HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Chicago vows to fight con...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:53 AM

 

Chicago vows to fight concealed carry ruling

Source: Yahoo News

CHICAGO (AP) — With parts of the city in the grip of gang warfare and spiking homicide rates, Chicago aldermen urged state officials to appeal an appellate court's decision tossing Illinois' ban on concealed weapons, with some suggesting they might launch their own legal battle.

Outside a City Council meeting Wednesday, one alderman after another said they are so concerned that lifting the ban could lead to more gun violence that they are willing to write a new city ordinance even if it triggers a lengthy and expensive court fight.

"I believe that the city would be well within its rights to prohibit that (concealed weapons) within its borders, and then we'll take that up to the Supreme Court," said Alderman Joe Moore.

Several alderman pointed to how quickly they crafted one of the strictest handgun ordinances in the nation after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2010 nullified Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban, saying they must do something to stop what they worry would be even more bloodshed on the city's streets.

"People's safety is at risk," said Alderman Anthony Beale.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-vows-fight-concealed-carry-ruling-080408481.html



Hmm - spiking gun violence and the highest murder rate in the country that coincide with the strictest gun laws in the country...sounds like people's safety is already at risk.

I just don't understand how people can be so progressive on some issues, and then toss that out of the window for gun laws that obviously aren't working.

Am I advocating arming everyone in Chicago? Of course not. But there has to be a middle ground between only criminals having guns and free guns for every resident.

120 replies, 7587 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chicago vows to fight concealed carry ruling (Original post)
HonEur12 Dec 2012 OP
Saturday Dec 2012 #1
HonEur12 Dec 2012 #3
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #17
PavePusher Dec 2012 #37
JohnnyBoots Dec 2012 #47
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #52
X_Digger Dec 2012 #59
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #64
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #109
X_Digger Dec 2012 #110
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #111
X_Digger Dec 2012 #113
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #114
X_Digger Dec 2012 #115
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #116
X_Digger Dec 2012 #117
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #118
X_Digger Dec 2012 #119
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #120
byeya Dec 2012 #2
HonEur12 Dec 2012 #4
billh58 Dec 2012 #5
krispos42 Dec 2012 #7
dsc Dec 2012 #107
krispos42 Dec 2012 #8
-..__... Dec 2012 #11
underoath Dec 2012 #16
PavePusher Dec 2012 #38
Hoyt Dec 2012 #6
X_Digger Dec 2012 #12
Hoyt Dec 2012 #19
X_Digger Dec 2012 #20
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #22
Hoyt Dec 2012 #24
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #25
Hoyt Dec 2012 #28
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #31
Hoyt Dec 2012 #34
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #54
Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #69
Hoyt Dec 2012 #70
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #71
Hoyt Dec 2012 #78
hack89 Dec 2012 #80
Hoyt Dec 2012 #84
hack89 Dec 2012 #85
Hoyt Dec 2012 #86
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #88
hack89 Dec 2012 #89
Hoyt Dec 2012 #93
hack89 Dec 2012 #95
-..__... Dec 2012 #108
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #112
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #53
Budgies Revenge Dec 2012 #97
Hoyt Dec 2012 #99
Budgies Revenge Dec 2012 #106
Recursion Dec 2012 #101
hack89 Dec 2012 #32
primavera Dec 2012 #9
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #18
primavera Dec 2012 #26
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #30
primavera Dec 2012 #33
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #36
primavera Dec 2012 #43
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #44
primavera Dec 2012 #46
Hoyt Dec 2012 #35
PavePusher Dec 2012 #39
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #55
primavera Dec 2012 #73
truebrit71 Dec 2012 #10
mopinko Dec 2012 #13
PavePusher Dec 2012 #40
primavera Dec 2012 #77
PavePusher Dec 2012 #83
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #90
onehandle Dec 2012 #14
alp227 Dec 2012 #82
DallasNE Dec 2012 #15
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #57
-..__... Dec 2012 #21
slackmaster Dec 2012 #23
primavera Dec 2012 #27
PavePusher Dec 2012 #41
primavera Dec 2012 #42
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #45
primavera Dec 2012 #76
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #66
primavera Dec 2012 #72
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #87
-..__... Dec 2012 #48
primavera Dec 2012 #49
X_Digger Dec 2012 #58
primavera Dec 2012 #75
X_Digger Dec 2012 #81
Hoyt Dec 2012 #91
X_Digger Dec 2012 #94
Hoyt Dec 2012 #96
X_Digger Dec 2012 #98
Hoyt Dec 2012 #100
X_Digger Dec 2012 #102
-..__... Dec 2012 #104
One_Life_To_Give Dec 2012 #29
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #63
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #50
upaloopa Dec 2012 #51
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #61
upaloopa Dec 2012 #65
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #68
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #60
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #62
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #67
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #74
Recursion Dec 2012 #103
hack89 Dec 2012 #79
bongbong Dec 2012 #92
Hoyt Dec 2012 #105

Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:00 AM

1. "Am I advocating arming everyone in Chicago?"

Actually you are. Let everyone conceal carry and things will be different in Chicago? I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:05 AM

3. Well then...

 

We will just keep things the way they are. The police are doing a fantastic job (It could be 700 murders instead of 600) and citizens of Illinois aren't smart enough to handle firearms like the citizens of the 49 other states that allow some sort of concealed carry anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:28 AM

17. Actually he's not

 

He's only advocating arming the law abiding; the criminals are already armed.

Shouldn't that disturb you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:05 PM

37. Why do you think the lawful will suddenly become a bigger pproblem than the criminals?

 

Isn't that a seriously distorted assumption?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:04 PM

47. You don't need a CCW license to carry in Vermont.

 

By your logic, you would think that the Green Mountain state would look like a war zone since citizens have such free and easy access to their 2nd ammendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyBoots (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:46 PM

52. Yes, compare VT to

Chicago. Good luck with that analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:11 PM

59. Lets compare Chicago to Houston. Have fun explaining that one. ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:16 PM

64. A comparison the gun Prohibtionists are extremly reluctant to make...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:00 AM

109. yes, lets compare, what are your numbers?

the onus is on you me brother...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #109)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:13 AM

110. Here, have fun..

Using 2011 numbers from the FBI's UCR- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

Chicago:
Population: 2,703,713
Number of Homicides: 431
Homicide Rate: 16 per 100,000

Houston:
Population: 2,143,628
Number of Homicides: 198
Homicide Rate: 9 per 100,000

Both are culturally and racially diverse cities, with similar population sizes. Chicago had twice as many homicides, and almost twice the rate of homicides as Houston. If I recall, Chicago is set to see another increase in homicides this year, while Houston's is still dropping. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-murder-rate-drops-22-percent-3991494.php

How's that gun control working for Chicago, again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:35 AM

111. Now if your numbers would be zero

per 100,00 you might have something there, but alas you still have gun crimes. I would also like to point out your a stand your ground state which means that some of these homicides are now branded self defense.

So right back at you, how is your concealed carry laws preventing crime?

Aurora, CO = concealed carry state, did not prevent the dark knight shooting.

Virginia, = concealed carry state did not prevent Virgina tech massacre.

My guess here is:

a. You are a paid shill by the pro-massacre gun lobby to come waste people time and engage in mindless arguing in circles with nonsense and opinion masquerading as fact.

or

b. You have gun fetish and you worry that any successful gun control would have your fantasy Rambo world come crashing down around you.


Do you live in Chicago? If not please leave us to make our own laws.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #111)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:41 AM

113. Funny, Chicago's is also not zero..

By your own *cough* logic, you don't "have something" either.

Did anyone in this thread claim that concealed carry would prevent crime, much less *all* crime?

No, that's a straw man of your own making. Feel free to torch him as you wish.

Do you live in Chicago? If not please leave us to make our own laws.


Funny, I'll have to remember that next time you comment on something in another state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #113)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:51 AM

114. "Cough" by your own logic...

arguing in circles, and the article you linked to did not attribute the drop in crime due to SYG or concealed carry, so once again right back at you...


Funny, I'll have to remember that next time you comment on something in another state.


You just do that. If that is the best you got, I am done here. I sure hope you are paid to write this shit.

Now go play with your fetish.

Leave us alone in Chicago to deal with your gun lunacy as we see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #114)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:56 AM

115. Who made the claim that it did? *looks around* Nope, not me.

Torch that straw man! Burn, baby burn!

I'll leave you with Alderman Brookins' words on the matter:

http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2012/12/concealed-carry-levels-the-playing-field/

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:03 AM

116. Do you know who dennis Byrne's is?

Wrong wing troll and an idiot. And so is that alderman you pulled the quote from.

Once again, Opinion masquerading as fact.

I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it


Ummm alderman, did that prevent crime? Umm no it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:08 AM

117. Oh, so only *some* Chicagoans' opinions matter, heh.

I'm with ya now.

So anyhow.. any guesses as to why Chicago's murder rate is almost twice that of Houston? Since we're comparing them, what is your take on the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:11 AM

118. Have someone read this to you

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html

Maybe you heard about the less-restrictive gun laws in the South or the high-profile cases the feds have brought against gun traffickers moving weapons from Mississippi and other states to Chicago — the Dixie pipeline.


It is not our gun ban laws, it is tha lack of laws period...

“Firearms dealers are so well protected it makes it really hard to prosecute them. It has to be very, very egregious,” said Mark Jones, a retired supervisor for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


"Oh, so only *some* Chicagoans' , opinions matter, heh."

like I asked before do you LIVE IN CHICAGO? Just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #118)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

119. If it's all about the guns, then why doesn't Houston have the same rate as Chicago?

*taps foot*.. *whistles*..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #119)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:25 AM

120. So I take it you don't live in chicago

we are done.

Shuts down computer and walk away from crazy man on corner with the end is near sign over his shoulder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:05 AM

2. Things will be different, they'll be much worse.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:06 AM

4. Only if you consider an increase in justified homicides "worse"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:15 AM

5. Yeah, you and your

Gungeon buddies think that an increase in "justified homicides" is a great thing. What you're really advocating is vigilantism and summary executions of other Americans. No muss, no fuss, no trials, no jail time, just kill 'em all and save the taxpayers money.

RKBA: Right to Kill and Bury Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:10 AM

7. Self-defence is not vigilantism

Sorry you think so, but it's not.

It's not vigilantism when a person shoots a burglar breaking into their house, and it's not vigilantism when a person shoots, in a public locale, an attacker.


And since every justifiable homicide is investigated by the police, there is a hell of a fuss and muss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

107. yeah like that of Trevon Martin

and Jordan Davis. Those are the kind of justified homicides we see when gun nuts get to run amok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:13 AM

8. Nope,

The only people that can get concealed-carry permits are people with squeaky-clean records. The people least likely to misuse guns.


Assuming you're a regular, honest person, how many people would you kill if, tomorrow, you strapped a handgun to your belt? How many banks would you rob?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:25 AM

11. "The only people that can get concealed-carry permits are people with squeaky-clean records"....

 

and yet somehow, despite that, city alderman (and other Chicago pols), will still be able to obtain a CCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

16. exactly. some people seem to think that if someone has a gun

 

they want to kill things!!!

that's just not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:07 PM

38. Based on what, exactly? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:07 AM

6. Why is it folks in Chicago, like these aldermen, have sane approach to guns while rest of country


is acting like a bunch of libertarian, Tbaggers -- citing some worn out interpretation of a clause in the Constitution that was obsolete a long time ago -- to promote more and more guns in more places?

Hope they stand firm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:26 AM

12. You mean the alderman who can and do, carry concealed? But say it's not safe for everyone else?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

19. Ban them too, if it's really happening. Laws severely restricting carrying guns in public are sane.


Can you link to a source that is not a violation of TOS?

If can't abide by Chicago's rational gun laws, don't go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:33 AM

20. Good luck getting the aldermen to give up *their* concealed carry.

More of the 'tis for me, not thee' bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:52 AM

24. Way out is to repeal that 1872 law that many alder-people do not use, cause they don't carry.


Interesting that former alderman interviewed, is an irresponsible gun owner. He's also a convicted felon.

But thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

25. If Chicago's gun laws are so rational why don't they work? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 AM

28. Who says they don't work, or that things would be better with a bunch of cowboys toting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:50 AM

31. 400 people were murdered in Chicago this year by gangbangers W/ guns

 

If Chicago's gun laws were so wonderful that wouldn't have happened

perhaps if we issued a bean can to everyone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:28 PM

34. Don't particularly like term "gangbangers", although used a lot by resident gun cultists here.


But, those guys aren't really much of a threat to most people in Chicago -- and most people know that. So, let's not use them as a reason to arm up in preparation to shoot people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:52 PM

54. You probably don't like the term "thugs." But that is what they are...

As for

"...those guys aren't really much of a threat to most people in Chicago..."

Outta sight, outta mind, eh? Or maybe those deaths don't qualify since they weren't schoolyard spectaculars, or mall massacres?

Folks living in concentrated areas where Gangbangers and Thugs let the lead out deserve more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:58 PM

56. And those folks would like to see less guns too, not more as you seem to think.


Groups like Mothers Against Gun Violence aren't for arming up like you are promoting. I think their approach is best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:35 PM

69. You might think that approach is best, but there is a better one:

Follow the constitution and ensure that all law-abiding, mentally competent folks have access to arms to keep and bear. Advocate as you wish, form groups if you want. But follow the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:47 PM

70. Nah, you and NRA misinterpret it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:55 PM

71. Why this obsession with NRA? Are you a member?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:02 PM

78. Because they do the gun culture's bidding, whether one is member or free-rider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:23 PM

80. So the NRA is following and not leading? Interesting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:00 PM

84. Where do you get that, Hack? They are doing what gun manufacturers, republicans, callous

gun owners; Zimmerman, Stawicki, Loughner and worse want; etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:03 PM

85. Fortunately there are plenty of us enlightened progressive gun owners

to balance out the callous ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:07 PM

86. "Progressive" gun owners? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:12 PM

88. That's your privilege- however, your beliefs do not seem to carry much weight.

Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:14 PM

89. I support marriage equality, abortion, unions, single payer health care ...

and you say I can't be progressive because I own guns? OK

There is a reason gun control can't even gain significant traction within the Democratic party. Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:25 PM

93. That's why it is important to change perception of guns in society.

Like worked by changing perception of cigarettes, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:27 PM

95. We can start by distinguishing between criminals and lawful gun owers

Insulting and pissing off Democratic voters is not the way to get them on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:13 PM

108. I wonder how many of those murders...

 

were carried out by "progressive" gang-bangers and thugs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:37 AM

112. The irony is strong in this one

 

I don't care for the term gun cultist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:47 PM

53. "...link...that is not a violation of TOS?" He won't link to GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:36 PM

97. Sooooo....if you think that creating laws that restrict carrying guns in public is the answer.......

Are you saying that most of those committing gun violence are people who have a conceal carry permit or are the type to be particularly concerned about any law in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budgies Revenge (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:41 PM

99. Nooooooooo, I'm not saying that. But your packing will not help a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:20 PM

106. Really, you're absolutely sure that my packing wouldn't help a single thing?

Would you be willing to bet my life on that certainty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:05 PM

101. Like the ban Chicago currently has? How's that working out? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:51 AM

32. This alderman support the ruling

Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, chairman of the City Council black caucus, welcomed the decision, saying allowing Chicagoans to carry concealed weapons would help level the playing field in neighborhoods where law-abiding citizens feel like they need firearms to protect themselves.

"Certain people will have a sense of safety and peace of mind in the ability to do it," Brookins said of conceal-carry. "I know that even people, for example, just trying to see that their loved ones get homes safely are in technical violation of all sorts of weapons violations. If you just walk out to your garage and see that your wife is coming in the house safely, and you happen to have your gun on you, you're in technical violation of our ordinance. So I would hope all these ordinances would be consolidated so there's one set of rules and people would know where the bright line is to what they can and cannot do with respect to carrying a weapon."

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:22 AM

9. Apparently they haven't read the memo from the Gungeon

Arming everyone to the teeth makes us safer, isn't that obvious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 AM

18. I'm sure you can provide a link to that memo right? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:18 AM

26. LMAO!

Sorry, not to be disrespectful, but your timing is fabulous! I was just engaged in another thread in which a gun advocate threw out some invented statistic and I asked him for a citation, observing that it is a favorite gungeon tactic to demand specific citations for everything and then scoff contemptuously when the poster is disinclined to devote the time to looking up the specific citation. Amusingly enough, he wasn't willing to produce a citation for his allegation either and found the request for one just as annoying as the rest of us do. And here you are, dismissing criticisms because I haven't gone to the trouble of documenting the existence of gravity yet - straight out of the Gungeon Playbook! Marvelous! Thank you for making my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:48 AM

30. Re: he wasn't willing to produce a citation for his allegation

 

Apparently neither are you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:07 PM

33. Nope

But, if you like, I could do a quick google and provide links to posts you've made where you made statements without providing citations. This is a discussion board, after all, not a court brief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:56 PM

36. But what you can't do is provide links to posts where I've made broad brush smears

 

against other DUers and then weaseled out of it when asked to put mu money where my mouth is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:30 PM

43. How many links do you want?

The gungeon is so full of posters touting that guns make us safer, linking to all of them would be a practical impossibility. Do you need a dozen? A hundred? A thousand? There are undoubtedly at least that many posts in the gungeon asserting that guns make us safer. I don't really have the time to go look up all of them. If you have such serious doubts as to the veracity of my assertion, perhaps you should roll up your sleeves and descend into that forum's black depths yourself. Although the smell does cling to you for a bit, I assure you it won't take you long to find lots and lots and lots of posts glorifying guns there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:22 PM

44. There's quite a bit of difference between "guns make us safer"

 

and "Arming everyone to the teeth makes us safer" now isn't there.

I'm not sure that anyone actually believes just having a gun will make you safer either, I know I don't. What i do believe is that having a gun gives you another option

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:36 PM

46. There is?

Can you provide a citation proving that distinction? I'll expect a 50 page report with every claim footnoted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:30 PM

35. All you have to do is go to gungeon and read the "celebration of firearms" to know poster is correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:12 PM

39. Where was this? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:58 PM

55. I'm not sure why a "sarcasm" tag is used if an untruth is still an untruth...

You:

"Arming everyone to the teeth makes us safer, isn't that obvious?"

Gungeon:

(Gotta link in support?)

__________
By the way, the purpose of keeping and bearing arms is for self-defense. It ain't social policy, though with time there may be positive outcomes here as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:24 AM

10. I don't get this logic. The guys that are doing the killing NOW don't have concealed carry permits..

...ergo that law didn't restrict that activity....Why do they want only the bad guys to be armed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:26 AM

13. remember- the sc will have to get past rahm.

sometimes i like having him on my side. i'm just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:14 PM

40. You mean the guy that has to keep writing checks to the opposing legal teams?

 

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!

Hey, does Rahm have armed guards like Daley did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:53 PM

77. I trust that you have a citation for that allegation?

See how obnoxious that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:35 PM

83. That one's public knowledge.

 

But if you want, I'll pull up the news articles for you when I get home. Shift change here, and it's already been a 13-hour day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:21 PM

90. Here you go- note the signature



And it was provided by another self-appointed "guardian of Progressivism", so
finding it was actually quite pleasant...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117213608#post14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

14. Chicago is clearly not afraid that King George is coming back.

That's why progressively sane thinkers realize that the 2nd is an aberration in modern times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:34 PM

82. Really? What about self defense?

And should the third amendment also begone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

15. Reread The Article

The strict laws were struck down by the courts in 2010 and murder rates have taken off which is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:08 PM

57. Umm, the law was struck down, but nothing changed regarding legal gun ownership.

It's called foot-dragging by Chi's government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

21. "Then we'll take that up to the Supreme Court".

 

I certainly hope so.

This decision, along with the recent decision from the NY Court of Appeals rejecting the notion that the RKBA doe's not extend outside ones home, creates a split.

A situation like this makes it more likely that the SCOTUS could take up the issue and make a ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:49 AM

23. I doubt that the SCOTUS would accept that the city has standing to contest...

 

...a ruling on a state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:25 AM

27. You don't want a ruling from this court

Don't forget, these are the same five right-wing wackos who overruled 200 years of legal precedent and imposed Heller on us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:15 PM

41. Surely you can cite to this "200 years of legal precedent", amIright? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:17 PM

42. God, you guys are predictable! - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:24 PM

45. IOW "no" ? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:49 PM

76. See post 75 - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:25 PM

66. Yes, we are. We like arguments that feature something called 'evidence'.

Do you have any?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:06 PM

72. Odd thing to say

Since you guys never seem to provide any yourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:09 PM

87. Really? Here's a post I made today with that very thing, by way of an item known as a 'link':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=334383
It worked great; however one of your co-belligerents seemed to take exception with it due to the fact
that it refuted his assertion that the rates of violent crime and murder are rising.

friendly_iconoclast (7,889 posts) Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #179)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:18 AM
212. Actually, they got their facts from the FBI-anyone can, at their website

By all means, point out any factual inaccuracies (while showing your work, of course)

Remember, "not saying what I want to hear" does not necessarily mean "inaccurate"...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr


You should start using these 'links' yourself- they're a great way to substantiate
an argument...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:12 PM

48. "Imposed Heller on us"?

 



Just a heads up... the Heller decision just happens to be one of the most important and long over due SCOTUS rulings in the past 100 years.

Don't like it?

Then by all means, try and get it overturned.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:28 PM

49. No question about that

Heller is definitely a landmark case, equal to its authors' other rulings like Citizens United and Bush v. Gore. But there's no point in trying to overturn any of those decisions as long as the facist five who cursed us with them still dominate the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:09 PM

58. Let me ask you a question..

.. if the court were so set on some nefarious agenda, why didn't they overturn Roe?

I don't think you understand precedent very well.

Of course, there was no precedent to upset here. Miller? Doesn't say what most pro-gun-controllers think it does. That's the only SCOTUS case that even tangentially touches on the scope of the right and what it encompasses.

US v Cruikshank?

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Presser v Illinois?

"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"



No, going back to cases that mention the second amendment or the right to keep and bear arms, you'd be hard pressed to find one that separated the second from the first eight.

Grosjean v American Press:

"We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe-guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...."

Poe v Ullman:

Lumps the "right to keep and bear arms" with "the freedom of speech, press, and religion;" and "the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." The courts seamless approach indicates that all are individual rights.

Konigsberg v State Bar:

In speaking about the first amendment, "In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'"

Griswold v Connecticut

The right protected by the second amendment is listed along with the first and fourth, among others, not distinguished as 'collective' or any such bullshit.

Nunn v State:

"the language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments-nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning."

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed... "

Laird v Tatum

The second is listed alongside the first, fourth, fifth..

US v Verdrugo-Urquidez

The "people" referenced by the first, second, fourth, ninth & tenth amendments are individuals, not the States.

PP v Casey

The court quoted Poe v Ullman on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment (lumping the first eight together, along with privacy.)

People v Brown (Michigan, 1931):

"The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the state. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:39 PM

75. Yes, I have a Westlaw account too

"...in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." United States. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

"...the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55

"The words 'bear arms' . . . have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment." Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154

Additional cases confirming that the Second Amendment does not impart a right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes:

United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161
United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394
Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693
United States v. Scanio, 165 F.3d 15
United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265
United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41
United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548
United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134
Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057
United States v. Lippman, 369 F.3d 1039
United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279
United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx. 959
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052
United States v. Milheron, 231 F. Supp. 2d 376
Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217
United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711

There, now that I've done your legal research for you, are you happy now? I charge $200/hr for my time. Where shall I send the bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:25 PM

81. All predicated on Miller which talks about the *weapon*, not the scope of the right.

Hell, Miller's counsel didn't even show up to the SCOTUS to argue the case (Miller having been killed quite a while before his case was argued.)

If you want to hang your hat on that, versus 140 years of previous precedent.. feel free. Do a case tree diagram for second amendment cases and cites- you'll see one long branch hanging off Miller, and a veritable bush surrounding it coming to different conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:21 PM

91. Why would anyone do that. If it's that complicated, there's plenty of room for a more astute Court

to rule differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

94. It's "complicated" only in that there's a wide and deep variety of cases..

..asserting that the second amendment protects an individual right just like the rest of the bill of rights over 140 years and a long skinny branch all hanging weak logic off *one* case where the plaintiff's lawyer never showed up to argue his case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

96. Times have changed too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:39 PM

98. So repeal the second amendment, then repeal all the state analogs, then the ninth..

If 'times have changed', then that shouldn't be so hard to do, right?

I'll have a cuppa while I wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:46 PM

100. Nah, it's easier to do through courts and as rational restrictions.

If Dodge City could make you hang up your guns in town, why not cities too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:09 PM

102. Good luck with that. *pat* *pat* *pat* n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:15 PM

104. So... they're batting .333

 

and they hit it out of the ballpark with Heller.

The other 4 either struck out, or hit a foul ball.

But there's no point in trying to overturn any of those decisions as long as the facist five who cursed us with them still dominate the court.


Unless you're clairvoyant, I wouldn't count on any future/upcoming/potential nominations upholding or reversing or watering down the decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:33 AM

29. This addresses Gang problems How?

Joblessness, hopelessness those are the real enemies. Put an end to Prohibition of Drugs and put the modern day Capone's out of business. Maybe then we can focus on building communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:27 PM

63. I agree with your social outlook, and I wish the Democratic Party would once AGAIN...

address these problems with real policies. A right to keep and bear arms is for individuals to defend themselves. It is not social policy, though some good may come of it. I agree with ending the WOD as well.

Gin, Gays, Guns, Ganja. Prohibition doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:37 PM

50. Dodge City, 1878:




... The original Second Amendment was the product of a world in which a well-regulated militia stood as check against the danger of a professional standing army. The framers certainly believed in a right of self-defense, but most viewed it as something that was so well-established under the English common law that there was no need to write it into constitutional law ... The passage of the first true gun control laws in the 19th century, a response to the proliferation of cheap handguns for the first time in American history, actually helped strengthen this new gun rights ideology. Then, as now, gun violence was largely a problem about handguns, not long guns. Not surprisingly, the efforts to ban guns back then led to the first clear defenses of a modern-style Second Amendment right to bear arms unconnected to the militia. Some of the new state laws wound up in state courts, and judges divided over how to interpret them ... The future of gun policy in America rests on two incontrovertible facts: Guns are deeply rooted in American culture, and guns have always been subject to robust regulation ... http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

51. You should stop using progressive to describe your

gun restriction stand. Neither side in this debate should use that word to describe it's stand.
I can support your right to own a gun but I

can't support many of your talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:22 PM

61. Actually, "progressive" (as well as "liberal") are apt terms to support strong 2A rights...

Progressive in the sense that the Second has received the same strong defense as other rights in the BOR, rights which have been severely restricted until the last few generations (usually restrictions centered on race, ethnicity and lack of "elite" status), but have now extended to folks with few means to defend themselves; in other words, gradual social, political and economic reform. Liberal because an existing right has greatly expanded.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms…You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.” — Eugene V. Debs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:21 PM

65. You need to start you posts with

"In my opinion" because that's what they are, your opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:33 PM

68. Well, if you need paint-by-numbers, then just assume that. In your case. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:12 PM

60. Good - Democracy in action from the leaders of a proud Blue city. Little wonder that our

"pro gun progressives"* are angry about that in this thread: progressive Democrats in a Democratic city trying to reign in gun violence on their streets always pisses them off. One wonders why....**


*( )

**( well, no, one doesn't, really)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:24 PM

62. Angry? Chicago's unconstitutional law is going down. The last regressive gun-law state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:31 PM

67. Let us know when you become a mod or host, mmmkay?

In the meantime, you'll just have to hang with the rest of the self-appointed inquisitors/witchfinders
that just know that "real Progressives don't carry guns"...








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:12 PM

74. Gun Violence

You Write

I just don't understand how people can be so progressive on some issues, and then toss that out of the window for gun laws that obviously aren't working.


There is nothing progressive about gun violence.
There is nothing progressive about owning a gun.

Perhaps you should be wondering why a community riddled with gun violence might just want to put restrictions on guns.

Perhaps you might want to consider the difference between those who live in urban and rural areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:10 PM

103. "want to put restrictions on guns"? They've *had* restrictions for decades

and they haven't worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:21 PM

79. Hope they have their checkbook handy

they are going to be writing another check to the NRA if they are not careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HonEur12 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:24 PM

92. Gunssssss!

 

My Precioussssss!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:19 PM

105. LMAO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread