big_pth: As a bleeding liberal, I say good. We have laws for guns, and they need to be enforced. We don't need more laws that don't get enforced.

No kidding. It's not like the criminals are using legal guns anyway. Making more laws only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not the criminals.

guns guns guns.

Someone with some skills could get real rich and famous changing one of those libs libs libs pics into a guns guns guns pic.

Sweeeeeeeet.

/Dick Heller is nuts, however
//heard him speak once
///holy shiat he is dumb
////didn't quite talk about lizard men, but...
////slashies

Ridiculous. Next thing you know people will want the 1st amendment to apply to states as well.

Why would anyone want to buy a gun in Chicago anyways, the sales tax is too high here for anyone looking for appreciable firepower.

Excellent.

CruJones: big_pth: As a bleeding liberal, I say good. We have laws for guns, and they need to be enforced. We don't need more laws that don't get enforced.

No kidding. It's not like the criminals are using legal guns anyway. Making more laws only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not the criminals.

To play Devil's Advocate here, the solution would be to prohibit the manufacture of these weapons.

Sweet, I've always wanted to pull a gun/pistol whip someone.

big_pth: As a bleeding liberal, I say good. We have laws for guns, and they need to be enforced. We don't need more laws that don't get enforced.

Well said.

Ridiculous, Chicago has the highest rate of gun violence in the country. I saw a news special that said 36 minors have been killed by violence in 2009 alone. Chicago needs to ban guns. Wait... what... Chicago HAS banned guns... k, nevermind then.

Car_Ramrod: You know, the one thing that I've really changed my mind on over the years has been gun control. I've slipped away from the "control" position, and into more of a "regulation" position. As long as there's proof you're not crazy, you know how to properly use a firearm, and all your weapons are registered, have at it.

Agreed, though unfortunately, a lot of handguns in this country aren't.

Car_Ramrod: I've slipped away from the "control" position, and into more of a "regulation" position. As long as there's proof you're not crazy, you know how to properly use a firearm, and all your weapons are registered, have at it.

But then villians can steal it from you. Or you can go temporarily crazy and snap. Or you could just give it to someone as gift. This is the reason local gun laws don't work. There will always be someone in the next town or county or state over who will buy a gun legally, scrape off the identifying marks, then sell it for profit where it's banned. It's just like drug trade or cigarette smuggling. The only way to address the situation is to expand the bans so that they are more enforceable. We should have a nationwide ban on firearms. Ideally, a worldwide ban.

This will be an absolutely fascinating case. It's been quite a while since there's been a good incorporation doctrine case before the Court, and there are very strong arguments on both sides of this one. Obviously, Easterbrook and Posner set this up for reversal, but as always, ultimately it will come down to good lawyering, and who manages to persuade a majority of the Court Justice Kennedy.

I like my guns illegal. Makes all of my mayhem all that more exciting.

Also, my victims are less likely to shoot me back.

Car_Ramrod: You know, the one thing that I've really changed my mind on over the years has been gun control. I've slipped away from the "control" position, and into more of a "regulation" position. As long as there's proof you're not crazy, you know how to properly use a firearm, and all your weapons are registered, have at it.

I'm there too. Problem is many people don't even feel they should be registered or much regulation.

That is stupid.

I'm sure all the states rights conservatives will be here any minute to decry this blatant attempt at enforcing the will of the federal government upon the people.

... right?

Shaggy_C: Car_Ramrod: I've slipped away from the "control" position, and into more of a "regulation" position. As long as there's proof you're not crazy, you know how to properly use a firearm, and all your weapons are registered, have at it.

But then villians can steal it from you. Or you can go temporarily crazy and snap. Or you could just give it to someone as gift. This is the reason local gun laws don't work. There will always be someone in the next town or county or state over who will buy a gun legally, scrape off the identifying marks, then sell it for profit where it's banned. It's just like drug trade or cigarette smuggling. The only way to address the situation is to expand the bans so that they are more enforceable. We should have a nationwide ban on firearms. Ideally, a worldwide ban.

Bahaha. And who will enforce this worldwide gun ban?

Shaggy_C: We should have a nationwide ban on firearms. Ideally, a worldwide ban.

I'm a Green and I would like to tell you that I'd like to fart rainbows but that isn't happening anytime soon.

WFern: CruJones: big_pth: As a bleeding liberal, I say good. We have laws for guns, and they need to be enforced. We don't need more laws that don't get enforced.

No kidding. It's not like the criminals are using legal guns anyway. Making more laws only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not the criminals.

To play Devil's Advocate here, the solution would be to prohibit the manufacture of these weapons.

And to play Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate, the ultimate solution would be to prohibit the manufacture of people.

timujin: Cool, in early enough that I won't miss what is sure to be a very reasoned debate on the subject.

I'm actually hoping this wins. The chaos that will ensue after that should be enough to teach two generations of people that guns =/= safer.

I was taught that when I was 5 in a military family.

I'm all for everyone to have guns.

The same kind that existed when the Declaration and Constitution were written.

You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

And everyone can have one.

namatad: /when was the last time that someone got shot buying beer or cigs?

That one dude stole cigarettes with a most excellent beer disguise and a gun. It was close!

farker99: I'm all for everyone to have guns.

The same kind that existed when the Declaration and Constitution were written.

You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

And everyone can have one.

You managed to create a gun that loads pellets through a shellfish? I WOULD imagine that would be less than accurate. You are obviously using the wrong equipment.

farker99: You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

Do you honestly believe our forefathers were so shortsighted that they couldn't conceive of the possibility that weapons would become smaller and more deadly? I think they were smarter than that.

Shaggy_C: Car_Ramrod: I've slipped away from the "control" position, and into more of a "regulation" position. As long as there's proof you're not crazy, you know how to properly use a firearm, and all your weapons are registered, have at it.

But then villians can steal it from you. Or you can go temporarily crazy and snap. Or you could just give it to someone as gift. This is the reason local gun laws don't work. There will always be someone in the next town or county or state over who will buy a gun legally, scrape off the identifying marks, then sell it for profit where it's banned. It's just like drug trade or cigarette smuggling. The only way to address the situation is to expand the bans so that they are more enforceable. We should have a nationwide ban on firearms. Ideally, a worldwide ban.

I know you are trying to troll, but you have a good point. Idiots saying things like "I thought Chicago banned guns, how do they have gun violence?" dont understand that it's very easy for someone to buy a gun in Virginia or Texas and just drive it into Chicago.

If you truly want to meaningfully reduce gun violence, you'd have to have a nationwide ban so that anyone caught possessing, selling, or manufacturing a gun or ammunition in any state would be arrested and imprisoned. This will never happen, however, so guns will still leak into Chicago or NYC. Doesn't mean that Chicagoans or New Yorkers aren't safer because of their local bans (they undeniably are, on balance), but it does mean that those bans will be less effective.

jbuist:
Michigan and Hawaii are really the only states with a handgun registry. There's also a county out in Nevada that requires it, other than that, nobody bothers. They're rather useless.

Jesus. That's worse than I thought.

/Shotgun owner. I don't possess a handgun for the time being.

Pompatus: And to play Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate, the ultimate solution would be to prohibit the manufacture of people.

I might actually get behind that.

Never going to happen.

Debeo Summa Credo: Doesn't mean that Chicagoans or New Yorkers aren't safer because of their local bans (they undeniably are, on balance), but it does mean that those bans will be less effective.

Citation, please.

farker99: I'm all for everyone to have guns.

The same kind that existed when the Declaration and Constitution were written.

You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

And everyone can have one.

And the First Amendment should only protect manual printing presses, quill pens, and shouting in the town square. None of that dangerous Internet, telephone, or radio stuff. The Founding Fathers could never have conceived of such forms of communication.

mediaho: farker99: You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

Do you honestly believe our forefathers were so shortsighted that they couldn't conceive of the possibility that weapons would become smaller and more deadly? I think they were smarter than that.

How much more deadly? Do you think automatic machine guns were meant to be protected? How about rocket launchers? Surely the founding fathers could have conceived of such things?

That's the problem with relying on a 2nd amendment defense of gun ownership... if you are right that it should be taken literally, then there's no reason to say that private ownership of rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or even nuclear bombs can be banned.

Debeo Summa Credo: mediaho: farker99: You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

Do you honestly believe our forefathers were so shortsighted that they couldn't conceive of the possibility that weapons would become smaller and more deadly? I think they were smarter than that.

How much more deadly? Do you think automatic machine guns were meant to be protected? How about rocket launchers? Surely the founding fathers could have conceived of such things?

That's the problem with relying on a 2nd amendment defense of gun ownership... if you are right that it should be taken literally, then there's no reason to say that private ownership of rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or even nuclear bombs can be banned.

adm_crunch just owned you a couple posts up. I suggest you address it.

I think gun ownership is great.
I just wish ammo wasn't so cheap and plentiful. Maybe apply something like the cigarette/booze taxes to ammunition.

Sorry to all the people who have to hunt or target shoot to live.

Debeo Summa Credo: mediaho: farker99: You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

Do you honestly believe our forefathers were so shortsighted that they couldn't conceive of the possibility that weapons would become smaller and more deadly? I think they were smarter than that.

How much more deadly? Do you think automatic machine guns were meant to be protected? How about rocket launchers? Surely the founding fathers could have conceived of such things?

That's the problem with relying on a 2nd amendment defense of gun ownership... if you are right that it should be taken literally, then there's no reason to say that private ownership of rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or even nuclear bombs can be banned.

See, me personally, I would draw the line at any weapon that can be used to indiscriminately murder more than a few people at a time. If you can't ensure that you are only hitting your target, you should not be permitted to own one as a citizen. That can include fully automatic weapons and most definitely included everything you mentioned.

Debeo Summa Credo: How much more deadly? Do you think automatic machine guns were meant to be protected? How about rocket launchers? Surely the founding fathers could have conceived of such things?

That's the problem with relying on a 2nd amendment defense of gun ownership... if you are right that it should be taken literally, then there's no reason to say that private ownership of rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or even nuclear bombs can be banned.

Most of those would have been considered ordnance in the 18th century (like cannon and artillery), not arms.

How about making murder, with any form of weapons, illegal? Oh wait.

Gosling: Shaggy_C: We should have a nationwide ban on firearms. Ideally, a worldwide ban.

I'm a Green and I would like to tell you that I'd like to fart rainbows but that isn't happening anytime soon.

We don't need a worldwide ban on firearms. We just need to dispel the myth that a gun makes you safer. Yes, firearms can help, but they can also be a hindrance.

Debeo Summa Credo: That's the problem with relying on a 2nd amendment defense of gun ownership... if you are right that it should be taken literally, then there's no reason to say that private ownership of rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or even nuclear bombs can be banned.

Well technically a "well regulated militia" means what? The benefit, and problem, of that amendment is it's vagueness. Still, yes, let's go unrestricted. I'd love to have a ma deuce mounted on my car when someone makes a threatening gesture.

farker99: I'm all for everyone to have guns.

The same kind that existed when the Declaration and Constitution were written.

You know: Mussel loading, single pellet firing, not-very-accurate, not very long range guns. No six shooters, no repeaters, none of that new crap.

And everyone can have one.

That's the most tired argument gun control nuts use. It wasn't inconceivable to the founding fathers that firearm technology would evolve. They weren't dumb. You don't see us sitting around being ignorant of future technology even though it doesn't exist yet (fusion, macro material carbon nano-tubes, etc.)

The whole point of the second amendment is to put the general populace on par arms wise with the military. Now I'll agree that the general populace probably shouldn't have tanks, STINGER missiles, and AH-64D Apaches .... but the same small arms? Yeah, sure why not.

Nabb1: wyrlss: I think gun ownership is great.
I just wish ammo wasn't so cheap and plentiful. Maybe apply something like the cigarette/booze taxes to ammunition.

Sorry to all the people who have to hunt or target shoot to live.

Most gun crimes don't involve vast quantities of stockpiled bullets. Pricing ammo outrageously high isn't going to change anything in that regard. You'll only hurt lawful gun owners, and in many respects, such things make less sense than restrictions on firearms.

But we could even justify it like we do the other syntaxes. To pay for medical expenses related to their use. Because that's what the syntax is therefore, right?

YixilTesiphon: How about making murder, with any form of weapons, illegal? Oh wait.

I sense a fellow sarcastically jaded libretarian :-)