Chicago Firearms Confiscation Begins

I don't really know much about American History, which is why I figured I'd ask here.

More informed? Or more akin to your thought process? I mean, it must take a lot of knowledge and interpretative skills to get to that position (or at least be considered)? I do understand Bias will occur, but with appeals courts, doesn't that tend to weed out decisions that don't form to law?

That doesn't make sense to me, as the constitution is that which gives the rights of the people, correct? Is it not that which forms the designated rights for the people within the US? How is one supposed to formulate an argument based on law if the opposing side can site 'rights' that predate said law?

Accidents happen, of course, but I would be willing to bet that the amount of accidents among those without training far outweigh those with. d

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My intention was that if the Govt wished to kill you or do away with you in some form or fashion, a gun will not stop them, which (to me) was the intent of the second amendment: to protect the people from the government if so needed. You can defend yourself with a gun, from someone else with a gun, but warfare and Govt control is moving beyond conventional weaponry.

..My Canadian slang directory is coming up nill....not sure if positive or negative. lol.

 

Resistance to tyranny isn't the only purpose of weapons, and certainly isn't training to oppose registration.

If (*)(*)(*)(*) hit the fan... weapon registration doesn't really mean anything.

 

Not true. How long have we been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how are those low tech conventional warfare people doing against our super high tech nation?

How long have specific leaders of Al Queda been able to run their network and avoid getting killed? Many eventually get killed, but even though they operate in fairly well known areas and are individually targeted by the military, CIA, and the entire intelligence community, they evade for years.

Here in the US, if the government comes for you tonight, they will get you. But tonight you are alone, there is no network of insurgents and supporters to assist you, you are largely unsuspecting and predictable while you go about your life, and the govt has unlimited resources to operate undisturbed and at their own pace.

All that changes in a revolution or civil war. Look at what is happening in the Ukraine right now, a bunch of people with little more than rocks, gasoline in bottles, and cell phones have brought the Ukraine to a halt. Imagine if those people had the civilian small arms the US people have, and knew how to use them.

If the US govt tries to take over the nation and impose a dictatorship, it might succeed despite the 2nd. But a revolt/revolution/civil war could be very brutal and bloody, the govt has no guarantee it will win, casualties would be very high on all sides. There might not even be a winner. People know this and that knowledge acts as a check on tyrany. Thats why the US people have to be disarmed before anyone has a real chance at a take over.

 

Yes, if the SHTF then weapon registration is probably irrelevent. But its what happens just before the SHTF that makes registration so dangerous.

 

Actually that's a really good point I hadn't though of. Thanks.

Alright, so then a question to the pro-gun people: What needs to happen to get the US out of the top spot of gun deaths among first world nations?

 

The US is in the top spot for homicides among "first world" nations. The US is at 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people, most other "first world" nations are in the 1-2 range. If all firearm homicides were removed, the US rate drops to 1.9 per 100,000. That assumes those firearm homicides would not be committed with another weapon or method, which is unlikely, so the US is going to be at the top of the list even if all firearms are miraculously removed from the nation.

The problem is not within the US at large, but in the large cities. The 5 largest cities (with 5% of the total US population) in the US have 13% of the murders. As city size increases, the homicide rate (and the violent crime rate) increases significantly. In cities with <10,000 people the homicide rate is 2.7, in cities with 1 million its 12.1.

The problem is violence in the big cities caused by people living in poor conditions with no economic future, no social or family safety net, no education, many have no way out of their situation, and no hope. They are frustrated and prone to lash out. Their options are limited to poor jobs, welfare, and criminal activity. Banning firearms in those cities has not worked - the worst of those cities also had the strictest gun bans (some will say that the bans failed because guns were imported from surrounding areas with lax gun laws, DOJ studies show that is not true).

Solve the problem of the cities and you solve the homicide rate problem, but solving the city problem will end a lot of political careers at local and federal levels. Above all else, politicians protect themselves so the real problems won't be solved. Politicians will just point to guns as a convenient excuse and distraction.

 

as if...

Gang Banger guns arent registered to the gang banger, theyre registered to the gang bangers victim, and they stole it.

 

Lack of registration doesn't protect you from gun grabbing by the government.

If you think I am a "gun grabber" you haven't read my post.

I am however in favor of responsible gun ownership and registration is in line with monitoring who has weapons.

 

Then, for the official record.... I don't have any.

 

Still, liberals could care less about gangbangers daily shootings. All liberals want to do is come down harshly on the law abiding. Plus the law abiding gun owner is more likely to vote republican, so naturally liberals must be against anything a republican is for.

If republicans said their favorite food overall is lobster, liberals would make a movement to ban lobster sales and talk about the genocide of the lobster race.

 

registration leads to confiscation. Rights or privilege....can't have it both ways. You can pick and chose what your Rights are, but you cannot determine the Rights of another. The Bill of Rights are yours as well. Whether or not you chose to use them is up to you. But what you're demanding is the rest of us give up ours. You want a Right converted to the blessing of THIS government? Really? and you say you support your Rights. What you are proposing is converting a Right to a privilege. If that is the case, you don't deserve your Rights. Give them to somebody that will cherish them and protect them and won't sell them down the river just to make themselves look like a fricking martyr....."Oooh, looky, I just surrendered my Rights to look good and to make other people feel better about me."
Horse (*)(*)(*)(*)!!!!
You do know there's a difference between feeling and thinking, right?

 

I am not sure why why people take such an extreme stance on the right to bear arms.

You also enjoy a freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you are free to scream fire in a theater.

You are free to bear arms, you just need to register them. It really isn't that unreasonable.

Do your realize how unreasonable somebody would sound if they took the position you are in regard to speech?

 

Really? Cause we have had to register as gun owners since the 70s, you had to register your handguns since the 30s, and have yet to have any confiscated without cause.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*).......it is illegal for the fed gov to collect and hold such records.
You are free to bear arms, you just need to register them. It really isn't that unreasonable...the death cry of the Libs..since ya gots nothing to hide..why don't you just let us search your house...hey, you have guns!!!! No warrant needed.
Your definition of what is reasonable and what is reasonable to me will never meet.
It is more reasonable NOT to register my firearms with any government....and a lot less hassle.
You have no idea as to the final outcome of firearm registration.......it is confiscation. That is the only reason for registration. The only reason. It will do nothing to keep people from murdering each other, prevent violent home invasions, and stop the gangland shootings. I can bet they won't be registering their guns any time soon. Registration begs to get permission form the government to own. Like I said, bull(*)(*)(*)(*).....
So tell us how irresponsible every damned gun owner is again? I don't stand up in a theater and scream fire........and I don't misuse my Rights to firearms....why the hell should I turn my Right into a privilege?
Rights are only as good as long as you keep them and practice them. You don't want that Right? Fine by me. but don't use your decision to leverage mine.

 

Really? So it was put in place so Rhode Island could keep her slaves, too?

You see, there's a problem with people who can't use any argument but race.

It means they can't understand any problems at all. Let's guess, you don't believe Obama is a racist, even though his own speeches make that perfectly plain, right?

Did Madison mention race in Federalist 29?

Are you claiming that black people today don't need the protection afforded them by the Second Amendment, they're just supposed to continue to be the most common victims of crime committed by black people? Why do you want those black people murdered in their homes and on the streets?

 

Okay.

They refuse to acknowledge the Americans know the meaning of the word "free".

If someone is free to do something, they aren't required to get permission or TELL ANYONE they're doing it.

Gays are free to pump other guys in the butt. Would liberals claim gays were free if they had to register their condoms?

Oh, almost all of them know this. They believe they're being tricky and smart, like a child hiding a stolen beach ball under their shirt and telling the adult he doesn't know where it is.

 

And, naturally, your example is applied incorrectly.

The proper comparison is that people who exercise their inalienable right to keep AND BEAR arms can't go USING the weapon to harm the innocent. They can, however use the weapon safely, and carry it safely, just like people aren't required to check their vocal chords at the movie theater door.

 

I'll let you know when they come for my guns.

 

I'm not using any argument but race, I'm saying there was a near specific reason, militias being a part of it, well organized in fact, to protect a FREE STATE...a lot on the right say 'protect against government tyranny', but there's nothing about that in the 2nd amendment, but if you read what was said on the subject and why it was rewritten multiple times before being ratified, it makes itself quite clear. It's not about defending against the federal government or anything, it's about protecting property of people in the state, such as...slaves. Or what have you...IN A MILITIA.

So it's very funny to see misguided arguments from the right, or thinking that because I mention it didn't get ratified until it met a certain criteria to make Virginian slave holders happy (who cares about Rhode Island? They weren't holding out on ratification!)...because remember, in souther states, slaves were much more tied to economics whereas in the north it was more or less more focused on what one might call personal comforts (i.e. personal servants, etc.) Anyway, blah. People always ignore the militia and state words in the amendment and it's laughable.

 

go back and read the post you skipped over.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=314486&page=29&p=1063544114#post1063544114
once again, you show a lack of clarity. If Chicago, New York, California, or even Australia and Britain call it confiscation, they are lying?
So. in spite of your claim that you are a believer in the 2nd A, you were misleading us.

 

our Consitution and the Bill of Rights are a joke? You're not from the US, and have no horse in this race.
I demand that you show me a source that states the 2ndA was passed just to keep slaves.
You obviously didn't read the DoI.....and all the comments made by the framers...I suggest you at least do that.
Oh, and BTW, best go tell SCOTUS they're wrong..I'll bet they need your vast knowledge of law and Constitutional expertise on the subject.

 

so, at least you admit you're a racist...that's real nice coming into a gun debate ..... and best to check your historical dates.....there weren't hardly any slaves in the US in 1776, a few, but not enough to fill the plantations of 12 states...hell, bub, there were only 13 colonies at the time we kicked Georgie to the curb. So slaves weren't even a consideration.....maybe in later years, like the 1850's, but unless you have actual proof that they kept their guns just because of a race issue in the early 1700's......you might be under educated..............or European

 

wiki? really? hahahahahahahah..........................bwahahahahahahahah................wiki....a scholarly choice for sure..did you correct anything that was said in the source? you know you can do that do wiki..........

 

I'll note you didn't actually debate anything presented.

Because you can't. Because it's accurate.

Wiki is a great resource, on par with credited peer reviewed papers. It is sourced, referenced, and verified by others and is capable of continuous update and correction to stay fluid.

So.. anything in my wiki source you actually want to call out as incorrect?

I didn't think so.

 

wiki is an accepted source for scholarly reviews? Never happen in a university..........Let me advise my English professor and Biology professor they're wrong cuz YOU say so..... sure make it easier not to have to research things further since wiki is the God of Liberals