NO GUN CONTROL IN CAPONE’S DAY. LOTS OF GUN CONTROL NOW. YET: Chicago murder rate far

[Busybody]

Look Danny I know Im clueless and love Whosane Obama so why don't I do us a favor and just leave the country? .

you are a FOOLISH

TurdSniffer

 

[Busybody]

yes, we know

BLAME OTHERS

never WhoSane Obama or Hideous Rotten Clitbitch

we know

STFU..........STOOGE

 

[LadyVer]

BS~

I figured you would say that. Anyway, I think the health care plan should have waited until Obama's second term given the financial mess left by Bush that Obama has been cleaning up and the unrest being propagated by the right fringe. But who could have foreseen Tea Partiers and other fringers veering from their no tax platform to women have a way of shutting that whole thing down, aspirin worked for me, women deserve to be transvaginally probed, and last but not least, giving women the right to vote is what led to the downfall of American society.

The only way Chicago will clean up the violence is taking the guns from the cold dead hands of the criminals or doing what NYC has done. Chicago seems to think by changing their top cop every once in a while is the answer. But it's been a few years since I lived there so it's hard to keep up. It doesn't appear that anything has changed though.

 

[Busybody]

BTW, when COLOREDCUNT was a hospital admin (tee hee) she THREW poor peeps outa the rich hospital and sent em to the po side of town

YOU KNOW THAT

RIGHT?

 

[LadyVer]

I don't know who or what you're talking about. You could elaborate but only if you don't use misogynist or racist or other hateful wording. If I see you refer to women again using "cunt", I won't be talking to you, which may be what you want anyway.

 

[Busybody]

you know what I mean

who I mean

you pretend otherwise

cause the ISSUE IS BB, NOT THE CONTENT

 

[LadyVer]

you know what I mean

who I mean

you pretend otherwise

cause the ISSUE IS BB, NOT THE CONTENT

BB, if I knew who you were talking about I would say so..My last few years in Chicago I was battling cancer and job loss so other things were on my my mind. I was more concerned with maintaining my sanity and a roof over my head. I didn't have much time or inclination for anything else.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe Teddy Obama will charge up the Sears Tower with his skeet gun.

I herd that's how he took down Osama.

 

[hogjack]

I hope they gun down EVERYONE THERE

Funeral visitations lasting through the Spring.

Better get my black suits cleaned.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Easy solution, fence in Chicago so the residents can't leave to buy guns.

 

[unregistered]

 

[dan_c00000]

Democrats and liberals bent on buying the votes of the criminal element and their extended families that make up a large part of their political base have threatened the very fabric of the civil society.

How can Democrats buy votes when criminals have been barred from voting by republicans?

I have a serious question: How do you and BB cross the street? Based on the number of idiotic things you post per day you both should have been killed literally dozens of times.

I also have another question. Do you believe everything sites like Infowars, the GOP, or any of the ass clown ring-wing tinfoil hat websites post?

Actually, don't answer that last one I already know the answer.

 

[unregistered]

 

[imalickin]

NO GUN CONTROL IN CAPONE’S DAY. LOTS OF GUN CONTROL NOW. YET:


Chicago murder rate far worse than during Al Capone ‘gangland’ days.


Its NOT the GUNS

Its the DUMBZ

You know I have to just say that there are more people living in Chicago now than in the days of Al and his gang of thugs. Of course the people that live there now are criminals and looters and politicians, all the smart, law abiding people have moved to the suburbs, it just dummy's living there now. And bleeding heart libs.

 

[brw02]

Sometime I would like to see an adult discussion about gun control. One where the inmates don't run the asylum. It is very doubtful that I will find it on the GB. The Second Amendment clearly protects our right to bear arms for sport (hunting, skeet shooting, postal matches, etc.). It is less clear when it comes to military-style weapons. I am not allowed to own an M-50 machine gun, nor should I be. I can't offer any legitimate reason to keep a fully automatic weapon for personal defense. I don't really want a world where I had to keep a $2500 weapon loaded at my bedside because my neighbors already have one.

 

[unregistered]

 

[brw02]

Second Amendment says nothing about hunting, skeet, postal matches, etc.

That is correct. However, it does say something about militias. Militias are military organizations and they would, presumably, carry military weapons. When I read "A well-regulated militia", it appears that the Constitution calls for regulation of military weapons. If any government can ban the possession of an M-50 or an M-16 (which is capable of shooting automatic), can they also restrict possession of an AR-15? I don't have the answers. I just thought I would throw it out there for discussion.

 

[mark_j]

That is correct. However, it does say something about militias. Militias are military organizations and they would, presumably, carry military weapons. When I read "A well-regulated militia", it appears that the Constitution calls for regulation of military weapons. If any government can ban the possession of an M-50 or an M-16 (which is capable of shooting automatic), can they also restrict possession of an AR-15? I don't have the answers. I just thought I would throw it out there for discussion.

See there becomes the problem. The interpretation of militia and well regulated.

well regulated:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. *bolding is mine

Militia:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia section on US militia

In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".[58]

In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.[59]

Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the emergent threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.[60] There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.[61] See citizen's arrest and hue and cry.

The meanings of the above were also explained in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

So given the above information and decisions, why is everyone (you included) so confused?

Yet here we are debating this crap yet again, based solely on some feel good legislation that in the end will do nothing to really address the issue.

 

[dan_c00000]

This is the important part of the Heller case:

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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[brw02]

"So given the above information and decisions, why is everyone (you included) so confused?

Yet here we are debating this crap yet again, based solely on some feel good legislation that in the end will do nothing to really address the issue."


I am not an attorney. I am asking this question because I have read differing opinions on gun control and I can see some merit in all of them. I support the Second Amendment and I oppose some parts of the NYS laws which were recently passed. I am not confused; I am undecided and I want to learn more before I decide what I can or cannot support.

Keeping that in mind, I have a philosophical tendency to distrust government regulation of anything. I live in a largely rural area and I'm a hunter and a landowner. I don't know too many people who like gun restrictions. My problem arises when I try to think of a reason I would want to keep a Bushmaster. The best answer I can give is that I need to protect my home from someone who also has a Bushmaster. That's a pretty flimsy answer.

 

[koalabear]

"So given the above information and decisions, why is everyone (you included) so confused?

Yet here we are debating this crap yet again, based solely on some feel good legislation that in the end will do nothing to really address the issue."


I am not an attorney. I am asking this question because I have read differing opinions on gun control and I can see some merit in all of them. I support the Second Amendment and I oppose some parts of the NYS laws which were recently passed. I am not confused; I am undecided and I want to learn more before I decide what I can or cannot support.

Keeping that in mind, I have a philosophical tendency to distrust government regulation of anything. I live in a largely rural area and I'm a hunter and a landowner. I don't know too many people who like gun restrictions. My problem arises when I try to think of a reason I would want to keep a Bushmaster. The best answer I can give is that I need to protect my home from someone who also has a Bushmaster. That's a pretty flimsy answer.

Not really, what if the Government did come after you, they would not be using flintlocks.

 

[Life_Positive]

See there becomes the problem. The interpretation of militia and well regulated.

well regulated:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. *bolding is mine

Militia:


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia section on US militia

In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".[58]

In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.[59]

Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the emergent threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.[60] There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.[61] See citizen's arrest and hue and cry.

The meanings of the above were also explained in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

So given the above information and decisions, why is everyone (you included) so confused?

Yet here we are debating this crap yet again, based solely on some feel good legislation that in the end will do nothing to really address the issue.

I cannot describe my excitement over seeing this posted here.

The Constitution and existing legal precedent on this topic is strikingly clear. I'm honestly surprised (though I know I shouldn't be) that this "debate" is being carried on the way it is.

 

[unregistered]