Chicago Gun Ban Challenged by Supreme Court...
I thought this was rather interesting. What might this mean for our city? I moved here form Minneapolis three years ago. A year before my move, Minneapolis had passed legislation allowing Conceal and Carry permits for registered hand gun owners. Some argue that similar laws decrease crime while others say it will increase. Local Minneapolis business owners reacted very thoughtfully by not allowing guns in their establishments sending a strong message of non-support for the bill. I would imagine that a similar reaction will occur here if a similar bill passes.
The original Chicago Gun Ban is being challenged because of the Second Amendment, however, a different type of regulation will surely replace the city wide ban. Most likely a bill similar to one in Minneapolis.
I am not a gun owner, nor do I wish to be at this time. If I were to own a gun I would keep it at a gun range in a gun locker. I would support a bill that allowed registered owners to carry a gun but only if it did not include a conceal clause. I feel that if you really feel the need to carry a gun you should have to advertise the fact openly. I feel that this would have a deeper impact on crime out of the possible options for a similar bill. I would prefer that guns did not exist and I feel strongly that Police should not carry guns either. Just curious about what others think and feel about this topic.
Here is an article in the New York Times:
Views: 428
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on
-
Well, what I think people should do is sort of immaterial, since I'm not going to control what people actually do. I don't think civilians should own guns. But so what? I'm entitled to feel that way, you are entitled to disagree, and it doesn't have to go further than that.
Craig S. said:Nice argument, Heather.
I'm sorry, I was getting the feeling from your earlier statements that because you are personally against owning firearms, that other people should not own them at all. That is a position that is all too common on a lot of issues.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Marty A. on
-
This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
So what is the right word then? And my mistake on quoting the entire reply. I just meant to quote the gun-related portion.
heather stratton said:Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
"So the people owning the gun aren't necessarily unethical, yet the people owning the gun are unethical for owning the gun? Tank be confused, please help him out."
"Unethical" was perhaps the wrong word. I have a personal opposition to guns, but I can understand why people choose to own them and I don't think people who own guns are bad.
Regarding the abortion rights and free speech arguments: come on. I am not seeking to take anyone's rights away. I am not about to argue against gun rights in front of the Supreme Court. Clearly, I would lose. People can be opposed to abortion rights all they want. If someone believed that the 1st Amendment or due process clause was antiquated and misinterpreted, fine. They wouldn't get anywhere with those arguments. It's just an opinion.
"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." That is a vague statement. It's not irrational to have a disagreement about what it means or how it's applicable to our society today.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
I told you that was a secret; see if I ever invite you over for 'special fun time' again.
Marty A. said:This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
-
-
I think that needs a separate thread. It could get quite feisty.
Marty A. said:This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
-
-
Doug
I still shudder when I hear moans that resemble "the gimp" . . . . and when I smell peanut butter . . .
-
-
Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
-
Permalink Reply by Davo on
-
To paraphrase George Carlin: We don't have rights we have privileges
Also I find irony in (and I generalize) That most people that support the "right to bear arms" are also the ones who strongly dislike the overstretching hand of big Government.
This supreme court ruling basicly took the "right" from local governments to determine for themselves how to handle this touchy issue by imposing Federal Law.
Now I agree that the gun ban did little to combat violence (cuz criminals will do criminal things)
I just think that people localy should be able to decide their fate.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
Heather, you're conflating two completely different principles in your statement. The Constitution is not comparable to the Clean Water Act, the Defense of Marriage Act or any other legislation you can name, but it is rather the litmus for whether or not said legislation is in violation of our fundamental rights. Many people seem to be confused about this, not just yourself.
heather stratton said:Guess we'll just have to disagree. I really don't think my stance is hypocritical. Can I not appreciate the Clean Water Act but think the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong? So why can't I appreciate the first Amendment but think we should reevaluate the second? You said yourself that the Constitution is a fluid document, and we all know that it was flawed from the beginning. It has been re-interpreted and changed plenty of times.
Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Even if it were to come up, re-interpreting one amendment of the Constitution is not going to lead to taking ALL of our rights away. Chicago had a handgun ban for a long time, and our other Constitutional rights were not affected by that, as far as I know.
notoriousDUG said:Here is why:
If you want rights you feel are important protected by a document you have to be willing to allow it to protect rights you do not agree with.
Once you start picking and choosing the parts of something you want to protect and adhere to you have started down the slippery slope that takes ALL of our rights away.
heather stratton said:"It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it."
I don't see why. There are other laws I disagree with. Why should I pretend that the Constitution is perfect or above criticism?
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
