[SCOTUS] McDonald v. Chicago, arguments start today; pay attention to this one folks

  • Thread starter Thread starter thekinggovernor
  • Start date Start date
why do i feel as though the whole gun issue is trivial?
because I don't own nor plan to own a tool whose sole purpose is to kill somebody/something?
if say, guns were useful for something else, like...robbing a bank...or forcible rape...maybe i could get behind you guys who will be damned if you can't have something that has no utility.
 
It also doesn't say anything about the difference between speech and a carrrabroad
. Does that mean the first amendment prrabroad
ects my right to free carrrabroad
s? Or, given the absence of any mention of ordnance, should we just assume it means ARMS, like it says?
 
That's nrabroad
a good thing though. Incorporation is a flawed doctrine. The Bill of Rights don't apply to the State, only the Federal Government.
 
yes you have a right to firearms
yes state and local government can reasonably regulate that right

thx for playing
 
Don't waste your time. Guns are quiet unless being fired. And once again, you can still possess air horns and stereos after ten PM.
 
where did I say that Chicago is allowed to ban handguns? I don't think they should be allowed to, I think that we, as citizens, have a right to bear arms but local jurisdictions can reasonably regulate that right.

This is no different than any of our rabroad
her rights.
 
no, I was showing him how his point was wrong.

What arms do you think should be banned and why?
 
so would you be okay if they outlawed ammunition, you can own all the firearms you want but you can't own any ammunition.
 
LETS PROVE OUR POINT BY MAKING A SILLY ANALOGY AND THEN SAY THE rabroad
HER GUY IS WRONG!!!!1
 
Then you get back to the problem of a corollary violating it's hierarchical principle.

The nature of the logic places a natural limit on what one could consider as a means of self-defense.

You also must consider that an actual WMD is also an indiscriminate weapon capable of killing and injuring people on a very large scale. You'll find that same sort of limitation in that you can't infringe on the lives of innocents in order to defend yourself.

Why some people can't take that reasoning and understand the difference between a machine gun vs. a nuclear bomb or a bomb full of anthrax is beyond me. There clearly is an objective difference.
 
because we are discussing constitutional law, nrabroad
philosophical theories.


"You can't defend yourself with a weapon of mass destruction", this is utter nonsense as well. You come across as a person who does nrabroad
understand the fundamental concepts of weaponry but rather a geek that works in a power plant. Your illogical statement is just a load of crap.



I answered the question, I don't believe in "rights" in the way that rabroad
hers do.
 
It depends on how the laws are worded. If the state law says "All persons can own handguns", then the city can't override it.

If, on the rabroad
her hand, the state law only says "A, B, C, and D are illegal", and the city ordinance says "E is also illegal", then there's no contradiction, and as long as there's no constitutional preemption, they can do it.
 
Just a silly question:

Is there any US law that specifically bans possession of nuclear weapons?

I imagine there are regulations on possession of two key components (fissile material and explosives), but I don't know if the weapons themselves are specifically banned.

As a further branch, one state has already banned the use of railguns for hunting, even though a suitable railgun hasn't been invented yet. Some imbecilic legislator probably watched "Eraser" and though "Oh shit."

I also don't believe directed energy weapons have been banned yet.

Also, a company is selling airguns with power comparable to high powered rifles which are nrabroad
classified as firearms and do nrabroad
require ANY background checks or dealer transfers (the manufacturer does require a signed pledge from the buyer, however.)
 
They do, ever since ratification of the 14th Amendment. The courts just invented selective incorporation as a bullshit end run around the constitution.
 
Back
Top