11, including child, 3, shot in Chicago park

Interesting take by Kass on the shooting within the context of a leadership crisis for Rahm Emanuel.

Kass: Does Mayor Rahmfather have the answers?

John Kass said:
So with blood on the streets of Chicago, and that 3-year-old shot in the face, Emanuel wasn't in town to hold the news conference. Instead, police Superintendent Garry McCarthy held the news conference, spinning the news by demanding the feds do more.

"Illegal guns, illegal guns, illegal guns drive violence," McCarthy said. "A military-grade weapon on the streets of Chicago is simply unacceptable."

It sounds good, but the problem is that the cops aren't buying it, especially the cops in Englewood and other war zones. They're exhausted. They need more officers, but the city says it doesn't have the money to hire them.

I asked a respected veteran cop what he'd do about the gang wars. He said this:

Increase hiring, bring back the citywide units, like the mobile strike force, to overwhelm the gangs. And demand that judges and prosecutors lock up the thugs, and demand that the state prisons don't release the thugs early.

The mantra of Emanuel and McCarthy has been to criticize the people in the neighborhoods for not cooperating with the cops. But the people know the truth of things. The bad guys get out early. And when they're lectured by politicians, they become even more resentful.

They want to feel safe on their streets and in their parks. They don't need promises of a gourmet food store. And they don't much care how the mayor does on Letterman or how great he'll do in the Robert Redford documentary about how hard he works.
Click to expand...
 
BenBurch said:
LTC8K6 said:
That would disenfranchise the poor, unless it is subsidized.

Such government regulation would also certainly come with fees.

Poor people would then be the only ones restricted from owning guns.
Click to expand...

Tough.
Click to expand...
I hope y'all manage to do what you want. Think of all the dem-voting-bloc poc's you will anger.
 
WildCat said:
Then why didn't they say "the militia" instead?

So elsewhere where the Constitution mentions "the people" they are really talking about the militia? :confused:
Click to expand...

Indeed, why mention "the Militia" at all? yet there it is in the text.
In the Second Amendment, the intent of the Amendment is clearly stated, the people are "given" the right to bear arms because the people may need discharge duties as members of a militia.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
The people who compose the militia.
Click to expand...

We've discussed this before, but I'll take the time to go over this again. I understand you're new, so it's excusable.

Let's look at some of the other Amendments to the US Constitution that use the words "The right of the people"

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This mean ALL people, not just people who are approved.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Again, the right of the people. All people. Everyone.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Again, the people. Not just some. ALL.


Now, does the 1st, 6th, and 11th amendment apply to all people? Yes. The right of the people.

Hope this helps. Now, there's that pesky word militia you're referring to. You'll need to find out what they meant when they referred to a militia.
 
Distracted1 said:
Are vehicle registration and inspection laws equally Draconian in your estimation? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'll point out where driving a car is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. I've yet to find it. Why you ask? Because you've got no right under the US Constitution to a vehicle.

What about laws requiring mandatory drug testing?
Click to expand...
In what context? By employers? Again, there's no right to employment in the constitution. And even so, the illegal search provision in the US Constitution doesn't apply to anyone else, but officials of a government.
 
triforcharity said:
We've discussed this before, but I'll take the time to go over this again. I understand you're new, so it's excusable.

Let's look at some of the other Amendments to the US Constitution that use the words "The right of the people"

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This mean ALL people, not just people who are approved.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Again, the right of the people. All people. Everyone.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Again, the people. Not just some. ALL.


Now, does the 1st, 6th, and 11th amendment apply to all people? Yes. The right of the people.

Hope this helps. Now, there's that pesky word militia you're referring to. You'll need to find out what they meant when they referred to a militia.
Click to expand...
Take the first one you listed:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Had it been written:

"Public demonstrations of support for elected leaders being necessary to the morale of congress, the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed"

Might you not then have a different sense of what it is trying to protect? You might still argue that a gay rights parade is protected by the amendment- due to an absolutely literal reading of only the second half of the amendment, but you might have tougher going convincing anyone that that was the intent of the entire Amendment, no?

As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't have a glossary of terms.

BTW, I have been a participating member of this Forum longer than you, however, condescension (if that's what is was) is always appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Indeed, why mention "the Militia" at all? yet there it is in the text.
Click to expand...
Because there's 2 separate clauses there, thus the comma. It provides for a militia, and also provides for the people to keep and bear arms.

Distracted1 said:
In the Second Amendment, the intent of the Amendment is clearly stated, the people are "given" the right to bear arms because the people may need discharge duties as members of a militia.
Click to expand...
Where does it limit that right to keep and bear arms solely to the militia?

Again, why use "the people" if they really meant "the militia"?
 
triforcharity said:
Perhaps you'll point out where driving a car is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. I've yet to find it. Why you ask? Because you've got no right under the US Constitution to a vehicle.


In what context? By employers? Again, there's no right to employment in the constitution. And even so, the illegal search provision in the US Constitution doesn't apply to anyone else, but officials of a government.
Click to expand...
Driving a car is definitely not enumerated as a right. Perhaps you can show me where firing a gun is protected?
 
You'll need to find out what they were referring to when they spoke of a militia. If only there were some....papers you could read, or books or....something..... :rolleyes:

And no, it wasn't condescension. It was the 554 posts, and the fact that until recently, never seen a post from you here on this subject. So, take it for what you will.
 
WildCat said:
Because there's 2 separate clauses there, thus the comma. It provides for a militia, and also provides for the people to keep and bear arms.


Where does it limit that right to keep and bear arms solely to the militia?

Again, why use "the people" if they really meant "the militia"?
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment is unique, inasmuch as the thinking of the writers is explained.
The First Amendment does not say why the founders thought people should be able to assemble peaceably, it only states that they can.

The Second is not two separate ideas; it doesn't state that militias' are protected, if that were the case it would read something like "Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the forming of militias". The amendment only states that a militia is considered important by the founders, so people can have arms in order to participate in one.
 
Distracted1 said:
Driving a car is definitely not enumerated as a right. Perhaps you can show me where firing a gun is protected?
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws. The first amendment doesn't mention anything about using the internet or magazines either, so that should be exempt as a form of free speech, right? Gasp much further and you're going to pull a muscle.
 
triforcharity said:
You're grasping at straws. The first amendment doesn't mention anything about using the internet or magazines either, so that should be exempt as a form of free speech, right? Gasp much further and you're going to pull a muscle.
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that those forms, as well as other forms of speech, have restrictions?
 
WildCat said:
Because there's 2 separate clauses there, thus the comma. It provides for a militia, and also provides for the people to keep and bear arms.


Where does it limit that right to keep and bear arms solely to the militia?

Again, why use "the people" if they really meant "the militia"?
Click to expand...
Are you asserting that "the People" are the militia?
 
Distracted1 said:
Do you really find a law requiring a gun owner to fill out some forms and get a yearly registration (much as is required to operate a motor vehicle) to be worthy of the descriptor "Draconian"?
Click to expand...

Would this registration allow me to carry my gun everywhere just like I can drive my automobile everywhere it is legal to do so without some FEDERAL government interference? Can I keep it inside or outside of a safe just as I can either keep my car in my garage or not?
Since I am not required to register an automobile if I only operate on my own property would the same apply to a gun?
Would the funds collected for gun registration be used to build and maintain public ranges that are free, just like auto registration fees are used to build and maintain roads that are free?
Cars kill infinitely more people than guns do, so are you advocating a revision to the auto registration laws to prevent this?
The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, but auto ownership is not. How do we reconcile this little tidbit of fact by requiring registration of a RIGHT?

Once I know the answer to these questions and a few others, I'll think more seriously about your proposal...
 
triforcharity said:
You're grasping at straws. The first amendment doesn't mention anything about using the internet or magazines either, so that should be exempt as a form of free speech, right? Gasp much further and you're going to pull a muscle.
Click to expand...
It would seem that you are willing to extrapolate meanings beyond what is specifically said in the text, I agree with you there.

However, once we digress from a specific, literal, interpretation of each individual word of the document ( where do I get my Keep, and the Bear arms that are promised me? what if there aren't enough bear arms? ) we begin discussing our opinions about what we think the text means (or should mean). You may argue that gun registration is unconstitutional based upon your interpretation of the constitution- but yours are not the only eyes reading it, nor is yours the only intellect pondering its' meaning.
 
Reheat said:
Would this registration allow me to carry my gun everywhere just like I can drive my automobile everywhere it is legal to do so without some FEDERAL government interference? Can I keep it inside or outside of a safe just as I can either keep my car in my garage or not?
Since I am not required to register an automobile if I only operate on my own property would the same apply to a gun?
Would the funds collected for gun registration be used to build and maintain public ranges that are free, just like auto registration fees are used to build and maintain roads that are free?
Cars kill infinitely more people than guns do, so are you advocating a revision to the auto registration laws to prevent this?
The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, but auto ownership is not. How do we reconcile this little tidbit of fact by requiring registration of a RIGHT?

Once I know the answer to these questions and a few others, I'll think more seriously about your proposal...
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned you can make love to your gun if you wish. Just make sure you can produce it yearly for registration- or have documentation that it was reported stolen within 48 hrs. of being stolen.

You may not sell it, loan it out, give it away, or lose it. It should be a crime if it is ever found in the possession of someone else

EDIT, you may sell it or give it away, but the new owner must meet the same criteria as anyone else who wishes to own a firearm, and the transfer must be documented, and the new owner must register and follow applicable laws. If it would make you happy to provide a documented method for loaning it out or leasing it, I am okay with that too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom