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: 504

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by heather s on July 1, 2010 at 1:51am
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 Craig S. on July 1, 2010 at 2:05am
Wow, MattBikes1, I'm an ignorant asshole? I haven't resorted to any personal attacks towards you at all, yet this is what you resort to, simply because I feel no compelling reason to justify anything at all to you and you've not given me one other than you'll have a tantrum if you don't get it?

Regarding that I need to be a "responsible and accountable person if I am going to live in society", I wouldn't disagree with this at all and it can be attributed to everyone in society, but for you to judge people that you've never met in person nor have ever spoken to beyond the anonymity of the internet reeks of superiority and arrogance.

"So fucking grow up" That's really rich, Matt, and it smacks of the same type of reaction my children give me when they don't get what they want.

By the way, you quoted me improperly, I don't believe I ever wrote "I don't need no reason....", you may not believe it but I have better grammar skills than this, thank you.

I'm done and once again I'm caught in a discussion that has nothing to do with drinking. Gabe, you can bitch-slap me next time you see me!

mattbikes1 said:
If you were to say, and I think you pretty much did, that you want to own a gun because it makes you feel less helpless, more powerful, bad-ass, or even because you like the way they work, then yes I would not question you. Those are honest answers. However, you come across a some kind of ignorant asshole that seems to be enamored by gun culture when you respond, "I don't need no reason and I don't have to justify my behavior to others" even though by participating in an online forum you are admitting that you are a willing participant in society to some extent. I am concerned about the ethics of this matter and to me ethics is about how we act when we have to live with and around other people. You have a responsibility to be a responsible and accountable person if you are going to live in society. So fucking grow up!
Craig S. said:
How is it reasonable that you expect me or anyone else to justify actions to you? Would you accept, "Because I want them." as a reasonable explanation? I kind of doubt it considering your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps you have things in your abode and beliefs that you should justify to me?

I don't really find my reply defensive at all, sorry that you do. Excellent post by Jami by the way.

It's an incendiary issue to be sure and one certainly not to be solved here. I think it's a shame that there are firearms, period. But the sad reality is they do exist in vast numbers and it is a constitutional right to own them, no matter how people cling to the "vagueness" of the Constitution, and while it's legal to own them, I'm going to own as many as I can, maybe. No one will know unless they invade my home.

Rather than hide behind a cocoon of ignorance and an air of superiority, use Jami as an example and cure the ignorance if you've never handled firearms before. If you do have an aversion to firearms, that's your prerogative and I sure as hell will not judge you for it but at the same time, to demand that no one own firearms based upon a personal belief, as some people would have it, is no different than censorship. How do you feel about being censored?

Working on a way to conceal carry a Barritt .50 and still ride a bike comfortably....

Cocktails ahoy!

mattbikes1 said:
It is a reasonable set of questions and judging by how defensive you are about answering I will assume that you have no answer other than the fact that you are guaranteed the right via the 2nd Amendment. If you are going to participate in a discussion, I think it is fair that you discuss. Am I being unreasonable?

Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by mike w. on July 1, 2010 at 2:13am
Maybe it's time to kill this discussion -before any participants try to kill each other? Just sayin'...
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 1, 2010 at 2:38am
I would rather have them stealing registered guns that will be reported then unregistered ones that the owners are scared to report stolen because they are illegal firearms.

Read how I think gun ownership should be and you'll see why it can work so much better then it does. Gun owners can have guns and be forced to be responsible and you still retain the ability to get an extra charge on a criminal with a unregistered hand gun.

mattbikes1 said:
I do not fear the use of guns by trained gun users. The issue is that there may soon be a law on the books that allows anyone that can secure a gun license, legally, to own a gun and have it their home.

I have no problem with this right. The point I am trying to make and the point that is being avoided from an answer to my question is this: If you own a gun legally and you are a responsible gun owner, is it not assumed that when you are not using your gun or not at home you would, as a responsible gun owner, keep your gun in a safe, use a barrel lock, or at least keep your gun unloaded? If you are concerned about a home invasion and you own a gun, what is to stop a home invader from breaking into your home, when you are not at home, from stealing your loaded, accessible, and registered gun from you if you do otherwise? That just makes more guns available to criminals and criminal activity. If you are a gun owner and you are concerned about a home invasion, what is the likelihood that you will be ready and waiting for a home invasion where you will brandish your gun to detour, prevent, or retard said invasion? Lastly, if you had to use you gun to take another person's life, can you really anticipate or appreciate the mental distress of dealing with having taken another's life? This is the meat of what I am getting at and so far no person has even come close to addressing these concerns.

Again, I am only curious to what replies might come from the pro-gun side of this discussion.

Michael Perz said:
I actually have a question for you. Why do you seem to be so afraid of guns? In terms of physical trauma, I'm far more terrified of being stabbed than being shot.


mattbikes1 said:
Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.

Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?
Permalink Reply by heather s on July 1, 2010 at 2:57am
"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?

notoriousDUG said:
Did I say I questioned them? No.
Are you missing my point or just choosing to ignore it?
You stated that it is legal per our constitution to own a gun but are morally opposed to it; good for you don't buy a gun and encourage others not to but for you to openly not care about the right granted in the constitution is not only ignorant but shortsighted. When the right to do something you care about comes up and the way to protect or obtain that right becomes an issue of constitutional rights you have, at that point, lost the right to turn to the constitution for the protection of those rights. 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 wish I had a good example but I'm pretty pro-freedom so there is nothing I can say I don't agree with which the constitution protects but I think you understand my point.

According to a radio piece I heard this morning there are a lot of similarities in the argument against the gun ban and the argument against a ban on abortions. Now, I agree abortion should be legal but a lot of people don't, in fact a lot of them are the same people who love guns, and if they are not able to use the constitution to protect that right why is it OK for it to be used to protect the right of a woman to choose other then your ethical opinions? If you want your rights protected you have to allow those who disagree with you to protect their rights as well.

That all said the constitution was meant to be a fluid document and if you, and others, disagree with the second amendment rather then try to take away a right granted by that document and lobby to change that document in a manner that removes that right but still allows the protection of the other rights that you feel need to be protected?

Permalink Reply by Craig S. on July 1, 2010 at 3:05am
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.

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 July 1, 2010 at 3:20am
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?

notoriousDUG said:
Did I say I questioned them? No.
Are you missing my point or just choosing to ignore it?
You stated that it is legal per our constitution to own a gun but are morally opposed to it; good for you don't buy a gun and encourage others not to but for you to openly not care about the right granted in the constitution is not only ignorant but shortsighted. When the right to do something you care about comes up and the way to protect or obtain that right becomes an issue of constitutional rights you have, at that point, lost the right to turn to the constitution for the protection of those rights. 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 wish I had a good example but I'm pretty pro-freedom so there is nothing I can say I don't agree with which the constitution protects but I think you understand my point.

According to a radio piece I heard this morning there are a lot of similarities in the argument against the gun ban and the argument against a ban on abortions. Now, I agree abortion should be legal but a lot of people don't, in fact a lot of them are the same people who love guns, and if they are not able to use the constitution to protect that right why is it OK for it to be used to protect the right of a woman to choose other then your ethical opinions? If you want your rights protected you have to allow those who disagree with you to protect their rights as well.

That all said the constitution was meant to be a fluid document and if you, and others, disagree with the second amendment rather then try to take away a right granted by that document and lobby to change that document in a manner that removes that right but still allows the protection of the other rights that you feel need to be protected?

Permalink Reply by heather s on July 1, 2010 at 3:33am
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 July 1, 2010 at 3:43am
This has gottena bit fiesty. Can we just talk about the sex slaves in Doug's basement?
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on July 1, 2010 at 3:46am
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 July 1, 2010 at 3:47am
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?
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on July 1, 2010 at 3:48am
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?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service