Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seek a smaller Gov't across the board.
I must confess I dont know where you stand. You seem to seek out others reasons for their positions but offer little in the way of your personal views.
I dont think of myself as a right winger tho I do tend towards the right.
I think I'm just realistic & not bound by some silly party affiliation. I registered Republican but have not always voted that way.
I figure Chicago will just make it so expensive to own handguns that most people will keep doing what they have been doing, buying handguns in Indiana or outlying suburbs and bringing them to Chicago without registering them.
To have a firearm (shotgun or rifle at least 18.5 inches long) you have to pay a registration fee annually. Most people don't even bother.
I will have a handgun if the city allows me to, even if I have to pay up the nose for it.
I figure Chicago will just make it so expensive to own handguns that most people will keep doing what they have been doing, buying handguns in Indiana or outlying suburbs and bringing them to Chicago without registering them.
To have a firearm (shotgun or rifle at least 18.5 inches long) you have to pay a registration fee annually. Most people don't even bother.
I will have a handgun if the city allows me to, even if I have to pay up the nose for it.
That's "through the nose." You pay "through the nose" for something.
"Up the nose" has a totally different connotation.
I seek a smaller Gov't across the board.
I must confess I dont know where you stand. You seem to seek out others reasons for their positions but offer little in the way of your personal views.
I don't let my personal views influence my interpretation of legal statutes. My personal view is that the lawmakers were incredibly stupid not to give the federal government some authority over "arms." But, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't.
Please someone who knows more about the Supreme Court's actions answer.
The District of Columbia has effectively a total ban on handguns for normal citizens. That ban has been ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals. The court ruled "Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
This has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which has yet to speak. Everybody has an opinion about what the court will do, but as we say in Washington "Those that know aren't talking and those that are talking don't know."
Actually they come very promptly. What's your point about these court rulings? So what? I call, the police come. I'm safe. That's all that matters.
you were saying that they must help you, the supreme court ruled otherwise. That is why I was posting the ruling and the case that got to the supreme court.
If you don't live in Washington DC, you have whatever your local citizens have decided. In Washington DC you do have the same security I have.
if they choose not to, they do NOT have to respond. It is the same everywhere in the country, the supreme court made the ruling unless the supreme court has no jurisdiction in your little piece of America
They will stop a crime in progress and assist the victim.
What we have going on here is actually a group of ill informed chicken littles. The police's primary duty is law enforcement, not protection of the population in general, but aiding a victim of a crime is absolutely a duty of the police. Public officials whether police, firemen, garbage men, or EMTs generally cannot be sued based upon their job performance. This isn't something new; King George III had the same protection. Police, firemen and other public official can and often are disciplined for failure to adequately perform all of their duties. A police officer who stood by while someone was assaulted and did nothing would be fired here and in most jurisdictions. You can't sue him though. Let stop this stupid argument that the police don't have to respond.
you tell this to the poor victim of the crime that started the supreme court in its decision. she called and called and was in fear of her family's life from her x husband. He got there, and the police did not send anyone, HER CHILDREN ARE DEAD because the police did not deem it a necessity to help her. If she were to have a gun, her children might be alive now, but instead she HAS NOTHING LEFT BUT HERSELF
what were these guys doing with guns? they are for the most part banned right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago handguns
