Chicago to Supreme court .. "we cant hear you"

[MrYenko]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

@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.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

Originally Posted by gimpy

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MrYenko

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.

When one thinks of Chicago + Crime, does not the word Daly come to mind before the word Gun?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.