Chicago 2017: Homicide, Gun Control, LEO Gone Fetal And The DOJ

Bull****. "Control" and "liberty" are antithetical.

 

Well legalizing pot ALONE will cripple all major gangs and underground networks. It's by far the biggest cash cow.

 

When it is used to impede on someone else's right. How does gun ownership do that?

 

Your Rights end where my nose begins. Provided we do not infringe upon the Rights of another, there is no limit - constitutionally speaking. You don't have a Right to yell fire in a crowded theater, while at the same time, nobody is going to sew your mouth shut and make you ask permission before speaking. Anti-gun people aren't very smart, are they?

 

Its very important to attack people who disagree with you....isn't it?

 

My take on this is simple: Antigunners are fighting to infringe my rights. I have no interest in infringing on theirs... and they think they have the moral high ground?

Yeah, not very smart.

 

They're either dumb as a stump, masking their intentions, or both.

 

Always make the attack personal....especially when you can't win on the facts

 

Yep

 

How is it an attack to point out the inconsistencies of being anti-gun?

Like it or not, the Bill of Rights stands or falls as one law. It was all passed at the same time. IF our Constitution does not protect a Right to keep and bear Arms, it absolutely does not protect your Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or a Right to believe in whatever religion (or lack thereof) you observe.

Other countries do not have the burden of dealing with unalienable Rights and a Constitution that acknowledges so many Rights. It is ludicrous that IF you are an American Citizen, you do not comprehend this. BTW courts have the power to do damn near anything, but they lack the authority to do a lot of things they do. I'm thinking the courts will be moving more to the right on this issue, so if I were you, I'd be looking for alternative ways to address gun deaths IF that is really the problem you want to solve. I'd even help you.

 

If I say to you that you disagree with me so:

you must have a mental defect
you just hate guns
you just want to ban all guns
you are an idiot

Are those personal attacks? Because that happens here on a frequent basis. It is quite clear to me that some people (SOME) on here do not want to speak to people that disagree with them. They become frustrated when I won't back down, roll over and accept that they must be right. They only want to talk to people that agree with them. And those that don't must be attacked. Is that the purpose of this forum?

 

There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits gun control according to SCOTUS and Anton Scalia in particular

 

I'd call B.S. on that. Where do you think such a ruling was ever made?

The last United States Supreme Court rulings were:

1) You have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia (Heller in 200

2) The McDonald case, according to Wikipedia:

"Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[22] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[23] The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[24] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

So, you cannot carry weapons in certain restricted areas, but you can still carry on your own property. You cannot make weapons available to felons or the mentally ill. So, the big question there (and hasn't been answered) IF someone can't be trusted, why would you put them back out into society? They belong in hospitals, protective custody and prisons.

But, I digress. Do you have a point?

 

From your own post
The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible

That's gun control

 

I cannot answer for other people. What I can tell you is this:

Our forefathers fought, bled and died for an idea. They were well versed in history. Although I studied history, my major fields of study were religion and law. I realize that the founding fathers, especially combined, were probably smarter than any group of people I've known personally in my lifetime. They had recent experiences with tyranny, suffering and oppressive governments, the likes of which you and I cannot fathom.

Their desire was that you and I NOT have to face the hardships they did. And so, they left us an abundance of material to draw from that covers not only gun control, but lessons about government control, violations of privacy Rights, natural (unalienable) Rights, tyranny, oppression, etc., etc.

Most informed people, especially those who study gun control know how the system works. I can go further. The most liberal group in the United States of America is the American Bar Association. Every lawyer ends up being a member of the Bar (in most states - maybe all, it is a prerequisite to getting a license to practice law.) So, judges are lawyers and, consequently, trained by the ABA. Therefore, if you watch closely, you see that judges have been programmed by the ABA to think they are the voice of America. The Supreme Court Justices even call what they're doing as "making new law." Conservatives call the worst offenders "activist judges." They literally legislate from the bench.

Activist Justices have made rulings that you see as an opportunity to exploit for the purposes of furthering gun control which have NO BEARING on saving lives. It is ill thought out and gun control measures give government more and more control over your life in ways that you haven't yet begun to anticipate. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and waste a few paragraphs on this, so bear with me.

Many years ago (in the 1980s IIRC) I was a member in a group called Georgians Against Smoking Pollution. I was adamant about people lighting up cigarettes in public (especially in restaurants and enclosed places workplaces.) We won many a great political victory.

A few years later, the city of Atlanta banned "assault weapons." Well, that shut down the gun shows and was killing the local gun stores. A group called Citizens for Safe Government called upon me and a group I was working with for help. We had to get into litigation with the city over the issue. We would have lost the case, except that Georgia state law preempted local laws. Why would we have lost?

The City of Atlanta, in banning the firearms they didn't like, said (during discovery) that the people had given a mandate to government to protect the public safety by virtue of passing the anti-smoking laws - and I was indirectly responsible for that, having lobbied for them.

You just got your first lesson in stare decisis. Put another way, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Most pro-gun people probably understand much of what I just told you. For IF, as the Heller Court ruled:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

Now, I understand that you read that and you're thinking gun control. But, the United States Supreme Court has NOT overruled any of the other court decisions. For instance, in the Miller case, Miller was found guilty because his weapon was not a usual weapon used in the militia. So, the Supreme Court says you cannot keep and bear just any weapon, but they are still limited by the weapons you CAN constitutionally carry. The courts are clear on that and Miller did not overturn the precedent... nor did Heller. Here is a precedent:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52

That sentiment is echoed in the Miller case and NOTHING the Courts have said negates that precedent. That brings us back to activist Justices. IF the Second Amendment is a limited Right, then ALL your Rights are and the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The Second Amendment was passed along with NINE other Amendments. They stand or fall as ONE BILL. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Those God given, unalienable Rights are codified in the Bill of Rights. Either, as the Declaration of Independence states, your Rights are bestowed upon you by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they are given to you by a government / God. Our forefathers said those Rights were above the reach of government. Government can only legislate around the Bill of Rights to the extent that you cannot infringe on the Rights of another. That does not mean that activist courts cannot rule differently. They have the power; they lack the authority. So, our forefathers left us with a warning:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Now, you can attack the pro-gun side all you like, but bear in mind the Second Amendment has a purpose. Ultimately, the courts or the politicians can over-step their constitutional authority and plunge us into civil war. You seem to be jockeying for the top spot. You have to ask yourself, if you are educated about what the Right to keep and Bear Arms was designed to protect, and you advocate waging war against our Liberties, if it is not what you're being accused of, pray tell, what, exactly, would you call it? Our forefathers would have called it treason and sedition.

 

Well said. Even if the anti-gunners got their wish, we'd see more and more guns in the hands of criminals, and less in the hands of law abiding citizens how merely want to protect themselves and their homes. The anti-gun lobby makes absolutely no sense, LET ALONE the fact that they want to strip us of our constitutional rights.

 

Responsible gun control will not keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding, sane and well trained. And everyone else should NOT have a gun

 

Yet there is very little difference between hit rates from contact to 15 feet ( the most common distance in pistol fights) between the trained and untrained. Go figure.

 

Most training needs to be on the safe storage and carrying of a firearm

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Speech in the House of Commons (18 November, 1783).

For all those paragraphs I wrote AND the offer to participate in an effort to reduce gun deaths without gun control, you are back to gun control AND advocating a path to dismantle our Rights. And you wonder why people say negative things about you.

You still have not answered as to the reason America allows people who cannot be trusted to roam our streets. Insane people belong in protective custody. And, no sir. You are dead wrong about something. Once a person has served time for a crime, they should come back into society as an equal. YOU are part of the problem that ends with the lives of your fellow Americans.

The policy of anti-gunners is to toss everybody in jail, throw away the key and IF that person returns to society, they have been in a cage where, IF they learned anything at all, it is how to be a more effective criminal. That person has no money, no support system, no social skills, no job skills, no education AND now a criminal record!!! That now serves as a pretext to deprive them of their constitutional Liberties and make them less of a human being.

So, your policy was to simply identify those people so they can't buy guns. Yep. That's a real winner. If it were me, the day a guy went to prison I'd shave his head, remove his tattoos and he would work his ever waking moment. He would go to seminars and learn how to make a bed, balance a checkbook, prepare a budget, etc. He would get a GED. He would learn social skills and negotiating skills. He would work a job while incarcerated - cleaning the prison, maybe working in a garden outside. There would be classes in skill sets he could take to the real world.

When released, this guy would go to a halfway house and get a job. He would then save for his own apartment and once he had enough money and got through the probationary period, he would be returned to society as an equal. If someone cannot be trusted and cannot be rehabilitated, they would stay in prison.

So, I'm offering ways to reduce gun deaths. Vegas Giants is still stuck on gun control... and is offended when people call it what it is.

 

Gun control advocates, in my opinion, probably have relatively low IQs on average. Others are ideologically socialist to communist. They want easy answers to complex issues. They try to discount facts like Switzerland having more guns per capita than the U.S. having a crime rate lower than ours and that of Japan! Furthermore, they point to Japan which is predominantly Japanese AND historically was disarmed the better part of a century ago due to World War II.

America, by contrast, was founded by self sufficient individualists. Even IF they totally outlawed firearms, you have people that can build their own. IF, OTOH, you do the half assed gun control approach, a "prohibited person" can always come by an 80 percent unfinished receiver and buy the rest of the stuff to build their own guns... which would mean Vegas Giants would be back in a few months wanting MORE gun control.

I'm frustrated by those who would piss away our public Liberties, ignore the warnings and admonitions of our forefathers and subject us to a tyrannical government over the phony pretext of saving lives. When Vegas Giants was offered the opportunity to work with someone to save lives, he passed on the opportunity. That shows you why he is really here.

 

Which takes about how long? Not much for my side, but probably a whole lot more on yours.

 

Beautifully well said!

 

There's always the option of requiring felons get an "F" tattoo on the top of the right or left hand.

 

Mixed emotions about such. As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of crimes where the person should be able to serve his time and consider his debt to society paid in full, and be able to move forward without the stigma of a felony record dogging him. Something more for recidivist violent crimes, perhaps?