• 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!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Can someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp

"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."
Bugsy Daley is the sort of politician that justifies-completely-citizens being heavily armed
 
Still waiting for you to supply the quotes that show the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended to protect the exercise of the collective right of self-defense to the absolute exclusion of the individual right to same.

You've had 2 days and thus far supplied nothing to support your claim to that effect.

He won't. It is rather obvious. The founders assumed the existence of inalienable rights. Basically anything that was not given to the federal government or the state government was permitted. The federal government was never delegated any power to regulate weapons
 
Can someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp

"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."


I seriously thinks a city needs to pass a ordinance banning newspapers, phones and religious books outside your home, ban the stores that sell those things and ban churches, require permits,ban convicted former felons from those things, classes and registrations in order to get those things just to prove a point. I bet everyone of those anti-2nd amendment loons who support such things being imposed for 2nd amendment rights would be screaming that mayor is a fascist,its unconstitutional and so on.
 
Last edited:
I seriously thinks a city needs to pass a ordinance banning newspapers, phones and religious books outside your home, ban the stores that sell those things and ban churches, require permits,ban convicted former felons from those things, classes and registrations in order to get those things just to prove a point. I bet everyone of those anti-2nd amendment loons who support such things being imposed for 2nd amendment rights would be screaming that mayor is a fascist,its unconstitutional and so on.

Better yet ban slimey asswipes getting elected to office. Daley is an everwidening asshole whose stench increases geometrically
 
No. If I go into my backyard and start shooting at a target, even though it may be safe, I will be arrested.

One must go to a firing range in the city. There is just too much danger, otherwise.

Yes, just like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not an exercise of free speech. The principal behind the right to bear arms is like the sentiments of the founding fathers who believed that men / the nation should "walk softly and carry a big stick". If you don't have the right to defend yourself it's because you are effectively a slave.

Ultimately the phrase goes :
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

So, because for the security of a free state, a well regulated militia is necessary, the militia being men who are citizens but trained in the techniques of weapons and war, that these militias are well regulated. Also, the militias are meant to protect the state, which is why a sherrif can deputize individuals, with the understanding that they had been trained by the militia (the assumption and it's my understanding that almost every man was considered part of the militia between 18... can't remember the upper limit, 40+ tho)

Yes, the comma here is absolutely crucial as it ties the next part as the condition...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

So, because of the first thought, that being the protection of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE (not the right of the 'militias' ) to keep and bear arms. That is to have them accessible to yourself at any time, and to use them if necessary.

This is a comma seperater

shall not be infringed.

I mean you could write it :

So, because of the need for protection, and the necessity of militias, the PEOPLE ALL have the right to keep and bear arms, to ensure the FREE STATE, AND BECAUSE of all that, these rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If you make someone jump through a hoop you are 'infringing' on that right because he should not have to jump through that hoop. Protecting yourself is a god given right...

It's so clear cut when you look at the way the sentance was worded... the constitution and bill of rights says what it means and means what it says...

Can someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp

"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."

Daley, isn't that the name of a chicago mob boss???

Why / how was this guy elected in the first place?? Did nobody do a background check on him or his family?? (Unless the answer is no to the first question)
 
Last edited:
He won't. It is rather obvious.
I know. The fact that he hasnt even tried to respond illustrated a clear awareness that he doesn't have jack to back up his position.
 
citizens-obeying-gun-laws.png


The photo that convinced me that remaining disarmed was a BAD idea.
 
No really. It is against the law to discharge a fire arm in most cities.
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.
The argument he presents is that while the government cannot infringe your right to own or carry a firearm, it can completely remove your right to actually use - that is, fire - it, because the constitution doesn tmention the actual use of the weapon protecte dby the 2nd.
This is absurd on its face because the exercise of the right necessarily involves discharging the weapon.
Its no more sound than arguing that while the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it can completely remove your right to use words, as the constitution says nothing about words.
 
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.
The argument he presents is that while the government cannot infringe your right to own or carry a firearm, it can completely remove your right to actually use - that is, fire - it, because the constitution doesn tmention the actual use of the weapon protecte dby the 2nd.
This is absurd on its face because the exercise of the right necessarily involves discharging the weapon.
Its no more sound than arguing that while the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it can completely remove your right to use words, as the constitution says nothing about words.

As much as I hate to give the wannabe fascists ideas, the COULD create some 'benefit' program where-by 'opting into the benefit' that you 'forfeit' your second amendment.... then it wouldn't be 'infringement' it would be 'agreement'.
 
As much as I hate to give the wannabe fascists ideas, the COULD create some 'benefit' program where-by 'opting into the benefit' that you 'forfeit' your second amendment.... then it wouldn't be 'infringement' it would be 'agreement'.
You may voluntarily give up your rights at any time. It would be silly to do so, but then some people are so desperate for others to make thme feel safe, they will do any numberof absurd things.
 
You may voluntarily give up your rights at any time. It would be silly to do so, but then some people are so desperate for others to make thme feel safe, they will do any numberof absurd things.

Oh no, I meant more like what they do with the IRS... you constitutionally are not required to pay an income tax, HOWEVER, if you 'opt-in' to benefits like 'unemployment' then you enter an agreement where you become obligated to fill out a return... among other 'traps' that force people into filling returns.
 
It's against the law to recklessly discharge your fire arm in most cities.

Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.
 
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.
The argument he presents is that while the government cannot infringe your right to own or carry a firearm, it can completely remove your right to actually use - that is, fire - it, because the constitution doesn tmention the actual use of the weapon protecte dby the 2nd.
This is absurd on its face because the exercise of the right necessarily involves discharging the weapon.
Its no more sound than arguing that while the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it can completely remove your right to use words, as the constitution says nothing about words.

No, your analogy does not make sense, Goobie. Speech is defined as "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words." The right to fire the weapon is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which is why the government can regulated where, when, how, and why you can use a gun, but cannot... or should not regulate whether you can purchase or have one. Now, if you want to interpret that's what it means, be my guest, but it is not what is actually said.
 
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.

No I don't see it as that either... firing your weapon within a densely populated area 'for target practise' is not an exercise in the first amendment, it's an exercise in stupidity, much like screaming fire in a crowded theater isn't an exercise of 'free speech' it's an exercise in stupidy, both examples could easily get random and innocent people killed.
 
No, your analogy does not make sense, Goobie. Speech is defined as "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words."
This is your interpretation. Its not what the Constitution says. The Constitution actually says "speech".
 
No, your analogy does not make sense, Goobie. Speech is defined as "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words." The right to fire the weapon is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which is why the government can regulated where, when, how, and why you can use a gun, but cannot... or should not regulate whether you can purchase or have one. Now, if you want to interpret that's what it means, be my guest, but it is not what is actually said.

If you are firing a weapon you are bearing arms.If you are not firing a weapon you can bear arms. The constitution makes no distinction of the two however, so according to the 2nd amendment we cannot infringe upon that right.

A better interpretation imo would be to look at the moral principles laid down in the 2nd amendment. Security, maintaining order, and self-defense are all things that have roots within the 2nd amendment. Security is in the actual text, maintaining order obviously flows from the well regulated malitia and security, and self-defense is often attributed to owning a weapon.

Now why can we not fire a gun in a densly populated area, because this does not flow from the 2nd amendments moral principles. You are not protecting yourself or others, maintaining an orderly and secure society, in fact you are doing the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.

No, I certainly didn't. Again, you're not being careful. First off, the regulations are not on firing your weapon in general, it's about the use of a weapon when not necessary in certain circumstances. So that's not "regulating the firing of weapons". As I had mentioned early for those willing to pay attention, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you do not get in trouble for having fired your weapon. It's a certain set of circumstances which must be met, it's not just firing the weapon.

Secondly, it says nothing towards the historical meaning of "to bear arms", which was what post 311 was all about. Pay attention if you don't want to play the part of the fool.
 
No, I certainly didn't. Again, you're not being careful. First off, the regulations are not on firing your weapon in general, it's about the use of a weapon when not necessary in certain circumstances. So that's not "regulating the firing of weapons". As I had mentioned early for those willing to pay attention, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you do not get in trouble for having fired your weapon. It's a certain set of circumstances which must be met, it's not just firing the weapon.

Secondly, it says nothing towards the historical meaning of "to bear arms", which was what post 311 was all about. Pay attention if you don't want to play the part of the fool.

The Cap'n isn't anybody's fool.

This is what happens when you apply a penumbra theory to your view of the second amendment.
 
The Cap'n isn't anybody's fool.

Well maybe he's playing the part of the independent fool. Hehhe. No, for the most part I like CC; but he was wrong on his definition of "to bear arms" and that's it. Nothing I said contradicted what I had said earlier. Nor did it stop you from being wrong in claiming that the mere firing of your gun was regulated. For it's not. Now, if there's something worthwhile you'd like to add here, please do. Otherwise, move along.
 
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.

it is state governments that regulate how guns are used

That is probably proper

It is the federal government that regulates what type of weapons people can own etc and that is not legitimate. There have always been prohibitions on firing weapons under certain circumstances and that is not an infringement IMHO as long as the restrictions meet certain tests. Clearly shooting a pistol off in a courtroom or a postal office unless you are under attack or engaging in a military operation is clearly a bad thing.
 
Per the article:
The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.

According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.

As such, restrictions on such rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until provem otherwise.

For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Well maybe he's playing the part of the independent fool. Hehhe. No, for the most part I like CC; but he was wrong on his definition of "to bear arms" and that's it. Nothing I said contradicted what I had said earlier. Nor did it stop you from being wrong in claiming that the mere firing of your gun was regulated. For it's not. Now, if there's something worthwhile you'd like to add here, please do. Otherwise, move along.

Ok, ok!:shrug:

But you better get your tin foil hat on.:giggle:
 
Ok, ok!:shrug:

But you better get your tin foil hat on.:giggle:

So that's all you got. A nonsensical response trying to be smarmy and cute and failing on both accounts? That's it? Damn, well I guess when you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel that's what you get. Well have fun with your stupid replies that has nothing to do with the topic nor could be supported, even in jest, by anything which was presented in this thread. Pretty lame though.
 
So that's all you got. A nonsensical response trying to be smarmy and cute and failing on both accounts? That's it? Damn, well I guess when you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel that's what you get. Well have fun with your stupid replies that has nothing to do with the topic nor could be supported, even in jest, by anything which was presented in this thread. Pretty lame though.

I'm sorry. I am just not as intelligent as you.
 
Back
Top Bottom