- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Bugsy Daley is the sort of politician that justifies-completely-citizens being heavily armedCan someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp
"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010
CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."
Still waiting for you to supply the quotes that show the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended to protect the exercise of the collective right of self-defense to the absolute exclusion of the individual right to same.
You've had 2 days and thus far supplied nothing to support your claim to that effect.
Can someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp
"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010
CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."
I seriously thinks a city needs to pass a ordinance banning newspapers, phones and religious books outside your home, ban the stores that sell those things and ban churches, require permits,ban convicted former felons from those things, classes and registrations in order to get those things just to prove a point. I bet everyone of those anti-2nd amendment loons who support such things being imposed for 2nd amendment rights would be screaming that mayor is a fascist,its unconstitutional and so on.
No. If I go into my backyard and start shooting at a target, even though it may be safe, I will be arrested.
One must go to a firing range in the city. There is just too much danger, otherwise.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Yes, the comma here is absolutely crucial as it ties the next part as the condition...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed.
Can someone in Chicago just get this idiot Daley out of office already? Besides the fact that this zero has been in office for over 20 years - an obscenity in and of itself, all he is doing is wasting taxpayer dollars with these moronic rules over which the city will be sued and forced to overturn:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/01/us/AP-US-Chicago-Gun-Ban.html?_r=1&hp
"Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 1, 2010
CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States."
I know. The fact that he hasnt even tried to respond illustrated a clear awareness that he doesn't have jack to back up his position.He won't. It is rather obvious.
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.No really. It is against the law to discharge a fire arm in most cities.
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.
The argument he presents is that while the government cannot infringe your right to own or carry a firearm, it can completely remove your right to actually use - that is, fire - it, because the constitution doesn tmention the actual use of the weapon protecte dby the 2nd.
This is absurd on its face because the exercise of the right necessarily involves discharging the weapon.
Its no more sound than arguing that while the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it can completely remove your right to use words, as the constitution says nothing about words.
You may voluntarily give up your rights at any time. It would be silly to do so, but then some people are so desperate for others to make thme feel safe, they will do any numberof absurd things.As much as I hate to give the wannabe fascists ideas, the COULD create some 'benefit' program where-by 'opting into the benefit' that you 'forfeit' your second amendment.... then it wouldn't be 'infringement' it would be 'agreement'.
You may voluntarily give up your rights at any time. It would be silly to do so, but then some people are so desperate for others to make thme feel safe, they will do any numberof absurd things.
It's against the law to recklessly discharge your fire arm in most cities.
For the same reason that it is also against the law to falsely yell fire in a theater.
The argument he presents is that while the government cannot infringe your right to own or carry a firearm, it can completely remove your right to actually use - that is, fire - it, because the constitution doesn tmention the actual use of the weapon protecte dby the 2nd.
This is absurd on its face because the exercise of the right necessarily involves discharging the weapon.
Its no more sound than arguing that while the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it can completely remove your right to use words, as the constitution says nothing about words.
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.
This is your interpretation. Its not what the Constitution says. The Constitution actually says "speech".No, your analogy does not make sense, Goobie. Speech is defined as "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words."
No, your analogy does not make sense, Goobie. Speech is defined as "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words." The right to fire the weapon is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which is why the government can regulated where, when, how, and why you can use a gun, but cannot... or should not regulate whether you can purchase or have one. Now, if you want to interpret that's what it means, be my guest, but it is not what is actually said.
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.
No, I certainly didn't. Again, you're not being careful. First off, the regulations are not on firing your weapon in general, it's about the use of a weapon when not necessary in certain circumstances. So that's not "regulating the firing of weapons". As I had mentioned early for those willing to pay attention, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you do not get in trouble for having fired your weapon. It's a certain set of circumstances which must be met, it's not just firing the weapon.
Secondly, it says nothing towards the historical meaning of "to bear arms", which was what post 311 was all about. Pay attention if you don't want to play the part of the fool.
The Cap'n isn't anybody's fool.
Which is consistent with my position. The government IS regulating the the firing of weapons, and it CAN because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about firing arms. You do realize that you just contradicted everything you just said in post #311.
Per the article:
The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.
Well maybe he's playing the part of the independent fool. Hehhe. No, for the most part I like CC; but he was wrong on his definition of "to bear arms" and that's it. Nothing I said contradicted what I had said earlier. Nor did it stop you from being wrong in claiming that the mere firing of your gun was regulated. For it's not. Now, if there's something worthwhile you'd like to add here, please do. Otherwise, move along.
Ok, ok!:shrug:
But you better get your tin foil hat on.
So that's all you got. A nonsensical response trying to be smarmy and cute and failing on both accounts? That's it? Damn, well I guess when you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel that's what you get. Well have fun with your stupid replies that has nothing to do with the topic nor could be supported, even in jest, by anything which was presented in this thread. Pretty lame though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?