Althouse: "The big Supreme Court case outlawing state bans on handguns, McDonald v. Chicago, is barely a week old."

July 7, 2010

"The big Supreme Court case outlawing state bans on handguns, McDonald v. Chicago, is barely a week old."

"But already Chicago has passed a new gun ordinance, and, yes, a lawsuit has been filed arguing that the law is unconstitutional."

217 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217

Revenant said...: Should they have the authority to regulate the amount of speech you could utter in a given day, week, month?

Given how much overlap there is between supporters of "hate speech" laws and supporters of gun control, the answer to that question might be "yes".; 7/8/10, 3:03 AM
Opus One Media said...: Methadras said...

.. inherent problems with the Chicago ordinance. .. I can own a gun, but I can't own a store that sells them

If I can't even go into my garage with my firearm, ...then that is a big problem.

But of course, an incompetent, ignorant leftard like you couldn't possibly understand that. Just out of curiosity, have you ever held or fired a gun?"

With so much dumbness in the world where does one start. so lets go through your salient points shall we?

I can't own a gun store...yes that is right. Not in Chicago. We pass zoning ordinances all the time. you can't operate a porn shop in my town but it is protect speech for the most part. Now you can't have a gun store in Chicago...and?

the garage argument...just a good precaution. If gun owners want protection inside their homes from the boogeyman then that seems fine. keep you self defense weapon there. again..and?

ohhh right, imcompetent leftard...alas, I'm very competent and do so enjoy beating up on you relics so much..thanks for the bountiful opportunities.

Yes I have fired a gun and a rifle and shotgun. yes I got training..very very good training..to what point? I know that guns kill people and people use guns to kill people.; 7/8/10, 6:22 AM
Largo said...: Don't be con-trolled folks. Be careful where you spread your pearls.; 7/8/10, 7:16 AM
A.W. said...: James

Missed this gem from you.

> Of course this does not speak to all of the new Chicago ordinance. Some aspects of the ordinance, i.e. the banning of gun shops in the city as stated by other posters here, are stupid. But the fact that a restriction is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.

Nor does it make it constitutional either. Care to say something about the constitutionality of it?

But really, do explain to me how that works. If a law banned paper and ink would you say that is kosher with freedom of the press. A right to own something implies a right to buy it. You would render the law an idiot.

FLS

You are oddly rational on this topic and intelligent. Weird.

Ritmo

> I can't recall anyone here arguing on behalf of legislating anything out of existence.

If you think that this legal regime should be upheld, that is exactly what you want.

> I don't care about the political breakdown of Raich. I care about whether you think it's a problem that saving lives mattered less to a court than did a principle of regulation.

You know there is a slight difference between crying for medical mj, and seeking the right to bear arms. You see, one of these things is in fact protected by the constitution.

As for saving lives, how many people are killed by drugs every year?

Oh, right, MJ isn’t dangerous at all. I always find the naivete of the pro-drug movement to be amazingly stunning. Hey, you know those drug dealers who claim it is safe? THEY’RE TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING. The same hippies who endlessly complain about corporations that care more about the bottom line than people’s lives ignore that the cartels can and do murder anyone who gets in their way.

The fact is you have a God-given constitutional right to bear arms as an adjunct to your God-given right to rebel. To put it on par with the use of MJ is just silliness.

HDHouse

> I can't own a gun store...yes that is right. Not in Chicago. We pass zoning ordinances all the time. you can't operate a porn shop in my town but it is protect speech for the most part. Now you can't have a gun store in Chicago...and?

The no-porn shop rule is probably unconstitutional, too.

> the garage argument...just a good precaution. If gun owners want protection inside their homes from the boogeyman then that seems fine. keep you self defense weapon there. again..and?

Ah, so you can defend yourself only in your home. If a woman is walking down the street and a rapist attacks her, she is SOL. Brilliant!

In case you missed it, we have a God-given right of self defense that goes with us everywhere.

But go ahead, call me a liar for accurately citing a CNN report.; 7/8/10, 7:51 AM
A.W. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/8/10, 7:52 AM
A.W. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/8/10, 7:52 AM
Opus One Media said...: A.W. said...
"In case you missed it, we have a God-given right of self defense that goes with us everywhere."

OHHHHHHH I get it. God put that in the constitution someplace? God given??? Really. He said to carry firearms in self defense? Where was that?

You funny fella AW. Funny fella.; 7/8/10, 8:30 AM
A.W. said...: HDHouse

So according to you, you can only defend yourself in your home.

I would normally refute that, but why bother? its self-refuting.

Btw, you might want to read up on Locke sometime, moron.; 7/8/10, 8:35 AM
AllenS said...: House: Yes I have fired a gun and a rifle and shotgun.

Too funny. Did you fire your gun for fun?; 7/8/10, 8:39 AM
A.W. said...: HDH

Btw, i glossed over this, but...

> If gun owners want protection inside their homes from the boogeyman

What a completely asinine thing to say. Are you saying there is no such thing as crime in the home? That burglars are a myth on par with the bogeyman. What a bunch of complete crap.; 7/8/10, 8:43 AM
Big Mike said...: Yeah, FLS, along with AW I want to know how you wound up on the same side of this question as I did.

And as for you, Ritmo, I find it impossible to believe that someone whose arguments are as facile as yours completely grasps the subtlties of Gödel's first and second theorems, much less their proof.; 7/8/10, 9:37 AM
Known Unknown said...: One thing that seems to be overlooked is that police are more adept at solving crimes than preventing them.

When the citizenry only have seconds to defend themselves, they cannot afford to wait minutes for the police to arrive.

I never understood the zeal to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. Punish the criminals, and let me be free.; 7/8/10, 10:30 AM
Opus One Media said...: A.W. said...
"Btw, you might want to read up on Locke sometime, moron."

OHHHHH I get it. Locke put that in our constitution...the right to defend ourselves with guns...that one? That Locke?...pish....and a little while ago you said it was God who gave that rigth...but Locke now..ok. I'll go get my constitution out and see where that is in it...might take some time.

don't wait up.; 7/8/10, 10:49 AM
A.W. said...: HD (Half Demented?)

> Locke put that in our constitution...

Did i say that? Um no. But if you don’t know the powerful influence of Locke over the early Americans, then you are an idiot. But then we already knew that, didn’t we?

So you are reduced to shoving words in my mouth. Pathetic.

But do keep trying to explain to me why I am only allowed to defend my life in my home.

Or is it your theory that I should only have the means to effectively defend my life, when I am home? The rest of the time, I am SOL?

The fact is, HD, you just hate the second amendment, and you are angry that the Court ruled that way. Well, tough. And guess what? Mayor Daley doesn’t get to overrule the Supreme Court any more than Bull Connor.

And all because the supreme court came up with the novel idea that “shall not infringe” actually means something. Who knew?

Davis

> One thing that seems to be overlooked is that police are more adept at solving crimes than preventing them.

Exactly. The police can’t be everywhere, and I don’t think we would want them to be. So it is inevitable that there will be a few moments when we are on our own, and a criminal only needs a few moments to seriously f--- us up. In that time gap, we need to be able to defend ourselves and effectively so.; 7/8/10, 11:38 AM
Big Mike said...: @HD, I think we all get it. You don't believe that there is an inherent right of self-defense.

By now it may have dawned on you, that you are in a very tiny minority, even among the normally solidly left-leaning commentators

But a majority of the members of the Supreme Court disagree with you, and in the end, that's what matters.; 7/8/10, 1:08 PM
dbp said...: I think the idea behind God-given or if you like, natural rights; is that we have certain unalienable rights. These rights are not granted or created by the Constitution, rather it recognizes them.

Rights like self-defense stem from the basic premise, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" A rational person would never give their consent to be ruled by a government which does not allow self-defense.; 7/8/10, 1:17 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: No porn in Chicago? There's a mob-owned porn shop right across from the Old Courthouse in River North. Probably an unlicensed handgun inside, too.; 7/8/10, 6:18 PM