be a War President in a war that wasn't any of our business.

The last ten years are but petty squabbles between two hyenas over who gets to eat the anus, the rest of the Zebra of Freedom is pretty much gone.

Partisan politics is nothing new, but what I meant to say is that the intensity has increased a lot in the past 10 years. I wasn't around for previous big campaigns like the Cold War or Vietnam, and I was too young to even remember the First Gulf War. It just seems like the polarization of the nation has intensified a lot. People seem to pick their side and stick to it with everything.
 
true but the left targets honest people and the industrious. The right targets suspected criminals and stuff many people consider deviant (not supporting it just noting the difference)

I recognize that you are just trying to understand what people are doing, but again I don't think it's that cut and dry. Liberals disagree with each other just as conservatives do, so I don't think there is uniformity in strategy or targets.
 
Partisan politics is nothing new, but what I meant to say is that the intensity has increased a lot in the past 10 years.
I will have to disagree until someone is shot in a duel. So far no one has been killed in this partisan period in an organized disagreement.
 
At least he would be trying to figure something out, unlike the last brainfart we had in office who couldn't count to 11 without bare feet.

Tit for tat, you understand. :)

You need to make that a Pirates of the Caribbean movie reference in some way for it to be a tit-for-tat :2wave:
 
Anyone see anything regarding the oral arguments?


Justices may extend gun owner rights nationwide - Yahoo! News

The court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local laws. Still, "states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was among the majority in the 2008 decision.

"Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he asked.

As long as these regulation parallel those found for the other rights protected by the bill of rights, that’s fine. Slander, libel, fighting words, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a theater, etc, all fall outside the protection of the 1st amendment because they either directly cause harm or create a condition of an immediate clear and present danger to others.

But, none of the ‘reasonable regulations’ sought by the anti-gun loons have any relationship at all to that concept.
 
Last edited:
So a State can decide that you need a permit to walk around with a gun strapped to your waist? Can they also say you can't walk around with a gun strapped to your waste?
They can, but that would be an infingement.
The simple act of possessing a gun harms no one, and does not create a condition of immediate, clear and present danger to others.
 
Yeah, because I think everyone should be able to stand up in a crowded theater and yell FIRE!!!
In specific terms, describe the 2nd amendment equivelant to this.
 
Well, if I cared what people like him thought I'd have much higher blood pressure.
This is an interesting case. It's sort of the 2nd amendment combined with the 14th amendment butting heads with the 10th amendment.

Incorporation of the bill of rights thru the 14th amendment is nothing new, and given the 14th amendment, is inevitable.

The 10th amendment does not give a state the right to infringe on the rights protected by the bill of rights.
 
You need to make that a Pirates of the Caribbean movie reference in some way for it to be a tit-for-tat :2wave:
My bad, Bush is like the one eyed guy and Cheney is the fat idiot who hangs with him. Better?
 
In specific terms, describe the 2nd amendment equivelant to this.
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
 
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
Except the Bill of Rights do not add any qualifiers to "shall not be infringed" it's plain english with no "unless you really want to because you think that for no damn good reason that criminalizing guns just to make yourself feel better." Your side must demonstrate a necessary and proper restriction that qualifies beyond a shadow of a doubt to be both necessary AND proper, so far disarming innocent gun owners hasn't accomplished anything.
 
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
I guess that makes the Bill of Rights a pretty pointless document.

There was once a day when people thought that voting rights for black people was dangerous to the populace and should be restricted. Maybe we should go back down that road again?
 
Back
Top Bottom