Chicago: 6 Dead, 63 Wounded In Memorial Day Weekend Shootings

[TurtleDude]

Come through my front door with bad intentions...............and you will see.

I personally shot a mugger and caused his confederate to soil his pants. whether they were trying to kill me or just choke me unconscious is undetermined since I essentially disembowled one before they could finish their plans

 

[TurtleDude]

Except when you're not home, because that's how quite a few guns end up on the streets and in the hands of criminals.

yeah so your solution is to ban honest people owning guns so criminals cannot steal them. Which is why I have some industrial strength safes

 

[TurtleDude]

As for legal firearms alone,

Last year, a Washington Post analysis found that toddlers were finding guns and shooting people at a rate of about one a week. This year, that pace has accelerated. There have been at least 23 toddler-involved shootings since Jan. 1 [through March 1st], compared with 18 over the same period last year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

wow, out of 350 million plus guns. that is a rate akin to your chances of being gored to death by a rabid rhino

 

[TurtleDude]

The common man deserves to be free from the tyranny that violence imparts. A truly free man should never need to pick up a gun.

or have his leg removed due to cancer but until we have a perfect society, a prudent man should be armed.

and we have seen in history that a disarmed public is often the victim of a pernicious government as well as criminals

 

[TurtleDude]

The constitution mandates that the government provide security and justice...not the people...unless they are part of a well regulated militia.

is this going to be as stupid an argument as your "standing" claims as to Miller. what pat of the constitution are you quoting>

 

[TurtleDude]

The framers believed that in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity that a government should establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. They believed that people living in a society would have more security and freedom if they didn't have to worry about defending themselves and their property like they would in the "state of nature."

that's crap. in reality the founders saw a professional army as-at best-a necessary evil and wanted an armed population as a check of that. Wanting people armed is different than the disarmed sheep living comfortably numb as you claim

 

[Josie]

The framers believed that in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity that a government should establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. They believed that people living in a society would have more security and freedom if they didn't have to worry about defending themselves and their property like they would in the "state of nature."

Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[Moot]

Whoa. Seriously? In your zeal to defend your obviously ridiculous (and repeatedly proven false) argument about the people and militias now you want to pretend the framers somehow saw a world were people didnt have to defend themselves? And of course THATS why they wrote an amendment GUARANTEEING the people the right to defend themselves.

Are you visiting friends in Denver? Try this restaurant...Tocabe. American Indian food done gourmet style. You'll love it.

Really, and when did you repeatedly disprove John Locke? Do you even know who he is?

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION


"....Life in the state of nature is insecure because without government there is no single authority to determine what the law of nature demands and to enforce those demands. All men being equal, each is entitled to enforce the law of nature and to punish transgressors. Locke thought that the disadvantages of this are obvious: men's understanding of the laws of nature is flawed because their reason is imperfect and their judgments distorted by their own self interest. Since there are always those who will not observe the laws of nature, men's natural rights are necessarily insecure....

It follows, then, that the only way political authority can be established and justified is through the consent of those over whom the authority is to be exercised.

Locke held that this consent was originally given through the social compact in which individuals give up the natural liberty they enjoyed in the state of nature in exchange for the civil liberty possessed by the citizens of political society....

Given the manner in which Locke has described our condition without government, it is fairly clear what he must conclude regarding the proper extent and end of government's authority. He has told us that the state of nature "however free, is full of fears and continual dangers...." People want government in order to escape from these "fears and continual dangers." They unite with one another, as he put it "for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name property...." "

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION
​

The only "guarantee" mentioned in the Constitution is found in Article IV, section 4. It guarantees a republican form of government to protect against domestic violence.

“ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”​

 

[Josie]

The common man deserves to be free from the tyranny that violence imparts. A truly free man should never need to pick up a gun.

That doesn't and will never exist.

 

[Moot]

Where do you come up with this crap?

From reading historical records, academic studies and philosophy.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

The common man deserves to be free from the tyranny that violence imparts. A truly free man should never need to pick up a gun.

Have you never studied history? This is what keeps free men free.

 

[Roadvirus]

that's a lie. Chicago is still very anti gun as is Illinois.

A pro gun person's dream would be constitutional carry laws., well stocked gun stores easily accessible within the city. easily accessible public shooting ranges etc. I suspect that is not yet the case in ObamaLand

Actually, things are improving in the gun rights department here in Illinois. It helps we don't have a Liberal as Governor.
However, you are correct on the Chicago part. Anti-gun and the city leaders are totally clueless as to the cause of the crime rate in the city.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, things are improving in the gun rights department here in Illinois. It helps we don't have a Liberal as Governor.
However, you are correct on the Chicago part. Anti-gun and the city leaders are totally clueless as to the cause of the crime rate in the city.

well when this guy is your mayor, you know he's gonna be anti gun-cannot carry concealed while wearing a leotard!

 

[Moot]

that's crap. in reality the founders saw a professional army as-at best-a necessary evil and wanted an armed population as a check of that. Wanting people armed is different than the disarmed sheep living comfortably numb as you claim

Shay's and the Whiskey rebellion changed their minds. Hence, all the legislation to regulate the militias and then finally create a standing army because militias were inadequate. Oh oh, there's that word again. lol

 

[TurtleDude]

Shay's and the Whiskey rebellion changed their minds. Hence, all the legislation to regulate the militias and then finally create a standing army because militias were inadequate. Oh oh, there's that word again. lol

Uh yet the federal government was not given a single hint of any power to regulate privately owned firearms and the second amendment-when read properly, is a blanket prohibition on such an action.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

The constitution mandates that the government provide security and justice...not the people...unless they are part of a well regulated militia.

The purpose of a well regulated militia (the people) is to protect citizens from tyrannical government.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[jmotivator]

The common man deserves to be free from the tyranny that violence imparts. A truly free man should never need to pick up a gun.

Nice thought, but so long a picking up a gun is easier than farming a field there will always be violence.

 

[Josie]

I'm always fascinated by the people who claim that our Framers only wanted the military, police, etc. to have firearms, yet never once did the Framers ever create a law against private citizens owning guns.

 

[Moot]

That doesn't and will never exist.

Less than a third of the population own a gun so apparently it exists for the 2/3 that have lived their entire lives in freedom without one.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I'm always fascinated by the people who claim that our Framers only wanted the military, police, etc. to have firearms, yet never once did the Framers ever create a law against private citizens owning guns.

True, they struggle mightily with the "shall not be infringed" part.

 

[VanceMack]

Really, and when did you repeatedly disprove John Locke? Do you even know who he is?

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION


"....Life in the state of nature is insecure because without government there is no single authority to determine what the law of nature demands and to enforce those demands. All men being equal, each is entitled to enforce the law of nature and to punish transgressors. Locke thought that the disadvantages of this are obvious: men's understanding of the laws of nature is flawed because their reason is imperfect and their judgments distorted by their own self interest. Since there are always those who will not observe the laws of nature, men's natural rights are necessarily insecure....

It follows, then, that the only way political authority can be established and justified is through the consent of those over whom the authority is to be exercised.

Locke held that this consent was originally given through the social compact in which individuals give up the natural liberty they enjoyed in the state of nature in exchange for the civil liberty possessed by the citizens of political society....

Given the manner in which Locke has described our condition without government, it is fairly clear what he must conclude regarding the proper extent and end of government's authority. He has told us that the state of nature "however free, is full of fears and continual dangers...." People want government in order to escape from these "fears and continual dangers." They unite with one another, as he put it "for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name property...." "

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION
​

The only "guarantee" mentioned in the Constitution is found in Article IV, section 4. It guarantees a republican form of government to protect against domestic violence.

“ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”​

:lamo

Do you even know what you are arguing about at this point? Cuz...it has zero reference to "A truly free man should never need to pick up a gun."

Seriously...Denver? Colorado Springs? Grand Junction?

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm always fascinated by the people who claim that our Framers only wanted the military, police, etc. to have firearms, yet never once did the Framers ever create a law against private citizens owning guns.

you cannot find a SINGLE document, note, speech etc from ANY founder that even HINTS that the founders thought the new federal government should have ANY power WHATSOEVER to interfere with the citizenry being armed

not one document. so when the banners claim that the founders thought otherwise, demand they produce a single piece of evidence.

they cannot

the first document they can find supporting such crap is from the FDR administration

 

[Josie]

you cannot find a SINGLE document, note, speech etc from ANY founder that even HINTS that the founders thought the new federal government should have ANY power WHATSOEVER to interfere with the citizenry being armed

not one document. so when the banners claim that the founders thought otherwise, demand they produce a single piece of evidence.

they cannot

the first document they can find supporting such crap is from the FDR administration

What say you, Moot?

 

[Moot]

I'm always fascinated by the people who claim that our Framers only wanted the military, police, etc. to have firearms, yet never once did the Framers ever create a law against private citizens owning guns.

I wish I could say it's fascinating how uninformed you are....but it's not. The colonies had gun laws, the old west had gun laws, the states have gun laws, cities and towns have gun laws....it's not a new concept.

"...In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying...."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...fe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html
​

 

[VanceMack]

I'm always fascinated by the people who claim that our Framers only wanted the military, police, etc. to have firearms, yet never once did the Framers ever create a law against private citizens owning guns.

And those that wrote and passed the Constitution were equally clear as to who exactly IS the militia.