Supreme Court On Guns

[85suited 0]

So there is a gun ban in place?And after the ban the murder rate increases/stays the same?And you are pointing out that the ban on guns isn't a reasonable argument for reducing crimes, and use the current state of murders as proof of this.Then why are everyone acting like you are saying that increasing guns would lower crime?Or did everyone completely misunderstand everything?

Sorry for not clarifying....Yes - chicago has banned guns since 1982 - During the first 19 years of the ban, there were just three years when the murder rate was as low as when the ban started ( i am trying to find the chart that shows this, but have seen it written many times)I am stating that banning guns doesn't reduce crime BG

[CaneBrain 95]

Cause the thinking process at the time was:"Hey since guns take a long time to reload, let's go ahead and give them out to everyone." ??????No of course not. The thinking was:"If the citizens have guns then they can always tell the government :"Time for some change" But we have to make sure that their weapons are on equal par with ours."

This does not compute either since all the militias in the world could not equal the firepower of the government. If the US government wants to take you down to Chinatown, they will.

[Balloon guy 158]

This does not compute either since all the militias in the world could not equal the firepower of the government. If the US government wants to take you down to Chinatown, they will.

There's some people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam that have arguments against what you are trying to say.

[CaneBrain 95]

A head shot equalizes against a bazooka all day long!

bazooka, nice. How does a head shot equalize against a drone dropping a bomb on your house? Not well, I bet.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sorry for not clarifying....Yes - chicago has banned guns since 1982 - During the first 19 years of the ban, there were just three years when the murder rate was as low as when the ban started ( i am trying to find the chart that shows this, but have seen it written many times)I am stating that banning guns doesn't reduce crime BG

I guess mk thinks you just don't know what month it is then.

[Balloon guy 158]

bazooka, nice. How does a head shot equalize against a drone dropping a bomb on your house? Not well, I bet.

Changed my post

[CaneBrain 95]

Changed my post

stay the course!

[Balloon guy 158]

stay the course!

I can always pull out the LLY defense..."I'm tired, and my job places requirements on me that make me not responsible for being wrong ever."

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There's some people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam that have arguments against what you are trying to say.

heh

I can always pull out the LLY defense..."I'm tired, and my job places requirements on me that make me not responsible for being wrong ever."

When in doubt, weasel your way out of it. It's what sets us apart from the animals... except for the weasel.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

That might be my favorite Homer quote OF ALL-TIME.

[CaneBrain 95]

That might be my favorite Homer quote OF ALL-TIME.

I'm a "hide under some coats and hope everything works itself out" fan myself.

[El Guapo 8]

Is it OK to bring a Concealed Weapon to a Home Game?

That might have been so long ago, most people didn't see it or forgot.

[CaneBrain 95]

That might have been so long ago, most people didn't see it or forgot.

I am not willing to get into it again. I noticed it, chuckled, and moved on.

[AmScray 355]

The only races who can be trusted with privately owned firearms are whites and Northern Asians. The rest are far too irresponsible and animal-like in their behavior. Once SCOTUS has the balls to admit this, gun crime drops instantly.

[LincolnK 1]

not really, 85 pointed the high rates of murder in Chicago with the handgun ban in place (which I have to assume implies that the murder rate would decrease with more handguns in the mix). That does not seem kosher to me.

i spent a bunch of time at work today staring at my desk and reading the various reports about the ruling. somewhere along the way i saw a claim that murders in d.c. are down like 25% since the heller(?) ruling. i don't have a citation offhand, if i get around to it later i'll look it up right or wrong.

[LincolnK 1]

so i thought i'd provide a summary of the ruling and whatever:previously the 2nd amendment was only considered as a federal-level right, i.e. the feds could not make laws infringing it. this did not apply to state laws. some of the amendments are viewed as protecting individuals at the state level and up like free speech and some are only applied at the federal level like the 5th. the supreme court ruling today puts the 2nd amendment from the latter to the former.the majority opinion given by scalia is that the 2nd amendment should apply to individuals at the state level do the the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which is often used as reasoning when deciding situations like this. one of the majority wrote his own opinion (can't recall the name atm) where he came to the same conclusion due to the privileges and immunities (?) clause of the 14th amendment. this is not often invoked, and lots of people were hoping this would be used more prominently so that other laws may be challenged citing that clause.the 4 communist hippies comprising the minority opinion were the same as in the heller case, saying that (paraphrasing) "it was wrong then and it's wrong now and even if it was right then we'd still say it's wrong now. we hate freedom." (my bias may be showing through here)the supreme court did not actually invalidate the chicago handgun ban, it only ruled on the federal/state aspect of the 2nd amendment. the case is being sent back to a lower court where the actual ban will be reviewed with the context of the new scope of the 2nd. it's very likely the ban will be struck down at that level.someone already mentioned scalia's point about not invaliding laws concerning crazies and felons and whatever. the majority wanted to be clear in that they are not addressing any specific laws, and are expecting that individual laws will be challenged in courts in the future.mayor daley is planning changes for the chicago law, thinking he will be able to keep something going. i'm curious how that will turn out. as an aside, i remember him recently saying something to the effect of "i don't care what the courts say, i'm right and we're doing it my way." this all seems completely rational.one of the higher ups from the brady organization considers the ruling some sort of victory. the attorney general(?) for massachussetts also thinks that whatever laws/bans they have in place are not going to be affected. mass. has some recent state supreme court case(s) concerning the legality of their laws, which were upheld mostly based on the 2nd not applying to states.i think that's about all I absorbed today. feel free to point mistakes in reporting or gun rights theory.edit: oh, and a fun fact i forgot- a couple weeks back in chicago, they recorded 40+ murders over the weekend.

[Balloon guy 158]

i think that's about all I absorbed today. feel free to point mistakes in reporting or gun rights theory.

But only by making single quoted paragraphs because Scram is on the warpath!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

edit: oh, and a fun fact i forgot- a couple weeks back in chicago, they recorded 40+ murders over the weekend.

Sigh. We're not #1 in anything anymore in Detroit.

[mk 11]

had a real sweet handgun party last night. shot tons of stuff and people.real sweet.

[CaneBrain 95]

That was fast:http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/illino...dex.html?hpt=T1lol at 45-0.

[CaneBrain 95]

That was fast:http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/illino...dex.html?hpt=T1lol at 45-0.

[hblask 1]

It'll be interesting over the next 10 years to see where the SC draws the line at what is a reasonable limitation. Heck, maybe 10 years isn't enough. The gun grabbers will try to push the limits indefinitely.

[El Guapo 8]

Asinine