dmarc117 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06...-amendment.html WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on hand guns today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms." The 5-4 decision voids the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home. The ruling has both local and national implications. Edited June 28, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I guess NY will be next. I would like to see some statistics on who was caught with hand guns since this law. I will bet that laws like these only help the criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 I guess NY will be next. I would like to see some statistics on who was caught with hand guns since this law. I will bet that laws like these only help the criminal. i think that criminals will always be able to get their hands on weapons. this just kinda levels the playing field. gives the bad guys something to think about when they are casing a neighborhood. does that homeowner have a pistola or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Buncha activist judges trying to take away state's rights!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I find it amusing that some think gun rights are under threat in this country when it's pretty clear that they are at an all-time high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 I find it amusing that some think gun rights are under threat in this country when it's pretty clear that they are at an all-time high. live in chicago and not the sticks. maybe you will understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I find it amusing that some think gun rights are under threat in this country when it's pretty clear that they are at an all-time high. I question the truth of this statement. There are still a number of firearms that the general public is not allowed to own without special permits and permission. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, anyone could basically own any type of weapon they had the desire and the financial ability to purchase. It was not all that unusual for individuals to own cannon. Today we have a lot of restrictions. I'd like to see you try to own and fire a cannon on your own property without having special permits and see what happens. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you built a range on your own acreage and started firing fully automatic weapons. No, gun rights are not at all time high, they aren't even close. We are starting to head back in the right direction, but are still a long way from having our rights reaffirmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) I question the truth of this statement. There are still a number of firearms that the general public is not allowed to own without special permits and permission. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, anyone could basically own any type of weapon they had the desire and the financial ability to purchase. It was not all that unusual for individuals to own cannon. Today we have a lot of restrictions. I'd like to see you try to own and fire a cannon on your own property without having special permits and see what happens. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you built a range on your own acreage and started firing fully automatic weapons. No, gun rights are not at all time high, they aren't even close. We are starting to head back in the right direction, but are still a long way from having our rights reaffirmed. i def think that some firearms should be outlawed from public ownership. ummm, cannons? had a buddy in college call up the local range and ask the guy if he could bring a howitzer. the range guy was like, huh? a howitzer!! you cant fire one of those!!! Edited June 28, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 i def think that some firearms should be outlawed from public ownership. ummm, cannons? Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't that is neither hear nor there. I was just pointing out that the statement billay made was false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 The Gov can ban all they want, but they can't stop everyone from getting what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I question the truth of this statement. There are still a number of firearms that the general public is not allowed to own without special permits and permission. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, anyone could basically own any type of weapon they had the desire and the financial ability to purchase. It was not all that unusual for individuals to own cannon. Today we have a lot of restrictions. I'd like to see you try to own and fire a cannon on your own property without having special permits and see what happens. I'd like to see what would happen to you if you built a range on your own acreage and started firing fully automatic weapons. No, gun rights are not at all time high, they aren't even close. We are starting to head back in the right direction, but are still a long way from having our rights reaffirmed. Given that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states dates back to the 1890's, and the second amendment has only today been incorporated, I'll stand by my statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Given that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states dates back to the 1890's, and the second amendment has only today been incorporated, I'll stand by my statement. True of false, in the past citizens have been able to own and fire much more powerful weapons than they are now able to own and fire? Part of the reason the 2nd amendment is just now being incorporated is because stupid laws like the one in Chicago were not even contemplated early on in our history. It wasn't until we started moving further away from the original intent that cases like these had to be brought forward to protect rights. Just because the right has not been argued in court does not mean that it hasn't existed all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 True of false, in the past citizens have been able to own and fire much more powerful weapons than they are now able to own and fire? Part of the reason the 2nd amendment is just now being incorporated is because stupid laws like the one in Chicago were not even contemplated early on in our history. It wasn't until we started moving further away from the original intent that cases like these had to be brought forward to protect rights. Just because the right has not been argued in court does not mean that it hasn't existed all along. I'm talking about legal recognition. You're talking about something else. Given that most of the Bill of Rights has long since been incorporated, I think today's decision by the Supreme Court stands as a pretty definitive high water mark for gun rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Given that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states dates back to the 1890's, and the second amendment has only today been incorporated, I'll stand by my statement. so when you say you are amused that "some think gun rights are under threat in this country", you are talking about, like, as of 8 AM this morning? today's decision, and Heller a couple years ago, are definitely big victories for gun rights advocates. they are clearly winning ground in the courts. but a lot of local governments are also working harder than ever to restrict those rights. so there's still a lot to be said and done about the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 today's decision, and Heller a couple years ago, are definitely big victories for gun rights advocates. they are clearly winning ground in the courts. Clearly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Glad it got reversed. No reason why it should have been enacted in the first place, when criminals get guns from straw buyers in other states with regularity. Now Perch, I think you are off the deep end with having access to military-grade weaponry, but hey . . . good luck buying that Bradley! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Glad it got reversed. No reason why it should have been enacted in the first place, when criminals get guns from straw buyers in other states with regularity. Now Perch, I think you are off the deep end with having access to military-grade weaponry, but hey . . . good luck buying that Bradley! Never said I wanted to. I was merely pointing out that what billay said was not true, that in the past the average citizen could own military-grade weaponry. Personally I think automatic weapons are fun to shoot but I wouldn't want one as most are not all that accurate, and waste way too much lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 in the past the average citizen could own military-grade weaponry. I don't find your colonial-era references all that convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I don't find your colonial-era references all that convincing. seems like "all-time high" would encompass the colonial era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I don't find your colonial-era references all that convincing. Betcha you would if he had a cannon pointing at your house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 seems like "all-time high" would encompass the colonial era. Well, up until this morning, state and local governments could restrict an individuals second amendment rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Well, up until this morning, state and local governments could restrict an individuals second amendment rights. Pretty sure they can still do so with certain kinds of military weaponry which "technically" might abridge the second amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Pretty sure they can still do so with certain kinds of military weaponry which "technically" might abridge the second amendment. Apparently, they always could, but now, less so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Well, up until this morning, state and local governments could restrict an individuals second amendment rights. well up until relatively recently, they never really tried to. even with this ruling, there are a lot more restrictions on owning guns now than there were in the past. this really isn't even debateable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 well up until relatively recently, they never really tried to. even with this ruling, there are a lot more restrictions on owning guns now than there were in the past. this really isn't even debateable. Sure it is. "Doesn't bother to regulate" and "Doesn't have the power to regulate" is an important distction, one conservatives here have argued often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.