• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago to expand "Gun Free Zones"

Zyphlin said:
Are you being facetious, or have you woke up today and suddenly had a dream that the heavily state based federal setup you prefer actually came into effect?

While it may be a Chicago law, it's a law dealing with something that is a nationally protected right that is a struggling issue both on a national, state, and city level all across the U.S. A major U.S. city expanding something like this provides a possible example point for other cities, such as the wonderfully gun friendly Washington DC, to use as the basis for similar types of expansions. So while I agree with your seeming annoyance if people were commenting about it singularly because they think it's stupid for Chicago, I can understand reactions to this local story from a national population because there is a larger dialogue going on about the general topic on a national level and local laws play into that discussion.
Click to expand...

Being facetious, but I also find it annoying that people get all up in arms over something that doesn't affect them outside of their paranoid imaginings. (In this case, it ereally is a paranoid imagining, becuas ethe law doesn't affect legal gun owners at all)



And here I agree and it makes me wonder how much people really read the story. I can understand arguing it's a somewhat useless law that you don't think is going to get enforced and could possibly just set the stage for removing the concealled carry exepmtion at a later point while keeping the law in place. But it's definitely something that doesn't work with the normal "new laws just hurt legal gun owners" argument that is so often tossed out.
Click to expand...

It pisses me off that people are having a knee-jerk reaction to the kinds of regulations that even the most pro-gun people should support. The "EEK, it's Chicago and it's a gun law! Quick, we have to oppose it because it needs opposing!" idiocy only helps the other side. They can say "See? Even when we offer rational laws that can only affect criminals, these pro-gun nutbags act like we're raping their kids."
 
Tucker Case said:
It pisses me off that people are having a knee-jerk reaction to the kinds of regulations that even the most pro-gun people should support. The "EEK, it's Chicago and it's a gun law! Quick, we have to oppose it because it needs opposing!" idiocy only helps the other side. They can say "See? Even when we offer rational laws that can only affect criminals, these pro-gun nutbags act like we're raping their kids."
Click to expand...

True, but then the Chicago and gun laws is kind of like the Lions under Matt Millen drafting WR's. I couldn't fault people going "Really, a WR again? How's he going to bust" even though all the facts of the kid said he'd be a stud...because seriously, its understandable people take a ****TY track record into accout and fear/expect the worst.

That said, I do agree with you. While it may be understandable why people made the knee jerk reaction that doesn't change the fact it's unhelpful to their cause and rather dumb.
 
Zyphlin said:
True, but then the Chicago and gun laws is kind of like the Lions under Matt Millen drafting WR's. I couldn't fault people going "Really, a WR again? How's he going to bust" even though all the facts of the kid said he'd be a stud...because seriously, its understandable people take a ****TY track record into accout and fear/expect the worst.

That said, I do agree with you. While it may be understandable why people made the knee jerk reaction that doesn't change the fact it's unhelpful to their cause and rather dumb.
Click to expand...

if you are a felon in possession or a person prohibited under federal law (like those with warrants, etc) federal law is sufficient. You can be driving near a school with a legally owned gun and not have a carry permit and run afoul of this law. For example, you have a weapon locked in your trunk and your car is running low of fuel and you pull into a gas station within 330 yards of a school-you are in violation. Its an idiotic rule since there are laws sufficient to actually prosecute baddies
 
Zyphlin said:
True, but then the Chicago and gun laws is kind of like the Lions under Matt Millen drafting WR's. I couldn't fault people going "Really, a WR again? How's he going to bust" even though all the facts of the kid said he'd be a stud...because seriously, its understandable people take a ****TY track record into accout and fear/expect the worst.

That said, I do agree with you. While it may be understandable why people made the knee jerk reaction that doesn't change the fact it's unhelpful to their cause and rather dumb.
Click to expand...

The Matt Millen analogy is unbeatable.
 
tech30528 said:
Got news for you. The people doing all the killing in your fair city have guns. Refusing permits to law abiding citizens only expands the problem. But then, you already knew this. When gang members kill each other it is ignored. When gang members kill innocents it is used to forward bigger government. The lives lost have no value except as it applies to the agenda. Those who write the rules know CCW works, they themselves carry or employ guards who do. Even the guy who suggested the National Guard come in and clean it up basically admitted that the solution involves more guns to take out those doing the shooting. They just wanted them to be carried by anonymous strangers in uniform rather than citizens. When it comes to problem solving, chicken**** politicians prefer to be insulated form it by at least a few degrees of deniability.
Click to expand...

George Zimmerman was a citizen with a gun. He killed an innocent teenager. Citizen guns rarely bring justice, just death.
 
Joe Steel said:
George Zimmerman was a citizen with a gun. He killed an innocent teenager. Citizen guns rarely bring justice, just death.
Click to expand...

Yes, lots of people are furious that the Latino wasn't killed when attacked. Got it.

Guns prevent 500,000 home invasions and 1,000,000 assaults per year. But in Chicago. In Chicago, defenseless people are becoming the game of hunters hunting them without a hunting license.
The attitude of the liberals of Chicago is a belief that not allowing hunting licenses stops hunters. In fact, it does not. Not hunters against animals. And in Chicago, not again humans.

What would reduce people just being easy game in Chicago? If the animals they hunt (people) poised the risk of shooting back. There would be far less illegal hunting around here if the illegal hunters had to worry about whether the protected animals could shoot back at them. Same would apply in Chicago.
 
Joe Steel said:
George Zimmerman was a citizen with a gun. He killed an innocent teenager. Citizen guns rarely bring justice, just death.
Click to expand...

If Zimmerman didn't have the gun he likely would have been beaten to death by the younger and stronger Martin. Is that what you call justice? Might makes right? Or does that only apply when race comes in to the picture? I've had my CCW permit for a few years, never shot anyone. I'm 44, about 5'8" and 180 pounds. I don't have to worry about being attacked by someone younger and stronger than I am. Interesting enough, in one of the interviews with Jeantel she mentioned that the reason Martin went after Zimmerman is because he thought Zimmerman was gay. If Martin wasn't black ( and dead) he could have been charged with a hate crime. I don't think it matters if Zimmerman was gay or not, Martin thought he was. So are we supposed to be more concerned that Zimmerman was "white" and Martin was black, or that Martin attacked Zimmerman because he thought he was gay?

Brings up an interesting question: What is the hierarchy of minority protection? If a straight black guy is beating a smaller and weaker white guy who is gay, which one are we supposed to feel sorry for? Because it looks to me like this whole case was made out to be about race. I guess the homosexual community still has a long way to go. Because now they can get married, but if they get beat up, at least by a black guy, they are still second class. I think we need a chart or something...
 
Guys, didn't you know that you're automatically innocent if (a) you're black, (b) you beat someone's head into the ground, and (c) get killed in the process?

This is JUSTICE, people!
 
Joe Steel said:
George Zimmerman was a citizen with a gun. He killed an innocent teenager. Citizen guns rarely bring justice, just death.
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion? The citizens guns that do not cause death are conveniently not part of your belief equation?
 
From the article...

The zones would cover property within 1,000 feet of a school — including parks — during school operating hours from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. They also would include safe-passage routes and buses during those hours.
Click to expand...

And buses? That would mean that anyone that lived with in 1000ft of a bus route would have to ditch their gun somewhere. And if they didn't....This may godwin this post but...F***ing Nazi's. And that is the first time I've actually applied that to anyone other than those in the history books.
 
Kal'Stang said:
From the article...



And buses? That would mean that anyone that lived with in 1000ft of a bus route would have to ditch their gun somewhere. And if they didn't....This may godwin this post but...F***ing Nazi's. And that is the first time I've actually applied that to anyone other than those in the history books.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Looking further into the matter, it is incredibly disturbing how close our government's actions and policies are coming to those advocated by the above political party.

Some quotes, to address the point

Hermann Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gustave Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
― Joseph Goebbels

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."
- Adolf Hitler

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
- Adolf Hitler

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
- Adolf Hitler

That wasn't supposed to be a goddamn instruction manual!

Moving on, the statements of propaganda hold very true. The constant, monotonous drone of the left insisting that guns are by themselves the cause of all the country's ills, that we will be better without them, that we need big government to protect the people from themselves, etc.

Having no basis in fact, it is in fact propaganda and follows Goebbels' advice - pick a few points and repeat them ad nauseum until you get your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom