McDonald v. Chicago decision

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by FBM » Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:22 pm

Martok wrote:
FBM wrote:I didn't mean that every colonial was armed to the teeth from the moment s/he stepped off the ship, and I don't think anything I wrote merits that conclusion.
Oh yeah it did.
OK, I think I can see where this is leading, so I'll just post all my future replies now for future reference:


:argue:




;) j/k. But I've had this discussion too many times, and it's not even one of my faves. I've got homework to do, anyway. :td:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Martok » Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:37 pm

Jörmungandr wrote:
Martok wrote: Tyrants? What tyrants?? The closest tyrant we've had has been Bush. He trampled on the constitution every chance he got and gun nuts were more than satisfied with him.

I attended anti-war protests in DC, I voted for Kerry, I voted for Obama, I'm a "gun nut" (by the standards 'round here, it seems). Careful where you stick those generalizations, might get cut off when you're not looking. :dance:
Get cut off how? :what:

User avatar
Wumbologist
I want a do-over
Posts: 4720
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:04 pm
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Wumbologist » Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:43 pm

Martok wrote:
Jörmungandr wrote:
Martok wrote: Tyrants? What tyrants?? The closest tyrant we've had has been Bush. He trampled on the constitution every chance he got and gun nuts were more than satisfied with him.

I attended anti-war protests in DC, I voted for Kerry, I voted for Obama, I'm a "gun nut" (by the standards 'round here, it seems). Careful where you stick those generalizations, might get cut off when you're not looking. :dance:
Get cut off how? :what:

With like... a knife gun or something, I don't know. I didn't really think that one through too well.

Uh.... :dance:

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41070
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Svartalf » Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:26 pm

Martok wrote: Tyrants? What tyrants?? The closest tyrant we've had has been Bush. He trampled on the constitution every chance he got and gun nuts were more than satisfied with him.
Remember when another GOP tyrant trampled the constitution even worse than either bush did and laid waste to the whole nation for the purpose of depriving states of consdtitutional rights they wanted to use because his getting into the oval office was clear proof that the other states wanted to make their economic model untenable and drive them to ruin? or a honoverian tyrant that cause minutemen to rise?

Part of the reason why the American revolutionaries won was that they privately owned modern rifles and knew how to use them, as opposed to the lobsters being stuck with inferior brown bess muskets... that would not have been possible if weapon ownership restriction had been in place and well enforced, and the authors of the constitution recognized that, and made sure Americans would always have the legal right to equip and train themselves to defend their freedoms.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Wumbologist
I want a do-over
Posts: 4720
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:04 pm
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Wumbologist » Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:30 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Martok wrote: Tyrants? What tyrants?? The closest tyrant we've had has been Bush. He trampled on the constitution every chance he got and gun nuts were more than satisfied with him.
Remember when another GOP tyrant trampled the constitution even worse than either bush did and laid waste to the whole nation for the purpose of depriving states of consdtitutional rights they wanted to use because his getting into the oval office was clear proof that the other states wanted to make their economic model untenable and drive them to ruin? or a honoverian tyrant that cause minutemen to rise?

Part of the reason why the American revolutionaries won was that they privately owned modern rifles and knew how to use them, as opposed to the lobsters being stuck with inferior brown bess muskets... that would not have been possible if weapon ownership restriction had been in place and well enforced, and the authors of the constitution recognized that, and made sure Americans would always have the legal right to equip and train themselves to defend their freedoms.
The Battles of Lexington & Concord, the first military engagements of the Revolutionary War, began when British soldiers attempted to confiscate militia weapons stored in Concord.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74206
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by JimC » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:41 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
JimC wrote:
Feck wrote:
Jörmungandr wrote:
Feck wrote: Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?
It shouldn't be hard if you're competent with a firearm. If you can't handle basic firearm safety and can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside, it should be impossible.
I think that you should Prove you have a legitimate use ,reason and safe place to fire a firearm .Not up to the police to prove you should not be allowed one .

I should be able to join a gun club and fire almost any fire arm I want as long as they are kept securely at the club .....I should not be allowed a hand gun in my bedside table or a .338 on my wall without having legitimate access to deer stalking .
That is basically the position in Australia, and one I agree with. I used to own a variety of rifles and shotguns, and hunted (only introduced animals like rabbits and foxes). I sold them years ago given deteriorating eyesight (rather sensibly, I think... ;) ), but I enjoyed shooting, so I am by no means anti-gun. I had a license, and my guns were registered.

My father was a competition standard pistol shooter in his day, but it was all via his gun club... (Mind you, in the war years he used to put on a show of shooting out a fellow officer's lit cigarrette with a .22 target pistol at 20 paces, until the brass put a stop to it... :hehe: )
That is anathema to the American concept of justice. We are loathe to have to prove things to the police in order to continue behaving lawfully.

Everyone has a "legitimate use" for a firearm anyway: (a) I might go hunting one day (why should I have to live right near where deer can be shot? Can't I travel to the country?), (b) I want a gun for home defense, (c) I target shoot or may take up target shooting, (d) I may be put in a situation where I need to handle a weapon and want to be skilled at using it if that should happen, (e) I am a collector and probably many other "legitimate reasons."

It's not up to the police to prove that you have a legitimate use for a firearm. It's up to the police to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime. If you haven't committed a crime, then the police should leave you the fuck alone.

Similarly, everyone has a place to fire a firearm. If one lives in an apartment, one can take one's gun to a gun range or an open field in an area where firing weapons is not restricted.
Well, Feck and I were talking about the systems of gun controls in Britain and Australia, which we basically support. It may be a little looser in Oz, since, if you pass the usual criminal checks, you are allowed to have as many bolt or lever action rifles as you wish, as long as they are stored in a locked cabinet. Semi-automatic weapons have much tougher restrictions; farmers can usually obtain a permit for one, but other people would have to demonstrate a need.

It is the comparative absence of hand guns in the public arena that I am most happy about. Sure, criminals can get them (but even for them, it is not easy - local punks will not usually be able to get one), but there are fewer chances of home accidents or domestic "incidents". People who really love target shooting with pistols can do so, they simply join a gun club and store their weapons securely there.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Martok » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:56 pm

Svartalf wrote: Remember when another GOP tyrant trampled the constitution even worse than either bush did
Ronald Reagan was a terrible president but he wasn't as bad as Bush.
Part of the reason why the American revolutionaries won was that they privately owned modern rifles and knew how to use them, as opposed to the lobsters being stuck with inferior brown bess muskets... that would not have been possible if weapon ownership restriction had been in place and well enforced, and the authors of the constitution recognized that, and made sure Americans would always have the legal right to equip and train themselves to defend their freedoms.
American revolutionaries won because they had France as an ally. Without French aid the queen's image, and not Washington's, would be on the dollar bill right now.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41070
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Svartalf » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:09 pm

Actually, I referred to lincoln, though I do agree that reagan was a most terrible president.

And it's funny, but if I believe our version of your revolutionary war, the help provided by Lafayette and the likes of Beaumarchais is largely overestimated, not the other way.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Martok
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 am
Contact:

Re: McDonald v. Chicago decision

Post by Martok » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:39 pm

Svartalf wrote:Actually, I referred to lincoln,.
Yes I know
And it's funny, but if I believe our version of your revolutionary war, the help provided by Lafayette and the likes of Beaumarchais is largely overestimated, not the other way.
It was hardly overestimated. There was a reason why Benjamen Franklin spent a lot of time wooing the French: The American Revolutionaries needed them.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests