What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
347 Comments
- skiddles, on 06/03/2009, -9/+74Based on this then any freedom "guaranteed" by the Constitution is therefore only protected from Federal Law. Freedom of speech, religion, freedom to associate etc, can be abridged by state or local law.
This is going to the supreme court and should be overturned there. - akchrs, on 06/03/2009, -11/+70In Alaska we can own lots of guns, we can open carry or conceal carry without any permits or anything. I've never been shot at.
- MidnightFox, on 06/03/2009, -17/+74please forgiveme, but as far as i care, no law should or could be made that trumps the bill of rights. as far as i care it sez i have the right to bear arms, and bear arms i'm going to do. i find it funny that in chicago they have gun crimes left and right but in other areas where there is no to no gun laws the crime rate drops in to the basement. Why? cause most of the would be criminals don't know who's packing what. this war on guns is just as worthless as this war on drugs.
- Chahrlie5, on 06/03/2009, -13/+67In other words; Law abiding citizens to remain at the mercy of criminals who couldn't care less about gun bans.
- deema1, on 06/03/2009, -8/+54Isn't this gun ban working out great for Chicago? Only 7 murders in 24 hours on Monday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/violent-c ...
Just goes to show you that banning guns does NOTHING to curb gun violence or make people safer. Blame the criminals, not the guns. - BillDoE, on 06/03/2009, -7/+46Yes, and it's working well for them so far..NOT. 7 people were shot to death in a 24 hour period last weekend in Chicago.
- sonnybobiche, on 06/03/2009, -5/+43Right, you guys just get knifed.
- atomheartmother, on 06/03/2009, -6/+39The temperature is colder but the people are warmer.
- jimmarch1, on 06/03/2009, -2/+34HERE'S WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON!
In 1873, blacks in a small town in Louisiana (Colfax) tried to vote under the then-brand-new 15th Amendment. Local KKK and government officials didn't like that idea. They first stripped blacks of arms (violation of 2nd Amendment rights), broke up their attempts to vote (1st amendment right to peaceful assembly and 15th amendment right to vote) and then launched three days of rape and murder killing at least 103 people. When they burned down the "contaminated" courthouse(!) Federal troops moved in to restore order and arrested 60 conspirators: a mix of state agents and KKK. They were charges with civil rights violations, violating 1st, 2nd and 15th amendment rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_Massacre (note that this article gets the Cruikshank case wrong - it limited the Federal government from enforcing civil rights against both state and private violators...)
In 1876 the US Supreme Court let them all go, in US v. Cruikshank. That case took the Federal government out of the civil rights protection business for damn near 100 years, and effectively legalized the 4,000+ lynchings that we know of between 1876 and the 1950s.
Everybody who's studied it knows that this case blows chunks. The parts about states being able to violate the 1st and 15th Amendments has long since been scrapped. But the part about states being allowed to violate the 2nd Amendment (right to arms) hasn't been *specifically* junked.
And it's this *****-in-the-head Cruikshank case that the 7th Circuit relies on.
The good news is, they basically SAY it's a mess without being specific, and claim that only the US Supreme Court can fix a monumental screwup of their own making.
The 9th Circuit on the other hand (basically western states plus Alaska/Hawaii/Guam) had to admit that Cruikshank wasn't good law anymore in the recent Nordyke case. So we have a "circuit split", and when that happens (they don't agree with each other) it's strong grounds for the US Supremes to step in.
They've already signaled what they'll do. In the recent Heller case last summer when they declared the 2nd Amendment a personal civil right, they cited with approval a book by Charles Lane titled "The Day Freedom Died" about the Colfax Massacre. In that book, "the day" in question is the day the Cruikshank decision was handed down. It was an oblique slam on their own prior case and the racist history of the US Supreme Court. - wilgeno, on 06/03/2009, -7/+37Maybe you should read up on U.K. gun crimes.
While gun ownership in the UK is perhaps more tightly controlled than in any other European country, with gun crime constituting less than 1% of total crime, it is a fact that guns and incidents involving firearms are a quotidian feature of modern city life. So much so that out of the almost 11,000 firearms offences committed each year in England and Wales, most are not even reported in the media.
http://galloway.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/gun-crime ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_U ... - mikeinto, on 06/03/2009, -6/+33125 people were murdered in Chicago during the summer of 2008 with their hand gun ban in place. More were shot dead there then in Iraq during the same period. The hand gun ban is another liberal success story. great job! clap, clap, clap
- sonnybobiche, on 06/03/2009, -4/+30Yet the rate of crimes like assault and burglary is significantly higher. Probably because criminals don't even have to worry about getting shot by the freaking police.
- atomheartmother, on 06/03/2009, -2/+27If you enjoy the outdoors there sure is.
- mollydog12, on 06/03/2009, -12/+36i'm thinking of moving out of nys, for all the obvious reasons. how's the weather in alaska ?
- Rhonwyn, on 06/03/2009, -1/+24Exactly. If Chicago can say that certain parts of the Constitution do not apply to them, what is to stop them from saying that other optional parts like "Due Process", "Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure", or "Free Speech", do not apply either?
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 06/03/2009, -3/+24Only psychopaths like shooting people.
And handguns are also made for competition and hunting too same with rifles. - mollydog12, on 06/03/2009, -6/+25i'm serious. "nothing to do" is a term of art. if you're hooked to the internet there is always "something to do". i live in nyc, the big apple, but most of the time, not all, i could just as easily be living in bear paw maine.
i'm going to be reaching out to some of my digg friends about what it's like where they live. nyc is great but 8 % state income tax tax, 2 % city income tax, 10 % city sales tax, plus all the other additional fees and taxes associated with the city and state. not to mention the cost of living.
i can't own a gun in nyc. a white man even thinking about a gun in this town is a thought crime. had to get back on thread.
it's at the tipping point. i'm seeing less than 40 % of what i make when it's all figured out. i need a bailout. - ShempRider, on 06/03/2009, -1/+19Nice analysis, sonny.
I studied Cruikshank decades ago and forgot most of it.
But...Sweet Home Chicago.
Of the three guys who jammed an automatic handgun into my ribs during an armed robbery 5 years ago, one pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of aggravated robbery. He got 'x' number of months of bootcamp instead of years in prison. No, he wasn't a juvenile. The other guys? Who gives a good goddamn....
I left the gun-free zone of Chicago. I absolutely loved living there, but "they" can have it.
King Richard The Second can deal with guns by
-banning them
-sending violent attackers to "bootcamp"
-blaming our societal problems on inanimate objects
-allowing his lackeys in the judiciary to do the heavy lifting
I don't believe I'm painting with a broad brush...that's how the city of Chicago works. And I believe procedure kept the 2nd Amendment out of the high court for decades. - sonnybobiche, on 06/03/2009, -2/+19No. Handguns are made for shooting things that are nearby. Rifles are made for shooting things that are far away. Try handling a rifle inside an apartment. The burglar (or rapist) might just run right around you and grab it before you hit him.
Handgun? No problem. - beerhound, on 06/03/2009, -0/+16@bartpieters
A quote from you: "You really think that as soon as you introduce a ban it will be effective from the very start??"
A quote FTA: "Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said"
How long does it take? - kemp34, on 06/03/2009, -3/+19Hey dumbass, criminals don't care about gun laws. The only people following the laws are the good people. Therefore, you are more likely to be shot. Good luck with your lack of logic.
- bigmauler, on 06/03/2009, -5/+20court decides bill of rights should be a bill of city selected rights...
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -0/+14Great post.
Let me get this straight then : The verdict that we see here is based on flawed legal precedents, the lawmakers knew that it would be temporary, as the Supreme court will need to "unified" both circuit, and we can assume that they won't side with Cruikshank?
So this verdict will be overturned, and everyone is aware of it? - Suzilla, on 06/03/2009, -1/+14@skiddles: The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land, thereby overriding, when push comes to shove, state law.
- jsuther, on 06/03/2009, -0/+13New Hampshire is the state choosen by the Free State Project. Second lowest state and local tax burden after Alaska and not quite as cold. If you like the concept of freedom for yourself and your neighbors, give them a look. http://freestateproject.com.
- Jascol, on 06/03/2009, -5/+18I know I'm probably going to get dugg down for this, so I am going to say that even though I agree with strict gun-control in England (where I live) I understand that it's different for Americans, it's part of your culture, blah blah...
But, you can't expect gun control to work if you only have it in one area, or several isolated areas. Because as soon as you leave that area guns are still available easily outside and can be brought into the city. For gun-control to work you'd have to ban guns throughout the US. (I know that's never going to happen, nor am I bothered, as I said, it's a cultural difference IMO) - mollydog12, on 06/03/2009, -2/+15ahm.
it's on the list. but you didn't have to make things up. i know they don't speak english. i'm not stupid. next thing you'll be telling me is that the signs in the bodega's are in english too !!
such a kidder you are !. - Phaedryn, on 06/03/2009, -5/+17Of course by saying "The murder rate in the UK is a fraction of what it is in the US." you really don't make much of a point. After all, 9/10ths is a fraction, is it not? It is also 90%, hardly an insignificant number.
Now then, without even trying to do research and just using the numbers you yourself provided above 9this way there is no quibbling over validity of data), The UK is sitting about a 1/3 (or 33%) of our rate.
Tell me, what is the population density of the UK? How do the numbers work out when you plot the rates of violent crime against population density (both in the UK, and the US)? Now, take those same numbers and compare them to the availability of firearms and you will see, quite clearly, that locations with low population density will, generally, have both higher rates of firearm ownership and LOWER rates of violent death. Hmmm...interesting, I wonder what is could possibly mean?
To suggest that the UK's extreme prohibition on firearms is the cause for the discrepancy in rates of violent death is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worse. - laminac, on 06/03/2009, -1/+13swimming pools kill more people each year than guns... maybe we should ban them too.
- InetRoadkill, on 06/03/2009, -3/+15""" The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities. """
So the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to states or municipalities. What about the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights or the rest of the constitution for that matter. Can states and cities now thumb their nose at any provision in the bill of rights they find inconvenient? - Moonkeeper, on 06/03/2009, -2/+14If you compare similar ethnic backgrounds our crime rates are the same or lower. For example, the murder rate of Americans of Japanese descent is lower then the crime rate of Japan.
- DanNZN, on 06/03/2009, -0/+11Interesting site..
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/v ...
we also seem to have a much higher murder rate involving knives. More so than the UK's total murders.
I am not sure it's the firearms but rather we are just more violent. - BuzzFriendly, on 06/03/2009, -2/+13Your must have been one of the short bus kids in school. Otherwise you would figure out that sooner or later they will get around to a right that does effect you, and there will be an asshat just like youself that won’t care either.
- atomheartmother, on 06/03/2009, -5/+16Jacksonville, FL. Weather's great for most of the year, beaches aren't crowded, no state income tax and most people greet you kindly- even in English. It's kind of a cross between city and country. You can get a nice dinner or take in a show downtown, or go hiking, boating, fishing, hunting ect. a short ways away. Oh, and down here, "gun control" means a steady hand.
- personalj, on 06/03/2009, -3/+13IIRC, the UK crime stats only includes convictions, not reported crimes like in the US.
- intekra, on 06/03/2009, -4/+14Gun control for law abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals.
- nevetando, on 06/03/2009, -5/+15It will be overturned in the supreme court... All this reeks of is a the continual power struggle for the states to make their own rules and do what they want in the face of the federal government and the constitution and bill of rights.
The precedent is set in the SC already with the DC ruling. It will happen. Then maybe hoodlums will think twice before they break into your house at 2AM knowing full well you are home.
It happens everywhere with everything, not just guns. States what their own power, just like little kids defy parents to boundary test and make their own rules. - MuadDave, on 06/03/2009, -4/+14How can this be legal?
According to the Illinois State Constitution, Article I section 22:
"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
"
(From http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm) - 11oops, on 06/03/2009, -1/+11Well, if there were that many knives used in violent crimes, I guess you should ban knives next. Maybe then you'll be able to show us that knife control works.
- Chahrlie5, on 06/03/2009, -2/+12Except we don't live in la la land where even if a gun ban is imposed that some how the government will be able to magically remove all guns from the streets and all guns from everyone's homes.
We have had guns in this country far too long for feel good types like you to think that we can magically make them vanish from the hands of BOTH criminals and law abiding citizens. - intekra, on 06/03/2009, -0/+10"I don't WANT to speak freely-- therefore I don't care if it's illegal to speak my mind. My logic has always been that if I live in a place where I need to speak my mind (or even worse, gather other people and have an assembly), then I should move somewhere where I feel quieter."
While I understand guns are not for everybody, it's more about our constitutional rights. If they take away our right to keep and bear arms, who's to stop them from taking away our other fundamental rights. Freedom of speech, religion, etc.?
I carry a gun (or two) every single day without even thinking about it. It's there if I need it. I keep my skills up with training, and I know when/when not to use it. I live in a 'good" area, but would still never leave home without it. There are wacko's everywhere. My life and the life of my friends and family are more important than some thug criminal's, and I would not hesitate to act if the situation calls for action. - maz2331, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9I read the opinion, and basically the judges just decided to toss the hot potato upstairs to the Supreme Court.
- shrudheuie, on 06/03/2009, -1/+10Yes. You don't have firearms. Or freedom of the press (the govt can simply issue gag orders to shut them up) you are under constant surveillance, and if anything bad happens you better hope a cop is close enough to help you out, with proper please and thank yous. America has some serious work to do, but I would rather live here than there thank you very much.
- darkism, on 06/03/2009, -1/+10Psh, Alaska. Nevada is more libertarian with much better weather.
(In my beloved Chicago's defense: Practically all of our gun violence is gangbangers shooting one another, and practically all of it is confined to a few select areas of town. Every so often a bystander will get caught in the crossfire but for the most part it's kids from rival gangs taking each other out. Not that that makes it OK, or anything...) - jimmarch1, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9Yup.
Look at Heller again, if you haven't already:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-29 ...
Search on the term "Cruikshank".
There's three key references to it:
1) In the first, the way Cruikshank describes the 2nd Amendment as an individual civil right is basically praised...of course, it goes on to say that the Feds can't protect it, only states...
2) In a footnote, the Heller court (2008) notes that while the subject of "do states have to obey the 2nd Amendment?" doesn't come up in Heller directly, they note that Cruikshank also allows states to violate the 1st Amendment. Translation: "this thing is out of date".
3) The third and most subtle is the positive reference to the book "The Day Freedom Died". That book slams Cruikshank up one side and down the other like it was Kimbo Slice in a real MMA fight :). That's the harsher warning that Cruikshank is junk, missed by the 7th Circuit.
This is all part of a bigger fight. In a whole series of cases throughout the late 19th Century, the US Supreme Court destroyed the 14th Amendment, which was intended to make the Bill Of Rights apply as limitations to the states, not just the Federal government. The Supremes didn't like that idea one bit. Some of the key cases are Slaughter-House, Plessy v. Ferguson (the infamous "separate but equal" case of 1896), Williams v. Mississippi (1898, and flat-out unbelievably bad) and more.
By the 20th century they realized they'd screwed up, and invented this concept of "selective incorporation" by which individual pieces of the Bill Of Rights get applied to the states one by one, as they come up. Most of the BoR is now "selectively incorporated" except for a few bits: the right to a jury trial in civil trials, the right to indictment by grand jury in major cases, the 3rd Amendment that isn't a common form of abuse anymore, and the biggest one, the 2nd Amendment.
So what's going on is, the pro-self-defense folks are trying to get the 2nd incorporated, either via the "selective" ***** process invented later OR by scrapping the "selective incorporation" process and going with full incorporation under the 14th Amendment "Privileges and Immunities" clause like they should have done back in 1872 (Slaughter-house case).
They win either way. Full incorporation would finally fix actual misconduct by the US Supreme Court starting in 1872, but we can live with the 2nd selectively incorporated (as happened in the 9th Circuit in Nordyke). - MWeather, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9They HAVE banned knives. Strange how they claim gun control works, yet knife control seems an utter failure.
What exactly was the gun crime rate before the ban? How much was the drop after the ban? How much, if any, of the drop showed up as an increase in knife crime? - Phaedryn, on 06/03/2009, -0/+90xbaadf00d
He didn't. DC is a *special case* due to it's standing. The argument is that the 2nd Amendment applies to DC because of it's federal status, but not to Chicago because it is city/state issue at that point. Remember, DC isn't part of any state and while it has a city government it is actually Congress that has oversight.
I still believe this will get flipped once it hits SCOTUS. The failure to include the 2nd Amendment when the rest of the BoR was incorporated under the 14th was wrong (it was also racist considering the reasons). - maz2331, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9"Subject only to the police power" are the weasel words that mean basically "we can do whatever we want".
The section is totally meaningless with that limitation. - inactive, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9*responsible* gun owners would secure their weapons.thus preventing the later part of that scenario all together.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 350 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is