Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
The strange thing is, I didn't receive a single 1 vote here. It must have been removed by admins.
Well that's their prerogative, their site an all, but why not move the whole thread to the Soapbox instead of deleting one post and making the whole thread meaningless to anyone else that comes along.
-
Well that's their prerogative, their site an all, but why not move the whole thread to the Soapbox instead of deleting one post and making the whole thread meaningless to anyone else that comes along.
-
If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered. You can't escape the bleeding obvious.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
-
Yeah, no vote, for now, it will come back up very soon here. Regarding your link, what I find interesting about the current climate. Dems want states to have the right to legalize marijuana, yet feel the Feds should restrict firearms. I think both should be left to the state to regulate (I would move then).
The states don't have any business restricting *any* rights enumerated in the Constitution. I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
And it's difficult to steal guns from people who don't own them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
no, that is not my claim.
-
If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered. You can't escape the bleeding obvious.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
If you make it harder to murder people, less people will be murdered.
You can't escape the bleeding obvious.Such as the "bleeding obvious" that there are places in the US with very restrictive gun laws and yet which have very high murder rates - by guns. Or the "bleeding obvious" that although your statement might seem to be generally there is in fact no evidence that the law under discussion will in fact lead to your statement. Actually, as per the previous statement, it is at least somewhat reasonable to suppose that it will have not impact.
-
Would you like a list of crimes committed by people let out early because the Governor wanted to close prisons? This piece of shit has gone on to commit further crimes, too. His partner was even found dead, but since the murder rate is so high, it got classified as a "death" investigation. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-31/news/0912310242_1_attack-shattered-hall-and-hoffman[^] Also, since this debate is now all a result of grown men killing children. How exactly do grown men kill children from within jail?
wizardzz wrote:
Would you like a list of crimes committed by people let out early because the Governor wanted to close prisons?
That obviously has nothing to do with anything. The point of prisons is not to stop specific individuals but rather to decrease crime in general - thus my point. So unless you have some credible evidence that increasing prison population significantly decreases crime my point stands (ignoring specious arguments about no prisons at all.)
wizardzz wrote:
This piece of sh*t has gone on to commit further crimes, too
And I could cite individual cases where innocent individuals were convicted and other individuals received absolutely ridiculous sentences for trivial offenses. But since I live in a human society not an space alien one then exceptions will always exist in imperfect systems. So best we can do is strive for the best solution that we can find. And there is no evidence that increasing prison populations is helping the crime rate. And there is evidence that it has negative impacts as well.
-
jschell wrote:
It is about the population, ie everyone, preventing/stopping a government over time.
well, it's your fantasy, so i guess you can dictate exactly how it will play out. but remember, even in the days when the ink on the original Constitution was still wet, the government was strong enough to put down multiple armed rebellions with little trouble at all (Shay's rebellion, Whiskey rebellion, etc). and these days, the military's firepower is so much greater than anything civilians can muster, there would be no battle at all.
jschell wrote:
And although a F-16 might seem like a nice weapon the pilots still need to get out of them every once in a while, the plane needs to be serviced and fueled by mechanics. There needs to be cooks and nurses and officers. And supply lines to deliver food, fuel, parts, medicine, entertainment, etc. And that means lots and lots of people.
it would all be over before any of that mattered a bit. an actual armed rebellion would be over in a matter of days. and if you're talking about sitting around stroking your barrels, grumbling about the government and talking big talk and not actually using your guns to force your way into power... well, that's not a rebellion, that's an NRA meeting.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the government was strong enough to put down multiple armed rebellions with little trouble at all (Shay's rebellion, Whiskey rebellion, etc).
And they had no trouble at Waco either, except for media coverage. However neither mine nor yours were popular uprisings.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it would all be over before any of that mattered a bit. an actual armed rebellion would be over in a matter of days
There are any number of recent examples that demonstrate that isn't true.
-
Yes, but it has the function of cutting up meat, which every house-hold will need. I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
The Reincarnation wrote:
I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
Of course the US Constitution doesn't mandate that you must own a gun. Nor does it mandate what you must do with it. And others do of course see other reasons for owning one. Such as hunting, simple recreation, security and/or just a cool factor. But the US Constitution also says nothing about the reasons one might choose to own one. Just as it doesn't mandate that you must make use of the the right of free speech, nor why one chooses to do so or why one chooses not to do so.
-
The states don't have any business restricting *any* rights enumerated in the Constitution. I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I refuse to obtain a state's "license" to carry, because it implies the right to carry is a privilege GRANTED by the state. Further, charging a fee or tax for the license reinforces the concept that it is a privilege. If I can legally possess a firearm, I should be able to carry said firearm, and without any interference or undue attention from the state and its appointed agents.
Rationalized nonsense. The States and Federal government does in fact have the right to set limits on all the rights. They do and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. For example there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech.
-
So you don't claim that this specific law will fix that. Do you think it will impact it in a measurable and significant way?
jschell wrote:
So you don't claim that this specific law will fix that.
what i don't claim is your "completely eliminate".
jschell wrote:
Do you think it will impact it in a measurable and significant way?
yes.
