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

[TurtleDude]

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.

far less than one third of the population has had abortions or homosexual sex, arrested by the police, given Miranda warnings, supplied counsel pursuant to Gideon, had their phone wire tapped, etc

do you really want to claim that is relevant to rights? and its about 45% of the population that owns firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

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
​

that has no relevance-we are talking about the rights the founders envisioned for free citizens. Indians, slaves etc were not considered free citizens and stuff done in 1619 was under the CROWN not the constitution

Nice Try. and you like many banners, don't understand the difference between FEDERAL powers and state laws

 

[Josie]

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
​

I didn't say "there weren't any gun laws anywhere on earth". I said the Framers (the federal government) made no law saying private citizens couldn't own guns.

 

[VanceMack]

The OP drops in the forum all the damn time with threads about shootings in Chicago followed up by a bunch of cheerleaders. He and they not blaming the individual. They are looking at the whole picture of Chicago and pointing the finger then kind of skating around whatever it is they are trying to say. I just want them to say whatever it is they want to say rather than playing coy.

I dont get the sense anyone is being coy. Chicago is a liberal hotbed. Until the courts recently forced them to actually obey the Constitution, Chicago's law abiding citizens were targets. Chicago has consistently led or been at the top of the charts in gun violence. And its not just the pro-gun conservatives on this site that see it. Blacks in Chi-raq see it as well.

Its not just Chicago. Cincinnati had 35 shootings during the same period people have been tearing themselves up over the shooting of a noble gorilla. The same kind of violence we see weekly in Chicago happens weekly in every major city across the country. Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, Gary Indiana...all the same and they all have things in common.

 

[TurtleDude]

I didn't say "there weren't any gun laws anywhere on earth". I said the Framers (the federal government) made no law saying private citizens couldn't own guns.

The gun banners try to pretend that since the founders "allowed" states to restrict some gun use, that means they wanted the federal government to have the same power

that completely fails on two counts and actually destroys the banner arguments. That the founders KNEW states had certain police powers CUTS against the founders figuring that the new FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDED redundant powers (indeed, there is almost no example of such redundancy in the new constitution. No laws against murder, robbery etc but merely stuff like counterfeiting etc). secondly, the founders only were charged with creating a new government, not changing the powers of the several states: political entities that were already up and running

most of the gun banners arguments-when you strip away the lies and bs come down to this

1) the federal government NEEDS to be able to restrict or ban guns

2) therefore the federal government HAS such powers.

in reality, the founders did not give the federal government powers in areas that the states already were operating in

 

[TurtleDude]

I dont get the sense anyone is being coy. Chicago is a liberal hotbed. Until the courts recently forced them to actually obey the Constitution, Chicago's law abiding citizens were targets. Chicago has consistently led or been at the top of the charts in gun violence. And its not just the pro-gun conservatives on this site that see it. Blacks in Chi-raq see it as well.

Its not just Chicago. Cincinnati had 35 shootings during the same period people have been tearing themselves up over the shooting of a noble gorilla. The same kind of violence we see weekly in Chicago happens weekly in every major city across the country. Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, Gary Indiana...all the same and they all have things in common.

I am hearing someone is going to be selling t-shirts with

APE LIVES MATTER

and a picture of the Gorilla with the Caption

IT WAS BECAUSE I AM BLACK WASN'T IT?

 

[poweRob]

I dont get the sense anyone is being coy. Chicago is a liberal hotbed. Until the courts recently forced them to actually obey the Constitution, Chicago's law abiding citizens were targets. Chicago has consistently led or been at the top of the charts in gun violence. And its not just the pro-gun conservatives on this site that see it. Blacks in Chi-raq see it as well.

Its not just Chicago. Cincinnati had 35 shootings during the same period people have been tearing themselves up over the shooting of a noble gorilla. The same kind of violence we see weekly in Chicago happens weekly in every major city across the country. Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, Gary Indiana...all the same and they all have things in common.

The violence has built that city and it hand nothing to do with liberal or conservative. The mafia was buying whomever sat in office regardless of what lean they claimed.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

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
​

Uninformed? How ironic.

The SCOTUS has spoken...

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

 

[VanceMack]

I am hearing someone is going to be selling t-shirts with

APE LIVES MATTER

and a picture of the Gorilla with the Caption

IT WAS BECAUSE I AM BLACK WASN'T IT?

And no doubt...people will find it racist.

 

[VanceMack]

The violence has built that city and it hand nothing to do with liberal or conservative. The mafia was buying whomever sat in office regardless of what lean they claimed.

The mafia and connection to violence was absolutely relevant 50 years ago. Today...there is a more telling and compelling reason to emphasize the violence in Chicago.



And you simply cant look past the fact that all those major cities share the same 'leadership' from the same party with the same failed results.

OK...I take that back...you CAN look past the facts. You can look past anything that is convenient. It just doesnt change those facts.

 

[Moot]

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.

A "well regulated militia for defense of the state" and the Militia Act that followed suggests the federal government was given some power to regulate privately firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

A "well regulated militia for defense of the state" and the Militia Act that followed suggests the federal government was given some power to regulate privately firearms.

where do you possibly come up with such a stupid claim: are you saying that part of the bill of rights actually delegates power to the federal government? because that is the only possible explanation for such nonsense

 

[Moot]

Uninformed? How ironic.

The SCOTUS has spoken...

It's not written in stone...

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, the Court’s ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”


The McDonald case is unlikely to be the Supreme Court’s last word on the Second Amendment, and most legal experts expect that the Court will want to clarify the implications of its ruling in future cases.

Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'"​

 

[Moot]

where do you possibly come up with such a stupid claim: are you saying that part of the bill of rights actually delegates power to the federal government? because that is the only possible explanation for such nonsense

Your posts are obnoxious strawman talking points. Don't you get tired of preaching to the peanut gallery?

 

[HenryChinaski]

There's gun violence in Chicago because there are no jobs or opportunities in these communities where it's taking place. The corrosion started in the 70s when manufacturing started disappearing. People get desperate and a large majority of the black men of these communities are in prison. Their children are growing up without direction, without father figures so they turn to the gangs for support structure. And the MO of these shootings is not going to be thwarted by more armed citizens(no I'm not against guns and people protecting themselves) But when a gangbanger steps out of a gangway in the dark and opens fire on a group of people standing in the street or opens fire on another car going 45 miles an hour on Lakeshore drive the chances of armed citizens preventing casualties is pretty slim. These style of shootings happen in a moment and are sneak attatcks many times in crowds of people. It's kind a hard to nail down who the shooter is fast enough to make any kind of difference.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's not written in stone...

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, the Court’s ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”


The McDonald case is unlikely to be the Supreme Court’s last word on the Second Amendment, and most legal experts expect that the Court will want to clarify the implications of its ruling in future cases.

Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'"​

Alito et al are afraid to overturn the Commerce Clause nonsense that led to federal gun control because to do that would get rid of lots of institutions that many Americans have become addicted to. and he could be speaking about STATE regulations as well. Breyer is just a liar when it comes to the second amendment. He doesn't like people owning guns and his dissent was pathetic. He was unable to actually articulate a valid argument against McDonald's majority

now technically the second amendment was never intended to deal with State actions (See "Law of the Land" by Akhil Reed Amar-Sterling Professor of Constitutional Law-Yale University) but once the Bill of rights was incorporated by the 14th, the second amendment prevents all sorts of state action.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your posts are obnoxious strawman talking points. Don't you get tired of preaching to the peanut gallery?

do you get tired of always being wrong and having your mendacious posts taken apart by those of us who actually understand the issue? I would think after the destruction you suffered by claiming that Miller lost his case based on "Standing" you would have learned not to post nonsense on this issue in my presence. Apparently you forgot the lesson

 

[brothern]

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

Err ... yes. That's why I've been discussing with you and others for the past 10 pages. I want to make picking up a gun harder than farming a field.
Many seem to be on the opposing view - Either making it easier to pick up a gun, continuing the cycle of violence, or not doing anything at all.

 

[TurtleDude]

Err ... yes. That's why I've been discussing with you and others for the past 10 pages. I want to make picking up a gun harder than farming a field.
Many seem to be on the opposing view - Either making it easier to pick up a gun easier, continuing the cycle of violence, or not doing anything at all.

lets examine your silly comment. so some thug is breaking down your aged mother's door. if you make picking up a gun harder than farming a field that means she is dead.

the cycle of violence has almost nothing to do with guns. That is why White Americans-who have the MOST access and MOST ownership-per capita-of legal guns have far LOWER rates of gun violence than say American Blacks who have MUCH lower rates of gun violence and thus much lower access to legally owned guns

 

[brothern]

Can you stop quoting me? It still appears in my Who Quoted Me. I'm not interested in your weird obsession.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It's not written in stone...

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, the Court’s ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”


The McDonald case is unlikely to be the Supreme Court’s last word on the Second Amendment, and most legal experts expect that the Court will want to clarify the implications of its ruling in future cases.

Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'"​

Dissenting opinions are irrelevant. What was the ruling of the court?

 

[TurtleDude]

Can you stop quoting me? It still appears in my Who Quoted Me. I'm not interested in your weird obsession.

View attachment 67202078

when you post stupid stuff on gun issues, I am going to point out its stupid. What is really weird is your claim of being a libertarian when you are clearly a gun banning statist. This is an open board and if you post nonsense, You are going to have your nonsense taken apart.

 

[TurtleDude]

Dissenting opinions are irrelevant. What was the ruling of the court?

The dissents in McDonald are pathetic. How can those clowns pretend that the second amendment wasn't incorporated when the rest of the BOR was? there have been cases dating over 100 years that clearly state that the second amendment rights to keep and bear arms clearly were among the "privileges and immunities" that free citizens were entitled to

 

[brothern]

Dissenting opinions are irrelevant. What was the ruling of the court?

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

[Moot]

Dissenting opinions are irrelevant. What was the ruling of the court?

Tell that to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. His majority opinion was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment.