Anime Central Forums: Go Go Supreme Court - Anime Central Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Go Go Supreme Court Don't let me down~!

#1 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:25 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-cou...tory?id=9780703


I really hope the law gets overturned. The strict gun laws of Chicago and the state of the whole is one reason I refuse to ever move up to there.

Of course, I'm a texan and we have a lot less strict gun laws (we have something like 3 guns for every one person or so)

Hopefully if they overturn the ban, it will open the way for conceal carry.
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#2 User is offline   redx1 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 20031
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Joined: 23-November 08
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:49 PM

Arm the good people.

LETS DO THIS!!!
~~

#3 User is offline   mendokuse 

  • Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Veteran
  • Member No.: 3415
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09-December 04
  • Location:North of Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:52 PM

Listened to the summarized arguments on NPR. 14th Amendment considerations versus 2nd Amendment. My thoughts are kinda simple: First - I want a rifle. Have my 2 army buddies show me how to shoot. Second (and more seriously) - I see owning a gun like owning a car.

Everyone has a right to own one, you should have a license saying that you are its rightful owner and that you are qualified to handle a weapon. Misuse of said weapon or failure to pass an exam after a certain amount of time should result in suspension or at least a refresher course.

One issue I have is intent. The basic intent of a car is transportation. The basic intent of a gun is to cause injury [whether in self-defense or in sport]. So in that case, perhaps some rules similar to the obtaining chemicals is applicable. By all means are we allowed chemicals for home and school experiments, but some are harder to obtain, and others are nigh impossible.

Another issue is tracking. A stolen car means that someone has the access to more transportation. A stolen gun means someone has more access to cause injury. Now it's a privacy issue versus a safety issue. Kind of like online security. We want internet security, but we want to maintain our privacy. Banks want to know that you are really you when you log into your account, fine. However, I find it very eerie when Amazon shows me stuff I "might like".

*Sigh* I have an hour commute from home, that's a lot of time to think and that's as far as I got before I was distracted by a guy walking his dog. Dog was adorable!

#4 User is offline   Voxx 

  • Iron Chef
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Iron Chef
  • Member No.: 16994
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Joined: 28-January 08
  • Location:traveling in the TARDIS

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:10 PM

I honestly am completely for guns in homes that are properly kept AND am for concealed carry. Its riduculous that a guy cant keep a gun in his home to protect himself and his family and keep his mind at ease. I'm almost 21 and I cant wait to have my own handgun. I love shooting targets but I dont think IL would ever change...I mean we are what one of three (?) states that are this strict? <_< I'm with Tex. I'll meetcha down there -tips hat-
Allons-y Sugar Pea!

#5 User is offline   redx1 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 20031
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Joined: 23-November 08
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:14 PM

Remember...

In the city of chicago, it is illegal to own handguns only. As of now, you may still legally own a rifle or shotgun.
~~

#6 User is offline   mendokuse 

  • Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Veteran
  • Member No.: 3415
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09-December 04
  • Location:North of Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:22 PM

View Postredx1, on Mar 2 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

Remember...

In the city of chicago, it is illegal to own handguns only. As of now, you may still legally own a rifle or shotgun.


Oh I know. Just throwing out my thoughts for other people to digest.

#7 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:30 PM

View Postredx1, on Mar 2 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Remember...

In the city of chicago, it is illegal to own handguns only. As of now, you may still legally own a rifle or shotgun.



But you have to register it with the local police and such, and they could decline it iirc.

The intent of *anything* is in the eye of the beholder.

And let me tell you, firearm ownership is a very somber, and serious responsibility. And conceal carrying? Down here in Texas just simply showing someone your CHL license is cause enough for a felony, as is "printing" (when someone can see the outline of your firearm) and no matter the intent, the very least is a suspension of your CHL, a fine and possibly jail time.

And should you ever draw your gun? Oh Demon Lord, you're risking your freedom if you are not 100% in compliance with the laws (and they are very strict.)


But of course, a criminal isn't going to care about any of those and they'll murder you for pocket change possibly. The first rule of owning a firearm whether it be in the home or conceal carry is never put yourself in a situation where you might have to use it.


As with tracking..if someone steals a firearm then they have to deal with the ATF on their trail..and there are few people more hardcore than ATF officers.
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#8 User is offline   wrexness 

  • Forum Abacus
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7901
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined: 06-September 06
  • Location:Bamboo Forest

Posted 02 March 2010 - 09:35 PM

View Postmendokuse, on Mar 2 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

Listened to the summarized arguments on NPR. 14th Amendment considerations versus 2nd Amendment. My thoughts are kinda simple: First - I want a rifle. Have my 2 army buddies show me how to shoot. Second (and more seriously) - I see owning a gun like owning a car.

Everyone has a right to own one, you should have a license saying that you are its rightful owner and that you are qualified to handle a weapon. Misuse of said weapon or failure to pass an exam after a certain amount of time should result in suspension or at least a refresher course.

One issue I have is intent. The basic intent of a car is transportation. The basic intent of a gun is to cause injury [whether in self-defense or in sport]. So in that case, perhaps some rules similar to the obtaining chemicals is applicable. By all means are we allowed chemicals for home and school experiments, but some are harder to obtain, and others are nigh impossible.

Another issue is tracking. A stolen car means that someone has the access to more transportation. A stolen gun means someone has more access to cause injury. Now it's a privacy issue versus a safety issue. Kind of like online security. We want internet security, but we want to maintain our privacy. Banks want to know that you are really you when you log into your account, fine. However, I find it very eerie when Amazon shows me stuff I "might like".

*Sigh* I have an hour commute from home, that's a lot of time to think and that's as far as I got before I was distracted by a guy walking his dog. Dog was adorable!

I get what you're trying to say, but you don't have the 'right' to own a car. XD A right is something very, very special, and car ownership doesn't qualify.

Anyway, my take on the issue: banning assault weapons I see no issue with. There's not really a legitimate, non-war type issue that I can think of that would require an assault rifle. Handguns can be used for personal protection, rifles and shotguns could be used for hunting, an AK-47? Eh, that's crossing the line for me. XD

On the issue as a whole, I think the most adequate solutions is somewhere between the two sides. On the one hand, I think that a gun should not be 'easy' to obtain. Sure you can use firearms for sport, but they are 100% dangerous weapons. You should be required to have a license and you should have to continually prove that you are responsible and mature enough to handle the responsibility. Anytime you're carrying, the possibility exists that you may be put in a position where you may harm, or potentially even kill someone. That is not something that should be taken lightly. Anytime you want to get a gun, you should indeed be required to register it and the like for tracking purposes "just in case". However, I also believe that guns DO have legitimate, legal purposes and that outright bans are wrong too. I think if that you're mature enough to handle the responsibility and have proven it, you should be permitted to own and use firearms for their legal purposes (self-defense, sport, etc).

I will say, however, that I absolutely HATE the argument that I sometimes hear gun-rights supporters use: gun control is pointless because the bad guys don't acquire guns through legal avenues anyway so there's no point in having any kind of gun control. That's just a pathetically poor argument. Well, people who want to do meth are going to do it anyway, no point in making it illegal. People who want to visit prostitutes are going to do so even if it's illegal, no point in making and enforcing those laws. Just because the lawbreakers CAN get around the laws doesn't mean you should weaken/revoke the laws to make it easier on them.
2012 Cosplay Plans - Fujiwara no Mokou (Touhou)
Visit my MAL and let me know you're from the forums~

#9 User is offline   Matt PNiewski 

  • Regular
  • PipPip
  • Group: Regular
  • Member No.: 28392
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 22-April 09
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 09:47 PM

Let's keep in mind the reason for the ban is not to necessarily keep unqualified people from OWNING hand guns. They simply want to cut accessibility. Which works in Theory, not in practice. Hence, I support the ban in theory, not in practice. Clearly, it doesn't work. Get rid of it, and allow for more qualified, competent people to have guns to protect themselves and their family.


But BEFORE you do that, promote the sale of non lethal alternatives. It's forgivable to kill somebody in defense, still don't make it "Right". Makes it a justifiable evil.


Of course, I'm a moderate on this issue. Our Constitution says "A Well Regulated Militia" can be armed. Well, let's regulate. Well, Johnny B. Model Citizen, here you go! Hey, Jim the alcoholic wife beater? How about no?
Jimmy Olsen to the Real Life Superheroes.

#10 User is offline   Dark Stranger 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7281
  • Posts: 1,956
  • Joined: 16-May 06
  • Location:Ft. Wayne, IN.

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:13 PM

I've said it before but gun bans only help criminals.
"It's better to be used then to be useless."
Member of the J-Rock Fan Alliance
cosplay list: Zaraki Kenpachi, Umehito Nekozawa,Sergent Helmeppo, and Time wrap Rossui
Staff at Ikasucon,World Steam, and Youmacon
Part of GUTG's Bear Calvary.
Furture cosplays: Impel Down Mr.3....40% complete

#11 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:15 PM

I'd like to point out that even if you kill someone with a gun(or any weapon) in self-defense (ie a home invader, even if they have a weapon) you will still be arrested for murder and put in prison until the police finish their investigation.
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#12 User is offline   Matt PNiewski 

  • Regular
  • PipPip
  • Group: Regular
  • Member No.: 28392
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 22-April 09
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:23 PM

View PostAlkaren Hyralt, on Mar 2 2010, 10:15 PM, said:

I'd like to point out that even if you kill someone with a gun(or any weapon) in self-defense (ie a home invader, even if they have a weapon) you will still be arrested for murder and put in prison until the police finish their investigation.



Which pisses me off. I do think it's wrong to kill, in all cases, but it's necessary. And the court should see it that way.

HOWEVER, I can see it the other way. You should have to prove that it was, in fact, self defense. Sometimes it's obvious. Others? Not so much. If you are attacked, on the street, and kill somebody with a knife, well, there is ALOT of room for debate. There is less than if you shoot an armed man in your home, but there is still a bit of questionability. You could, in fact, be lying. I would like to see people in court to prove self defense pleas. However, they should not be place in prison, under arrest, unless the circumstances are EXTREMELY questionable.
Jimmy Olsen to the Real Life Superheroes.

#13 User is offline   kahad 

  • Panel Programming Staff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: ACen Staff
  • Member No.: 532
  • Posts: 3,199
  • Joined: 21-May 03
  • Location:Carbondale, IL

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:24 PM

View PostDark Stranger, on Mar 2 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

I've said it before but gun bans only help criminals.

Seconded.
K-chan (nickname given by ngsilver)
Are YOU on my grilling list??? (Updated 9-26-2008)
Master Chef of the Great Otaku Army and Spam Squad member!!!
AMV Staff ACen 2005-2007, Panel Programming Staff ACen 2008-2012 :)
Maho! - not just a saying, a way of life.

#14 User is offline   wrexness 

  • Forum Abacus
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7901
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined: 06-September 06
  • Location:Bamboo Forest

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:35 PM

View PostMatt PNiewski, on Mar 2 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Which pisses me off. I do think it's wrong to kill, in all cases, but it's necessary. And the court should see it that way.

HOWEVER, I can see it the other way. You should have to prove that it was, in fact, self defense. Sometimes it's obvious. Others? Not so much. If you are attacked, on the street, and kill somebody with a knife, well, there is ALOT of room for debate. There is less than if you shoot an armed man in your home, but there is still a bit of questionability. You could, in fact, be lying. I would like to see people in court to prove self defense pleas. However, they should not be place in prison, under arrest, unless the circumstances are EXTREMELY questionable.

Sometimes that's hard to do. Look at this hypothetical example: Let's say you live in a "quiet" town, the kind where everyone knows everyone and no one locks their doors. Burglar comes by, hits up your house, but since your doors are unlocked there's no forced entry. This particular burgler is just a cat burgler, wanting to get in, get stuff, get out, and avoid confrontation if possible. He has no weapons at all on his person. It's dark in the house, you hear a noise, go to investigate. The burglar panics and comes at you, you draw your gun and fire, mortally wounding him. How can you possibly "prove" your innocence? There are no signs that would necessarily point to the burglar having entered the house illegally; it's just as possible that he was invited in. The burglar didn't have a weapon on him, so how is your life in danger? You can't prove you didn't know he didn't have a weapon on him, all you can do is claim that it was dark and he came at you, so you thought he had a weapon and panicked. The only defense you have in this case is your own word that he was a stranger trying to steal things, but you could be lying to cover your own butt.

I stand firmly behind 'innocent until proven guilty'. The burden of proof needs to be on the accusers. Not to mention there's the 5th amendment standing in the way. If you force the defendant to prove their innocence, you're also opening the door to self-incrimination, and there's just no way that would fly (or at least I hope not, because that slope would be so damn slippery we'd be at the bottom before we could blink).

This post has been edited by wrexness: 02 March 2010 - 10:38 PM

2012 Cosplay Plans - Fujiwara no Mokou (Touhou)
Visit my MAL and let me know you're from the forums~

#15 User is offline   Matt PNiewski 

  • Regular
  • PipPip
  • Group: Regular
  • Member No.: 28392
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 22-April 09
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:42 PM

View Postwrexness, on Mar 2 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

Sometimes that's hard to do. Look at this hypothetical example: Let's say you live in a "quiet" town, the kind where everyone knows everyone and no one locks their doors. Burglar comes by, hits up your house, but since your doors are unlocked there's no forced entry. This particular burgler is just a cat burgler, wanting to get in, get stuff, get out, and avoid confrontation if possible. He has no weapons at all on his person. It's dark in the house, you hear a noise, go to investigate. The burglar panics and comes at you, you draw your gun and fire, mortally wounding him. How can you possibly "prove" your innocence? There are no signs that would necessarily point to the burglar having entered the house illegally; it's just as possible that he was invited in. The burglar didn't have a weapon on him, so how is your life in danger? You can't prove you didn't know he didn't have a weapon on him, all you can do is claim that it was dark and he came at you, so you thought he had a weapon and panicked. The only defense you have in this case is your own word that he was a stranger trying to steal things, but you could be lying to cover your own butt.

I stand firmly behind 'innocent until proven guilty'. The burden of proof needs to be on the accusers. Not to mention there's the 5th amendment standing in the way. If you force the defendant to prove their innocence, you're also opening the door to self-incrimination, and there's just no way that would fly (or at least I hope not, because that slope would be so damn slippery we'd be at the bottom before we could blink).



I say, give them the benefit of the doubt.


"It's better to let a guilty man go free, than let an innocent man be put to death." Or however the quote goes. I believe that whole heartedly.
Jimmy Olsen to the Real Life Superheroes.

#16 User is offline   sentinel28a 

  • Mad Irishman
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Obsessed
  • Member No.: 1435
  • Posts: 3,370
  • Joined: 13-January 04
  • Location:Montana, Land of the Weird

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:51 PM

There was a similar situation where I live a few months back. Guy on drugs breaks into an old man's home to score some money for more meth. The old fella wakes up, sees the druggie rifling through his things in the living room. The old man comes out, and says very clearly, "Stop. Hands up and behind your head."

The druggie turns, screams (because he's tripping out, I suppose), and rushes the old guy. The old guy kills him dead with a single shot from his M1--having had plenty of practice doing the same during WWII.

Police show up, old guy tells the story above, and the only person who can verify it is his wife. Yet the police consider the real fact that the old fella is a decorated war veteran with no criminal record, while the very dead guy on the floor is a known felon. Result: case never even goes to court. Police take the old vet's story down, compliment him on his shooting, and haul the body away, as clean a case of self-defense as any of them did see.

Now this is in Montana. We're EXTREMELY adamant about our gun rights up here, to the point where the governor (who is a Democrat) and the legislature (mostly Republican) published a joint statement that secession would be "strongly considered" had the Supreme Court ruled differently in the Holder vs. DC gun-rights case. States don't threaten secession very often, at least not since 1865. I wonder, though, if the old vet would've fared as well in Illinois or Oregon.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"We'd be the fourth largest nuclear power in the world"
See my art. Love it. Hug it. http://sentinel28a.d...art.com/gallery
Read my fanfiction. NOW. You'll thank me later.
First Place, Yahoo ACen League, 2006
First Place, NFL.com Otaku Amefuto League, 2012

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
BEAR CAV!

#17 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 03 March 2010 - 01:53 AM

View Postsentinel28a, on Mar 2 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

There was a similar situation where I live a few months back. Guy on drugs breaks into an old man's home to score some money for more meth. The old fella wakes up, sees the druggie rifling through his things in the living room. The old man comes out, and says very clearly, "Stop. Hands up and behind your head."

The druggie turns, screams (because he's tripping out, I suppose), and rushes the old guy. The old guy kills him dead with a single shot from his M1--having had plenty of practice doing the same during WWII.

Police show up, old guy tells the story above, and the only person who can verify it is his wife. Yet the police consider the real fact that the old fella is a decorated war veteran with no criminal record, while the very dead guy on the floor is a known felon. Result: case never even goes to court. Police take the old vet's story down, compliment him on his shooting, and haul the body away, as clean a case of self-defense as any of them did see.

Now this is in Montana. We're EXTREMELY adamant about our gun rights up here, to the point where the governor (who is a Democrat) and the legislature (mostly Republican) published a joint statement that secession would be "strongly considered" had the Supreme Court ruled differently in the Holder vs. DC gun-rights case. States don't threaten secession very often, at least not since 1865. I wonder, though, if the old vet would've fared as well in Illinois or Oregon.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"We'd be the fourth largest nuclear power in the world"



While I could say the same thing could happen down here, it's not wise to hope it's so easy. Especially given the age of most people vs a decorated vet from one of the world wars.

I have a shotgun for home defense, but besides showing my friends it, I'd prefer to never have to pull it out in the middle of the night.

...at least until I get a tact light for it xD
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#18 User is offline   Jguy 

  • Elite Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Elite
  • Member No.: 18261
  • Posts: 640
  • Joined: 09-May 08
  • Location:Batavia, IL

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:44 AM

One of my friends always has this "idea" or "theory". Remove all the gun ban, laws, etc and permit Concealed Carry state wide.

His reasoning: If you walk up and try to rob someone, how do you know that he/she doesn't have a concealed glock or .357 under their belt?

I don't particularly agree to this, especially the concealed carry thing. I believe that gun ownership is as much of a priviledge as it is a right. If you display that you are unfit to own a gun, either for personal home defense or sporting/hunting, then your right should be removed.

The FOID card system is a joke in IL, and all that it says is 'I have a gun.'. It doesn't say 'I am in the mental capacity to own a gun', or 'I am in the state of mind to own a gun', or 'I hunt, therefore I have a reason to own a gun'. Some people own a gun just for owning a gun. Showing it off, or just looking at it. they don't actually use it for even target practice.

If you own a gun for home/family protection, just pray that you'll never have to use it. Looking down the barrel of a glock AT someone isn't exactly the most plesent feeling in the world, and once you pull that trigger, it's likely you'll regret it for the rest of your life. Trust me, I've been in the situation of a home invader and had to use my fathers firearm to scare them away, and I hoped to whoever it is that I didn't have to be.

there's also the situation of kids in the home and the potential of them getting a hold of the gun. That holds you personally responsible if they got a hold of that gun, even if they don't use it. Remember folks, guns don't kill people, irresponsible people with guns kill people.

When I was about 7 years old (my dad has been a hunter since before I was born) my dad took me out shooting. Even with a 20 gauge shotgun, I fell over, it scared me, but quite honestly, I found guns pretty neat. Then, that was it, one shot and my dad sat me down and showed me what the more lethal ones could do. His 12 gauge shotgun at close range, 357 magnum, etc. and then showed me what to do and what not to do. He never kept the guns locked up. Ammunition? never. it was all there, unlocked and unloaded. Most of the ammo was hidden, but for the most part, I knew where the guns and some of the ammo for those guns were. I learned though, never to touch them without his supervision, and I learned gun safety laws at a very early age. As for guns & kids, it all comes with the responsibility of the parents. Feel like your child doesn't understand how dangerous a gun can be? Show them. then, lock them up if they still don't understand.

So in conclusion, you should be given the right and priviledge to own a firearm. Have people take a test to prove they're sane and mentally stable enough to own a firearm. If you prove that you're not mentally able to own a firearm, then that "right" (defined very looosely) should be revoked.
Go ahead and stop by my website: My Site

jguy@jguy:~$ apt-get cookie
apt-get: cookie not found
jguy@jguy:~$ apt-get cake
apt-get: cake not found[/font][/center]

#19 User is offline   mendokuse 

  • Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Veteran
  • Member No.: 3415
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09-December 04
  • Location:North of Chicago

Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:42 PM

View Postwrexness, on Mar 2 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

I get what you're trying to say, but you don't have the 'right' to own a car. XD A right is something very, very special, and car ownership doesn't qualify.

Well, it does qualify. The government can't withhold or limit the ownership of items without a good reason (for example women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive but they can own them). It's the reasoning that matters. It's nitpicky yes, but it is something people don't necessarily see. One way I personally am affected by right to ownership is reverse engineering. I like to take things I own apart. Yes, even the expensive stuff. I have a right to poke around and see how things work. So I'm incensed when companies try to limit it. I understand why they don't want you to, but I still a have a right to do so.

Honestly, the handgun ban is going to go down. The issue at hand is how the Supreme Court is through which lens will they bring it down. To explain:

The 2nd amendment says that we all have a right to bear arms. However, in 1883 the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not apply to state or local laws.

The 14th amendment lets certain provisions of the Bill of Rights be mandatory to state and local laws, but the 2nd amendment was not included. However, the 2nd amendment was somewhat let in when the Court ruled 2 years ago that the ban on handguns in D.C. was illegal. D.C. is federal land though, not state. So now, at least according to the transcripts and tone set by the judges, the ban will be ruled illegal, but they do seem to want stronger regulations.

Sources -
Supreme Court To Hear Chicago Gun Rights Case
Chicago Handgun Ban In Jeopardy At Supreme Court

#20 User is offline   wrexness 

  • Forum Abacus
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7901
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined: 06-September 06
  • Location:Bamboo Forest

Posted 03 March 2010 - 08:32 PM

If it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's not a right. If for some bizarre reason the government wanted to ban all tobacco sales, all it would have to do is simply pass a law. What's your defense as a citizen? None. It doesn't run counter to a right granted to you in the Constitution, so they don't have to go through the process of amending the Constitution to implement such a ban. This won't happen anytime soon (if ever) because any politician even thinking about such a ban would be committing political suicide (and possibly inviting death threats), but the point is there is nothing to prevent the government from doing so. It'd be no different from the ban on drugs, really. Possession of drugs is a crime, you don't have to use them. If the government wanted to make Christianity the official religion, they would HAVE to go through the Constitution to accomplish that goal. That's the difference between a right and a privilege.

As for the fourteenth amendment, no it hasn't been specifically expanded to include the entire Bill of Rights so no precedent has yet been set, but the thing with these amendments is that our interpretations constantly change (based on what "activist" judges do on the Supreme Court), but at that point you'd have to be able to predict to future to see how it will be applied. I do agree that it will probably expand the 14th amendment though.

This post has been edited by wrexness: 03 March 2010 - 08:45 PM

2012 Cosplay Plans - Fujiwara no Mokou (Touhou)
Visit my MAL and let me know you're from the forums~

#21 User is offline   sentinel28a 

  • Mad Irishman
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Obsessed
  • Member No.: 1435
  • Posts: 3,370
  • Joined: 13-January 04
  • Location:Montana, Land of the Weird

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:03 PM

Wrexness, that's not quite true. The 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination: therefore it is a right of the American people not to be discriminated against according to race. Otherwise, bring back the Jim Crow laws, because that is apparently only a "privledge."

The Founding Pops specifically included the ability to amend the Constitution to expand the rights of American citizens, or to curtail a government interfering with those rights, or to add, with the people's permission, powers to the government for the common good.

(And--not to hijack here--that's why I think if Obama's bent on passing universal health care, it should be done as a Constitutional amendment, which would be approved/disapproved by 2/3 of the states--i.e. the American people--rather than having to resort to byzantine and obscure parliamentary rules to get it passed. If you've got to resort to tricks to get something rammed through, then it's not a very good bill.)

Ben Da Mad Irishman
See my art. Love it. Hug it. http://sentinel28a.d...art.com/gallery
Read my fanfiction. NOW. You'll thank me later.
First Place, Yahoo ACen League, 2006
First Place, NFL.com Otaku Amefuto League, 2012

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
BEAR CAV!

#22 User is offline   wrexness 

  • Forum Abacus
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7901
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined: 06-September 06
  • Location:Bamboo Forest

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:17 PM

View Postsentinel28a, on Mar 3 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Wrexness, that's not quite true. The 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination: therefore it is a right of the American people not to be discriminated against according to race. Otherwise, bring back the Jim Crow laws, because that is apparently only a "privledge."

The Founding Pops specifically included the ability to amend the Constitution to expand the rights of American citizens, or to curtail a government interfering with those rights, or to add, with the people's permission, powers to the government for the common good.

Okay, you've got me there. I was mixing up my terms and considering all amendments in the Bill of Rights (which is indeed incorrect). Let me rephrase then: if it's not explicitly protected in the Constitution (or implicitly protected via Supreme Court decisions), then the government can go that route and institute a ban.

This post has been edited by wrexness: 03 March 2010 - 09:26 PM

2012 Cosplay Plans - Fujiwara no Mokou (Touhou)
Visit my MAL and let me know you're from the forums~

#23 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:19 PM

How about that 10th amendment on the bill of rights.

owait, we lost the civil war lolol.
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#24 User is offline   Mystline 

  • Ace
  • PipPip
  • Group: Ace
  • Member No.: 35204
  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28-July 09
  • Location:New Buffalo, Mi

Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:06 PM

While I do think the Second Amendment is a bit outdated for our time, they still should not ban guns from Chicago. I mean, I know good people who live in very bad neightborhoods who need guns to protect themselves. What if I guy breaks into her house? She needs the gun to protect herself!

#25 User is offline   sentinel28a 

  • Mad Irishman
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Obsessed
  • Member No.: 1435
  • Posts: 3,370
  • Joined: 13-January 04
  • Location:Montana, Land of the Weird

Posted 03 March 2010 - 11:59 PM

View PostAlkaren Hyralt, on Mar 4 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

How about that 10th amendment on the bill of rights.

owait, we lost the civil war lolol.


You're from Texas, right Alkaren?

Loser. HA HA!

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"We Pennsylvanians totally kicked your butt in the Wheatfield"
See my art. Love it. Hug it. http://sentinel28a.d...art.com/gallery
Read my fanfiction. NOW. You'll thank me later.
First Place, Yahoo ACen League, 2006
First Place, NFL.com Otaku Amefuto League, 2012

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
BEAR CAV!

#26 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:01 AM

Just a follow-up the Supreme Court has struck down Chicago's handgun ban today. Looks like I might consider the city after all :D

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T1
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

#27 User is offline   wrexness 

  • Forum Abacus
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 7901
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined: 06-September 06
  • Location:Bamboo Forest

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

I wondered how long it'd take you to bring that up. XD
2012 Cosplay Plans - Fujiwara no Mokou (Touhou)
Visit my MAL and let me know you're from the forums~

#28 User is offline   redx1 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Sage
  • Member No.: 20031
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Joined: 23-November 08
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:40 PM

King Mayor Daley just posted this on his youtube account.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaSczbCt-o[/media]

He's not too happy. I'm really curious of what the ordinance is going to be.

Zac? Wanna go shopping?
~~

#29 User is offline   mendokuse 

  • Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Veteran
  • Member No.: 3415
  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 09-December 04
  • Location:North of Chicago

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:03 PM

Wee! Been waiting for this one to go down. I have a couple friends who were waiting a bit more anxiously
Next up: Christian Legal Society vs. Hasting University. Either way, some good reading material!

#30 User is offline   Alkaren Hyralt 

  • Sage
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Member No.: 6130
  • Posts: 2,685
  • Joined: 31-January 06
  • Location:Standing at the crossroads of 'Law' & 'Order'

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:52 PM

View Postredx1, on 28 June 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

King Mayor Daley just posted this on his youtube account.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaSczbCt-o[/media]

He's not too happy. I'm really curious of what the ordinance is going to be.

Zac? Wanna go shopping?


That was amusing - good find.

Looks like Daley is just like "I'm unhappy with this because I'm the one who should have the guns to intimidate you all. But now it looks like my mobness is gonna have to figure something else out."
-Zac /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
ACen 2007 - Present - Forums Manager
ACen 2012 - Guest Relations Handlers DH
ACen 2010, 2011 - Guest Relations Operations ADH
ACen 2008, 2009 - Main Programming ADH
ACen 2006, 2007 - Main Programming Staff
Drunken Otaku Syndicate Member - "This is what happens when you give me vodka that tastes like water!"
Alcoholic Hunter X of the ROS Order
AIM: Alkaren Hyralt / Facebook: alkaren
Questions about forums registration or in general please e-mail us

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users