1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Chicago Tribune Heller response.....

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Brian in Oregon, Jul 4, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Enemies of freedom and rights will not stop - ever.<br>
    <br>
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,2350076.story<br>
    <br>
    Repeal the 2nd Amendment<br>
    <br>
    June 27, 2008<br>
    <br>
    No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.<br>
    <br>
    The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.<br>
    <br>
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<br>
    <br>
    If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.<br>
    <br>
    On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.<br>
    <br>
    In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.<br>
    <br>
    The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms."<br>
    <br>
    But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.<br>
    <br>
    They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."<br>
    <br>
    •••<br>
    <br>
    It's a relief that the majority didn't go further in its policymaking on gun control.<br>
    <br>
    The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago's 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.<br>
    <br>
    The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous."<br>
    <br>
    Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.<br>
    <br>
    We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don't have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that's prohibited within the city.<br>
    <br>
    But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.<br>
    <br>
    Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.<br>
    <br>
    •••<br>
    <br>
    Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.<br>
    <br>
    Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it's an anachronism.<br>
    <br>
    We won't repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.<br>
    <br>
    Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, "forget about it."
     
  2. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    What do you expect from a commie pinko like him!
     
  3. SARGE75X

    SARGE75X Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    648
    Give him 16 weeks at Paris Island or Ft Benning then ship him to some third world cess pool for a couple of years and then see if he still has the same opinion.
     
  4. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    If one can believe the Hollywood version of the wild west where Wyatt Earp enforced a no carry gun bylaw in Dodge (eg.- Burt Lancastger in Gunfight at OK Corral, one of may favourites!} did that make Earp and the townspeople who hired Earp pinko commmies?

    I'll admit I'm being a little sarcastic. I'm open to facts (eg. gun bylaw in Dodge wasn't true) or arguments that can reconcile what looked like good public policy at that time to control guns when the cowboys came into town after a cattle drive versus the situation of a handgun ban in DC we discussing now.
     
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The DC law banned handguns and functional long arms EVEN INSIDE ONE'S HOME, thus rendering them useless for self-defense. You're comparing apples to oranges.<br>
    <br>
    As for concealed carry, I believe laws that prohibit it are unconstitutional. I also feel that permits are a prior restraint on a right. But, I'll take getting my rights back a step at a time if that's what it takes.<br>
    <br>
    But since you bring up the banning of carrying arms in the old west in some towns, let's examine that a bit more. It mainly applied to drifters, cowboys, saddle bums, miners, and others of a transient lifestyle. They were free to carry their guns into town, but they had to surrender them to the sheriff/marshal, or to the barkeep. No one took away their right to own a gun. Chicago, Washington DC and Morton Grove, among others, decided no one could own a handgun. Storekeepers, bank clerks and others in these old west towns were still able to carry arms, though they would do so discreetly and it was a given that the law did not apply to them because they were known, upstanding citizens. The current CCW permit scheme is an extension of this.<br>
    <br>
    Another thing about the old west is that it was a given that a citizen had the right to defend himself against thugs and robbers. Today, many of these ultra-liberal urban areas have decided no one has the right of self-defense. So the citizens must now dial 911 and wait for the police to arrive. How are they going to do that while being robbed at gunpoint or knife point? And then how many minutes before the police arrive? And this assumes spaced out meth heads with no empathy for anyone won't arbitrarily shoot or stab them anyway. At least with arms they would have a fighting chance. Going a step further, liberal society has decided that it is preferable for a woman to be raped than for a woman to defend herself with a handgun. You'd think women's rights groups would be outraged by this, but it conflicts with their liberal party line.<br>
    <br>
     
  6. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Thank you, Brian, for that clarification.

    Agree selective enforcement of no carry in old west is quite different from DC prohibition of ownership in home.

    I like your analogy of CCW permits to rights for upright citizens in old west to bear arms. Nice.

    Shouldn't there be laws regulating concealed carry?

    Wasn't the old west selective CCW simply making reasonable laws regulating the exercise of a constitutional right? If it makes sense to not let drifters and people who appear to be bad folk to carry (in spite of potentially unconstitutional profiling?) wouldn't it still make sense today? Even Scalia said 2A is not an "unlimited right". Its regulation will have to be sorted out by the states/cities and courts.

    There are laws to regulate driving and car ownership, which can be as dangerous a tool as a firearm, so isn't it common sense to regulate CCW or even gun ownership/use period?

    Your last comments about self defence - isn't it a sad comment on American society when a gun is necessary (I'm not necessarily disputing this) for one to reasonably defend oneself.

    Ccompare USA's homicide rate to other countries with lower crime rates, where populace doesn't need to resort to gun ownership to feel and be safe.

    What has happened to USA? Or maybe the violence that supports the argument for guns is the survival of the old wild west mentality into contemporary life.

    Is this be a lamentable situation? Or do people celebrate it as an American value and freedom to live such a life style, to be able to respond to a violent threat with a gun?

    Comments to explore this further are welcome. Just asking about what I don't understand and trying to learn.
     
  7. bocephus

    bocephus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    527
    sgb, where is the homicide rate lower? please explain....
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    "Shouldn't there be laws regulating concealed carry?"<br>
    <br>
    The best answer to this is concealed carry in Vermont. As long as you are a law abiding citizen, you can carry a concealed handgun with no permit. Vermont has been this way for a long time, and has not had any serious problems.<br>
    <br>
    The problem with concealed carry permits is that it is an infringement on a right. From a logical standpoint this law only affects the law abiding, not the criminal. Criminals do not bother with permits. Nor are they required to. In fact, where there is gun registration, the US Supreme Court has ruled requiring a criminal to register his firearms is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights. Why should criminals not have to do something that law abiding are forced to do? Another more serious problem is that concealed carry permits are used as a means to prevent ordinary law abiding citizens from obtaining one, while the rich or well connected can get them. This is why it is so important to make sure when permits are required that it is on a "shall issue" basis. This means the sheriff MUST issue the permit UNLESS he can PROVE you are a menace and should not have one.<br>
    <br>
    Until the day comes when we can turn around anti-gun laws and have true Vermont style carry universally everywhere, the next best thing is "shall issue" permits.<br>
    <br>
    As for cars, a lot of people compare driving to Second Amendment rights. Well, let me put it this way. If cars were treated like guns are in some restrictive areas, you have to:<br>
    <br>
    Fill out a lot of paperwork, be fingerprinted, have a background check done, and have a waiting period to get your car.<br>
    <br>
    You could not sell a car privately. You'd have to transfer it through a car dealer.<br>
    <br>
    You could not advertise some cars, like sports cars, in your local newspaper.<br>
    <br>
    Many common and cosmetic features on cars and trucks would be banned. For example, no "aggressive" items like spoilers and racing stripes.<br>
    <br>
    Your vehicle could only be painted black.<br>
    <br>
    You could not have a gas tank of more than 5 gallons.<br>
    <br>
    Mufflers would be banned in many states, and in others you'd have to pay a $200 tax on them.<br>
    <br>
    Fully automatic transmissions would be outlawed.<br>
    <br>
    You'd have to write and get written permission from the federal government before you could drive your car over a state line.<br>
    <br>
    You could not drive your car in certain states, counties and cities.<br>
    <br>
    Instead of being subject to a couple hundred traffic laws, you'd have to comply with over 22,000.<br>
    <br>
    In some areas, only the rich and well connected could own a car.<br>
    <br>
    In other areas, you could only own a car if you keep it in the garage, and even then it would have to be locked up and rendered inoperable.<br>
    <br>
    Some localities would require identification and background checks before you could buy gasoline.<br>
    <br>
    I could go on with this ad infinitum ad nauseum, but the gist is, there just isn't any way to fairly compared the privilege of owning and driving a car with the right of gun ownership.<br>
    <br>
    Your last question seems to indicate that you do not understand why we have firearms for self-defense. No sane person wants to kill another person. Even a criminal. But, violence is fully justified when a criminal tries to take your life or threatens grievous bodily harm. This is a direct realization that the police are basicialy a reactionary force. They react AFTER the crime and then try to solve it. This may be OK for a society that treats its citizens like subjects and feels it is OK to lose a few to criminals rather than see the rest armed. But in America, our Founding Fathers put the individual ahead of the state. We have the right to defend ourselves because we are citizens (freemen), not subjects (serfs). Indeed, the penalty for self-defense in some countries is harsh because a citizen killing a criminal has just killed state property. This is because the people are property of the state.<br>
    <br>
    As for the homicide rates here, they actually have less to do with gun ownership than they do with ineffective law enforcement and criminal control. Witness Britain. Guns are all but banned there, and the result is an explosion in crimes committed with knives. To the point where knife control has come about, including bans on ordinary kitchen knives and urging people to turn in knives.<br>
    <br>
    I'm curious as to where you live, since you seem to be unfamiliar with our Second Amendment customs.
     
  9. superxjeff

    superxjeff Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,781
    sgb.1100 Has two posts on trapshooters.com and both are on this thread. If you think the other side doesn't troll here you haven't been paying attention. Don't feed the troll Brian. I think you took this one all the way to the belly! Jeff
     
  10. AJKohler

    AJKohler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    330
    A couple of points that people ignore in the comparison between guns and automobiles.

    First, while we do license drivers, there is a presumption that you are entitled to a license. The people making the comparison would not make that the case with firearms; they want to be able to set all sorts of restrictions on getting such a license. Imagine having to be fingerprinted to get a driver's license!

    Second, ANYONE can buy a car. If you're six years old, you can buy it. You may have trouble getting it home, and you can't (yourself) drive it off of your own property, but nobody is going to say you cannot own it. And you can own whatever car you can afford, even if you can't drive it legally on the roads. By that sort of comparison, fully-automatic weapons should be freely and readily available again.

    Finally, of course, I defy anyone to find a reference to automobiles in the Constitution - of course. But I wouldn't be too upset if someone wanted to put that comparison into practice. The people who fall back on that comparison do so to weaken our position, not because they would really accept treating firearms like cars. They would refuse to do so if pushed.

    The idea of having to get a license to exercise a right is, at best, offensive. When government must issue a license before you can do something, it is not a right, it is a privilege. Even with 'shall issue' laws, which are certainly an improvement over 'may issue,' there is always the question of whether the law will remain that way. What government gives, government can take away. If it is a right, rather than a privilege, then the concept of requiring government permission is at best oxymoronic.

    Tony
     
  11. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    AJKohler you said "If it is a right, rather than a privilege, then the concept of requiring government permission is at best oxymoronic." very true unless you are a gun grabber and then it is common sense.

    sgb.1100 asked "There are laws to regulate driving and car ownership, which can be as dangerous a tool as a firearm, so isn't it common sense to regulate CCW or even gun ownership/use period?

    Gun ownership is a right not a privilege. the 1st amendment is as dangerous a tool as a gun yet their are no regulations on this right that are not just plain common sense.

    "isn't it a sad comment on American society when a gun is necessary (I'm not necessarily disputing this) for one to reasonably defend oneself."

    next time you see a call being made to the police on 911(a emergency number)time how long it takes for them to respond and ask yourself if it were a criminal with the capabilities of taking your or your families lives would you like to fore go the luxuries(as some see it) of having a gun just to make a statement on how sad society is?

    Ccompare USA's homicide rate to other countries with lower crime rates, where populace doesn't need to resort to gun ownership to feel and be safe.

    Please remember in other countries when a police officer tell a perp to stop or he will shoot they usually repeat to warning 1 time and then shoot. In this country when a perp is told to stop or get out of the car they comply when they get ready or when the officers physically make them do so. because if they shoot they and the cities/towns/states are sued no one is held responsible for their own actions.

    You said "Comments to explore this further are welcome. Just asking about what I don't understand and trying to learn" please tell us what part of taking responsibility for your own safety don't you understand. If you are denied or restricted from this basic(secondly important)RIGHT has the government that has imposed that restriction not in violation of the Law of the Land?

    The restrictions imposed on the Second Amendment are not about violence or public safety. They are about control of the citizens of this country without guns in the peoples hands all that would exist would be a police state. Nazi Germany started out as a police state.

    Bob Lawless
     
  12. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Thank you for your replies.
    OK, so gun ownership is a constitutional right, with the preferred effect that no citizen should have to go through hoops or hurdles (like age requirements, licenses, or competency tests for auto ownership and driving rights which are a privilege) as that would be tantamount to denial of 2A rights or could result in potential abuse by the state to deny its citizens gun ownership - so better to err on freedom to bear arms and not have any restrictions. If undesirables like criminals, convicted felons or mentally incompetent or deranged people get a gun exercising their 2A rights then the way to deal with a threat from undesirables is since everyone has a right to a gun (the “equalizer”) and self protection is their own responsibility since the police in spite of best efforts can’t be everywhere, then one should exercise their rights to acquire a gun and use it, as reasonably necessary, to defend against any threat from undesirables. Is that right?
     
  13. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    sgb.1100, quote: ".....If undesirables like criminals, convicted felons or mentally incompetent or deranged people get a gun exercising their 2A rights......"<br>
    <br>
    Under the recent Keller decision, the Supreme Court said that these people do not have a Second Amendment right to own guns. Care to rephrase your question?
     
  14. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    Brian, You are probably wasting your time trying to enter into a reasonable debate with a liberal trool. I think SuperXJeff has this guy nailed. Since he or she is a liberal and does not believe in moral absolutes,you probably won't get anywhere trying debate them. My Grandfather told me there are 2 things you simply CAN'T do "reason with a rattlesnake and make a deal with the devil"! Eentually they will go back to whatever liberal blog they hang out at and leave the gunnies alone (at least for awhile). Anybody want to wager who sgb.1100 will be voting for in NOV????
     
  15. spitter

    spitter Well-Known Member TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,364
    Location:
    Prairie State
    Lets step back for a moment...

    Most of the regulation on firearms is income producing legislation... Yes presently there is some prohibition on CCW and firearms in certain locations - government building, schools etc...

    Some clarification (from my perspective)...

    SCOTUS better clarified what the predominant opinion in US the has been... firearms are an individual right - there was never an opinion offered previously that conferred state rights.

    If you really look at firearm access, our system is very open... even in Illinois, you can buy just about anything with little or no wait (yes, its relative)

    We sell guns to people everyday without education, training or licensing. We do require drivers to take driver's ed and pass regular tests, have insurance etc... most states now require hunter's education - is that now an issue?

    My grandson owns some beautiful firearms, he just doesn't know it yet. When he gets his FOID, he can possess, but can't buy ammo until he's 18... Can he own my Ford Explorer, yes, but he can't buy one - doesn't have the contractual capacity until he's 18.

    In Illinois, we don't have CCW, but we can carry a pistol in a fanny pack around the waist or within a zippered backpack - that says "concealed" to me.

    The courts have held Police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. The Declaration of Independence declares it is our right and duty to overthrow onerous government... and you can't yell "fire" in movie theatres.

    There is no democracy. Our ancestors chose to accept a republican-form of government, which by its very nature, lessens individual freedoms. Our system will never be truly "free" of encumberances... so we deal with that the best we can.

    Jay Spitz
     
  16. IM390

    IM390 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    213
    In all the amendments to the Constitution, "The Right of the People...." has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court as declarations of individual freedoms. Mr Stevens why is it, in your opinion, that the 2nd amendment is vastly different from all the other amendments?
     
  17. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    thank you clarifying about the Keller decision, I didn't know about it. I had assumed wrongly, that no one was disqualified for 2A rights.

    I rephrased the question and tried to show the changes with bolding and strike out using Word, but could not so you'll have to manually compare with the old version. Here it is:

    Gun ownership is a constitutional right, with the preferred effect that no citizen (except undesirables like criminals, convicted felons or mentally incompetent or deranged people who have no 2A rights - Keller) should have to go through hoops or hurdles (like age requirements, licenses, or competency tests for auto ownership and driving rights which are a privilege) as that would be tantamount to denial of 2A rights or could result in potential abuse by the state to deny its citizens gun ownership - so better to err on freedom to bear arms and not have any restrictions except for those in the Keller decision. If a citizen receives a threat from anyone, whether an undesirable or not, with or without a gun (obtained under 2A or illegally) and since everyone has a right to a gun (the “equalizer”) and self protection is their own responsibility since the police in spite of best efforts can’t be everywhere, then one can exercise their rights to acquire a gun and use it, as reasonably necessary, to defend against any threat from undesirables. Is that right?
     
  18. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    sgb.100, are you simply asking if we have the right to use a firearm in self-defense?<br>
    <br>
    Slide Action, yeah, you and Jeff are probably right, but I think this also helps educate gunowners as well, which is why I will attempt to answer these questions, assuming they don't go off the deep end.
     
  19. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Brian
    After trying to make a simple legal analysis, rather than 150+ of Heller, yes it seems my question boils down to the right to use guns which is of course, yes - a right which exists and which I don't dispute. Maybe I sidetracked myself on that one. Issue at start was really was extent of regulation of the right to bear arms (Earp analogy), that's the dilemma. We can trade logical and legal arguments back and forth (most of it already done as between the majority and dissenting opinions in Heller) if this thread continues but ultimately it'll be settled by nine judges (some of them new ones) making a political decision cloaked in legalese.

    jcl
    I can't resist taking the "bait to the belly" from jcl who says:

    "defending yourself and your family is a 'GOD' given right. That supersedes ALL laws."

    Respectfully - what's GOD got to do with a right of self defense? Which god? Is the right different for those believing in another god or gods? What about atheists? If they have no god do they also have a right? If yes, is it obtained without a god? If it must be based on a right from god, is it obtained just from your god? Or is it obtained collectively from all or some of the gods that people believe in now in the world or do we also include some or all of the forgotten pagan gods too?
    Maybe this should be a new thread.
     
  20. superxjeff

    superxjeff Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,781
    I rest my case. Jeff
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.