View Full Version : Chicago to Supreme court .. "we cant hear you"
SteamWake
07-02-10, 02:35 PM
Supreme court be dammned Chicago approves their own gun control law...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article
Apologies I couldent find the original thread.
UnderseaLcpl
07-02-10, 02:41 PM
I can't be completely sure without seeing the full text of the legislation, but I'm about 80% certain that this will not fly, for a number of reasons. The first person who takes the case to court after being convicted of failure to register for more than one day will probably see to that.
SteamWake
07-02-10, 03:29 PM
At the very least it will be interesting to see whom wins this tug of war.
Molon Labe
07-02-10, 03:57 PM
I love it. After McDonald, the first question on the minds of pro-gun lawyers like myself is what law do you target next, and Chicago is making it easy for us. They keep writing bad laws, and we'll keep getting good decisions in Court which will then be precedent to take down unconstitutional laws all over the country.
As long as Chicago is trying to interfere with the right instead of trying to reduce crime, the laws they come up with aren't going to pass. It's only a matter of time before the Court applies Strict Scrutiny to gun laws.
Buddahaid
07-02-10, 05:00 PM
"the violence our young people face" is overwhelmingly not from legally aquired firearms. That point seems to fall on deaf ears.
Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore. :damn:
UnderseaLcpl
07-02-10, 06:55 PM
Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore. :damn:
Rest assured, they are well aware of it, but they see it in a different way than you or I probably do, and the courts occassionally side with them. Many people, not just democrats, see the Constitutution as a "living" document, and I don't mean "living" in the sense that it can be amended, I mean "living" in the sense that it can be interpreted in the context of whatever happens to be going on at the time.
How to put this......:hmmm: Some people think of the Constitution as law, and others think of it as a set of guidelines. There is Constitutional law, and there is law based upon interpretation of the Constitution. The two can, at times, have remarakably little to do with each other.
@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.
Sailor Steve
07-02-10, 07:35 PM
Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore. :damn:
Do you? The Bill of Rights guarantees that the Federal Government will not interfere with the natural rights of citizens. It doesn't interfere with State or local governments at all. That was one of the fears of the Founders, that the Federal Government would gather too much authority over the states.
The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
prevents the states from denying rights that are guaranteed to all US citizens, but nothing is said about local ordinances. Even in the much fabled Tombstone, AZ during the Earp era they had ordinances banning open carry on the city streets.
It's a good question and an interesting standoff, and I too will be curious to see how it plays out.
But don't say somebody else doesn't understand it until you have made a thorough study yourself.
gimpy117
07-02-10, 07:42 PM
Chicago...with one of the highest youth murder rates in america...but shame on you for trying to make it safer for kids...
from sept 2007-early 2008, 18 out of 20 murdered students in Chicago were killed by guns. They have to do something, they can't allow these kinds of things to happen. If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.
UnderseaLcpl
07-02-10, 09:00 PM
Chicago...with one of the highest youth murder rates in america...but shame on you for trying to make it safer for kids...
from sept 2007-early 2008, 18 out of 20 murdered students in Chicago were killed by guns. They have to do something, they can't allow these kinds of things to happen. If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.
It isn't as simple as you imagine. There is no simple way to just "do something about it". If there's anything I've learned in my 27 years, it's that state initiatives often have the exact opposite effect from what was intended.
Chicago has a crime problem, that much is certain, and most of it stems from a poverty problem, which is also certain, but simply banning guns isn't going to address the violence problem. Don't take my word for it, just look at DC, or California. Gun control does not equal less violence, just as housing initiatives and poverty initiatives have not yet given Chicago a shortage of good housing or prosperity.
Guns tend to be a whipping boy for other probelms that have not been satisfactorily addressed by politicians, much as poverty itself or whatever hot-button social issue at the moment can be, and we see this all the time. Everything from inflation to job loss to environmental disasters is always blamed on something else.
It's politics, would you expect anything else?
Platapus
07-02-10, 09:03 PM
Do these f##kin democrats even know about the constitution anymore. :damn:
Why don't you explain it to us now? Please. Show us how much you know about the constitution and the Supreme Court decision. Please.
gimpy117
07-02-10, 09:04 PM
It isn't as simple as you imagine. There is no simple way to just "do something about it". If there's anything I've learned in my 27 years, it's that state initiatives often have the exact opposite effect from what was intended.
Chicago has a crime problem, that much is certain, and most of it stems from a poverty problem, which is also certain, but simply banning guns isn't going to address the violence problem. Don't take my word for it, just look at DC, or California. Gun control does not equal less violence, just as housing initiatives and poverty initiatives have not yet given Chicago a shortage of good housing or prosperity.
Guns tend to be a whipping boy for other probelms that have not been satisfactorily addressed by politicians, much as poverty itself or whatever hot-button social issue at the moment can be, and we see this all the time. Everything from inflation to job loss to environmental disasters is always blamed on something else.
It's politics, would you expect anything else?
yes, poverty is a problem...but when we try to enact social programs to help these people, they're labeled as "handouts" or "socialism" or "wealth redistribution"
Platapus
07-02-10, 09:05 PM
The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.
:)
UnderseaLcpl
07-02-10, 09:23 PM
yes, poverty is a problem...but when we try to enact social programs to help these people, they're labeled as "handouts" or "socialism" or "wealth redistribution"
Well that's what they are, not to say that's a bad thing, but you're missing the bigger picture. Most initiatives aimed at helping poverty have the exact opposite effect, as they create dependence upon the state.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people who are poor or disadvantaged or have experienced unfortunate circumstances or whatever. I regularly donate my time and money to Habitat for Humanity, and I've been on, like, forty charity run/walks, much to the chagrin of my lazy calves and shins. I do those things because I feel a sense of social responsibility. Nobody legislated it. I'm just another guy who has some sympathy for those less fortunate than myself. Charity empires are built on that same sentiment.
Where you and I would likely differ in opinion is where the state comes in. I'm sure we'd both agre that the truly disadvantaged and those who have suffered from a severe economic setback need help. I don't entirely disagree with unemployment benefits, either. We're a wealthy nation, and I see no reason why we should not provide them. What I'm worried about is the abuse of such a system, and I think we can both agree that state welfare is prone to abuse. Even most proponents agree that further reform is needed. Personally, I think that if one is on welfare, they should be as accountable as holders of private debt. That policy seems to work well for private industry, so I see no reason why public compensation should be any different. Mind you, I'm not saying they should have to pay it all back, just that they should be accountable for what is spent.
Sadly, that isn't the case. Relief for the poor is exactly what it was designed to be, which is to say that it is not relief for the poor, but rather a mechanism for gathering votes. You may believe that, or you may not, but it is difficult to come to any other conclusion when one looks at the results of state aid towards the disadvantaged. If nothing else, we can all agree that not enough has been done. The question is whether we are willing to buy that rhetoric again or actually do something about it for once. We should have learnerd by now that more funding does not necessarily equal more productivity.
Sailor Steve
07-02-10, 09:28 PM
psst, 14th amendment. Not 13th.
:)
You're right. I was reading both at the same time. It will remain uncorrected because you caught it before I did.
MrYenko
07-02-10, 10:17 PM
Chicago...with one of the highest youth murder rates in america...but shame on you for trying to make it safer for kids...
from sept 2007-early 2008, 18 out of 20 murdered students in Chicago were killed by guns. They have to do something, they can't allow these kinds of things to happen. If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms.
That's impossible, as it was already illegal to own a firearm in Chicago (Unless you work for that crook, Daly) at that time.
Bottom line, your argument just proved your point wrong. Criminals, by nature, do not adhere to laws, since banning guns has obviously not resulted in a reduction in gun crime. In fact, it could be argued that it has done exactly the opposite.
The day that the police can show up instantaneously at all points within their jurisdiction at the exact same moment that a crime is initiated, is the day I will stop carrying my sidearm. Until then, their job is to show up as soon as is practicable, collect my statement, and the wounded/dead violent suspect(s). If the situation goes against me, and I end up injured or dead, at least I TRIED to fight back against violence, instead of teaching the perpetrator that anyone without a badge will roll over and give them what they want, or worse, not resist violence.
It's a calculated decision, that every FREE man needs to make for himself. If you choose not to, that is your decision, and I fully support it, a free society is one of choice. It is NOT your place, or the government's, to make that decision for me, or anyone else.
If we could save even just one child's life who is just walking to school, I would gladly submit to more stringent gun laws.
I don't think anyone can show that even one childs life has ever been saved by gun control laws.
Platapus
07-02-10, 11:03 PM
You're right. I was reading both at the same time. It will remain uncorrected because you caught it before I did.
lets split the difference and all it the 13 1/2 amendment.
That sound fair. :salute:
gimpy117
07-02-10, 11:34 PM
I don't think anyone can show that even one childs life has ever been saved by gun control laws.
I doubt a child's life has been hurt either.
I doubt a child's life has been hurt either.
You were the one who said you were willing to submit to more stringent gun laws "if it just saves one child", yet you can't provide a single example of that happening anywhere, ever.
Molon Labe
07-03-10, 02:21 AM
@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.
Feel free to run anything by me any time you want. I'm not an old pro by any means though.
The relevant part of the 13th Amendment
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
prevents the states from denying rights that are guaranteed to all US citizens, but nothing is said about local ordinances.
Only Justice Thomas (and me, FWIW) agree that the case should have been decided under the P&I clause. Whenever part of the Bill of Rights is held against the States, it's done under the due process clause of the 14th Amdendment, not Privileges and Immunities. Also, local governments derive their power from the State governments, so a restriction against the States binds localities as well.
Remember, If ones constitutional right (in this case the right to bear arms) is conflicting with another right (the right to life) then one cannot stand. And i'm pretty the right to life trumps the right to bear arms. The only way the right to life could conflict with the right to bear arms would be if the bearer was so weak that picking up the weapon would give him/her a heart attack. Aside from that, the act of carrying a weapon cannot kill anyone. That you need to stretch the idea of a "conflict" beyond any semblance of rationality belies the weakness of your position.
antikristuseke
07-03-10, 02:48 AM
Banning carrying of firearms in not a solution, as it has been said it only disarms those carrying lawfully to begin with. A solution would be to achieve a state in society where carrying of firearms would not be seen as a necessity, but how to go about that, I do not know.
There are a number of social issues that need to be addressed, that much is certain, before the public perception of safety changes. But given what american culture is like (with my limited knowledge of it) that seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
Skybird
07-03-10, 03:58 AM
If I understand it, then that Chicago law makes 5 hours training mandatory, and limites the hnumber of weapons somebody can buy to 1 per month. that'S it. While one can argue whethe ror not 5 hours training is sufficient, in principle I neither object to mandatory training for gun owners, mandatory weapon licenses, and limiting the number of weapons somebody may own. While I said in the other weapon thread that I have u-turned on my former objection to legal permission for carrying private guns, I see it that way for other, more prgamtaic reasons than due to some principal statement in a constitution that worded it the way it did from a historical context more than 200 years that is no longer existent. I still think that private persons should be forbidden to own assault rifles, submachine guns and stuff like that, but that permissions should be restricted to pistols, revolvers, and hunting guns. I think owners should hold a license for which they have to undergo obligatory, suffient training and theory test, mental health test - and in an ideal world: a to-be-developed character evaluation -, and that thismoicense should legitimate them to own a limited number of firearms for self protection or hunting purposes. In Germany, green weapon cards allow the owner to own up to three pistols. And more a prvate citizen does not need.
A right to stockpile heavier weapons and even miluitary items becasue somebody claims to be a collector, I still reject, for the same reason why I would not accept the private collection of industrial explosives, etc.
To me, it is about self-defence against criminals exclusively - not about private people arming up like one-man-armies because they have hallucinations of hollywood-style invasions of mega gangs storming their property with grendade throwers and heavy machine guns against which they must defend like the Germans at Omaha Beach. That is just madman's maniac fantasies. Instead of buying an assault rifle, maybe better throw out that TV from your appartment.
I think it would be good practice to have licences also being limited to automatically become invalid after 18-24 months if constant regular practicing is not proven in some way. See a parallel to a flying license here. If you do not fly a certain minimum of hours per year or half-year, it becomes invalid automatically, since constant practice is a life-insurrance in flying - for people in the air as well as on the ground. I think it should not be seen different with firearms. Even more when I remeber one, two encounters with sunday hunters I had in the forests. There is a reason why sport shooters and professional forest hunters and rangers hate these amateurs like the plague over here.
Also, weapons and alcohol, like cars, is a total no-no. You carry a gun currently? No alcohol then . Period.
So, a principal right to own a revolver, pistol or hunting gun, if a private person wants to own that? Yes. But only with the above mentioned restrictions. In principle it is an in parts milder gun control law as we already have it in Germany. A principle right or need to stockpile heavy weapons and ammo like a hamster, I neither see nor would accept.
As long as you live in a society of any form, there is simply no such thing as an unlimited ammount of freedom for the individual. the society sets limts and borders. There must be found a compromise that is sufficiently balanced for the individual's and the community's interests. Utopic maximum demands for unlimited liberty and freedom - lead either to the totalitarian tyranny of the colective/community, or the anarchistic rebellion of the individual outlaw.
MrYenko
07-03-10, 10:58 PM
The 2nd amendment doesn't reserve your right to own a hunting rifle or self defense weapon, although those types of weapons are included in it's coverage. The 2nd amendment is a direct check on the power of the government.
A free man with a rifle is a man that does not have to submit to anyone. He can choose to submit, for any of the reasons argued above, such as community stability, etc. But in the end, he holds his freedom in his own two hands. An armed citizen cannot be forced to do something against his will, such as submit to unreasonable searches, comply with laws that violate his basic rights, etc. A reasonable man will submit to all sorts of infringements on his freedom, getting along to go along, so to speak. But at the core of it, an armed man is a free man. He has the choice.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising was fought by a handful of starving Jews with stolen bolt action rifles, and next to no ammunition. They held off a trained military force several times their own size, which was battle hardened, and armed with the latest weaponry, including crew served machine guns and artillery. Imagine what could have occurred if those same Jews had been similarly (or better) armed in the late 1930's, before they were herded into ghettos, and worse. Instead, they ascribed to the typical European viewpoint that complete freedom is an impossibility. A myth. This next statement wont make me popular, but they ALLOWED their government to do what was done to them. Very few fought back. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is for.
And to this day, it scares the willies out of totalitarians who try to usurp power. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing freedom than an armed populace. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing eventual tyranny than relinquishing rights to the government, no matter how minor.
Sailor Steve
07-03-10, 11:59 PM
Only Justice Thomas (and me, FWIW) agree that the case should have been decided under the P&I clause. Whenever part of the Bill of Rights is held against the States, it's done under the due process clause of the 14th Amdendment, not Privileges and Immunities. Also, local governments derive their power from the State governments, so a restriction against the States binds localities as well.
I think I understand, but I'm not much better with law than I am with math. I was mainly addressing the person who wanted to rail against the 'other side' for not understanding the Constitution, when it was fairly clear that he didn't either. I study history mostly, and the history of that entire era fascinates me, so I have studied the history of the law as it was seen at the time, somewhat. I don't by any means claim to be an expert.
Molon Labe
07-04-10, 01:19 AM
I think I understand, but I'm not much better with law than I am with math. I was mainly addressing the person who wanted to rail against the 'other side' for not understanding the Constitution, when it was fairly clear that he didn't either. I study history mostly, and the history of that entire era fascinates me, so I have studied the history of the law as it was seen at the time, somewhat. I don't by any means claim to be an expert.
No prob. The reason it's a little confusing is that the Court made a godawful mistake when it declined to use the Privileges and Immunities clause to bind the states in a case over a century ago. Not long after, knowing they made a mistake but unwilling to admit it, they used the Due Process clause in later cases to accomplish the same thing--but with a very strained interpretation of the words. Thus, the oxymoronic "substantive due process" was born and became the foundation that our rights stand on against State infringement.
So it's not that you're really wrong... the Court was wrong, and won't fess up to it. But since they're the highest court in the land, they get to determine what interpretations are officially correct or not, so even though you're right, you're wrong. :haha:
Skybird
07-04-10, 04:47 AM
The 2nd amendment doesn't reserve your right to own a hunting rifle or self defense weapon, although those types of weapons are included in it's coverage. The 2nd amendment is a direct check on the power of the government.
A free man with a rifle is a man that does not have to submit to anyone. He can choose to submit, for any of the reasons argued above, such as community stability, etc. But in the end, he holds his freedom in his own two hands. An armed citizen cannot be forced to do something against his will, such as submit to unreasonable searches, comply with laws that violate his basic rights, etc. A reasonable man will submit to all sorts of infringements on his freedom, getting along to go along, so to speak. But at the core of it, an armed man is a free man. He has the choice.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising was fought by a handful of starving Jews with stolen bolt action rifles, and next to no ammunition. They held off a trained military force several times their own size, which was battle hardened, and armed with the latest weaponry, including crew served machine guns and artillery. Imagine what could have occurred if those same Jews had been similarly (or better) armed in the late 1930's, before they were herded into ghettos, and worse. Instead, they ascribed to the typical European viewpoint that complete freedom is an impossibility. A myth. This next statement wont make me popular, but they ALLOWED their government to do what was done to them. Very few fought back. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is for.
And to this day, it scares the willies out of totalitarians who try to usurp power. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing freedom than an armed populace. Nothing is more effective at guaranteeing eventual tyranny than relinquishing rights to the government, no matter how minor.
I admit I see that a bit as pathos as well as rejecting that the constitution and amendements were written under the influence of a different world/land situation that back then made it reasonable that the farmer in that osilated place had weapons to defend against animals or Indians or English troops.
what you in principle say is that the citizen should have the right to resist for example law enforcement, if he thinks that is in his interest, and that he should have the weapons to fight off police, SWAT, military. By that you want the option to turn every act of law enforcement into a potential civbil war in the place.
For protecting the citizen against arbitrary tyranny by the state, you have certain other laws and constitutional basics, as well as the very design of your state's official bodies themselves. Your protection from police arbitrariness comes not from you holding a rilfl, in your hand, but laws that you have. Your protection from corrupt politics is that you are free to vote.And if you vote the samne corrupt bunch of poltiics time and again, then that is your fault - not an argument for owning rifles.
What you in principle defend here, MrYenko, is simply: anarchy, and refusing the violence monopole of the state. but the state and it's legitimised sub-entities must and should have a monopole for police and military and jurisdiction and legislation and executive. else you do not olive in a state or a nation, but a jungle.
I always understood the constitutioon and amendements only in the context of the timeframe they were created in. Ands I am very sure that the authors of the second amendement, if creating it today in our modern present and with independence war and civil war and indian wars lang since over, would make it a very different one.
And just btw, details in a constitution or a law code that are consdered obslete can legally be changed or deleted to modernise the remaining lawframe - when we have regulations for the parliament in Gemany how to do that (for example a two third or three quarter majority in parliament) , I am sure America has that as well. Even constitutions must not - and better should not - be considered to be engraved in stone until the end of times. It's just a question of time until they become a basis for tyranny themselves that way - because the world will not stop changing. We must adopt. If we allow freezing ourselves, we are already doomed.
However.
Snestorm
07-04-10, 05:26 AM
When one thinks of Chicago + Crime, does not the word Daly come to mind before the word Gun?
Molon Labe
07-04-10, 09:05 AM
Even constitutions must not - and better should not - be considered to be engraved in stone until the end of times. It's just a question of time until they become a basis for tyranny themselves that way - because the world will not stop changing. We must adopt. If we allow freezing ourselves, we are already doomed.
However.
There is no point in having a constitution unless its meaning is constant. The purpose of a constitution establish the boundaries of a government's power. It is a contract between the people and the government. If the government gets to change those limits, to change the terms of the contract whenever they see fit, the document is a joke.
We have addressed the need to adapt with the times in our Constitution by having an Amendment process. By amending it as need be, and by leaving it be and living under the rest, all generations reaffirm the contract our founding generation made with the government. Our Constitution represents the collective wisdom of all our generations and limits the damage that can be done by the rash emotion of any of them individually.
Molon Labe
07-04-10, 09:31 AM
The 2nd amendment is a direct check on the power of the government.
A free man with a rifle is a man that does not have to submit to anyone. He can choose to submit, for any of the reasons argued above, such as community stability, etc. But in the end, he holds his freedom in his own two hands. An armed citizen cannot be forced to do something against his will, such as submit to unreasonable searches, comply with laws that violate his basic rights, etc. A reasonable man will submit to all sorts of infringements on his freedom, getting along to go along, so to speak. But at the core of it, an armed man is a free man. He has the choice.
what you in principle say is that the citizen should have the right to resist for example law enforcement, if he thinks that is in his interest, and that he should have the weapons to fight off police, SWAT, military. By that you want the option to turn every act of law enforcement into a potential civbil war in the place.
* * *
What you in principle defend here, MrYenko, is simply: anarchy, and refusing the violence monopole of the state. but the state and it's legitimised sub-entities must and should have a monopole for police and military and jurisdiction and legislation and executive. else you do not olive in a state or a nation, but a jungle.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Sailor Steve
07-04-10, 01:25 PM
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I've heard that somewhere before...
:rotfl2::rock:
I doubt a child's life has been hurt either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
it was illegal to have a gun in columbine high school
Rest assured, they are well aware of it, but they see it in a different way than you or I probably do, and the courts occassionally side with them. Many people, not just democrats, see the Constitutution as a "living" document, and I don't mean "living" in the sense that it can be amended, I mean "living" in the sense that it can be interpreted in the context of whatever happens to be going on at the time.
How to put this......:hmmm: Some people think of the Constitution as law, and others think of it as a set of guidelines. There is Constitutional law, and there is law based upon interpretation of the Constitution. The two can, at times, have remarakably little to do with each other.
@Molon Labe - Will you please be my friend? <puppy-dog eyes> I'm trying to become a criminal defense lawyer and I could really use the perspective of someone who is a real lawyer from time to time, especially once I get my prereqs out of the way.
Its the same dumb **** as people seeing the Bible as something you can interpret depending on what the situation is and what you want the outcome to be.
They see what they want to see, and unfortunately for us the entire Democratic Party save a few good ones, see the world without a U.S.A and are doing everything within and without their power to make it so.
For the sake of our country I vote that we line every single on of them up and put a piece of lead squarely between their eyes. And at least impeach this raving lunatic that we have in office. So we can expunge his "Nobel peace prize winning contributions to humanity" (i.e jack ****) and re-write it. I mean its clear the Dems "rigged" the election, and not by counting votes. This my friends is the true meaning of ****** rigging. They knew that if they put a Black man on the ticket that would get a sure win for them. And of course it would, because they expected 90% of the black community to vote because of color (which most of them did, not all) and not leadership, experience and knowledge which is important to a real leader.
Another important thing about being a leader. Take responsibility, I love how the Dems keep blaming everything on Bush. I haerd them blaming the BP spill in GoM on Bush. The sad and pathetic thing is there are stupid people out there that believe it.
No racism is implied(I am far far from racist). If you are of said color and can't handle that word, then practice your preaching and gtfover it.
It's a calculated decision, that every FREE man needs to make for himself. If you choose not to, that is your decision, and I fully support it, a free society is one of choice. It is NOT your place, or the government's, to make that decision for me, or anyone else.
AMEN!
Tchocky
07-04-10, 03:02 PM
For the sake of our country I vote that we line every single on of them up and put a piece of lead squarely between their eyes.
Well, at least you want this voted on. Have to keep it legal.
No racism is implied(I am far far from racist). If you are of said color and can't handle that word, then practice your preaching and gtfover it.Maybe not racist, no. Moron strikes a nicer chord.
mookiemookie
07-04-10, 03:13 PM
I mean its clear the Dems "rigged" the election, and not by counting votes. This my friends is the true meaning of __________
Classy. Real classy. Well, at least we know where you stand. I'm sure Stormfront would love your brand of cleverness.
They knew that if they put a Black man on the ticket that would get a sure win for them.
Yeah because that worked out so well for Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Shirley Chisolm, and Al Sharpton.
Skybird
07-04-10, 04:30 PM
There is no point in having a constitution unless its meaning is constant. The purpose of a constitution establish the boundaries of a government's power. It is a contract between the people and the government. If the government gets to change those limits, to change the terms of the contract whenever they see fit, the document is a joke.
Not whenever they see fit, it should be beyond the reach of daily politics and individuals' opportunistic interests, yes. But it must be possible to change it nevertheless, because any constitution always is beign formed from the context of the time in which it was created. But you want high hurdles for that, yes. If you ban the poption to chnagea cojmnstitution alltogether, then you fix it for centuries and millenias to comem in ignorrance of all chnbage taking place - and then it is only a question of time before the rules of such a constitition form a tyranny in itself. everything in nature changes, constantly, and we must adopt to these changes. If we supress chnage alltogether and deny it, we cause stagnation, standstill, lacking developement, and finally death.
That is true for religious text that claim eternal validity and everlasting truth. And that is true for poltiical law-sets and constitutions as well. A content of such texts may be fitting in the beginning, or not, and text's quality may differ in ther speed at which they loose validty. But falling out of the contexts that created the thinking behind these texts they all do. Even the German or the American constitution or the Code Napoleon or the German BGB, even the Bible or the Quran.
Well, at least you want this voted on. Have to keep it legal.
Maybe not racist, no. Moron strikes a nicer chord.
Of course we have to keep it legal. Thats the whole point. So I am a moron simply because I chose to use a word (in which to me, there is not race meant) that they use all the time referring to themselves? Yea, sure who is the moron now.
Classy. Real classy. Well, at least we know where you stand. I'm sure Stormfront would love your brand of cleverness.
Yeah because that worked out so well for Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Shirley Chisolm, and Al Sharpton.
Sure I bet he would like it no more than I enjoy being called cracker and racists or moronic.
Of course it didn't but those people also didn't have George W. Bush(Democrats self proclaimed worst President ever.) as the president before them
thorn69
07-04-10, 10:06 PM
Chicago could get around this. The 2nd amendment states a person is allowed to bear arms, but it says nothing about.... bullets! :88)
Honestly I think every American CITIZEN should have the right to carry a loaded firearm. Hell, I think it should be against the law NOT to carry a firearm on yourself. it would solve more problems believe it or not. This is why...
Why don't people generally shoot at the cops? Because cops have guns and they'll shoot back!
My father always taught me to stand up to bullies and punch them right in the mouth if they ever got in my face and IT WORKED! Why? Simple. Nobody wants to swallow their own teeth! And once a bully knows you'll stand up and fight him he won't mess with you anymore in the future. Even if you get your butt whooped by him he will most likely not want to tangle with you again just because he'll know he'll have a fight on his hands and he might not be so lucky with you the next time!
People need to understand that the criminals in this country are AGAINST gun owner rights. Why? Because they don't want to break into your home and get shot! They''ll have their gun on them of course (because they're criminals and don't give a damn) but they want to ensure you're defenseless when they commit their illegal activities. It's like stealing candy from a baby.
Guns are like nuclear bombs. They are a great deterrent that are never used until there's a need to use them.
Imagine all the murders and rapes that could have been attempts instead! Right now American's are defenseless and BS laws like Chicago is passing completely undermine the fact that CITIZENS are not the problem... The CRIMINALS are!
thorn69 :yeah:
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=257634)
Platapus
07-05-10, 12:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
it was illegal to have a gun in columbine high school
What we really need are criminals who obey the law. That would solve so many of our problems. :yep:
Blood_splat
07-05-10, 02:11 PM
If people would just practice safe sex.:haha:
SteamWake
07-12-10, 10:10 AM
Chicago back in the news again ...
The Chicago government is taking another shot at enforcing sweeping handgun restrictions, bringing a new law into effect Monday meant to comply with the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last month while still regulating firearms purchases.
effectively struck down the city's decades-old handgun ban. City leaders described the ordinance as necessary to prevent gun violence from breaking out across Chicago.
Yea... that decade old handgun ban really turned things around for the windy city now it will just be bedlam :haha:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/chicago-tries-enforce-gun-restrictions-high-court-ruling/
Platapus
07-12-10, 05:37 PM
Well Chicago is only doing what the Supreme Court of the United States told them to do.
and the circle continues. :nope:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.