• 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

Coronado said:
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?
Click to expand...
For some reason some people think appeal to majority is somehow superior to the constitution, it makes me wonder what has gone wrong with our educational system that they can't understand the very plain english of the constitution or our founding writings.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
My bad, Bush is like the one eyed guy and Cheney is the fat idiot who hangs with him. Better?
Click to expand...


.....Pintel and Ragetti....now find a scene from the movie and liken Bush and Cheney to it.....
 
LaMidRighter said:
For some reason some people think appeal to majority is somehow superior to the constitution, it makes me wonder what has gone wrong with our educational system that they can't understand the very plain english of the constitution or our founding writings.
Click to expand...
No kidding. "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty straightforward to me.

A proper civics education should point out that the whole reason for having a constitution to begin with is to avoid the tyranny of the majority issue.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
Click to expand...
So, you cannot describe a 2nd amedment analogue to yelling fire in a theater.
Thanks.
 
Coronado said:
No kidding. "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed at how many people seem to get confused over that one.
 
Ikari said:
You'd be amazed at how many people seem to get confused over that one.
Click to expand...
A lot of them wind up in Congress somehow, too.
 
Ikari said:
You'd be amazed at how many people seem to get confused over that one.
Click to expand...

The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.

Pistol? Sure.
Rifle? Why not.
Automatic rifle? Fine by me, virtually no crimes have ever been committed with automatic weapons. (someone explain to the media what automatic really is, please!)
Grenade launcher? Errr, getting sketchy.
Patriot missile battery? Ummm
Tank?
Nuclear warheads?

Not too many people would argue that nuclear weapons should be legal for private ownership. Similarly, not too many people would argue that you should never be able to own a gun at any time or place. While I hate the cliche, the answer is surely somewhere in between.
 
Deuce said:
The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.
Click to expand...
The point that every class of firearm falls under the definition of 'arms' is not.
 
TurtleDude said:
stupid analogy. You are allowed to yell fire if the theater is empty or if there is a fire. You cannot fire a machine gun in a crowded theater unless you have a lawful reason. No one is suggesting banning Yelling fire under all circumstances but the hoplophobes want to ban mere possession of certain or all firearms along with use
Click to expand...

Actually, the prohibition against yelling fire in a CROWDED theater is precisely because it's crowded, and it's common knowlege that people are prone to panic, and the prohibition is based on someone actually yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and people were killed in the stampede.'

All that is irrelevant.

Citing the "fire in a crowded theater" condition on the First Amendment is not applicable. What the gun grabbers are trying with their false analogy is to say that all people should have their mouths banned, because they may be used to yell "fire" inappropriately.

The damage is done by yelling "fire", not by having a voice. The prohibition against yelling "fire" is a prohibition against certain vocal acts. Laws already exist that prohibit certain actions with guns, ie, armed robbery is a felony, hence the application of the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" constraint on the First Amendment is already in place as a constraint on the Second Amendment.
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't intensified, people just say it has, just like they were saying the same thing twenty years ago, because they then want to paint the picture that their side would get more done if the other side wasn't so obstinate.

It's really been an issue since the 1968 election, when the socialist loons hijacked the Democrat Party and began to seriously destroy those basic American values. The Right has made some stupid moves, too, but their moves are more like the chaotic groping of a spider squashed by a rock, whereas the Democrats are moving in a single purposeful direction.

However, I think the majority of people have finally identified one of the core issues. They want the government to stop spending. They don't want the government to take over healthcare. They're finally realizing that the problem is the government itself.
 
Deuce said:
The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.
Click to expand...

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...
Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Weapon In common use at the time? is dangerous and unusual?

Pistol yes no
Rifle? yes no
Automatic rifle yes no
Grenade launcher yes yes
Patriot missile battery no yes
Nuclear warheads no yes


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
Click to expand...

Well done.
 
TurtleDude said:
I bet that just breaks his heart in two:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No heart involved.
The scarecrow is a fabricated representation of the worst atributes of man. Easy for the clever to do o'er the internet.
At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....a silent majority...remember that one?
I may be the only "liberal" on this thread....the smarter ones realize that this subject(gun rights) is not worth their time and trouble....something about arguing with fools.
 
earthworm said:
At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that there's no substantiation for the position that gun control improves the health and welfare of those who suffer under it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

LaMidRighter said:
For some reason some people think appeal to majority is somehow superior to the constitution, it makes me wonder what has gone wrong with our educational system that they can't understand the very plain english of the constitution or our founding writings.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could identify my position on gun control in this thread? Oh, you can't? Let me help you... I have guns, I like to target/trap/skeet shoot as well as hunting. I am pro gun all the way except... I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions. Like with free speech... I'm certainly not taking a position on the Chicago ban, I'm merely pointing out that we do in fact restrict things we consider rights, where appropriate.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you cannot describe a 2nd amedment analogue to yelling fire in a theater.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I guess I could say that you can't bring a firearm into a bar. Does that qualify?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
Click to expand...

That's not we he's asking. The request was: As it concerns arms, what's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater? Would it be possessing a weapon, or something more extreme, like shooting someone? What's the equivalent act in terms of arms?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Perhaps you could identify my position on gun control in this thread? Oh, you can't?
Click to expand...
Considering you used the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't protect the individual and the second specifically by abusing the secondary militia argument, I don't think I've made any mistakes in where you stand.
Let me help you... I have guns, I like to target/trap/skeet shoot as well as hunting. I am pro gun all the way except... I recognize that circumstances might dictate some restrictions.
Click to expand...
How can you be on board with the second amendment conditionally? The "reasonable" regulations do nothing to curb violence and have been known to in fact encourage crime spikes, "reasonable" regulations are not preemptive.
Like with free speech... I'm certainly not taking a position on the Chicago ban, I'm merely pointing out that we do in fact restrict things we consider rights, where appropriate.
Click to expand...
You used the shouting fire example, the way that prohibited speech works is that there is a demonstrable danger which is immenent, clear, and present and the mere utterance of those words or phrases will cause harm, either that of body, public safety, or character, this is not compatible with saying that because people own guns other people get shot, the two are not causal on their face, whereas utterances of threats, fighting words, and panic inducing phrases are. You'll have to think of something more concrete.
 
earthworm said:
No heart involved.
The scarecrow is a fabricated representation of the worst atributes of man. Easy for the clever to do o'er the internet.
At it's obvious that the gun lovers are in the minority, those who place the health and welfare of our people on a higher plain are in the majority....a silent majority...remember that one?
I may be the only "liberal" on this thread....the smarter ones realize that this subject(gun rights) is not worth their time and trouble....something about arguing with fools.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LaMidRighter said:
For some reason some people think appeal to majority is somehow superior to the constitution, it makes me wonder what has gone wrong with our educational system that they can't understand the very plain english of the constitution or our founding writings.
Click to expand...

That's an easy one...... the federal government runs it.
 
Deuce said:
The problem is that exactly what constitutes "arms" is debatable.

Pistol? Sure.
Rifle? Why not.
Automatic rifle? Fine by me, virtually no crimes have ever been committed with automatic weapons. (someone explain to the media what automatic really is, please!)
Grenade launcher? Errr, getting sketchy.
Patriot missile battery? Ummm
Tank?
Nuclear warheads?

Not too many people would argue that nuclear weapons should be legal for private ownership. Similarly, not too many people would argue that you should never be able to own a gun at any time or place. While I hate the cliche, the answer is surely somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

Why not nukes?..... sell them for $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.99

What's an M1A1 go for these days?.... plus a box of shells.

How about a Patriot Missile Battery? Bet a box of shells for that might just put the whole idea out of range for most citizens. :doh
 
NoJingoLingo said:
We the people decide that some things are dangerous to the populace and restrict them. That was pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Yet the same bureaucrats and politicians who want to disarm one group of citizens have also determined that many of these weapons are ideal for other civilians to use in urban environments for self defense.

In other words-no state, municipal, local or federal civilian law enforcement agency should be able to use weapons that the political entity controlling that agency has declared are too dangerous for other civilians to merely possess.

Once a political entity has determined that a weapon is suitable for civlian law enforcement officers to be provided by our tax dollars, that political entity should be estopped from banning the possession of such weapons by other honest civilians
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I guess I could say that you can't bring a firearm into a bar. Does that qualify?
Click to expand...

you cannot fire a firearm in a bar unless you are threatened

that is exactly the same as saying you cannot scream fire in a theater unless there is a fire.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Considering you used the argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't protect the individual and the second specifically by abusing the secondary militia argument, I don't think I've made any mistakes in where you stand. How can you be on board with the second amendment conditionally? The "reasonable" regulations do nothing to curb violence and have been known to in fact encourage crime spikes, "reasonable" regulations are not preemptive. You used the shouting fire example, the way that prohibited speech works is that there is a demonstrable danger which is immenent, clear, and present and the mere utterance of those words or phrases will cause harm, either that of body, public safety, or character, this is not compatible with saying that because people own guns other people get shot, the two are not causal on their face, whereas utterances of threats, fighting words, and panic inducing phrases are. You'll have to think of something more concrete.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom