Supreme court ruling (mcdonald vs. Chicago)

Dreamer · Jul 3, 2010

Jack House said:
I disagree, I is equally concerning and is very broad. Especially when doctors are tripping over each other to diagnose as many people as possible with some new "mental illness."

Yeah, especially since there was a recent news report that psychologists are trying to get Orthorexia added to the DSM-V as an officially recognized mental disorder. My wife, who is an RN with over 20 years of experience, pointed out this new development to me last night...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1963297,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/orthorexia-mental-health-eating-disorder

By the way, "Orthorexia" is when someone refuses to eat any food that contains unhealthy ingredients like preservatives, poisons, carcinogens, or other bad chemicals...

They are trying to label you insane if you insist that your food is healthy and free of poisons, drugs, and weaponized chemicals.

I love how they say that people wanting to ONLY eat food that is healthy is some sort of "obsession". What is wrong with wanting your veggies to NOT be full of carcinogenic pesticides, genetically-spliced biochemical weapons, and genes from animals like pigs and even HUMANS?

What's wrong with not wanting neurotoxins in your drinking water and fruit juice? What's wrong with not wanting to eat meat that is loaded with steroids, artificial growth hormones, and antibiotics?

The really funny thing about this is that the super-rich all have their food grown on closed farms where it is guaranteed to be pure, truly organic, and safe from genetic molestation. Why do you think that the G20 cost the city of Toronto over $1.2 BILLION for three days? It sure as hell wasn't because they were paying Rothschild-like salaries to the RCMP...

God forbid that a "commoner" should want a hamburger that isn't essentially a biological equivalent of weaponized protein...

And you guys call ME a nut-case conspiracy theorist...

Thundar · Jul 3, 2010

Don Tomas said:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13956

Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago

Monday, June 28, 2010

Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizen’s constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.

But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.

The intent of the founding fathers -- and the Supreme Court -- was to provide access. Words must have meaning.

The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

I’m a practical guy. I don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!

This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.

The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.

What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can’t buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?

Here’s a piece of paper – protect yourself. That’s no right at all!

Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.

Do you really believe the NRA propaganda? The NRA will work to try and keep the NRA monopoly. Their methods are dispicable

Remember it was the SAF that brought us Heller and MacDonald.

The NRA brought us the Gun Control Act of 1968 and Brady Checks.

since9 · Jul 3, 2010

Thundar said:
Do you really believe the NRA propaganda? The NRA will work to try and keep the NRA monopoly. Their methods are dispicable

Remember it was the SAF that brought us Heller and MacDonald.

The NRA brought us the Gun Control Act of 1968 and Brady Checks.

While that's true to some extent, the NRA has had some pretty stellar recent victories, as well.

As the NRA successfully challanged San Francisco's ban, supported the challenge against Chicago's ban, and has promised lawsuits against Chicago's overly restrictive laws in violation of the recent SCOTUS ruling...

I wouldn't go around knocking them too much, if I were you, particularly in context of the Chicago issue. They're on our side and carry a big stick. If you piss 'em off, they'll just go home.

Dreamer · Jul 3, 2010

We-the-People said:
II would think that decades of regulation in Chicago, the failure of "gun free" zones, and all the other failings of the gun control movement would be enough evidence that 9 justices could say "you know, this gun control thing just doesn't work" and verify the INALIENABLE RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms?

I hate to be a nit-picker, but I think the word you want is UNalienable...

These two words are VERY different in meaning, and with regards to the sort of rights they describe. In the Declaration of Independence, they say that we have certain "unalienable rights". Unalienable means that a right is FUNDAMENTAL to being human--it exists before, and without the presence or existence of, a government. It means that such a right CANNOT be taken away, restricted, sold, or controlled by any authority--NOT EVEN by the individual. NO person, community, or institution has the moral, spiritual or legal authority to remove or restrict such a right.

Inalienable rights, however, are different. Although they are also closely tied to being human, they are rights that arise from agreements and consensus, and therefore CAN be traded away, sold, restricted by community consensus, or otherwise removed, restricted, or negotiated, but ONLY by the consent of the individual.

http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm

That little vowel and the beginning of that word makes a HUGE difference. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be sure to use the correct word when discussing the 2A, because it is, quite literally, the difference between Liberty and Slavery...

We-the-People · Jul 3, 2010

Yes, it's spelled "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence. However, Websters has no definition for unalienable but does for inalienable, and if you search for unalienable there is no textual description, only a reference to inalienable. Words change over time whether it be their spelling, meaning, or acceptability.

From Websters:
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

I don't see any allowance for "voluntarilly" giving up inalienable rights.

We must remember however, that the Declaration of Independence predates our founding documents. The Articles of Confederation and our Constitution both came post Declaration and were extensively debated. That something is in the Declaration does not mean it has the same weight as something in the Constitution and neither inalienable or unalienable appear in the Constitution. The words of the Declaration lend support to the intent of the people at the time but is not as strong as the Constitution and it's amendments.

Researching several .edu sites reveals that inalienable rights, when described, can not be severed from the individual. No mention is made of voluntary serverability, nor of governments involuntarilly severing them from the individual. Some scholarly works however, do argue that "the public good" can justify severing inalienable rights.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I will refer to scholarly sites over a non verified web page any time. Scholars have biases, we all do, but .edu sites are much more reliable than a web page put up by who knows who.

merle · Jul 4, 2010

We-the-People said:
Researching several .edu sites reveals that inalienable rights, when described, can not be severed from the individual. No mention is made of voluntary serverability, nor of governments involuntarilly severing them from the individual. Some scholarly works however, do argue that "the public good" can justify severing inalienable rights.

Yes. Capital punishment meets this. The right to "life" is in un/inalienable right, listed in the Declaration of Independence. However, the "State" can take your right for violating certain laws, specifically those where you deprive someone else of their own fundamental rights.

For Example: A convicted murderer denied one or more victims of the right of life, society then will deprive the murderer of their life.

Is this "right", or "appropriate"? Should society have the right to deny *any* individual of their unalienable rights, permanently? Executing a criminal is no different from lifetime imprisonment (both deny multiple fundamental rights), and as long as we allow society to deny fundamental rights at any level, it becomes a potential slippery slope to ensure other fundamental rights are not denied, especially in lesser cases (e.g. convicted felons w/o 2A rights).

And that's the cost of our constitutional republic - constant vigilance to ensure our rights are not violated by our (limited) government.

eye95 · Jul 4, 2010

Not a slippery slope at all.

When convicted of a crime, following due process, the criminal will suffer a consequence that will include the revocation of some rights, permanently or for a specified period of time, as determined by legislative policy decisions and/or the lawful pronouncement of the court. Even in the time of the Founders, such revocations of Life, Liberty, and Property after conviction were the norm.

The only way one could argue that the Founders would not approve of our current practices, would be to argue that the Founders did not approve at all of the use of those punishments in their time. While they were clearly against cruel and unusual punishment, they seemed to have no problem with usual punishments, including forfeitures of Life, Liberty, and Property.

simmonsjoe · Jul 5, 2010

eye95 said:
Not a slippery slope at all.

When convicted of a crime, following due process, the criminal will suffer a consequence that will include the revocation of some rights, permanently or for a specified period of time, as determined by legislative policy decisions and/or the lawful pronouncement of the court. Even in the time of the Founders, such revocations of Life, Liberty, and Property after conviction were the norm.

The only way one could argue that the Founders would not approve of our current practices, would be to argue that the Founders did not approve at all of the use of those punishments in their time. While they were clearly against cruel and unusual punishment, they seemed to have no problem with usual punishments, including forfeitures of Life, Liberty, and Property.

I have never heard of the right to self defense ever being revoked. Can you cite this for me?

merle · Jul 5, 2010

eye95 said:
Not a slippery slope at all.

When convicted of a crime, following due process, the criminal will suffer a consequence that will include the revocation of some rights, permanently or for a specified period of time, as determined by legislative policy decisions and/or the lawful pronouncement of the court. Even in the time of the Founders, such revocations of Life, Liberty, and Property after conviction were the norm.

"When convicted of a crime" is the slippery slope. The bar can be so lowered that anyone can be convicted of a crime (e.g. sodomy laws, open carry near a GFSZ, a temporary restraining can have their rights restricted (e.g. right to a posses a firearm for self-defense).

The legislation can pass laws creating a class of felons from nearly any set of (in)actions. Using simple logic, one can forsee a low threshold required in order to deny anyone the right to 2A and self-defense rights.

Chicago could, for example, require registration of firearms every year. If the registration lapses, the gun cannot be re-registered. They could even make it a "crime" which denies the owner the right to own any other firearm.

In the times of the founders, and years afterwards, once punishment was decided, the price paid, the person was returned fully to their rights. The case today is we seemingly have no problem with removing, permanently, the right to self-defense and to own & posses a firearm from multiple classes (e.g. felons, children, named persons in TRO's, etc.).

This is the slippery slope, a view on the way down.

eye95 · Jul 5, 2010

merle said:
"When convicted of a crime" is the slippery slope. The bar can be so lowered that anyone can be convicted of a crime (e.g. sodomy laws, open carry near a GFSZ, a temporary restraining can have their rights restricted (e.g. right to a posses a firearm for self-defense).

The legislation can pass laws creating a class of felons from nearly any set of (in)actions. Using simple logic, one can forsee a low threshold required in order to deny anyone the right to 2A and self-defense rights...

Of course the definitions of crimes change. That is one of the functions we want government, as a representative of the people, to perform: to define what actions are illegal and what the consequences of those actions will be (which almost exclusively involve the forfeiture of rights). Of course the government will overstep its bounds. That's why we have courts. Chicago has been slapped down and will be slapped down again.

Of course, if the government becomes so oppressive that we cannot slap it down when it oversteps, then... Well, that happened in 1776, but we ain't there yet.

The only way to achieve what you propose is to outlaw the ability of government to define crimes and to set punishments.

simmonsjoe · Jul 5, 2010

eye95 said:
Of course the definitions of crimes change. That is one of the functions we want government, as a representative of the people, to perform: to define what actions are illegal and what the consequences of those actions will be (which almost exclusively involve the forfeiture of rights). Of course the government will overstep its bounds. That's why we have courts. Chicago has been slapped down and will be slapped down again.

Of course, if the government becomes so oppressive that we cannot slap it down when it oversteps, then... Well, that happened in 1776, but we ain't there yet.

The only way to achieve what you propose is to outlaw the ability of government to define crimes and to set punishments.

You speak for yourself. I don't want this. Anything that does not involve stealing my property or hurting my body or enslaving my body is none of the gov't business.

Legislating morality is evil.

AZkopper · Jul 5, 2010

I have to somewhat agree with Eyes95.

I think the definition of 2A barring crimes is way off base. It should be limited to those who have committed and been convicted of violent felonies (murder, rape, armed robbery, arson, kidnapping, etc).

My reasons are obvious (to me). At the time of the founders, up til 60 or so years ago, such a convicted criminal would probably be hanged after being found guilty. A total revocation of rights [death]. Since we are now a 'civilized' society (sarcasm), and don't execute those who truely need it, and rarely give a true life in prison sentance, I have no problem with barring them from the most common tool to commit crimes.

Now, if we lived in a society as the founders intended, and we had quick justice and quick sentancing (conviction of such a violent felony, with a sentance of death, followed by a near immediate appeal, if which upheld led to a quick execution, then we would not have this conundrum.

Jack House · Jul 5, 2010

Basically you're saying you're cool with compromising on a compromise. How long till you completely compromise your rights away?

Doug Huffman · Jul 5, 2010

Your mind enslaved by ignorance.

simmonsjoe said:
You speak for yourself. I don't want this. Anything that does not involve stealing my property or hurting my body or enslaving my body is none of the gov't business. Legislating morality is evil.

You're OK then with your mind enslaved and evil. The drive to the lowest most common denominator, ignorance, is evil. And that isn't the government's business either.

We-the-People · Jul 5, 2010

eye95 said:
Of course the definitions of crimes change. That is one of the functions we want government, as a representative of the people, to perform: to define what actions are illegal and what the consequences of those actions will be (which almost exclusively involve the forfeiture of rights). Of course the government will overstep its bounds. That's why we have courts. Chicago has been slapped down and will be slapped down again.

Of course, if the government becomes so oppressive that we cannot slap it down when it oversteps, then... Well, that happened in 1776, but we ain't there yet.

The only way to achieve what you propose is to outlaw the ability of government to define crimes and to set punishments.

Not IF and not WHEN, it already is oppressive and if we don't use the ballot box to reverse it we will either lose our culture and way of life or find ourselves in the midst of a very nasty civil uprising.

If a crime is committed, once the sentence is served, there is no justification for continuing to deny natural rights. The right to vote, to bear arms, to speak freely, to associate freely, ALL are rights which the government should NOT be restricting once a prison sentence is served. If someone is too dangerous to society to have those rights then they should remain in prison, but that's not how our system works either. In the days of the not so "wild west", when you were released from prison, you got your weapons and ammuniiton returned to you.....right there at the prison..... for to send you out in the world unable to defend yourself was unthinkable, even for an ex con.

No, government should NOT be deciding what rights it can deny ANY of it's citizens. Due process was intended to allow judicial punishment and provide for search warrants if provided sufficient evidence to support them, NOT to allow the government to deprive the rights of citizens in the long term. Just look at the myriad "felonies" we now have on the books as well as laws which restrict the right to firearms possession from those with a restraining order (something which is almost standard in some types of cases, regardless of the need for one), a "domestic violence" charge (short term) or conviction (long term). What constitutes domestic violence? In some jurisdictions simply raising your voice, yelling, is domestic "violence". It's just up to the gubment workers to decide how low to place the bar in order to keep their system employed and needing to expand. Yes, it's that simple, bureaucrats all seek the expansion of their little fifedoms at the expense of the citizenry, in tax revenues and even harassment.

eye95 · Jul 5, 2010

We-the-People said:
Not IF and not WHEN, it already is oppressive and if we don't use the ballot box to reverse it we will either lose our culture and way of life or find ourselves in the midst of a very nasty civil uprising...

Reread the part of my post that you bolded. The word you may have missed is "so." Government will become oppressive to varying degrees. It is the nature of the beast--an unfortunately necessary beast. As I said in the unbolded part, you slap it down with the courts. As you pointed out, we should slap it down at the ballot box. Also unfortunate is that the majority of Americans don't understand that elections have consequences and don't try to protect their rights with their votes.

That's what raises the possibility that the government will become so oppressive that courts and ballot boxes won't do the trick. We aren't there yet--as evidenced by McDonald.

We-the-People · Jul 5, 2010

eye95 said:
Reread the part of my post that you bolded. The word you may have missed is "so." Government will become oppressive to varying degrees. It is the nature of the beast--an unfortunately necessary beast. As I said in the unbolded part, you slap it down with the courts. As you pointed out, we should slap it down at the ballot box. Also unfortunate is that the majority of Americans don't understand that elections have consequences and don't try to protect their rights with their votes.

That's what raises the possibility that the government will become so oppressive that courts and ballot boxes won't do the trick. We aren't there yet--as evidenced by McDonald.

It is SO oppressive that it MUST be reined in or replaced. A scary proposition the latter, but it may well become necessary. We are supposed to be a free country and yet we are not. We are controlled at so many levels and in so many intrusive ways "for the common good".

Seat belt laws, Helmet laws, child seat laws, (my god how did my generation even survive?), recreational intoxicant laws (i.e. marijuana and other "illicit" drugs), government permission required to exercise the RIGHT TKB, zoning laws, EPA, ESA, IRS, DHS, you can't put a damn dog in the back of your truck in some states and most now prohibit people from riding in them, Social "security" (a government scheme to ensure the elderly are dependent upon the government), welfare (a government scheme to ensure teh poor are dependent upon the governement), mandatory car insurance (insure yourself or not, what's the government invovled for), ObamaCare (1/7th+ of the national economy), taxes/surcharges/franchise fees on EVERYTHING....phone, electric, gas, cable television for which the government provides NO necessary service, and the list goes on.

The ONLY legitimate functions of government are to SECURE rights from those that might infringe upon them as would happen in a system with no government (anarchy), provide for teh common defense (which would be defense from OUTSIDE governments and other threats, PROMOTE - not control - the general welfare, and SECURE - not control or provide, simply SECURE - the life and LIBERTY of the people.

They have failed dismally in all areas save the common defense against foreign threats and recently their sliding rapidly down that hill in the form of our borders being invaded at will by illegal immigrants.

eye95 · Jul 5, 2010

We-the-People said:
It is SO oppressive that it MUST be reined in or replaced. A scary proposition the latter, but it may well become necessary. We are supposed to be a free country and yet we are not. We are controlled at so many levels and in so many intrusive ways "for the common good".

Seat belt laws, Helmet laws, child seat laws, (my god how did my generation even survive?), recreational intoxicant laws (i.e. marijuana and other "illicit" drugs), government permission required to exercise the RIGHT TKB, zoning laws, EPA, ESA, IRS, DHS, you can't put a damn dog in the back of your truck in some states and most now prohibit people from riding in them, Social "security" (a government scheme to ensure the elderly are dependent upon the government), welfare (a government scheme to ensure teh poor are dependent upon the governement), mandatory car insurance (insure yourself or not, what's the government invovled for), ObamaCare (1/7th+ of the national economy), taxes/surcharges/franchise fees on EVERYTHING....phone, electric, gas, cable television for which the government provides NO necessary service, and the list goes on.

The ONLY legitimate functions of government are to SECURE rights from those that might infringe upon them as would happen in a system with no government (anarchy), provide for teh common defense (which would be defense from OUTSIDE governments and other threats, PROMOTE - not control - the general welfare, and SECURE - not control or provide, simply SECURE - the life and LIBERTY of the people.

They have failed dismally in all areas save the common defense against foreign threats and recently their sliding rapidly down that hill in the form of our borders being invaded at will by illegal immigrants.

Please read again the level of oppressiveness about which I was talking: so oppressive that the built-in means of slapping it down (courts, ballots, etc.) fail. Once again, we aren't there yet.

If and when we get there, we 1776 their butts. Until then, we use the institutions or forefathers put in place following that last general 1776ing.

balackolama · Jul 5, 2010

when is the civil war going to start?
how much ammo should i stockpile?

merle · Jul 6, 2010

eye95 said:
Please read again the level of oppressiveness about which I was talking: so oppressive that the built-in means of slapping it down (courts, ballots, etc.) fail. Once again, we aren't there yet.

If and when we get there, we 1776 their butts. Until then, we use the institutions or forefathers put in place following that last general 1776ing.

Jefferson would probably disagree with you...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two?"

The people should not need to rely upon the courts and the ballots to handle an oppressive government. The government should always keep in mind that their job is not to oppress the people but to ensure freedom, rights and defense for the people.

If I were an oppressor, I would pass a plethora of laws and let them wind their way through the courts and let people think they could change things through the ballot. If one or two things got through, you pass another set of laws. At some point, people give up, or the people who remember "how things were" pass away and the new generation accepts the new laws as status quo, thereby not challenging them.

What would stop me? An insurrection every now and then. If there's a chance of me getting shot, I'd be disinclined to mess around with fundamental rights.

Supreme court ruling (mcdonald vs. Chicago)

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member