By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Victory for the Constitution... in Illinois?!

Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
I agree with this however I would like people carrying the guns to take a tests to decide whether or not they are mentally stable enough to do so.

Which goes to show just how uncontroversial gun ownership has become in the US.

Wasn't a fan of the OP article...

what I find interesting is that I believe this is essentially saying "Get a concelaed carry law up and running within 180 days, or anybody can carry any gun, because the right to bear arms outside of the house is a right."

Which i actually think is a new ruling.  Before gun rights being restricted to home ownership in rulings.


Very true the left really don't touch it much anymore. So the NRA and the right can chill out about " their taking our guns"! Really all I here from the left is to have a tests to be cleared to own a gun. Like a drivers license. I don't think questioning someones motives with a gun is a bad thing. Assault weapons is another story.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.

Self-defence is consistent with "only be used to injure people". Every other use can be applied for. It's not restricting anyone's right to possess a gun except for the purpose of wanting to kill people with it.

Nerve gas can presumably be used in self-defence as well.



Soleron said:

This is incredibly biased. Next time just state the ruling and outcome. If you care to put an opinion, do if afterwards and make clear it's your own.

"So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals."

"Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime."

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." Contradiction.

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?


--

Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed? Is the only valid interpretation of that language that i) EVERYONE, in a militia or not, can bear arms and ii) absolutely no controls can be imposed in it?

If the studies are inconclusive then maybe do some more studies on it?

The studies aren't really inconclusive.  It's just  a matter of what you define "protecting yourself."

 

Some studies show concealed carry greatly lowers crime rates, others don't.

 

The ones that don't require that a person be shot at, or otherwise assualted before pulling out a gun, for it to be considered stopping a crime.  If they don't... even if they say, walked towards you with a knife shouting they were going to stab you.... it doesn't count.

While the ones that say they do, require that a person feel "sufficently threatened" when they pulled out a gun and the attacker fled done through testing of their stressors when they talk about it.  Sometimes with the result being judged by people to whether or not there really was a crime.

 

So it really depends on which one of those methods you think is more valid.    The whole "inconclusive" thing was just to pay lipservice to the other studies which are out there, and state that it doesn't stop crime, even though i'm sure most people would find their methods... off...



badgenome said:
Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.

Nuclear weapons could be the ultimate weapon of self-defence. "Don't loiter in front of my diner or i'll kill every last one of us."

It's only defending his private property, after all.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

spaceguy said:

I agree with this however I would like people carrying the guns to take a tests to decide whether or not they are mentally stable enough to do so.

So basically if you want to carry a gun, you need to pass tests and be cleared to do so.

I propose the introduction of a USA-chant test. People who can maintain chanting "USA USA USA" for more than 5 minutes should be awarded the right to carry firearms, as they are intelligent, mentally healthy, patriotic, handsome, successful, wealthy and role models for our society.



Around the Network

Shooting just happened in florida mall.

EDIT: Sorry Near Portland, Oregon

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/person-opens-fire-mall-portland-ore-17938811



spaceguy said:
Shooting just happened in florida mall.


Well, if everybody in Florida had an AK-47, nobody would ever die from gunfire.



Love and tolerate.

Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.

Nuclear weapons could be the ultimate weapon of self-defence. "Don't loiter in front of my diner or i'll kill every last one of us."

It's only defending his private property, after all.


That's a rather pathetic argument. Gun is designed to fire a bullet which can harm or kill your target. Nuclear weapons are designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people, completely destroy cities and make areas uninhabitable for years...



Player1x3 said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

 

The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?

Really? I thought they were banned because they were weapons of mass destruction and not instruments of self defense.

Nuclear weapons could be the ultimate weapon of self-defence. "Don't loiter in front of my diner or i'll kill every last one of us."

It's only defending his private property, after all.


That's a rather pathetic argument. Gun is designed to fire a bullet which can harm or kill your target. Nuclear weapons are designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people, completely destroy cities and make areas uninhabitable for years...

It's not about using them. They're there to prevent crime.

Hey, it kept the Russians out for 50 years.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

I think the term "law-abiding citizens in Illinois" is an Oxymoron.