If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Chicago so concerned about concealed carry that the city is willing to use tax dollars to fight against the constitutional right   (nation.time.com) divider line 355
    More: Asinine, use tax, Lisa Madigan, Chicago, state capitols, concealed weapons, constitutional rights, chicago aldermen, U.S. Supreme Court  
•       •       •

6587 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2012 at 5:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



355 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 03:25:16 PM  
These alderman seem terrified about private citizens carrying guns. I seriously don't understand their train of thought. Do they think a concealed carry law will be the tipping point on whether or not the regular Joe goes off on a mass killing spree or something?

Kinda shows what these politicians think of their constituents.
 
2012-12-13 03:35:08 PM  
Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.
 
2012-12-13 03:35:54 PM  
Wouldn't it be better to deprive gang members of their constitutional rights than ordinary citizens? Such as filing a RICO case against the gang, and anyone with that gang's tats goes to the slammer?
 
2012-12-13 03:36:35 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


I don't think open carry is legal in Illinois either. Not sure, though. I know their gun laws suck ass in general.
 
2012-12-13 03:43:48 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


Not yet.

But with no open or concealed carry the 7th Circuit said Illinois is in violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-12-13 03:45:56 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I don't think open carry is legal in Illinois either. Not sure, though. I know their gun laws suck ass in general.


Nope. Open carry is illegal as well.
 
2012-12-13 03:48:39 PM  

Frank N Stein: These alderman seem terrified about private citizens carrying guns. I seriously don't understand their train of thought. Do they think a concealed carry law will be the tipping point on whether or not the regular Joe goes off on a mass killing spree or something?

Kinda shows what these politicians think of their constituents.


Just like those states that have state-run liquor stores. I suppose they fear kids seeing the stuff in a grocery store who will want to suddenly become alcoholics?
 
2012-12-13 03:57:07 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Just like those states that have state-run liquor stores. I suppose they fear kids seeing the stuff in a grocery store who will want to suddenly become alcoholics?


This has also baffled my mind. But seeing as how I don't have much experience with the matter, I don't think about it as often.
 
2012-12-13 03:59:11 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


It just hasn't been recognized yet. I guarantee the final ruling will have the same effect as the Heller ruling and Chicago will be proven wrong yet again.
 
2012-12-13 04:01:40 PM  

R.A.Danny: I guarantee the final ruling will have the same effect as the Heller ruling and Chicago will be proven wrong yet again.


Possible, but your opinion is one of the nuttier ones on Fark, so I'm going to assume that you are wrong again.
 
2012-12-13 04:02:19 PM  
Guns already are too plentiful on some neighborhoods' streets.

All of which are currently illegal. I cannot fathom how legal firearms will make any negative difference whatsoever as it is already a fact that criminals are not obeying the law. Worst case scenario is that the same person will kill someone with a legal firearm instead of the illegal one he already has, same net effect. I don't see criminals going through legal channels to facilitate drive-bys though. They are already happening on a daily basis.
 
2012-12-13 04:04:07 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Possible, but your opinion is one of the nuttier ones on Fark, so I'm going to assume that you are wrong again.


Again? Like I was on Heller, DC v NRA, and McDonald v Chicago?

I was absolutely 100% correct as always.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:03 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


If a person is carrying a concealed weapon, is he keeping and bearing arms? Yes.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:24 PM  

Frank N Stein: Marcus Aurelius: I don't think open carry is legal in Illinois either. Not sure, though. I know their gun laws suck ass in general.

Nope. Open carry is illegal as well.


What about quantum carry? I carry mine in a Schrödinger box, along with my half-dead cat.
 
2012-12-13 04:39:42 PM  
Keep 'em coming, Rahm.

i798.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 04:51:28 PM  

R.A.Danny: AdolfOliverPanties: Possible, but your opinion is one of the nuttier ones on Fark, so I'm going to assume that you are wrong again.

Again? Like I was on Heller, DC v NRA, and McDonald v Chicago?

I was absolutely 100% correct as always.


I didn't mean your opinion no legal cases. I meant your general unhinged Rightwing derp opinions on just about everything.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:24 PM  

DrPainMD: AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

If a person is carrying a concealed weapon, is he keeping and bearing arms? Yes.


My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.
 
2012-12-13 04:57:03 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: R.A.Danny: AdolfOliverPanties: Possible, but your opinion is one of the nuttier ones on Fark, so I'm going to assume that you are wrong again.

Again? Like I was on Heller, DC v NRA, and McDonald v Chicago?

I was absolutely 100% correct as always.

I didn't mean your opinion no ON legal cases. I meant your general unhinged Rightwing derp opinions on just about everything.


FTFM
 
2012-12-13 05:01:46 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I didn't mean your opinion no legal cases. I meant your general unhinged Rightwing derp opinions on just about everything.


Gay marriage? ALL for it.
Getting us out of wars started by GOP lies? ALL for it. I think the government's involvement in marriage should be relegated to contract law anyway.
I completely believe that if liberals were completely honest with themselves they would embrace The Constitution and ALL of Her Amendments, and not pick & choose based on convoluted sentence structure wrangling.
Unions? I'm not the biggest fan, I admit, but I understand the historical importance and think they should be legal. I just think a number of them have been led astray by corruption.

What else have I said that make me a kook? I must obviously be a complete nutjob to have such values.
 
2012-12-13 05:06:45 PM  
Oops, I formatted for crap, you can figure it out.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:05 PM  
I'm not anti-gun, strictly speaking.

But my brother owns several firearms and has a CCW.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that he owns firearms and has a CCW means there need to be changes made to the system.

You don't know him like I do.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:11 PM  
Open carry would be better in Shiatcago.
Being able to defend yourself quickly is very important.
 
2012-12-13 05:20:23 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.


9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just saying
 
2012-12-13 05:21:40 PM  
Subby may need to read the constitution a little more carefully.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:28 PM  
"People's safety is at risk," said Alderman Anthony Beale.

With all respect due an alderman of Chicago, that is to say none whatsoever, people's safety is at risk because they're in farking Chicago, dude, not because the courts say that non-criminals are allowed to carry, too.

//Speaking as someone that's right of center, anyone that's for one of gay marriage and concealed carry and against the other really needs to sit down and have themselves a long think about avoiding hypocrisy. Both issues are matters of state licenses and neither hurts anyone not involved in the license-- I don't think it's coincidental that when one issue makes some headlines the other tends to pop up within a few weeks.
 
2012-12-13 05:22:39 PM  

R.A.Danny: Getting us out of wars started by GOP lies? ALL for it. I think the government's involvement in marriage should be relegated to contract law anyway.


Snerk!
 
2012-12-13 05:23:17 PM  
Denying honest law abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon will not make the city safer. This is how politicians work to ensure rights are eroded. Incrementally.
 
2012-12-13 05:23:56 PM  
Apparently easier to fight the courts than to fight the crime.
 
2012-12-13 05:23:59 PM  

roddack: AdolfOliverPanties: My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just saying


I think this is where the disconnect is.

Rights are not granted by The Constitution, they are protected by The Constitution from our government. We are born with rights, not given them.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:33 PM  
Businesses are starting to cause economic horrors out of our worst nightmares and we are heading for a society of slaves.
This should keep everybody distracted for the next few years. Carry on you farkheads, carry on.

/panem et circenses is really all we as a species deserve.
//I am lying of course, we don't even deserve that, we deserve slow death. And that is what we will get.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:49 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: R.A.Danny: Getting us out of wars started by GOP lies? ALL for it. I think the government's involvement in marriage should be relegated to contract law anyway.


Snerk!


Yeah I am farking while trying to look like I'm being a productive worker bee.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:49 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: DrPainMD: AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

If a person is carrying a concealed weapon, is he keeping and bearing arms? Yes.

My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.


Is that a musket in your pocket, or.....yadda yada
 
2012-12-13 05:28:25 PM  
But what if CCW makes Chicago into a dangerous city?
 
2012-12-13 05:28:29 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Just like those states that have state-run liquor stores. I suppose they fear kids seeing the stuff in a grocery store who will want to suddenly become alcoholics?


I think that's as much about money as anything at this point. They charge as much or more than for-profit liquor stores do in normal states. Instead of just tax money, they actually take in the profit off of it.

The annoying part is most states that have that system close them down relatively early. But I know in Ohio there were some grocery stores that actually had a state liquor store in the grocery store, and grocery stores still sold beer and the diluted liquor (no more than 40 proof IIRC).
 
2012-12-13 05:28:38 PM  

roddack: AdolfOliverPanties: My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just saying


Yo dumbass. The 9th limit FEDERAL enumeration, not the States. These are state laws.
 
2012-12-13 05:29:24 PM  

way south: But what if CCW makes Chicago into a dangerous city?


*Head asplodes*
 
2012-12-13 05:29:30 PM  

R.A.Danny:
Rights are not granted by The Constitution, they are protected by The Constitution from our government. We are born with rights, not given them.


Thanks, secret reincarnation of John Locke. But just so you know, that interpretation is form the declaration of independence, which has no legal force. While some of that thinking went into designing the constitution, only the enumerated rights automatically have legal force, whether others sometimes apply it's generally defined by the courts or laws.
 
2012-12-13 05:29:56 PM  
What part of "citizen militia to protect a newborn nation" means "semi-automatic tucked in your waistband?"
 
2012-12-13 05:30:40 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Concealed carry is not covered in the Constitution at all.

You have NO Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.


What's stupid is criminals are not gonna apply for a conceal/carry permit, using tax money for this is just farking insane.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:57 PM  
Governments spend tax dollars to defend unconstitutional shiat all the time. Separation of powers pretty much guarantees this. I'm pro Second Amendment, but acting like this is ome unique outrage is silly.
 
2012-12-13 05:31:34 PM  

Jim_Callahan: While some of that thinking went into designing the constitution, only the enumerated rights automatically have legal force, whether others sometimes apply it's generally defined by the courts or laws.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
2012-12-13 05:32:19 PM  

R.A.Danny: roddack: AdolfOliverPanties: My point is that "concealed" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right. Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned. I was going off the thread title.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just saying

I think this is where the disconnect is.

Rights are not granted by The Constitution, they are protected by The Constitution from our government. We are born with rights, not given them.


A lot of people on the left side of the aisle don't hold this view unfortunately... Of course, the right side of the aisle tends to muck things up as well when it comes to other amendments. Power is given to the government by the people. Nothing belongs to the government that isn't given by the people. The government is not the source of rights, money, wealth, power, land, etc. It is all for and from the people. Politicians who do things because 'they know better than the people' should be shot, tarred and feathered, hung, and drawn and quartered. Doesn't matter what side they are on. There shouldn't even be SIDES... We're all the same nation, the sooner we get past this team sport we call politics, the better.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:20 PM  

orclover: Businesses are starting to cause economic horrors out of our worst nightmares and we are heading for a society of slaves..


It's voluntary servitude. People line up like sheep to buy the iPhone or advertise their favorite brand for free. It's not like the businesses are holding a gun to people's heads.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:46 PM  
Funny. the places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun trouble.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:06 PM  
The issue the court seems to be taking here isn't that concealed carry is a right, but that some kind of carry is, that your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed if you can't actually, well, bear said arms.

Under that, it would be permissible for a state to allow open carry, but not concealed, or vice versa. But if they deny all carry, then they are in trouble.

Of course we'll have to see if the supreme court decides to weigh in on this, and what they say, but that is what the court is saying right now.

Also you have to understand that the courts have repeatedly ruled that your rights aren't limited to just what is literally in the text, that there are other rights implied, like the right to privacy. It isn't enumerated, but the SC has ruled you have it, based on other rights in the Constitution.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:49 PM  
In Texas, in order to conceal carry, I have to pay a fee, sign away my rights, take a course and beg like a supplicant with my hat in my hand, before the government will grant me a "right" which is already given to me by law.

What's at stake is real simple: They do not want the citizens to be better armed than the government, and I for one see what they have in mind.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:05 PM  
I got to admit I was shocked the 7th struck the ban down considering how Posner has voted in the past and what he has written on gun control/gun rights. If the gun-banners have lost a Jurist like Posner, the constitutional argument really is over and prohibition lost.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:10 PM  
Blood in the streets, wild-west shoot-outs, and people killing each other over road rage. We've got one more chance to make this prediction come true! :-)
 
2012-12-13 05:38:09 PM  

tgambitg: A lot of people on the left side of the aisle don't hold this view unfortunately...


Sadly they're going to give away other rights along the way. And I don't mean left v right either, everyone should hold all of this stuff VERY dear. I don't care if you're an atheist, the First Amendment is needed. I don't care if you have nothing to hide, the Fourth.. Jesus, we all but lost that one. WAKE THE HELL UP!
 
2012-12-13 05:39:52 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I got to admit I was shocked the 7th struck the ban down considering how Posner has voted in the past and what he has written on gun control/gun rights. If the gun-banners have lost a Jurist like Posner, the constitutional argument really is over and prohibition lost.


Prohibition ALWAYS loses in the end. Banning something doesn't make it magically go away, it just takes it out of the hands of those who would obey the law in the first place. We saw that with alcohol, we're seeing it now with the war on drugs, and doing it with guns would be just plain stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report