Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Digging slowy, medical problem
14446 Followers
Digging slowy, medical problem
14446 Followers
Moosa Hemani
219 Followers
Moosa Hemani
219 Followers
MediaSight
13124 Followers
MediaSight
13124 Followers
blqysmgJul 2, 2010
The laws are just an excellent reason for me to never live in Chicago.
bulls414Jul 3, 2010
yeah. i live pretty close to chicago. about an hour and a half. i agree. I would never want to live there. But it is an awesome city to go to and have fun.
artworkz918Jul 3, 2010
if you consider being robbed and killed "fun"
hevnztrashJul 3, 2010
eat a dick, artworkz. i've lived here for thirteen years and love it here. i have never been robbed or had a gun pointed at me. not once. nor have any of my friends and we've lived in some pretty rough areas.
the violence is bad here, for sure but the media is having a field day with it. theft and murder happens in every single American city, even yours(if you do live in the US).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adc86Jul 3, 2010
"I have never been robbed or had a gun pointed at me, even once, [proving gun violence isn't a problem]."
"The violence is bad here"
Care to clarify?
Also, the problem isn't so much with the violence always correlated with gun bans, the problem is that the supreme court declared their previous ban *unconstitutional.* To answer "don't do that" with a near repeat act (to the supreme court!) is pretty pointed proof that they just don't give a crap about their citizen's rights. I think that sucks.
ishiguroJul 3, 2010
Outside of the gun laws, Chicago is one of the worst places to live. Most of the people here lack common courtesy. They are rude. The city hires people do the jobs that traffic lights already do. I've only been here two years and know many people who have had things stolen right on the street in daylight.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
For the most part, crime in Chicago happens where you probably would not live in the first place. I know the suburban/rural crowd seems to think that crime is lurking behind every corner, but I can tell you having lived in Boston, NYC, and Chicago, that is just not the case. I know that the Nancy Grace crowd will not believe this, but who cares about statistics, right?
Is it as safe as living in bumbf**ksville or the boring suburbs? Of course not, but I would rather die of a gunshot in a city than die of boredom in the sticks. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oboshoeJul 3, 2010
" I would rather die of a gunshot in a city than die of boredom in the sticks."
That's such a stupid statement.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
No, it is not. You paranoid hicks are like little girls afraid of cities. It is embarrassing. Are cities as safe, no, but I am not some little pansy willing to give up all of the amenities and interesting people that a city provides because I am to scared of imaginary boogeymen who statistically are not likely to affect me ans non-poor, non-minority. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oboshoeJul 3, 2010
You sound pretty insecure.
Nobody has ever died of boredom and everybody has a car. Bored? NP. Get in the car and drive to wherever you find exicitement. That could even include the city.
FWIW, most people don't avoid cities over the safety issue. They avoid cities because they don't like living like animals.
Its ok though. You go ahead and enjoy your 500 sq ft cage in the sky.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Why don't you read the original poster's post again. And yes, I have a very low opinion of dull suburbanites and hicks. How about instead of being concerned about living in a 500 sq foot cage, you go to a top school, get a great job, and then space does not become an issue. It's really not that hard to do. How about you also stop clogging our roads in the city with your cars.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
I agree with you to an extent. If I were to move to the suburbs, it would be so that we would not have to pay for private school. Space is definitely a good argument also, fortunately, my wife and I are in a position financially where that is not the case. But if you read the original poster's post again, e essentially said that he would not move to a city because he was scared for his safety, which like I posted below, if you are not poor and not a minority is statistically unlikely to affect you.
utkengineerJul 3, 2010
The OP did not say he was scared for his safety. Maybe he just doesn't want to live in a city where his rights are blatantly curtailed.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Yeah, I'm sure that is it.
csmassJul 3, 2010
Thorwdini is right, you gun-toting morons have nothing to fear if you don't go in the ghetto and hang out in poor neighborhoods at night, like most sane people. Instead you all seem to think you are rambo, and can pick a bad guy out from a crowd of 100 people. Guns = bad, especially in a society that refuses to take care of its people and instead forces everyone to be greedy and compete to have anything. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adc86Jul 4, 2010
@csmass: I'm somewhat curious what examples you have of entities removed from competition that produce a net positive effect on the people they concern. I have a ton of examples to the contrary, which would suggest that competition is really, really good for society...
blqysmgJul 6, 2010
Throwdini, I've just read your replies to my comment. Thank you for taking the time to reply. As info, I have lived most of my life within the Atlanta Georgia metro area. I moved out to the suburbs 20 years ago for the beauty of the land and the peace and quiet that I get for living in the North Georgia mountains.
Even when I moved out, I continued to work in downtown Atlanta. I worked quite a few years at night, arriving there around 3:00pm and working until midnight or so. I'd then go out with friends until two or three in the morning and drive home. Never did I feel I needed to carry a gun for protection, even though I worked in a part of town that got a little rough after hours. I wasn't scared, not because I'm some sort of tough guy, but because I know the city, and I know those who live there.
I did not present myself as someone who had enough money to make a mugging worth while. I'm open and honest with folks, so I didn't attract punks looking for a fight. Sure, I got challenged once in a while, but I was always able to talk it out and walk away with no harm done to either party.
I also spent time volunteering to work with the homeless, downtown. "There but by the grace of God..." Don't judge someone until you get to know them. Even then, it's best to leave judgements to others, because it's not easy to be right very often.
I like guns. I learned how to shoot at an early age, and got my first rifle at the age of 13. I'm not a super shot at long distance, but at medium ranges I'm not bad. Good enough to earn sharpshooter with a rifle and expert with a pistol in the Army. Still, I would much rather shoot at paper targets than anything with a pulse.
I don't carry my guns, unless I'm going out to shoot them recreationally, even today. Believe it or not, it makes me calmer and more in control to know that I'm NOT armed as I'm surrounded by people. I know that I have to work out any differences verbally (or at worst with nothing but my hands) and I don't run the risk of escalating a situation out of control to the point where I might end a life. THAT would hurt me worse than getting in a brawl and getting my teeth loosened a little. Not that I've ever been in that situation. Just sayin'.
Still, guns are something that we, as a society, have decided that are a right. Not a privilege, but a right. Actually, it's a right to be armed, not just to carry a firearm. If I want to be armed with a big stick, that's my right. If I want to be armed with a spiked club, it should be my right. Too many people have focused solely on firearms for too long, and that has allowed the revisionists to take away our rights to carry ARMS. But I digress.
I would prefer to live in a place that upholds our rights. If they don't want to use a gun, fine. I support them. They do not, however, have the right to ban the ownership of firearms to the citizens of the United States who wish to own them. Simple.
BTW, I recently bought a air-rifle for my youngest son. He's needing practice shooting, and I didn't want to pay to use the range for him to put wholes in paper. The silly pellet gun cost $80 at Walmart and I bought it and walked out with it in 20 minutes, no background check, no finger-prints. It puts LARGE holes in the metal backstop I put behind the target rack. I was shocked, so much power in an air gun. It could easily kill a man at close range. No Wal-marts in Chicago?
whatcanuexpectJul 3, 2010
Daley is obviously in the wrong here.
But I've lived in Chicago all my life and never felt unsafe. Gun crime is rare in many areas of the city.
I don't want to have to carry a gun to feel safe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
I live in Logan Square (hardly the 'Gold Coast') , and I don't worry about crime. Once I had my car stereo stolen, but that's it.
lazyeyebumJul 3, 2010
Agreed. There's enough good parts of the city to never have to go to the high crime areas. Although Logan is kind of on the border.
adc86Jul 4, 2010
You don't have to. The idea is that criminals will carry guns regardless of the law. This has been empirically established.
Now do you want them to *know* their victims will be helpless, or to feel that there's a very real risk involved in what they may do?
Crimes of motive can be stopped by altering incentives.
davidnivenJul 2, 2010
What part of "shall not be infringed" does this loser not understand?
Besides, Daley is a classic liberal wacko. He demands that everyone else be unarmed while he roams the city with his armed bodyguards and does nothing to protect the innocent from criminals with guns who never bothered to read his stupid laws.
spacem00seJul 2, 2010
Being liberal has nothing to do with it, you will find Republicans for sensible gun laws, or just more money for enforcing existing laws. But the problem is that most people think there should be no laws and that's where most Liberals cry foul.
The constitution also states a separation of church and state, yet most people who are for gun rights have no problem with religion being fully injected into local or state politics.
The irony is that the founding fathers never envisioned armor piercing bullets or assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Where as most envisioned religion as a major obstacle to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenJul 2, 2010
"...you will find Republicans for sensible gun laws, or just more money for enforcing existing laws."
Liberal versus conservative is not the same as Democrat versus Republican. Party affiliation is not the same as political ideology.
"The constitution also states a separation of church and state, yet most people who are for gun rights have no problem with religion being fully injected into local or state politics."
The Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" anywhere in its text.
"The irony is that the founding fathers never envisioned armor piercing bullets or assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment."
Correct. But, they did allow for the Constitution to be amended if needed as society and culture changed. No problem. Then AMEND the Constitution, don't ignore the parts that you think no longer apply to modern society.
We're ostensibly a nation of laws and a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy...and it's a good thing.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
Church and state refers to a concept derived from Locke and further extended/made famous by a letter from Jefferson. It boils down to a State's neutrality in the matters of religious freedom -- somewhat a direct counterpoint to the Church of England/state dictated faith.
The notion that kids cannot pray in school or people cannot express religious points of view publicly or running for/during public terms of office is a misconception. In some instances, such as extremist Evangelical teachings in public schools that profess there MUST be a God or that so-and-so religion is correct, then yes that's a violation of this concept.
This is a political dogma just like the notion of judicial activism on the right -- often used as an apologist argument to precedence even when in violation of the constitution.
People have the right to profess their views -- racist, religious, horrific, sexist, depraved, or otherwise-- insofar as it doesn't call for direct violence or dictate a dogma from a public (i.e. state) vantage point. I won't even get into my disdain for the term "sedition".
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
A quick note on the separation of church and state issue:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
To me, that's a lot more clearer than "right to bear arms."
bigj480Jul 3, 2010
I agree that being a "liberal" or "conservative" has little to do with it. Much is lost when the argument is no longer about the issue, but more about the "us vs. them" mentality.
"The irony is that the founding fathers never envisioned armor piercing bullets or assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment." - spacem00se
Normal citizens could own the artillery pieces of the day, canons. I think that speaks to the broadness that the founders envisioned. Also, nearly ALL rifle rounds are "armor piercing" to an extent, soft body armor is virtually useless even against the most mundane hunting cartridges. I always find it sad that people the so differently about the 2A than they do the 1A or and other right that the people have. Would one ever claim that the government can infringe on the peoples right to free speech because the founders never envisioned TV or the internet? Of course they wouldn't, it's an inane argument.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
DavidNiven's head is shoved so far up his ass that he knowing what's in the Constitution is impossible.
btschulJul 3, 2010
The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dairianJul 3, 2010
Point on the Constitution the words separation of church and state.
yacksJul 3, 2010
"The irony is that the founding fathers never envisioned armor piercing bullets or assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Where as most envisioned religion as a major obstacle to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "
I believe the actual Founding Fathers envisioned a gov't taking up arms against its own citizens to force them into submission ala "The Redcoats" and wanted to give citizens the arms to fight it back if our gov't ever turned corrupt.. So in that light.... we should be allowed the same guns as the US Military.
retsam06Jul 3, 2010
@btschul
Don't be an ass. Nobody likes an ass.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
@Retsam06
Just what part of his posting makes him an ass?
The fact that its the truth and you cant deal with it?
I thought so...
retsam06Jul 3, 2010
@Lomstradamus
Can't deal with it? No, that he's being stupid.
For example, the Lord's Prayer? Jesus says it. Prays it. It's in there.
Just because he doesn't say, "Hey, btw, this is forever known as 'The Lord's Prayer,'" doesn't mean we can't call it that. Most of that is completely stupid. I mean, Original Sin? Dead Sea? Monotheism? And he's attacking Christianity, among other things, in a thread about gun rights.
Therefore, being an ass.
btschulJul 3, 2010
Actually, I was attacking DavidNiven and his stupid comment about separation of church and state. "Just because he doesn't say, "Hey, btw, this is forever known as 'The Lord's Prayer,'" doesn't mean we can't call it that." Exactly. Just because the founding fathers didn't say "Hey, btw, this is forever known as 'separation of church and state,'" doesn't mean we can't call it that. The concept is there, even though the exact combination of words we use to describe it don't appear.
liquidramJul 4, 2010
Dugg for separation of religion from sane people.
twinklyjesusJul 4, 2010
The purpose of the separation of church and state idea is not to keep people from using religion in government, but to keep what happened in England and Europe from happening in America. The government is prevented from establishing an official church, as England had, and as the rest of Europe had. England established The Church of England (Anglican/Episcopal), which caused a huge series of conflicts with the Catholic Church. Martin Luther did the same thing in Germany with the Lutheran church, The Holy Roman Church and Constantine, and many more. The idea was to not allow the government to control the church, as the King of England did, and, to not allow the Church to control the government as the Pope did.
It is not to separate those who participate in government from their beliefs or the practice of those beliefs. The government is not allowed to prefer any particular religion.
evilpoliticiansJul 3, 2010
Not just Daley has the bodyguards - anyone with enough clout in city and county government get them too. They are all hypocrites. Those bodyguards should be patrolling the South and West sides.
crackyjsquirrelJul 3, 2010
Without guns. See how practical they think that is...
entropyfanJul 3, 2010
They understood where the SCOTUS majority who struck down the ban also VERY clearly stated that 'reasonable restrictions' on the ownership of firearms is well within the 2nd Amendment.
Not allowing convicted felons the right to own guns is one that pretty much everyone seems to agree on.
However, the rest of 'reasonable' is pretty open to interpretation.
ishiguroJul 3, 2010
The only reason people think that convicted felon should not own a gun is if you also don't think the prison was punishment enough, or if it didn't rehabilitate the criminal (pick your style). Either way that is a separate problem, which should not be involved in a person's right to bear arms.
kaidovakJul 3, 2010
I personally feel that the gun restriction on reformed convicts should be correlated to the crime committed. There's a lot of difference between armed robbery and say, insurance fraud.
beratebirthersJul 3, 2010
It was 5-4. One right-wing justice gets impeached and all guns nationwide finally get banned.
newesJul 3, 2010
And once all the guns get banned all the criminals will line up to turn in their weapons and we'll finally have utopia!!
beratebirthersJul 3, 2010
Read the UN charter of human rights, they have the right idea. State by state or even nation by nation doesn't solve anything. It takes a worldwide effort.
We eradicated smallpox through a worldwide effort. Guns are nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"Read the UN charter of human rights, they have the right idea. State by state or even nation by nation doesn't solve anything. It takes a worldwide effort."
Your proposal for a nationwide prohibition on civilian firearm ownership is wholly irrational and unreasonable.
exergenJul 4, 2010
I agree with you because our bulls**t criminal justice system has pretty much every crime short of jaywalking a felony these days. A felony is SUPPOSED to be a ridiculous over the top UNFORGIVABLE crime like rape or murder. I heard today that people who get too close to the BP booms in the Gulf to take pictures will be charged with FELONY.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/facing-the-future-as-a-me_b_634661.html
And a cop will kill someone and not even get a criminal charge against him. Right, that makes sense.
beratebirthersJul 4, 2010
@Dimensio: That's because it's a WORLDWIDE prohibition on ALL firearms ownership.
You just aren't thinking big enough.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"@Dimensio: That's because it's a WORLDWIDE prohibition on ALL firearms ownership."
Your proposal remains irrational and unreasonable, regardless of the scope.
bigj480Jul 4, 2010
And alcohol prohibition would have worked if we had just made it a worldwide policy, too. The anti-freedom policy known as "gun control" has been a failure of the highest order, yet some still parrot the idea of a gun free utopia as if repeating it enough will make it a reality or even feasible. The highest crime rates in America are typically where the law abiding people have been disarmed, this is no coincidence. Though some countries with restrictive gun laws do have lower crime rates, most saw a jump in crimes when those laws where enacted, some were pretty extreme. Sure, there were fewer "gun crimes", but the people were less safe.
twinklyjesusJul 4, 2010
Berateberthers:
two things:
1. The SCOTUS did not vote 5-4 on the validity of the 2nd amendment or whether citizens had the right to own guns. They voted on whether States and Municipalities had the right to make laws on gun ownership beyond what was allowed to the Fed by the Constitution and BoR. They voted 5-4 that the 2nd Amendedment applied equally to the state's and cities as it does to the Federal level.
2. It doesn't matter if the UN Charter bans private gun ownership under penalty of military action by UN Troops. The US recognizes no outside authority overrides the sovereignty of the US and its Constitution. The UN's Charter is a voluntary guideline with no teeth and no precedent for enforcement. No law, court, country, king or dictator trumps the sovereignty of our Congress, or our courts, within these United States.
If you do not grasp this, you need to educate yourself or GTFO.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
I know my opinion will be unpopular, but I think it could add to the discussion.
The founding fathers were not dieties, they were not holy, they were fallible. Can we agree on this as a premise? Ok, so I love our constitution and our bill of rights, but I believe the founding fathers made a mistake with the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment gives blanket protection to a technology that is ever evolving and always for the worse. They couldn't imagine a weapon that could fire 7,000 rounds per minute nor could they imagine that it would be possible for someone to hide a weapon in their jacket and pull it out and kill dozens of people in seconds. Those things were not possible in their world.
To give everyone the right to bare arms meant everyone is allowed to have a single shot, 5 foot long musket that takes 90 seconds to reload for an average person.
So I think it's a mistake to declare ALL firearms to be constitutionally protected. A rifle kills someone just as well as a handgun, but you can't hide a rifle in your pants or shoot up a school or do a drive by or mug someone with it.
IF, however, you needed to protect your house from some dictator using the army to round up people and kill them (because this is the example given by gun rights advocates), a rifle would do nicely to kill these evil soldiers. I think this is a moot argument anyway in this day and age because as we saw under the Bush administration, people will throw away their rights as long as they are scared enough. So the guns didn't really stop anything there, did they? So then what's the point of the guns, again?
I'm not afraid of guns, I've shot rifles, handguns, automatics, sub-automatics. I think they're fun. However, they get into the wrong hands very easily and are turned against everyone else.
I now live in Japan, where guns are prohibited. Only the military has firearms. This is probably the safest country on earth as a result. Sure, Japan has it's crazies like everywhere else, but the crazies here can't reach for an uzi and go to town. The most they can do is grab a small knife and a small knife can't do nearly as much damage as an automatic or semi-automatic gun.
Again, I know my opinion is going to be unpopular in the comments of a story about gun laws, but I think if you take time to think about it and respond, it could be helpful to the discussion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jthesaintJul 3, 2010
TV - The founding fathers realized that times would change so they put in a method for changing the Constitution. Instead of ignoring or trying to do some some half assed arguement over what "shall not be infringed" means, gun control advocates should do the legally correct thing and start trying to pass an amendment that shapes the Constitution to what they want. If such a change is wanted by the rest of the population of the USA, then it will pass. If the gun control advocates are in the minority and their change is not wanted, then it won't pass.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
So then my point still stands that people can't pretend this is a national pride issue or that it's anti-American to want gun control.
I agree with what you said.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grimheathenJul 3, 2010
Guns are inanimate. It is the person behind the gun that kills. If they want to kill they will use a rock a knife , club, whatever is at hand. It doesn't matter to them. This is a human issue not a gun issue. The question that is never asked or answered is why are people killing each other. Murder is already illegal in but it doesn't stop the killing. So more or stronger laws are not the answer. Is Japan safer because of the lack of guns or is it the lack of desire to kill. The average person in Tokyo has been brought up to follow and respect laws and people, but in the U.S. In the inner city it is more noticeable, it is different. There is a thug mentality and fighting authority is the way. I hate to generalize people like this but for sake of discussion I think it is ok.
esb82Jul 3, 2010
I agree with your points about the understandably limited vision of the founding fathers with regard to the history of firearm technology (even though pistols had existed for a long time by that point). But this works both ways: they didn't anticipate the people having access to modern weapons, but they didn't anticipate the military and police having access to them either. Unfortunately the balance of power is so skewed now that the idea of a populace protecting its liberty against tyranny through firearms is ludicrous.
As to whether armed civilians are safer from each other, I honestly don't know, but prohibiting guns in the US would not necessarily bring the peacefulness of Japan or Scandinavia. The difference with those countries is that their governments know how to provide for their people, whether you want to measure that in terms of health care or broadband access. And Scandinavian countries, if not Japan, score higher in Happiness Index rankings than the US. As long as Americans are pissed off and unable to meet their basic needs (for whatever reasons), guns will find their way into American hands.
nmanguyJul 3, 2010
7000 rounds per minute... on a 30 bullet clip. So after going on your .2 second rampage, you've got a good reloading time.
But you're right. I guess the founding fathers never would have thought that information technology would evolve so much that could it turn ordinary, thoughtful people into gullible drones.
peekmanJul 3, 2010
"If they want to kill they will use a rock a knife , club, whatever is at hand"...... No they won't.....
If I'm smaller than the guy i want to kill am I really going to try and use such weapons???... Also some shootings are crimes of passion, or not thought out... the gun is there.... makes it easier to let your emotions get the best of you in a bad situation. A knife.... not as easy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
draeathJul 3, 2010
This is one of the soundest arguments I've seen in a good while. I agree, and hell I'm an NRA member!
23duffJul 6, 2010
The real problem is that Americans still have this cowboy mentality. Walking round with holstered guns FFS!
When you see countries on TV like Afghanistan, Pakistan, countries in Africa, you see people carrying guns around. Oh yeah, and the US too! Really civilised guys.
I used to work in San Fransisco and you don't see that stupid s**t there. It is in the piss poor places where they like to play cowboy!
Carry all the guns you like, shoot everything!! Yeeah ha!! AMERICA!! f**k YEAH!!
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
The Constitution is more than what a simplistic reading will provide you. I know by your comment that you have no formal background in law or the constitution. Take the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Does that mean that I could go up to the President and say that I was going to kill him? Does that mean that I could post kiddie porn on the internet? Does that mean that I could walk onto the floor of the Senate and start talking? Of course not.
We are not a Napoleonic Code country. Our law is based on the British system where case law evolves and refines. It is why Blackstone is still cited in cases. Do you want strict interpretation? Then move to France or some other code country. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
There's a distinction between human rights and giving people the rights to always have access to a technology because while the definition of human decency and well being changes little over time, technology changes rapidly.
Threats existed 300 years ago, machine guns did not.
Again, just trying to make a point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 4, 2010
"giving people the rights to always have access to a technology"
You still fail to grasp the key. The 2nd Amendment does not give people any rights. It states that the rights are inherent and the Government cannot change them.
drunkclamJul 3, 2010
DavidNiven is a piece of s**t, what part of "well-regulated militia" don't you understand? The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you. No matter what those un-american pieces of s**t on the supreme court say. They should have been removed for their parts in Bush v Gore or any of the crimes of the Bush Administration that they allowed.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
btschulJul 3, 2010
Have you read the 2nd Amendment? Does it say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or does it say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
dimensioJul 3, 2010
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Your claim to the contrary is false and dishonest, and is consistent with your history of dishonesty. You are a known liar and, as such, your claims are not credible.
bigj480Jul 4, 2010
The "militia clause" is only outlining ONE reason the THE PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms, though it was possibly the most important reason to the founders. The 2A, like the other amendments, applies to THE PEOPLE, no matter how hard those who seek to twist the constitution try mischaracterize it.
The militia was made up of everyday citizens with their own guns. Therefore the militia clause, along with the rest of the amendment, applies to everyday citizens. Also, "well regulated" had a very different meaning than it does now. Check out this site:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Also, notice that it states "well regulated", not just "regulated". This also points to the use of the word "regulated" to mean "trained" or "disciplined" as it did in those days. The bottom line is that those who argue that the 2A does not apply to the people, unlike the many other amendments, do so to push and agenda and while ignoring the facts. If you don't like the 2A, just say so, but please do not twist the BOR into a restriction of rights.
davidnivenJul 4, 2010
"DavidNiven is a piece of s**t..."
That's a little hateful, don't you think?
twinklyjesusJul 4, 2010
"DavidNiven is a piece of s**t..."
Ah, the ad hominem attack, when you can't defeat their argument, attack them personally! The sign of a true liberal debater.
23duffJul 6, 2010
Yeeeee haaa!!! GUNS GUNS GUNS!! drunkclam LOL!
What a hick! You should get your gun man!!
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Actually, speaking as a Chicagoan, Daley is far from 'Liberal.' I love how these rednecks see fit to comment on a MAYOR of a city they know nothing about.
I live here, so I feel quite equipped to comment. Daley is an idiot. And quite conservative for a Democrat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 4, 2010
You wonder how the Daly's have been running Chicago for more than 4 decades...\
LOL!
lormendiJul 5, 2010
Where did I say that?
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Since people in Chicago are allowed to possess shotguns and rifles, how exactly are they 'unarmed?'
Goddamn you people are dumb.
exergenJul 4, 2010
If you live in Chicago voluntarily you have already proven you are intellectually unarmed - might as well take your pistols too.
lormendiJul 4, 2010
That speaks for itself. Thanks for playing.
fractalmanJul 2, 2010
Richard Daley is afraid for his own safety. His policies and decisions have made him a target of the "honest, law abiding citizen". The very thought of putting guns in their hands scares the crap out of him, and it should. That was one of the main thoughts behind the second amendment. Thomas Jefferson said "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Don't let Daley get away with it. Use the 1st and 2nd amendment (in that order, preferably) to make him understand who is actually in charge of Chicago. Woodrow Wilson said "Liberty never came from government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."
I hope the people of Chicago, and this country, will do the right thing, and remove this menace to society,and others like him, from office. Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
theexitwoundJul 3, 2010
Preferably?? You would be okay if some idiot took him down with a gunshot?
arizonaicedteaJul 3, 2010
You're delusional if you think Daley did this because he fears the public. If the Government really feared the people they'd let them have their guns just to quiet them down. The Government controls the people by keeping them fat and stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
evilpoliticiansJul 3, 2010
Absolutely scary fractalman. Advocating violence? You need help.
The second amendment does not say anything about murdering those you do not agree with. This is a matter for the courts. Wage your "battle" there please.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fractalmanJul 3, 2010
Advocating violence? No, I advocate liberty. Apparently, you never read the Declaration of Independence. Here's the second paragraph.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I hope this helps,
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
The narrative you concocted to justify his actions is pretty far fetched. Surely, you realize that.
andreoJul 2, 2010
Wait a minute. Its already illegal for regular citizens to own or carry a gun in the city limits. How do you get more strict then that?
From what I can remember. The only people allowed to own or carry a gun are elected officials (no surprise there), law enforcement, and others who job requires it (security, ect.).
I bet if I check the Chicago Tribune, or Sun-Times there will be stories of shootings in Chicago by people that are none of the above. I bet if I check back in a year from now the same will be true.
pmkenny1234Jul 3, 2010
It's in response to this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0629-court-guns-20100628,0,7159395.story
yacksJul 3, 2010
that law was struck down.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
HANDGUNS, assh**E!!! Goddamn. Rifles and shotguns are not illegal here.
Closed AccountJul 2, 2010
"Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what Chicago officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."
And the criminals yawn.
artworkz918Jul 3, 2010
no they celebrate and move to chicago for easy victims
goweigusJul 3, 2010
they didn't yawn they laughed at him and gave each other high fives
trickybunnyJul 2, 2010
Random thought: The whole reason the 2nd Amendment exists is to give US citizens the power to keep their government in check (I mean, consider the context in which it was drafted - right) by means of force if necessary and that's fine (I think most of us would agree thats a good law/principle). But in reality, if some strange/twisted future ever had US citizens pinned against the US military...f**k any gun laws, that fight would last about as long as it takes for a missile to leave the wing of F-22 and hit its target. In other words, unless we're going to to make things like stinger missiles or M-1 Bradley legal to own...we have exactly 0% chance of winning a fight against the US government so this whole debate is kinda silly.
diggdiggingJul 3, 2010
"we have exactly 0% chance of winning a fight against the US government so this whole debate is kinda silly."
I think we could count on a large portion of the military being with the people.
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
I wouldn't bet on it, and neither do the rich people who own this country. (Look up "Smedley Butler")
The whole point of military training is to make soldiers who obey without question. When men are ready to kill and/or die for something they psychologically double down when faced with contradiction. And power is very addictive - remember that psych experiment with the students who were only pretending to be prison guards? For Christ's sake, we've been torturing people for a decade now, denying people due process, and using illegal wiretaps on ourselves. Where are all the people who were asked to torture or to ignore the Constitution and refused? We can't even count on whistleblowers to do the right thing, and you think a large portion of soldiers will refuse a direct order to shoot a US citizen? Obama just announced a hit list of US citizens suspected of terrorist activities. (That's SUSPECTED of terrorist activities and not tried and convicted.)
I wouldn't count on it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phaedrynJul 3, 2010
nygenxer
As someone with 12 years of service and who maintains contacts within the service, I can tell you diggdigging is absolutely correct. I would go through your list of 'examples' and explain why each is a flawed (at best) example, but why bother. It's obvious from that list where your views are.
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
Why comment if you are going to be too lazy to contradict the facts I laid out? No really: you went through the trouble of reading all of these comments and wrote a comment but are too f**king lazy to offer a single thing to support your argument. Was 12 years of service not enough time for you to learn to follow through? Not enough time to read a book either, I guess.
I hope very much that I am wrong. However it is clear from psychology, history and current events that I am not. I have enough examples of each to fill a book. What supports your argument?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adc86Jul 3, 2010
I just came from another site where there was a whole lot less writing off and more discourse, so I may be out of line on digg, but I'd really like to hear your examples. I think both sides have a point. I also have family in the military (doing God's will), and I honestly don't know which way they'd swing (when God's will includes killing people you don't know, what difference does it make if they're your countrymen or theirs, if they're the 'enemy')Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
damnmanJul 3, 2010
The Milgram Experiments. At least 60% WILL gun down their fellow statesmen, even if they know its 'wrong'.
That example also used Civilians. Military training is, by design and admission, going to decrease an individuals resistance to something of this nature even more.
No coloring by personal views. Just a simple statement of sociological fact.
Your friends are too good, too nice, too *Just* for that? Hardly. One thing Milgram's experiments highlight is that a PERSONS OWN VIEWS DO NOT MATTER. They will do as they are told regardless. All this before we even consider what affect military training will have as well.
So No, Don't expect "large portions" of the military to refuse to fight.
Welcome to the Human Race.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jthesaintJul 3, 2010
Some of the military would shoot its own citizens, some of it would not. Most likely the average private/buck sgt. will follow their leadership, so if their leadership decided to part ways with the official Goverment in a rebellion, most of the lower enlisted would follow. Also, for historical example, just have to look at our own civil war. The military would be devided and with them the assests of the military would be divided.
akowalskJul 3, 2010
I have two words for you Viet Nam. Do not underestimate freedom fighters.
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
@adc86:
Psychology:
1) Asch's findings about conforming to the majority
2) The Milgram experiments mentioned by DamnMan
3) Zimbardo's prisoner/guard experiment
4) CIA's LSD experiments on unaware US citizens
5) The Tuskegee syphilis experiment
History
1) Adolph Eichmann who organized the Holocaust
2) Japanese atrocities during "The Rape of Nanking"
3) American atrocities against Native Americans (Africans, South Americans...)
4) Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (both sides)
5) East Timor, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Hutu/Tutsi, etc., etc.
Current Events
1) Abu Ghraib
2) Use of white phosphorus against Iraqis
3) Waterboarding
4) Blackwater, Hurricane Katrina and the local New Orleans police department
5) Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima
And be sure to celebrate Columbus Day this October 11th and his "discovery" (after the Vikings) of a continent that was already populated (?) and his wholesale slaughter and enslavement of the Caribbean people. Columbus, Cortez, Himmler, Custer: they're all just obeying orders, right? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
Apologize for the double post, but when it comes to controlling the actions of people, there's no force on Earth like marketing and propaganda. Whereas soldiers are broken down before being rebuilt, civilians are immersed in commercial and governmental advertising/marketing/propaganda.
Observe those on the Gulf Coast whose livelihoods are ruined but defend BP (!) and are against adding regulations that would protect them.
People are defending the bank's "rights" not to be "burdened" by regulation after collapsing the economy, coal industry's rights not be burdened by safety regulations even after local miners are killed, airline industry's rights not to be burdened by regulation even after plane crash in Buffalo. People who deny global warming thanks to obfuscating oil and coal. People who continually vote GOP continually vote against their own self interests because they believe that one day they too will be rich (don't hold your breath). People who don't think for themselves because "the bible says..."
Don't ever, E V E R underestimate people's ability to believe what they want to believe no matter what the reality is staring them right in the face and to do the wrong thing just because everyone else is doing it too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
exergenJul 4, 2010
nygenxer
I got news for you that you are not going to like.
Socialism doesn't work.
Supporting capitalism IS in our best interest. Just because people don't act like a typical liberal myopic parasite and vote themselves other people wealth doesn't mean they are too "stupid" to act in their own best interest, it means they don't want the US to turn into Cuba or Greece.
nygenxerJul 4, 2010
@exergen:
Cuba is a communist country, not socialist. Somehow you missed two socialist countries that are doing better than we are: Germany (3rd largest economy in the world, kinda hard to miss) and Canada (our neighbors to the North and also kinda hard to miss.)
The topic of the day is whether or not soldiers will obey an order to shoot civilians. If you're referring to my statement about people who vote for the GOP are voting against their own self-interests, I point you to Michael Steele, head of the GOP who said, "You really don't have a reason to, to be honest [to vote GOP]-- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True."
Now he was referring to black people in that quote, but since black people are disproportionately poor I think the quote is pertinent for a discussion such as this (with someone who thinks Cuba is socialist and doesn't know what "myopic" means. ["Myopic" means near-sighted. We're obviously discussing the big picture i.e. the opposite of myopic.]) Here, this should help:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Read some Noam Chomsky; he's an intellectual elitist who uses big words and I think he can help you with some of your problems.
I'm curious as to what capitalism you are referring to, since in the United States profit is private but costs are social: we bailed out the banks, socializing the banking system and there's already talk the US taxpayer will have to pay to clean up BP's mess in the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact, the US taxpayer is now responsible for all Superfund sites since Bush canceled the polluter pays tax.)
By defending the system, you prove my point about people doing things against their own self-interest. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
exergenJul 4, 2010
Seems you have some reading comprehension problems bro. Calling someone myopic indicates they cannot see beyond what is very near or easily apparent.
"Just because people don't act like a typical liberal myopic parasite and vote themselves other people wealth..."
Indicating it seems wonderful to vote yourself your neighbor's wealth, however if you utilize a long view of the situation it will end in disaster.
Frankly having to explain such a simple definition and word usage doesn't bode well your your intelligence.
By conventional definitions Cuba is both socialist and communist.
Oh and Noam Chomsky is pretty much the most useless and clueless dummy to ever walk the planet - I would suggest a new idol.
adc86Jul 4, 2010
@nygenxer
Thanks for your list- that'll give me some research to do in my off time. You make some good points.
I do find the last paragraph of your first post extremely ironic, though. I wonder, with all the talk of open mindedness vs. pre-programmed idealism, how you would handle reason.com's take on some of the economic issues you mentioned.
nygenxerJul 5, 2010
@exergen:
Thank you for regurgitating the definition of myopic. Again, you missed the big picture. I see the dictionary link I gave you is working. Is that all you've got? Chomsky is a clueless dummy, Cuba is socialist and myopic means close up? ROFL.
In your opinion, one of the most respected living intellectuals in the world "is pretty much the most useless and clueless dummy to ever walk the planet." Disagree with Mr. Chomsky if you will, but anyone with an ounce of gray matter can appreciate the man's intellect. (Probably why you don't.)
Perhaps the difference between socialist and communist is one of degrees, however Cuba is widely known - has been widely known for 60 years - as a communist country. There's no ands, ifs, or buts about it.
In any case, you have nothing to say about the actual socialist countries I mentioned, Germany and Canada? In fact, for all of the points I made, you countered none and offered nothing except that Noam Chomsky is a "clueless dummy", Cuba is socialist and myopic means close up.
Wow! You sure showed me. LOL.
nygenxerJul 5, 2010
@adc86:
Thanks, I noticed I'm getting dugg down but no one is offering any counter to my claims. My opinions may be right or wrong but the research and history is airtight. I realize it's July 4th, but this has nothing to do with America, Russia, Mars, blacks, whites, greens, innies, outties, Team Edward or Jacob - what I said is true for humans regardless of where they are from and the history I mentioned is likewise well-documented. Digging down the messenger doesn't change the facts presented.
I might have been too harsh to Phaedryn (if so, I sincerely apologize, Phaedryn) but I submit that the majority of soldiers would "take care" of any other soldiers that did not go along - this is a lesson hammered home in basic training, is it not? That concept expanded is a core tenet of population control: it's too hard to control everyone directly, it's much easier to let the masses keep each other in line themselves.
I'm familiar with reason.com...if you could you be more specific, I'll be happy to answer you the best I can. I only ask that you don't believe anything I tell you at face value, that you check it for yourself.
In Rush's "The Spirit of Radio" the poet and master drummer Neil Peart writes of radio that it comes into your home "bearing a gift beyond price [music] almost free." Wireless internet does so much more! The greatest research tool ever conceived is right at your fingertips - USE IT, and decide for yourself.
My philosophy is this: I am grateful to someone who corrects me or proves me wrong because that makes my thinking better. It improves me. Being wrong is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of but refusing to correct oneself is. A few misplaced facts or erroneous ideas can affect the whole mental landscape. Why on Earth would anyone wish to do otherwise and pollute their mind with misinformation?
Well, ignorance IS bliss...
indubitablyJul 3, 2010
i don't think they'd use f-22's on the public. they would use state of the art technology that sends sound waves that give people diarrhea. no one would revolt with poopy pants.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
Au contraire...poopy pants might be a GREAT weapon.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
How is that "au contraire"? He didn't say it wasn't a good weapon.
pakobedejoJul 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bigj480Jul 3, 2010
Many do not know what people can already own. Belt-fed machine guns, grenades, "miniguns", artillery all can be owned but they are highly restricted, expensive and rare. If the 2A was determined to apply to such items then this level of restriction is certainly "infringement".
Personally, I think that the minimum extent of the right described in the 2A is the ownership of any weapon that a foot soldier might use. At the moment that would cover machine guns, grenades, grenades launchers and rocket launchers. These rights have been infringed for some time and I doubt that the SCOTUS would ever recognize the scope of the 2A.
jthesaintJul 3, 2010
PakoBedejo - Read up a lil deeper on the Soviet/Afghani conflict, the Afghani rebels were basically done with and probably would have been completely defeated/subdued if the US hadn't started providing weapons to the Afghani soldiers. Especially the anti-air missles such as the stinger was tremendous in reversing the tide of the war as the Russians relied heavily on helicopters to take out rebels(and villages, hard to resist occupation when no one is alive). Once the Russians could no longer effectively use air power against the Afghanies, the losses among Russian forces went up dramatically.
bulletbillxJul 3, 2010
I wouldn't say that. As shown by Vietnam and the current conflicts, our military isnt that great at crushing insurgent/guerrilla movements.
phaedrynJul 3, 2010
No military is. Unless you have the political will to simply kill everyone in the region, and that isn't happening anytime soon (one would hope).
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
@Phaedryn:
I agree with you completely.
imthe1Jul 3, 2010
If this were the case then why has the war in Afghanistan lasted 9 years? Why was Vietnam a loosing battle for the US? The US military has the most advanced weapons and when another national army tries to go against it they don't stand much of a chance, but when a guerilla army that consists of individual people with guns resists the military complex, they cause a lot of problems.
jthesaintJul 3, 2010
Because the US doesn't currently have the willpower needed to win an invasionary war. To win an invasionary war, you need to kill citizens in mass(WWII, Philipines, etc.)
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
The thing is, it is at best just a stalemate, and the US government is not going to back down from a direct attack AGAINST them. So the best you can hope for is a civil war of perpetuity, and just like Afghanistan, the technology, training, and organization means that casualties would be HEAVILY skewed on the opposing side, even if you think of it as a "losing war".
There are people fighting in Afghanistan who will never back down. They are on the defensive and don't see it as an option; in their minds they are backed into a corner. The only way for the US to really "win" is to kill every single person who fights back, but even then, such a brutal strategy would just turn even more afghanis over to that side, pretty much requiring the US to wipe out everyone. So since the aggressors are sustaining far less casualties, they can keep up the war for an obscenely long time, even though they technically have the option of just giving up and leaving.
But this is definitely not the case when they're directly under attack. The US government is not likely to surrender in such a situation, especially when they are on the defensive AND inflicting a hugely disproportionate amount of casualties against the aggressor - technically "the people" in a civil war. Considering that the offensive side tends to give up first in such a unwinnable war even when their casualties are FAR FEWER, the fact that they would be taking the significant bulk of the casualties in this case makes it almost a certainty that the people will eventually give up their attack.
So instead of such an overt war, people resort to a strategy of sporadic attacks that can't really be defended against or even be appropriately retaliated. But we have a very negative label for this - terrorism/domestic terrorism. What people don't realize every time they post an idiotic comment like, "so, are we taking up arms yet?" is that people are ALREADY doing so, but because we often disagree with their particular motives; we marginalize them, and those smug jackasses who make such comments do the same.
But therein lies the problem with taking up arms. Everybody has a different opinion and sees government tyranny in a different way, especially in such a partisan society. The people who blew up abortion clinics were probably just "watering the tree of liberty" from their perspective, but the majority of us condemn such acts. So ensuring that people have the right to take up arms against a tyrannical government is just bound to create conflict in such a day and age. You have extremist left-wing groups, like so called "ecoterrorist" and "anarchist" groups, and you have extremist right-wing groups. And could you imagine if people actually took our right to violently overthrow the government seriously? The teabaggers view the government as extremely tyrannical right now... could you imagine if they all took up arms in order to resist that tyrrany? Most people already disagree with the teabaggers - there are more people who ACTIVELY oppose the movement than the 20% who actually support it, yet 20% of America fighting for that particular perspective would be nothing to sneeze at. But we all have different ideas of what is tyrannical and what the government is supposed to be, so anything resembling a civil war in modern America would still be opposed by the majority of people, and I certainly don't want a government of teabagger ideals, let alone have to experience a lot of bloodshed in order to have them imposed.
So peaceful organization is really the only legitimate way of promoting institutional change in a society with such differing ideals. That, or allowing the red states to secede, which was already attempted. It's easy for people to unite against a dictatorial government such as a monarchy, but any cause people could possibly take up arms for these days would only marginalize them as some sort of fringe terrorist group, and they certainly wouldn't be representative of the will of the people, the majority of which would likely even fight alongside the government and squash any attempt at such a "resistance." Because of this, I really think the whole idea of taking up arms is obsolete in a country like America these days, unless another ACTUAL dictatorial power arises that everybody could unite against. And if this were to happen, guns would be outlawed all across the country anyways, so clinging to the 2nd amendment as if it ensures the ability to overthrow tyranny is kind of a moot point.
twinklyjesusJul 3, 2010
You still misunderstand.
The Bill of Rights, on the second amendment, does not grant any rights. It defines rights that pre-exist the Constitution. Rights granted "by our creator". Rights the Government cannot take away or change.
Daley is attempting to do just that, and when the proper circumstance arises, this "law" will be struck down just like the last.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
I think he just tailored the law to meet the requirements of the latest US Supreme Court ruling.
tao52nycJul 3, 2010
"that fight would last about as long as it takes for a missile to leave the wing of F-22 and hit its target."
What "target" would that be? A wedding party in Helena? How valuable, really, is an F-22 raptor in a guerrilla fight? Where any "citizen" from 8 to 80 could walk by you and drop a homemade grenade in your car, shopping bag, coat pocket, whatever? Where anyone could place an IED in a trashcan or roadside mailbox? Where you could be picked off by any number of freedom-loving ex-mil sharpshooters?
Maybe our precious government and its military machine can't learn the lessons of Vietnam and Afghanistan, but those lessons weren't lost on the rest of us. Patriots will be hiding in plain sight, and be all around you. And you have to land that F-22 sometime.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
I think there are some anarchists of differing violent varieties who would love to own a few hundred guns to overthrow the government. Good idea?
twinklyjesusJul 3, 2010
As citizens, it's their right and I will die to defend it.
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
@twinkyJesus
What AWaybourn is referring to is what we tend to call "domestic terrorists," the people who even without guns set off homemade bombs in public places.
You might defend their right to own the guns, but I find it highly unlikely you would defend their right to kill people in the name of perceived tyranny, especially when it's in order to further an agenda you didn't particularly agree with. That is AWaybourn's point.
Also, your cliché of a post was totally unnecessary. There are fellow citizens in different parts of the country who are restricted from owning guns, and you are clearly not in those areas shooting up cops who try to enforce the law and otherwise risking your life in order to defend their 2nd amendment rights. So stop with the bulls**t, you come off as insanely disingenuous.
doublebaconsodaJul 3, 2010
We just do what they do in Iraq. Seems to work. (except blowing up innocent people) Small raids on poorly guarded areas would net some better weapons. Retreat into a defensible position and keep them occupied while another group takes a larger supply.
The point being, with guns you can obtain better guns.
doublebaconsodaJul 4, 2010
Oh and I forgot to mention that if the military was turned against the people of the United States of America I would hope that many people in the military would object and fight alongside. If something crazy like that were to actually happen.
On a side note, military operations in Iraq seem to be about training future police officers to come back to America and treat us all like terrorist (and you know some cops are as paranoid and treat everyone with disrespect like they did back in the war.) And the brave American soldiers trapped in this quagmire are to be respected and praised as hero's because they are just doing what they were sent to do. it's the f**kups up high that are the souless astards among us.
trickybunnyJul 3, 2010
Jesus you guys haha - I was just trying to poke fun at liberals for being all upset over the outcome of this case when, in reality, they got off pretty lightly because if the courts were to truly rule in favor of the spirit behind the 2nd amendment, then class III would be 50-state legal.
nygenxerJul 3, 2010
This is called "blowback".
mikes1Jul 3, 2010
Blowback designs only work for smaller calibers. For anything much larger than a .380, you need a locking breech.
deadskinmaskJul 3, 2010
Wow, quite the Right Wing circle jerk going on here.
Do you guys always lurk in the bowls of digg, rubbing each others rhubarbs until a story reaches the front page?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adc86Jul 3, 2010
Good argument. I'm anti second-amendment too now! In fact, I might just give up on this whole bothersome constitution thing, what with all its logic and reason and what not.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Since I have had a kid and am in the house more on weekends, I have noticed that is when they tend to come out. Or at least that is when everyone else leaves. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Or maybe everyone else is embarrassed by the inevitable tough guy suburban commandos who are like little girls afraid of cities who populate these threads. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJul 3, 2010
The right to self defense is not a "right-wing" idea jackass.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
Have you any rational commentary to offer, rather than dishonest misrepresentations?
ramfire98Jul 4, 2010
Thanks for the sexual pejorative, Digg kid.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
This is really going to hamper my plans to duel on Michigan Ave.
mysticaloneJul 3, 2010
That Mayor is doing a fine job. Every citizen of Chicago is ripe for the picking. God bless Mayor of Chicago.
computershackJul 3, 2010
We have guns in the hands of criminals in the UK yet there seems to be a distinct lack of gun crime at any noteable level.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
The police are also largely unarmed (how widespread are tasers?) and yet you don't see daily reports of officers being shot or stabbed.
bubba9999Jul 3, 2010
yeah? How's that whole knife thing going?
lormendiJul 3, 2010
I guess you want to ignore the obvious fact that PREVIOUSLY to this ruling, hanguns were TOTALLY illegal. AFTER the ruling, they are strictly regulated, but NOT illegal. Sounds like your brain is ripe for the picking.
Furthermore, this relates to HANDGUNS only. Rifles and Shotguns are NOT handguns.
Goddamn, some of you people are dumb.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mysticaloneJul 4, 2010
So you're telling me people are walking around with rifles strapped to their shoulders to defend themselves in the streets?
lormendiJul 4, 2010
No, nor have they been walking around with sidearms.
My actual point is that much of the noise on this thread relates to how the Liberal Boogeyman wants their guns. When, in fact, it is handguns that WERE banned, and are now allowed via the SCOTUS ruling. Personally I am not opposed to people owning handguns. However, I don't want people running around outside their home with them. s**t, people get into fistfights over a f**king parking spot. What do you think would happen if everyone was driving around with Desert Eagles and Glocks? Especially during the weekend when people are drunk.
That being said, I do not think banning guns of any sort prevents criminals from 1) having guns anyway and 2) using guns in the commission of crimes. So if that was the sole aim of handgun prohibition it was doomed from the start.
My final point is this. A vast majority (no, not ALL) of shooting victims were either 1) other gangbangers or 2) innocent bystanders. In case 1, I say good riddance. In case 2, I say the poor bystander wouldn't have been spared if he'd had a 9mm, a deer rifle, or a howitzer cannon.
In closing, the only way I see gun control working is if we could be assured that CRIMINALS would be denied them as well. As long as the US remains one of the world largest manufacturers of small firearms, criminals will continue to have them by theft or other illicit means.
Anyway, one can still defend their home with guns. They could before with long guns, and now they can include sidearms in their arsenal. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
If I can't wield a gun on my own porch then people should have relinquish their rights upon setting foot on my property. It's ridiculous that my rights are constrained in my own property, yet if somebody trespasses on it I am liable (even in cases of being robbed).
shockzJul 3, 2010
they didnt say anything about the window ;-) Who wants to go outside and shoot someone when you can do it in the comfort of your own home lawl!! A/C ftw....
phialthomJul 3, 2010
The bullet from your gun can come across the street, through my window, and into my house. You should not have a right to cause me and my family danger just because you feel like living in an action movie.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlie6969Jul 3, 2010
I dugg you up because the situation does happen.
But, we were talking gun ownership, not gun safety.
Jordan117Jul 3, 2010
Well would you look at that, a gun-related story that isn't Examiner.com blogspam from libertyalways.
agmlauncherJul 3, 2010
Right, because this will stop gang activity......
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
It doesn't work if you only do it in one city. As long as there is an unsecured passage into a gun-free zone, guns will be smuggled in from places with lax gun laws.
This is what's happening in Mexico. They are getting their firearms from American gun shows and smuggling them across the border.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanJul 3, 2010
So...your solution is a national gun ban?.No thanks.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
Why not? It works in Japan, where I live.
hipmanJul 3, 2010
I figured you weren't American.You don't really get how big a deal guns are here.They are like Samurai swords, if that helps.
agmlauncherJul 3, 2010
Japanese culture is different from American culture. You can't take ONE thing out of context from one culture and expect it to work in another.
Japan doesn't have "minority problems" the way the US does. Call me a racist, but look at the ethnicity of gangs in Chicago and Detroit. Japan doesn't have those problems.
But regardless, I absolutely LOVE the hipocrisy of the digg community. On one hand they talk about how prohibition of drugs doesn't work, and on the other they think banning firearms will magically work and won't create massively powerful arms trafficking cartels....
All gun control does is controls people who are already responsible owners of firearms. It will not stop gangs/criminals from getting their hands on firearms any more than our drugs laws stop them from getting drugs.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/mark414/IceCubeAK47.jpg
You think that AK-47 is legal? Absolutely not, yet he still got his hands on it now didn't he...
xbebopJul 3, 2010
The only problem with banning guns in America is this: we have more guns than people here already.
In Japan, gun crimes make the national news. In Chicago, a murder with a gun might not even make the front page of the local newspaper.
jsutherJul 3, 2010
If the manufacturers are shutdown, people WILL just manufacture the guns themselves locally. Guns are just machined chunks of metal.
liquidramJul 3, 2010
Japan isn't special. Canada also has extremely low gun violence compared to the United States.
We can still have guns but have to keep them locked, and nobody can walk around with one. Seems to work pretty good. I don't know a single person who owns a gun.. it's not that common here. But I like to rent one from the firing range once and a while.
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
@LiquidRAM
I'm pretty sure handguns are illegal, but rifles and shotguns are allowed.
Well actually, handguns, as well as more exotic restricted weapons are kind of legal, but not for any useful purposes. Here, anyways, when you buy such a gun, you cannot purchase ammo immediately. You have to bring the handgun to a firing range, at which point they lock it up THERE, and give you a certificate indicating this which you may use to purchase ammo. You can only use the gun at a firing range, you may not bring it home.
Rifles and shotguns though, again, are totally fine. The vast majority of privately-owned guns in Canada are either for hunting or are collector's pieces.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"This is what's happening in Mexico. They are getting their firearms from American gun shows and smuggling them across the border."
Please show that "American gun shows" are a significant source of firearms for criminal organizations in Mexcio.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"Why not? "
Such a prohibition is Unconstitutional.
richmomzJul 5, 2010
I can't believe morons are still repeating this stupidity - no, Mexico is NOT getting its grenades and full-auto AK-47s from Bubba's Buckshop Bunker across the border, I assure you.
rodneyws1977Jul 3, 2010
For years Chicago has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US... and how well has that worked so far? You'd think that would be a signal to the political leadership that a change in tactics is necessary.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
restrictive HANDGUN laws.
phialthomJul 3, 2010
Everyday folks do not need guns. If you want to go hunt, get a bow. If you want to defend yourself, get pepper spray. You don't need to shoot someone dead for entering your home or trying to take your wallet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mobbygJul 3, 2010
But what about the criminal that has a gun? He doesn't obey the laws remember? I'll put my trust in a Glock, Smith and Wesson or a Remington that I have at hand to defend myself and my family, rather than hope the cops can get to me before I or any of my family bleed out.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
He's not going to shoot you if you don't give him a reason to. The police give much less of a s**t about a mugging than they do a murder.
If you think it's a good idea to whip out your gun when someone's got the drop on you, then you've seen too many action movies.
Real life is not like the movies, you will be murdered if you try that.
Handing over your wallet is safer, cheaper, and easier than buying a gun and trying to kill the mugger with it.
Also, who is going to break into your home and just start shooting up the place? Do you think that's something that happens often?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phialthomJul 3, 2010
Go get 'em rambo. Just make sure I'm not collateral damage when you're out there in a shootout valiantly defending your family like a real American. Or you could just call the police.
phialthomJul 3, 2010
Go get 'em rambo. Just make sure I'm not collateral damage when you're out there in a shootout valiantly defending your family like a real American. Or you could just call the police.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"He's not going to shoot you if you don't give him a reason to.
Handing over your wallet is safer, cheaper, and easier than buying a gun and trying to kill the mugger with it."
Please substantiate this assertion. Show that in all instances criminal muggers do not inflict harm upon compliant victims.
mobbygJul 3, 2010
@ThwartedVillian
Actually, people have been shot for doing exactly what they were told by someone robbing them. So it's a 50/50 either way?
justin676Jul 3, 2010
You're an idiot.
"You don't need to shoot someone dead for entering your home or trying to take your wallet". According to whom? They shouldn't be breaking into peoples' homes or trying to take wallets. If they make a person feel as if their life is in danger and said person ends up blowing a hole in their chest for it, it's their own damn fault and they not only got what they deserved but they brought it on themselves.
phialthomJul 3, 2010
Except that guns can easily end up in the hands of the wrong people, or go off accidentally, or be used in anger when they shouldn't be. People shouldn't be killed for crimes like that, and it's not worth having a gun just in case that situation arises.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
justin676Jul 3, 2010
People who are willing to break into another person's home should know that there is a risk involved up to and including losing their life. If they still choose to engage in crimes like that and they get killed, it's their own damn fault. It's their job to decide if stealing that jewelry, TV, or whatever is worth getting killed for. In the moment that a person is breaking into someone's home, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the victim to decide if they think the person is there to harm them or not and how to react in terms of protecting their property, their loved ones, and themselves for fear of being in legal trouble because some piece of s**t decided to come into their home. That's why the castle doctrine was written and is such a wonderful piece of legislature.
peekmanJul 3, 2010
I always find it funny how this point of view is uniquely American.
justin676Jul 3, 2010
I don't understand the thought process of people who say that a criminal breaking into someone's house, whether it be to kill the residents there or simply steal stuff is somehow not at fault when they break into the wrong house and catch a bullet. What are the residents supposed to do? Just hope that they got one of the less violent criminals breaking into their house? Sit and think about the criminal and whether or not they might be there to harm you or your family?
I don't know about you, but to me if someone forcibly breaks into a home, their intentions don't really matter to the victim, nor should they. What matters is protecting yourself and your loved one. If some thug scumbag chooses that route and gets killed, oh well.
If I do what I have to and I know I protected my family from someone trying to come into my home, I won't lose a wink of sleep over some dead piece of garbage.
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
"What are the residents supposed to do?"
Call 9-1-1...
dimensioJul 3, 2010
". People shouldn't be killed for crimes like that"
Then people should refrain from risking their lives by way of committing such criminal actions.
justin676Jul 4, 2010
"Call 9-1-1..."
Oh yes of course because remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"Call 9-1-1..."
Please explain, specifically, how such an action provides immediate defense against a criminal attacker.
peekmanJul 4, 2010
You obviously advocate the castle doctrine where a "man's home is his castle" and he can do whatever he wants to defend it.......
"Duty to retreat" is the opposing view point.... where a 'victim' first tried to avoid conflict, then tried to run... and never showed an intention to fight. The proponents of the "Duty to retreat" believe that violence should almost never be the answer.... and any step should be taken to avoid it.
Both point of views can be logically argued....
b0ltacti0nJul 3, 2010
Phialthom likes to tell people what to do..............and how to live .......go f**k yourself
phialthomJul 3, 2010
how about you don't accidentally (or on purpose) put a bullet in me or my family for one of your beliefs. i'd sleep better at night knowing that there are fewer crazy old-fashioned types walking around clutching their firearms because it makes them feel safe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"Need" is not relevant. Additionally, criminals are not lawfully entitled to the property of others, and civilians are within their rights to defend their property.
phialthomJul 4, 2010
Defend with something besides a gun. Bullets fly until they run into something, it could be my house across the street.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"Defend with something besides a gun."
You possess no lawful authority to dictate the defensive tools that I choose to utilize.
jehoweJul 3, 2010
The mandatory gun safety class is fine with me and something I think should be required for new owners. But that, and the rest of the proposed rules, won't put a dent in gun crimes.
cashed420Jul 3, 2010
I live in Chicago, and I know by first hand experience that these bulls**t guns laws do not work at all. The people shooting each other in Chicago are the ones getting them illegally not legally, so you can make all the laws you want and it will only make crime worse because good people will have less to protect themselves with. To prove my point, even though we have had such strict gun laws in Chicago we still have the highest murder rate in the country and it's been way for decades, and we are always near the top in all violent crimes.
Mayor Daley is an idiot, and I've been voting against him for years. I hope others vote against him so we can get him out of office, and get someone who wants to deal with real issues like unemployment, education, budget, or all the corruption that has been going on.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Do you know how they get them illegally? They have their girlfriends with no record go and buy them legally.
hipmanJul 3, 2010
Um, guns were illegal in Chicago.There was no "legal" option.Way to talk out of your ass.
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Here's the thing, Chicago is not an island in the middle of no where. All you have to do is leave the city border. Gun shops/gun shows outside of Chicago were never restricted from selling guns to residents of chicago. If you want an AR, all you have to do is leave the county.
crackyjsquirrelJul 3, 2010
OH THATS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET AN AR, IS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY!!!! HOLY S**T THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOO EASY!!!
throwdiniJul 3, 2010
Country has an "R" in it. County does not. You can not read and you write in all caps. Congratulations on being today's dumbest poster.
hipmanJul 3, 2010
"If you want an AR, all you have to do is leave the county. "
I fail to see your point.Clinton outlawed them for 10 years.What did that do?.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Or, more frequently stolen from homes.
linuxpersonJul 3, 2010
"OH THATS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET AN AR, IS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY!!!! HOLY s**t THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOO EASY!!! GETTING ASSAULT RIFLES THROUGH CUSTOMS IS A SNAP DUDE!!"
Heroin and cocaine seems to have been making it way into the country for quite some, what makes you thing guns wouldn't be the same way if they were illegal?
peekmanJul 3, 2010
f**k off Chicago does not have the "highest murder rate in the country"
New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington, Oakland, Kansas City, Newark, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Memphis and Atlanta are all higher. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skews13Jul 3, 2010
Yeah, until a citizen challenges his ass, and the majority of those ordinances are thrown out in federal court. Again. You lost d**k h**d. And you're not going to be anymore successful the second time around. If i were a citizen there, not only would i challenge his ass, with the full backing of NRA lawyers, but i would also sue his ass in civil court for any damages he may have caused me. Then i would make him personally hand me my gun back in open court in front of the cameras.
adc86Jul 3, 2010
Ahh, I don't have access to NRA lawyers (much less a full backing) but I'd sue all of him! More than his ass is culpable, here.
skews13Jul 3, 2010
Mayors like Daley count on the fact that anyone who would challenge those ordinances, doesn't have the legal funds to do it. Unfortunately for them, the NRA has very deep pockets, and can challenge them until they are gone from office. The anti gun crowd is not going to win this one. Maybe Daley is more worried about a law abiding home owner shooting one of his crooked ass cops, if they continue the status quo of the past. The city of Chicago better wire it's head, and it's ass together correctly.
adc86Jul 3, 2010
I agree with you, I just don't see how 'a citizen there' can 'challenge his ass' 'with the full backing of NRA lawyers.'
Maybe sue him in civil court, but I don't know enough about civil law to know if violation of constitutional rights would A) be applicable or B) be ruled in your favor.
Bailouts: Unpopular; passed. Stimulus: unpopular; passed. Healthcare: unpopular; passed. You think your government listens to you?
lormendiJul 3, 2010
"sue his ass in civil court for any damages he may have caused me."
Lol. Ya know, overstating things is seldom effective in making your point. Are you 12 or something?
BTW, I am not in favor of gun control, nor am I a fan of Mayor Daley. I just think people who talk tough and say stupid s**t need to be called out for it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mark5hsJul 3, 2010
This guy has no common sense whatsoever. You ban handguns for 28 years and end up with one of the highest gun crime rates in the country? Clearly the answer is more gun laws.
drunkclamJul 3, 2010
Maybe if the rest of the country would get smart and ban handguns we could all be better off.
fissiongrubbsJul 4, 2010
"Maybe" is like a guessing game, isn't it.
fissiongrubbsJul 4, 2010
You have to keep ignoring the fact crime drops where CC is legalised. You seem to be unable to separate you agenda/ideology from reality.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
A federal prohibition on handgun ownership would be Unconstitutional. Additionally, because you are a liar, your claims are not credible.
ascusJul 3, 2010
What is the penalty for contempt of court when its the SCOTUS?
Nanoo1972Jul 3, 2010
Obviously, you watch a lot of Matlock and Judge Judy. [rolleyes] Your understanding of the Constitution, and how the judicial system works, is simply breathtaking. (Here's the part where you claim to be a lawyer/law clerk/senator while you scramble through google looking for an obscure link to cover your ass).
oboshoeJul 3, 2010
Yet another example of Chicago corruption.
Frankly I've had my fill of corrupt Chicago politicians lately.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
I don't like it, but how does it qualify as corruption in any way, shape or form?
Oh, I see its oboshoe, nevermind....
oboshoeJul 3, 2010
Yup. I'm the only one who associates Chicago politicians with corruption.
Btw, how you governors trial going?
lormendiJul 3, 2010
It might be a foolish policy, but what does Daley's position on city gun ordinances have to do with CORRUPTION? Take a moment and look up the word if you need to. Then, answer the question.
Regarding the governor, it's going well. Assuming he is found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY, is making excuses for Blaj in Illinois (its a pretty big state) or in Chicago itself. He appears to be a criminal, and should be dealt with as such. He could not be more unpopular.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwatudidthereJul 3, 2010
I can't walk around with my hand gun, guess i'll just wear my AK-47 on my back.
Nanoo1972Jul 3, 2010
Shut your mouth citizens, and bow to the rule of the politicians and criminals! Cower in fear of violence or overinflated fines! This clown mayor is such a hypocrite. When is someone going to take away the guns from his bodyguards and hand them some pepper spray? Not anytime soon, I'm sure. Strictest gun laws in the nation, and they have a crime index of NINE. NINE. As in, Chicago is safer than 9% percent of all the other cities in the U.S. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/
How's that working out for ya, mayor? Oh right, what do you care, you've got a compliment of hired goons protecting you. Screw the lower and middle class.
iancgiJul 3, 2010
Good idea, now only the criminals will have guns!
lormendiJul 3, 2010
*handguns
iancgiJul 3, 2010
you obviously arent to keen on how armed gangs really are. Its quite easy nowadays to obtain a various amount of assault rifles.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
You obviously aren't to keen on the distinction between handguns and rifles.
Do you live in Chicago? I do. Guess what? Assault rifles are almost never involved in homicides. It's usually handguns. For the record, I do not support gun control of any sort, but I don't support people going into hysterics on the internet over an issue in which they are unable to draw simple distinctions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
The thing about assault rifles is that they can't really be concealed. It's easy to walk around the city illegally packing a handgun... you simply cannot do that with an assault rifle.
bluelines77Jul 3, 2010
Of course. Because only Mayor Daley, the Chicago PD, and Daley's Big Green Machine cronies can have guns. *rolls eyes*
lormendiJul 3, 2010
*handguns.
Rifles and shotguns are legal to possess.
kentuckyboy2Jul 3, 2010
Daily is an ASS.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Outside of Kentucky, its spelled 'Daley.' If you can't spell something, dont talk about it.
kentuckyboy2Jul 3, 2010
You are a turd as well. I guess you have never used a mobile device that auto corrects.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
I know you are, but what am I?
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
I really think the answer is to walk into courthouses, the US Supreme Court, packing a few handguns. LOL.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
That's a great f**king idea! I love getting arrested!
linuxpersonJul 3, 2010
You'd be lucky if you got arrested.
madtechnologistJul 3, 2010
LOL....more proof Chicago wants nothing but criminals to own guns. These idiots are pathetic.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
You're allowed to possess shotguns and rifles. Its HANDGUNS we are talking about, dumbass.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
*handguns
madtechnologistJul 3, 2010
Oh yeah...that's MUCH better.....dumbass
madtechnologistJul 3, 2010
You're probably one of the same idiots that thinks "semi-auto" means "machine gun".
lormendiJul 3, 2010
"LOL....more proof Chicago wants nothing but criminals to own guns."
Your assertion, not mine. Let's break it down.
1) Chicago wants criminals to have guns.
- That's obviously absurd.
2) Regular citizens are prohibited from possessing 'guns.'
- Not true. They are allowed to have not only rifles and shotguns, but as a result of the SCOTUS ruling, they can now possess handguns as well.
3) Because I've drawn a distinction between handguns and other guns (something you seem to be unable to do thus far...) therefore *I* am likely to be unable to make a distinction (?) between semi-automatic weapons and machine guns. (???) What??
- Now we get into some really strange territory. You are unable or unwilling to make a distinction, therefore I am unable or unwilling to do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Spend some time there. I can only hope it does you some good. In particular, read up on 'Logical fallacies.' I'm not sure they have a category for #3 above. You may have created a new one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"1) Chicago wants criminals to have guns.
- That's obviously absurd."
Why, then, are Chicago city aldermen permitted to carry firearms?
lormendiJul 4, 2010
Oh, I get it! Alderman are criminals........ right. Well played.
dickenshitJul 3, 2010
I bet the city's criminal violent offenders are just biting their nails over this legislation.
csmassJul 3, 2010
I lived in a greedy nation where people take from one another and blame the lower class for all of their problems. Naturally, instead of finding better ways to prosper for everyone, they instead insisted they needed guns to protect themselves all the while big companies were ruining their country and government was abusing their taxes for their "wars" and "too big to fail" companies. So while they argue that said gangs are a threat to their suburban white lives, because clearly , they live in a ghetto, we are being robbed blind and as a result of our current economic situation, it looks like the USA will have close to 80million in poverty. Funny for a country claiming to be the best in the world at everything.
Some food for thought for the gun nuts out there.. enjoy!
emjaymjJul 3, 2010
80 million in poverty? That's like a quarter of the population...
Well s**t, I'm definitely going to need a gun with that many poor people!
dimensioJul 4, 2010
I am curious; have you any rational argument, rather than fallacious reasoning, to offer?
royblunt3242Jul 3, 2010
screw the mayor
blitzkrieg2003Jul 3, 2010
King Daily is pissed that he can't get his way, I've said it before there's no doubt his body guards/ thugs are carrying guns. Having smart gun laws do make sense as long as they don't infringe on the rights of people to protect themselves if they want to.
roymike322Jul 3, 2010
guns are GOOD
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
I see the pols in Chicago enjoy s**tting all over the rights of their constituents. There's a cure for that ya know...
drunkclamJul 3, 2010
their constituents want the gun bans, it's those justices who are in the tank for the evil gun industry who are s**tting on them.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
Are you an American?? Because you sure as hell don't think like one.
1) Their constituents have NOTHING to do with it
2) The "evil" gun industry has NOTHING to do with it
3) What the justices thinks has NOTHING to do with it
The only thing that is relevant is the enumerated right of "shall not be infringed".
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Oh, and YOU'RE an expert on what an American thinks like?
Shut the f**k up, hillbilly.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
Given your history of dishonesty, your claim is not credible.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
So basically nothing has changed. People who had handguns kept them in their houses anyway, and weren't charged for using them to defend their homes from attack.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yacksJul 3, 2010
"said Daley, who was flanked by ... the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend."
As if a gun ban would have prevented that death which probably occurred while the more strict ban was in place and the gun was probably an illegally gained gun to start off with... Pure political pawns to make us feel sad and give in to what the pols want.
phialthomJul 4, 2010
There would be less guns with a gun ban. Criminals aren't affected with a ban, so why would they be affected with the ban? With the same number of criminals with guns, and less law-abiding citizens with guns, there will be less guns with a gun ban.
infernoxJul 4, 2010
"the gun was probably an illegally gained gun to start off with"
I'd actually love to see the statistics on legally obtained guns in correlation with gun crime. I'm curious to know whether or not the majority of crimes are actually committed with illegal guns or not.
One would think that if the majority is indeed legal then gun restrictions would actually prevent the majority of crime in such cases. At the very least, there'd be a solid chunk of people who would be unable to attain a gun. (Certainly the means of aquiring an illegal gun would not be common knowledge lest it be easy for the police to shutdown or prevent)
Furthermore, atleast from what I've heard on various Howstuffworks.com podcast; possessing a firearm actually makes you more likely to be injured during a crime as it is more threatening to the criminal in question. (Which in turn can mean more injured bystanders due to stray bullets)
Banning all guns or giving everybody guns wouldn't solve crime entirely either way. However I think it's fairly safe to say that reducing the availability of something does indeed reduce the amount of people with access to it significantly enough to warrant doing so.
As for self-defense, if someone pulls a weapon on you chances are you were not in a position to be expecting it. The only way for more availability of guns to actually prevent the crime would be if bystanders assisted you. This of course relies on other people not being selfish, which means it's not really self-defense. Additionally, most crime is done without people nearby to watch. So having wide availability of guns does not prevent crime, increases injury (crossfire, stray bullets etc) and does nothing to actually prevent the majority of crime that takes place because no one is around to see it. Having a gun on you when being mugged or otherwise a victim of crime only causes the criminal to be more threatened and more hostile, increasing the chances that you will be injured.
So generally: restriction of gun ownership is a more reliable way of reducing crime, as the people who will have the guns are hardened criminals. Most petty thieves and muggers will just switch to other weapons of course but the notion that this is somehow a bad thing is baffling. An idiot with a gun is more dangerous than an idiot with a knife afterall.
T'is not a black and white situation, restrictions should be in place but there should still be means to aquire a gun. Licenses, mandatory training, subsidized prices. (Inflate gun/bullet prices and then provide government subsidies to those with valid licenses and training) Restrict how guns are allowed to be sold and who is allowed to sell them.
If your means to prevent crime is just to give every toddler with their front teeth a gun well that's just as stupid as outright banning all firearms now isn't it.
wesw02Jul 3, 2010
I support the effort to reduce gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, however this is completely the wrong approach. Most criminals will obtain guns through illegal means. This law/ordinance is only going to hurt those who are legitimately seeking to protect themselves and their families.
peekmanJul 3, 2010
Don't people drive to another of the 342343242 jurisdictions and buy guns legally there???
Why the f**k would you obtain a gun illegally when America has so many legal means.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
doublebaconsodaJul 3, 2010
I am sure criminals respect these gun laws and will now attempt to rob you with a knife. wait, they know it's a crime to take a gun anywhere so now they only have to worry about the cops when they mug somebody.
phialthomJul 4, 2010
And now I only have to worry about criminals. I no longer have to worry about every tom, dick, and harry that feels like carrying a gun. It just takes one random dude having a bad day to kill me. I'd rather reduce that chance.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
" I no longer have to worry about every tom, dick, and harry that feels like carrying a gun."
Why? Do you commit violent crimes?
doublebaconsodaJul 4, 2010
Hopefully people that are crazy enough to pull out a gun at the supermarket because you took the last bag of chips they were going to get have all been screened out of the chance of ever possessing a gun. Hopefully.
phialthomJul 5, 2010
Hopefully someday guns will be reserved for law enforcement and the military.
dimensioJul 5, 2010
"Hopefully someday guns will be reserved for law enforcement and the military."
For what reason do you advocate a situation where only government agents may use force? Why do you endorse fascist government totalitarianism?
drunkclamJul 3, 2010
They should first petition the Obama administration to add new justices to balance the supreme court. It's way to super conservative and in the tank for the gun industry. The dems should go nuclear in the congress and add 3 or 5 of the most liberal judges they can find. Then pass a national handgun ban.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Hahaha! I am all for liberalizing the Supreme court. I am. But I don't favor a national handgun ban. Not unless we could guarantee that criminals wouldn't have access to them either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
You have claimed that the homicide rate of the United States is "thousands" of time greater than the homicide rate of the United Kingdom, which is demonstrably false. You have claimed also that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, a claim that is factually and legally incorrect. Such claims demonstrate that you are dishonest. Moreover, you have expressed a desire for those who expose your dishonesty to suffer as victims of violent crime, demonstrating that you are unreasonable and irrational. Your behaviour is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational. Because you are a known liar, no claim that you issue is credible.
dayal911Jul 3, 2010
And they say liberals don't want to take away your guns.
f**k that.
I wish bad things upon this man.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Daley isn't really a liberal. A Democrat, but not a liberal one. Dont conflate the two.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
Has it occurred to anyone but myself that this is about HANDGUNS and NOT rifles or shotguns?
All we see from the Conservitards is "ZOMFG!!! DALEE SAYS ALL UR GUNZ R BELONG TO US!"
Substitute "guns" for "handguns" and you won't look so illiterate and retarded.
By the way, people who want handguns in Chicago have them anyway. Criminals and non-criminals alike. It's not like the cops break down your door looking for them. And people who have used 'illegal' handguns in defense of their homes are never charged.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
offrdbanditJul 3, 2010
Has it occurred to you the distinction between the two (as they pertain who law) is arbitrary and asinine?
lormendiJul 3, 2010
The distinction is important because you knuckledraggers are acting as if all guns were banned in Chicago. They clearly are not.
spshultzJul 3, 2010
I'm going to get dugg way down for this but I think we should let everyone have a gun and then let Darwinism sort out the stupid and weak.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
The stupid and weak are usually the ones who feel they need a gun. I think it would be a major fail.
exergenJul 4, 2010
The stupid and weak are the ones who reflexively rely on others and find personal responsibility and self determination terrifying.
lormendiJul 4, 2010
Yeah, like living life without a gun. Oh noes.
exergenJul 4, 2010
It seems that some people are just unable to grow out of the childhood "MOMMY HELP ME!" mentality. Whats even worse is when they are resentful of those that have.
lormendiJul 4, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
exergenJul 4, 2010
lol truth hurts eh?
phialthomJul 4, 2010
It would only sort out those with bad aim.
Closed AccountJul 3, 2010
Best way out of this law, shoot yourselves. Done. Happy?
kevin108Jul 3, 2010
To fix all this nonsense we need only a national concealed carry law. If every state recognizes my driver's license, it should also recognize my CHP.
sndreamJul 3, 2010
It's the right of bear arms, not just guns. I demand my constitution right of carrying an RPG and flamethrower to be protected.
Hey, one have the right to defend himself from zombies.
dimensioJul 3, 2010
Rocket-Propelled Grenade launchers are orndance, not arms.
Flamethrowers are agricultural tools and are not regulated by federal law. However, flamethrowers are an inadequate defense against a zombie outbreak.
phialthomJul 4, 2010
Are assault rifles "ordinance", or just a "gun"?
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"Are assault rifles "ordinance", or just a "gun"?"
Assault rifles are regulated as "machine guns" and require payment of a $200 tax stamp and federal permission to own.
lynusborgusJul 5, 2010
that's not an answer to the question. are machine guns arms like rifles, or are they not? and should i be therefore free to own one or not, judging by the 2nd amandment?
dimensioJul 5, 2010
" are machine guns arms like rifles, or are they not? and should i be therefore free to own one or not, judging by the 2nd amandment?"
Federal law currently restricts, but does not prohibit, access to such firearms. I cannot address whether the 1934 National Firearms Act is unreasonable. I can state that the prohibition on civilian ownership of any such firearm manufactured after 1986 is unreasonable.
liquidramJul 3, 2010
As an outsider this is what I don't understand...
Most of the criminal guns are stolen from gun owners homes right?
Why isn't it a requirement to keep your gun in an approved safe that is bolted to the house? Problem solved... you can keep guns, and also remove a big source for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peekmanJul 3, 2010
You are then legislating actions people do within their own home....... this usually does not go over very well.
liquidramJul 4, 2010
But if those actions result in people getting killed down the line... I really don't see why this is an issue. Why wouldn't you lock it up? Basically you could come home to a robber who shoots you with your own gun... I really just don't get the mentality.
You can't get a gun here without a license. Everything about the gun is documented... and quite simply gun crimes here are way way lower than in the USA per 100,000. I suppose the other possibility, is that people in the USA are very violent and self destructive compared to other countries.... personally I prefer to link the issue to poor gun control measures.
lormendiJul 3, 2010
That's far too reasonable for the US. Want proof? You got dugged down for a simple, logical inquiry.
liquidramJul 4, 2010
I'm not surprised... but I still don't get it. The level of gun violence per ca-pita in the USA is insane... why wouldn't this be seen as an issue by the people living there?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
" The level of gun violence per ca-pita in the USA is insane."
Do you believe that violence committed with implements other than firearms is acceptable?
dimensioJul 3, 2010
"Most of the criminal guns are stolen from gun owners homes right?"
I do not know. Have you a reference for such a statistic?
phialthomJul 4, 2010
You can identify a gun with some soft of serial number. Also, I don't see a problem in regulating how guns are stored. Once the gun goes off and the bullet flies out of your window and into my home, it's no longer a private matter.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
liquidramJul 4, 2010
Sorry, I assumed that every guns serial number is registered to the owner. Seems crazy not to though... how do you keep track of who has what?
If guns make Americans safer... why does it have such a high murder rate compared to other G20 countries?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
liquidramJul 4, 2010
As for where the guns come from.. at some point, someone must have bought it. When they are stolen, they become illegal and enter the black market. If criminals are buying them legally, that is just another reason to have more control of devices designed to kill people.
lormendiJul 4, 2010
LiquidRAM, you are asking too many good questions. They can't handle it.
dimensioJul 4, 2010
"Sorry, I assumed that every guns serial number is registered to the owner. Seems crazy not to though... how do you keep track of who has what?"
Registration of firearms is reasonably opposed because registration systems have been utilized for efficient confiscation efforts of firearms in various locales, including in the states of California and of New York and in Cook County in Illinois. In all of those locales, laws prohibiting the possession of firearms arbitrarily classified as "assault weapons" were enacted, and previous owners of such registered firearms were required to relinquish their lawfully owned property to the state.
meedJul 4, 2010
A motivated thief would still steal the gun, and a big honking safe would only point out that this person has guns.
doublebaconsodaJul 3, 2010
We just do what they do in Iraq. Seems to work. (except blowing up innocent people) Small raids on poorly guarded areas would net some better weapons. Retreat into a defensible position and keep them occupied while another group takes a larger supply.
The point being, with guns you can obtain better guns.