JohnRich 4 #26 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteWho would have ever imagined that the Constitution, along with its Bill of Rights, actually applies to EVERYONE. (sarcasm) What a radical concept! EVERYONE? No, they explicitly left in place restrictions on felons and loonies. So, since Chicago had banned handgun ownership up until now, you're saying that everyone in Chicago was previously either a felon or a loonie? Or do you mean that you agree with the Supreme Court decision, and that you were opposed to the Chicago handgun ban all along? Or is it that you don't understand that constitutional rights apply to all citizens equally, regardless of where they happen to live? Or maybe you're just pissed-off at this decision, and so you're going to play your usual stupid little games by trying to change the concept of "everyone" getting equal rights, into something else that isn't part of this thread. Yeah, that must be it. It's all about stupid games for kallend. And your angle is just a stupid game because the court decision didn't change anything about gun rights for felons and loonies, so I don't know why you're even talking about it. What it changed is to disallow municipalities from exempting themselves from the 2nd Amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #27 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWho would have ever imagined that the Constitution, along with its Bill of Rights, actually applies to EVERYONE. (sarcasm) What a radical concept! EVERYONE? No, they explicitly left in place restrictions on felons and loonies. Guess today you're reaching for any small victory you can. That's a given, just as many of the other rights are altered for felons and the mentally incapacitated. Lame. Can you link to any post where I ever asked for a gun ban except on felons and loonies? I could, but why? Lame squared. You can't because I haven't made any such post. I have posted the exact OPPOSITE of your claim: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3322292;search_string=sane%20law%20abiding;#3322292 And just this month in response to YOU (you must have a poor memory) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3875014;search_string=sane%20;#3875014 Now find a post where I supported gun bans on sane, law abiding citizens. Do YOU think loonies and felons have a right to own guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho would have ever imagined that the Constitution, along with its Bill of Rights, actually applies to EVERYONE. (sarcasm) What a radical concept! EVERYONE? No, they explicitly left in place restrictions on felons and loonies. So, since Chicago had banned handgun ownership up until now, you're saying that everyone in Chicago was either a felon or a loonie? Non sequitur.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 June 28, 2010 Quote Or maybe you're just pissed-off at this decision, and so you're going to play your usual stupid little games by trying to change the concept of "everyone" getting equal rights, into something else that isn't part of this thread. Yeah, that must be it. It's all about stupid games for kallend. Hey, we have a winner! (in addition to the millions of residents of Chicago) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #30 June 28, 2010 Quote Or is it that you don't understand that constitutional rights apply to all citizens equally, regardless of where they happen to live? Apparently the misunderstanding is yours, JR. Felons and loonies remain citizens but according to the SCOTUS they do not have gun rights. Hence your "all citizens equally" is untrue.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #31 June 28, 2010 Quote Quote Or maybe you're just pissed-off at this decision, and so you're going to play your usual stupid little games by trying to change the concept of "everyone" getting equal rights, into something else that isn't part of this thread. Yeah, that must be it. It's all about stupid games for kallend. Hey, we have a winner! Can't find a post where I advocated a gun ban except for felons and loonies, can youDo YOU think felons and loonies have a right to own guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 June 28, 2010 I already answered that question. feel free to use search to find it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #33 June 28, 2010 QuoteI already answered that question. feel free to use search to find it. You wrote (May 2007) "Felons shouldn't be allowed to purchase weapons from a gun store." SO we can take it that you think it OK for felons to buy guns elsewhere, just not from a gun store. OK, but feel free to clarify.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 June 28, 2010 QuoteIn the end, whether or not you get to play with guns doesn't effect me at all. That you consider it that people "play with guns" is a bit of a clue toward the lack of seriousness with which you approach the subject. On another note, why is it that so many take failed policies that sound liek they should work but fail to do so? Through May, 2010, 164 homicides occurred in the City of Chicago - where handguns have been banned since 1982. Compare to the town of Kennesaw, Georgia - a place that hasnb't had a murder in almost 30 years. Kennesaw - in response to the 1982 gun bans in Illinois cities, actually passed an ordinance requiring the heads of households there to own a gun. It didn't turn into the stereotypical "Wild West." Indeed, it turned into a pretty polite place. The comparisons are striking. You've got a city that is trying to stop murders by banning guns and failing miserably. Then you've got another city that is trying to stop murders by requiring guns and is very successful. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 June 28, 2010 Quote OK, but feel free to clarify. There you go, trying to reframe again. You probably should just start drinking instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #36 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn the end, whether or not you get to play with guns doesn't effect me at all. That you consider it that people "play with guns" is a bit of a clue toward the lack of seriousness with which you approach the subject. On another note, why is it that so many take failed policies that sound liek they should work but fail to do so? Through May, 2010, 164 homicides occurred in the City of Chicago - where handguns have been banned since 1982. Compare to the town of Kennesaw, Georgia - a place that hasnb't had a murder in almost 30 years. Kennesaw - in response to the 1982 gun bans in Illinois cities, actually passed an ordinance requiring the heads of households there to own a gun. It didn't turn into the stereotypical "Wild West." Indeed, it turned into a pretty polite place. The comparisons are striking. You've got a city that is trying to stop murders by banning guns and failing miserably. Then you've got another city that is trying to stop murders by requiring guns and is very successful. With respect, and don't try to claim this is a support for general gun bans (it isn't), very large cities and small rural communities are not really comparable, as a glance at the FBI stats will reveal, regardless of any laws they may or may not have enacted wrt guns.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #37 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuote OK, but feel free to clarify. There you go, trying to reframe again. You probably should just start drinking instead. Why are you so evasive when a simple yes or no will suffice? What are you afraid of? Do you think felons and loonies have a right to own guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #38 June 28, 2010 Quote LOL, I could care less what Americans do with their guns Your constant posting in gun threads does not support that statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #39 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteI don't remember anyone ever asking for felons and loonies to be allowed to legally own guns. If the founding fathers wanted to exclude them, wouldn't they have said so? People who are convicted of a felony lose many rights. It is part of the price they pay for they misdeeds. They can approach the courts and ask to have the right to bear arms reinstated. Same with those who have a history of mental illness.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 June 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote OK, but feel free to clarify. There you go, trying to reframe again. You probably should just start drinking instead. Why are you so evasive when a simple yes or no will suffice? What are you afraid of? Do you think felons and loonies have a right to own guns? I've already answered the question on multiple occasions. Feel free to look it up. When you get back to us on your citizenship status, maybe I'll answer again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 June 28, 2010 Quotevery large cities and small rural communities are not really comparable, Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta. I'm not making claims one way or another with the exception of that with regard to the City of Chicago, and with Washington DC, gun bans do not work. I have found one place where the opposite has been tried and it worked. Rather than continuing with a strategy with a 25 year history of failure why would not an attempt be made to simply try something else? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 June 28, 2010 QuoteRather than continuing with a strategy with a 25 year history of failure why would not an attempt be made to simply try something else? Because it might turn out that when guns are allowed, crime will drop, thereby proving that all those who have been in favor of the gun ban have been wrong for 25 years. So, it's better to continue to cling to the failed policy, rather than admit they were wrong and look like buffoons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #43 June 29, 2010 QuoteQuote LOL, I could care less what Americans do with their guns Your constant posting in gun threads does not support that statement. If posting in Speakers Corner had any effect on anything, anywhere, ever, then his participation could be linked to concern. As it happens... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #44 June 29, 2010 #1 Do you believe the second amendment protects an individual right? #2 Do you believe DC's ban was legal and should have been upheld? #3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court? Simple yes or no questions that can be qualified later on if you care to elaborate on an initial answer. I'm just wondering if you can answer, or I'd you'll weasel out and go straight to te qualifiers and hypothetical exceptions.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #45 June 29, 2010 QuoteQuotevery large cities and small rural communities are not really comparable, Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta. So you're now trying to claim that suburbs are comparable to inner cities? I wonder why the wealthy fled the inner cities and moved to the suburbs?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #46 June 29, 2010 Yes, but as Scalia wrote in Heller, it is not absolute. No. I await the court's decision.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #47 June 29, 2010 QuoteQuote#3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court? I await the court's decision. Once again your moral compass is wimpy, relying only upon someone else's court decisions to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of having the guts to make up your own mind and express your opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #48 June 29, 2010 "Yes," what, professor? Come on, there were three questions put to you. To quote the decision you mentioned, "what's reasonable about a ban?"witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #49 June 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote#3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court? I await the court's decision. Once again your moral compass is wimpy, relying only upon someone else's court decisions to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of having the guts to make up your own mind and express your opinion. It's not my decision (or yours) to make. You have already shown that you put your own opinion above that of the law. I don't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #50 June 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWho would have ever imagined that the Constitution, along with its Bill of Rights, actually applies to EVERYONE. (sarcasm) What a radical concept! EVERYONE? No, they explicitly left in place restrictions on felons and loonies. So, since Chicago had banned handgun ownership up until now, you're saying that everyone in Chicago was either a felon or a loonie? Non sequitur. he's saying he'd rather nitpick over the use of the word EVERYONE rather than try to make a point.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
