For constitutional purists
-
No, it does, because you think that it should be law to tell the truth. But there's no way to enforce that without coercion or force. Those two things are directly related no matter how much you don't want them to be. If something is to be made into law, there needs to be a way to enforce it.
2nd amendment has a clear-cut way of being enforced. Trying to make someone tell the truth? Not so much.
No, it does, because you think that it should be law to tell the truth. But there's no way to enforce that without coercion or force. Those two things are directly related no matter how much you don't want them to be. If something is to be made into law, there needs to be a way to enforce it.
2nd amendment has a clear-cut way of being enforced. Trying to make someone tell the truth? Not so much.
You're wrong.
Weed selling is not a right but it doesn't men one can torture weed sellers.
The torture was cleared up.
You me Heck or anyone would do it if it was our loved one at risk.
Still I don't think the right to obstruct the search for a person in danger should be a right.
WSS
-
You're wrong.
Weed selling is not a right but it doesn't men one can torture weed sellers.
Irrelevant example. I'll say it again, if something is going to be made into law, it needs to be enforcable. I urge you again to come up with a way to enforce this that doesn't involve torture or coercion.
The torture was cleared up.
You me Heck or anyone would do it if it was our loved one at risk.
And, as I recall, Heck nor myself advocated the government doing it even if we, personally, really wanted it to happen.
/edit
while i'd be okay with an individual acting out a crime of passion, i am not okay w/ the gov't doing the same
-
You're wrong.
Weed selling is not a right but it doesn't men one can torture weed sellers.
Irrelevant example. I'll say it again, if something is going to be made into law, it needs to be enforcable. I urge you again to come up with a way to enforce this that doesn't involve torture or coercion.
The torture was cleared up.
You me Heck or anyone would do it if it was our loved one at risk.
And, as I recall, Heck nor myself advocated the government doing it even if we, personally, really wanted it to happen.
/edit
while i'd be okay with an individual acting out a crime of passion, i am not okay w/ the gov't doing the same
I'll say it again, if something is going to be made into law, it needs to be enforcable. I urge you again to come up with a way to enforce this that doesn't involve torture or coercion.
You aren't advocating legalization of withholding evidence, perjury, contempt of court and obstruction of justice are you?
All of which are equally enforcable.
while i'd be okay with an individual acting out a crime of passion, i am not okay w/ the gov't doing the same
And while that's not on subject (being a disagreement with the Geneva Convention not the US constitution) I guess I just disagree with you.
If you say you would not waterboard a high value terrorist even to avert another 9/11 I believe you and kind of understand your reasoning.
I'd expect the president who made that decision would be out as soon as the attack came to light.
But (I asked this before) would you define sodium pentathol as "torture" and would you refuse to use it regardless of outcome?
WSS
-
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
I guess I'm at the point in my life right now that nothing shocks me anymore.
-
You aren't advocating legalization of withholding evidence, perjury, contempt of court and obstruction of justice are you?
All of which are equally enforcable.
I think obstruction of justice is bullshit. I'm not too sure exactly how it works, so I could just be speaking out of ignorance. But in all my experiences it's been used to coerce kids that are unaware of their constitutional rights into speaking when they should just shut up. ie (who bought you this beer, who threw sand in her car, if you don't tell us we'll hit you with obstruction of justice). If all of these things are prove (which they can be), then yes, by all means hit them with the charges, but in my experiences (in high school) they were only used as a scare tactic.
And while that's not on subject (being a disagreement with the Geneva Convention not the US constitution) I guess I just disagree with you.
If you say you would not waterboard a high value terrorist even to avert another 9/11 I believe you and kind of understand your reasoning.
I'd expect the president who made that decision would be out as soon as the attack came to light.
But (I asked this before) would you define sodium pentathol as "torture" and would you refuse to use it regardless of outcome?
WSS
Is that the truth agent? I mean, putting something in someone's body against their will just seems like it raises all sorts of moral flags. I guess it's a much lesser form of torture than say, waterboarding, but I still don't think I could advocate its use.
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
They didn't vote to eliminate the right to bear arms, only handguns. I'm pretty sure you could still buy a rifle in Chicago if you really wanted to. The right to bear arms is still there, just with some restrictions. I can understand why a city with a high rate of gun crimes would want to do something like this, but in my opinion it's just not going to do much in terms of protecting law-abiding citizens.
-
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.WSS
Unfortunately, not a surprise IMHO.
People are jaded and expect only the worse from the courts.
There is a process for amending the Constitution - even advocated by Heck for one of his anti-petty topics - but folks realize that it's much easier to change the Constitution via activist judges. In short, cutting corners.
For the record, I have never owned a fire arm.
-
I don't get how you guys are shocked. We're clearly not a homogeneous nation, we are a nation where we're forced to back one of two parties that hold very different values; the only way they're both alike is that they're in corporate America's pockets. The presidents of these two parties have appointed a wide array of people to the supreme court. Barring people from getting handguns in a dangerous city isn't going to lead to all weapons being banned. This really shouldn't come as a shock.
-
I don't get how you guys are shocked. We're clearly not a homogeneous nation, we are a nation where we're forced to back one of two parties that hold very different values; the only way they're both alike is that they're in corporate America's pockets. The presidents of these two parties have appointed a wide array of people to the supreme court. Barring people from getting handguns in a dangerous city isn't going to lead to all weapons being banned. This really shouldn't come as a shock.
I don't get how you guys are shocked. We're clearly not a homogeneous nation, we are a nation where we're forced to back one of two parties that hold very different values; the only way they're both alike is that they're in corporate America's pockets. The presidents of these two parties have appointed a wide array of people to the supreme court. Barring people from getting handguns in a dangerous city isn't going to lead to all weapons being banned. This really shouldn't come as a shock.
First it's not only about handguns.
It's about a city being able to override one of the Bill of Rights.
Like if NYC decided to suspend habeus or take over the press.
The reason I'm shocked is only that some here were positively outraged that I wanted to change one of those rights to more favor victims.
I got lectures about founding fathers the sanctity of the rule of law etc etc.
But this one could have been given up pretty easily and without a word.
That's what surprised me.
WSS
-
1.It isn't just about handguns. It's just what they can do for now.
2. They are wanting to add all weapons with a clip, too. Semi-autos have them,
and many hunting rifles have them. It's always going to be something more.
If they get away with handguns, it would be shotguns and rifles that use a clip,
then it would be shotguns and rifles not using a clip but having a full choke for shotguns,
and calibers over .177.
Then they will add some other criteria that lowers gun ownership even more, then,
they will simply use an extremely high licensing fee, costly training classes, etc,
to take away all the rest of them, and if that doesn't work, the libs will think of something else.
Some folks thought that common sense (can't own a working bazooka or machine gun...)
would simply prevail. But not for libs.
In other words, the ulterior motive is no gun ownership, but they will take what they can take now, and take more later.
btw, the gun ban in Chicago? Chicago is one of the top gun murder states in the entire country, probably #1.
-
Cal, is the slippery slope the only logical argument in your arsenal?
-
Is obscure rationalization from the progressive state of mind the only
retort you have on issues?
-
I think you mean obscure.
But I really don't see what's obscure about one of the most dangerous cities in America attempting to curb gun crimes by making handguns illegal. What about that strikes you as obscure rationalization.
-
I think you mean obscure.
But I really don't see what's obscure about one of the most dangerous cities in America attempting to curb gun crimes by making handguns illegal. What about that strikes you as obscure rationalization.
I think you mean obscure.
But I really don't see what's obscure about one of the most dangerous cities in America attempting to curb gun crimes by making handguns illegal. What about that strikes you as obscure rationalization.
Think about that for a second Vapor. They tried to curb GUN crime by making the instrument illegal. And this is what I will never understand...is the theory that someone is willing to hold up the liquor store with a LEGAL gun...but would use a knife to rob a liquor rather than use an ILLEGAL gun? I just don't understand if your willing to commit a crime does it really matter if the gun is legal or not? Doesn't the law just prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with the same weapons the CRIMINALS already use.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is the text...and being that Militia is in noway referring to a government formed group (it just wasn't, don't throw the national guard at me that is not what the founders were referring to, they were referring to as it says a citizenry that had the right to armed for defense) then any citizen as the right to be armed for the common defense.
-
Personally, I don't see how it would help, either. But Chicago isn't my responsibility, and I'd honestly have no idea how to attack the problem. I wouldn't go about it this way, but I'm not going to blame them for trying. I mean, you'd have to know how many legal handguns get used in crimes. I don't have the numbers, I'm assuming they did. So I'd think that, since there are still going to be handguns, it's going to be harder for criminals to get them as well. Now, the only option they have is the black market instead of having both black and legal routes. I'd think that their rationalization is that it's one less way for people who want to be criminals to get guns. So in that way, I see where they are coming from, and I think it's a somewhat rational conclusion, but fails to actually fix anything.
-
Yes, I left out the "c" in obscure. But I fixed it a bit ago when I was
scanning to catch up with the thread... @@
But, you say
"So I'd think that, since there are still going to be handguns, it's going to be harder for criminals to get them as well. Now, the only option they have is the black market instead of having both black and legal routes."
You're kidding? Criminals can get black market guns. And can buy guns from other states.
They can buy guns at garage sales in other cities, if they don't have a record... they can buy them at gun stores. They can even make their own simple guns if all guns were illegal everywhere.
Historically, gun control never works.
Here's an excellent article on the subject that explains it better:
**********************
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11930
Gun Prohibition, R.I.P.
by David Rittgers
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on June 28, 2010
This article appeared on National Review (Online) on June 28, 2010.
PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:
ShareThisThe Supreme Court's rejection of Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.
McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.
Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.
The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea.
Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities.
Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.
Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago's streets.
Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with "illegal" guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man's home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.
The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich's veto.
In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
More by David Rittgers
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the de facto ban against self-defense will be overturned and Chicagoans will not have to rely on the discretion of prosecutors and the benevolence of legislators to affirm their inalienable right to self-defense.
Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court's holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control "saves just one life" it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.
A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.
-
I agree that gun control is pointless and doesn't really address the issue at hand. However, lots of people don't, and while I think their opinions are wrong, I don't think they're unmerited.
/edit
LOL, I'm arguing with my girlfriend about this now. She's such a hippie and is arguing that the 2nd amendment doesn't give ppl the right to have weapons.
-
Just agree with her, Vapor.
It's like Brad Paisley's song -
"It isn't who wears the pants, it's who wears the skirt" that's boss.
-
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
And I'm still a bit surprised that none of you are shocked by the fact that 4 SC justices voted to eliminate the right to bear arms.
WSS
I am shocked. I just expected it to come out this way.
I wonder what would be said if the Court had ruled that communities could determine abortion rights.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login