Chicago handgun ban (living, stats, gangs)

[Lookout Kid]

I enjoy shooting. And I think the handgun ban was useless. But the Hitler talk is just too much.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Right - when you agree with the court overruling locally legislated law, the 14th ammendment is cited. When you disagree, its judicial tyranny/legislating form the bench/judicial activism.

The constitution does not say 'the right to bear handguns', and its foolish to pretend that there is no debate over what type of weapons should be allowed in the 21st century, based on what arms consisted of in the 18th century.

What it does show is conservatives really care nothing about judicial activism, so long as the activism rules in favor of their pet issues.

Principles!

Judicial activism is making up rights with no basis in the Constitution. Read the debates in Congress on the 14th Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms was a central issue (the first state gun control laws were in the South, aimed at disarming the Blacks to render them powerless).

The second amendment is even broader than handguns, as it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Arms is a very broad term. Ben Franklin developed hand grenades during the Revolution. Artillery was commonly owned by private ship owners and others.

The amendment was intended to protect all arms common at any given time. The purpose of course is to enable the people to resist tyranny. Allowing a government to deny the right to own a weapon defeats the purpose.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by smoking357

Did you read the paper that was provided? Your answer is contained therein. I'm thinking there wasn't enough time between the posting of the cite and your retort, so you simply parroted a contemporary left-wing lie.

I don't bother with internet articles for history lessions; for that I use books, serious ones being footnoted, peer reviewed and capable of standing the test of time. I've owned thousands of history books and I'm fairly well informed. Now that I'm in a condo I'm down to only a few hundred.

Anyone can post anything they want online, no matter how outlandish. You can also find online articles that "prove" thousands of Black soldiers fought in the Army of Northern Virginia.

Speaking of Nazis it seems you've learned a lesson from Goebbels. Though of course he was VERY intelligent and knew when he was full of bunk.

[smoking357]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I enjoy shooting. And I think the handgun ban was useless. But the Hitler talk is just too much.

When someone says "gun control," a gun owner hears "Hitler" and hears the boxcars rolling.

Daley is considered evil incarnate around the country. So is Mikey Bloomberg.

His little ban is next.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by smoking357

The Constitution does not say "the right to be a Presbyterian," nor does the Constitution specifically authors the right to write books on the Idaho Legislature.



Actually, that is extremely foolish. They had handguns, rifles and shotguns; so do we. The First Amendment doesn't cease to apply because we invented high-speed printing presses.

Applying an explicit amendment to all the People is the farthest thing from judicial activism. Not applying it, reading clear language out of the Constitution, would have been judicial activism.

Those are really awful comparisons.

The second amendment is not explicit, as I cannot store an RPG in my trunk, and few on the right interpret that as a second amendment infingement. But why - it says I, being a well-regulated militia, have the right to bear arms?!

I'm glad the handgun ban is over, only because evidence has shown gun laws matter little in deterring crime, and I'm tired of morons claiming two gangbangers wouldn't have shot each other if there wasn't a handgun ban. But it doesn't change overturning a 28 year old democratic law that still has majority support is absolutely judicial activism.

Just be honest about it.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Those are really awful comparisons.

The second amendment is not explicit, as I cannot store an RPG in my trunk, and few on the right interpret that as a second amendment infingement. But why - it says I, being a well-regulated militia, have the right to bear arms?!

I'm glad the handgun ban is over, only because evidence has shown gun laws matter little in deterring crime, and I'm tired of morons claiming two gangbangers wouldn't have shot each other if there wasn't a handgun ban. But it doesn't change overturning a 28 year old democratic law that still has majority support is absolutely judicial activism.

Just be honest about it.

We're a republic, not a democracy, and there's limits on what laws the people and government can pass, in order to protect the liberty of everyone. Segregation had majority support in the South decades ago, but that didn't make it right or constitutional.

P.S.: in Vermont and several other states you can have an RPG in the car, provided you follow the federal NFA (registration, $200 tax).

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

...But it doesn't change overturning a 28 year old democratic law that still has majority support is absolutely judicial activism.

Just be honest about it.

Majority support? By whom? Are you kidding? Show me the proof.

Btw- How is the Chicago handgun ban "democratic?" Did the citizens of Chicago enact it via a referendum? It was done against the will of the majority of people in Chicago.

By the way as long as we are playing "majority"-a majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens. So what is the Federal government going to do about it?

I thought so.

[ccjarider]

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoking357
...As an aside, as I live across the border, I don't need any sort of permit to buy ammo from an Illinois gun shop.

This is one of the things I hate about IL. When I lived in WI, I bought firearms in IL just by showing a WI drivers license and filling out the Fed form. Now I live here and this corrupt, obama luvin joke of state does not trust me unless I have been deemed acceptable by the State Police to own a firearm. IL people are sheeple I think to allow this to happen to them.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Tuco

I recall reading a study showing that the majority of people killed in Chicago were criminals, I think something like 90% have criminal records. Chances are these guys were packing heat, and I'm willing to bet the guys who shot them knew it. I doubt a hardcore Vice Lord or Latin King hell bent on doing a drive by this weekend is going to stop because the gun ban has been lifted. Let the killing spree continue.

You are correct. Most of the murders in a city like Chicago fit in to two categories: Gang-related and Domestic. Having law-abiding citizens well-armed with have virtually zero effect on these types of murders. Gangs are already armed to the teeth (both perpetrators and victims). And it's hard to see a way that Domestic violence will be reduced by plentiful handguns (and easier to see how it might increase).

Ten percent of the murders in Chicago are related to robberies. This is where I think we could see some change if a large number of ordinary citizens decided to defend themselves with handguns. But a 25% reduction in these types of murders is only a 2.5% reduction city-wide, so it will barely be a blip in the overall crime stats.

[alphamale]

If gun bans curbed violent crime, the left MAY have a point. Even then, the 2nd amendment stands.

There is no utopia. I will protect myself.