McDonald v. Chicago: Gun Rights Wins

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Full of Win, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  3. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #3
    I'm so waiting for his response to this. :D His cluelessness will be epic.
     
  4. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
    Are you telling me Chicago didn't allow people to bear arms ?
     
  5. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #5
    Good. I'm loathe to see any rights taken away. The problem isn't the firearms, it's the lunatic set of beliefs surrounding gun culture within the US and an apalling rate of child poverty.
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    The gun nuts usually aren't the ones shooting people though. I also don't believe poverty is an excuse, poor parenting perhaps.
     
  7. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #7
  8. lord patton macrumors 65816

    lord patton

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #8
    Me, too. I don't think he'll comply short of a court order mandating he be goose-walked right off a plank from Meigs Field into the mouth of an Asian Carp.

    This guy is a mafia-puppet autocrat. I don't seeing him doing what the Supreme Court says he must anytime soon.

    Of course, there are the legal distinctions about what comes next. Even if Daley wasn't a buffoonish semi-literate hack, this decision will still lead to more suits to determine precisely what incorporation of the 2nd Amendment means in practice.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    That's what we're telling you.
     
  10. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #10
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    We've been waiting a long time for Daley to get this smackdown from the feds.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    I like that this decision reduces the "states rights" arguments that have been cropping up lately.

    No, states can not restrict constitutional protections... like privacy, equal protection, etc...
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Exactly. Oh- Daley's gonna be foaming at the mouth! :)
     
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    It's no big deal, all they have to do is pass gun restrictions that the ruling allows. The net affect won't be that much if the population wants gun restrictions.

    On the other hand, this decision makes it a lot harder for the Prop 8 case or many others where states are trying to restrict abortion, gay marriage, and many other issues.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    They're already scrambling to figure it out. Bottom line- they can no longer ban guns. That's a good thing.
     
  16. dinaluvsApple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #16
    they can ban ammo
    or gun power...
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    Wait a sec, a state (or, city, in this instance) makes a law that's unconstitutional, the SCOTUS overturns it, and everyone, including the state's rights small government conservatives are okay with the big federal government overturning it. A state makes a law banning gay marriage that's unconstitutional and the state's rights small government conservatives label any attempt to have that ruled unconstitutional is a power grab by the activist judges in the federal government and the decision should be left up to the states. Seems like the right can't have it both ways.

    I'm fine with the SCOTUS decision, but if Prop 8 ever makes it to the SCOTUS and it's ruled as unconstitutional, effectively legalizing gay marriage nationwide, I hope every single state's right convervative will remember this and ****. Of course, they won't, but I can dream, right?
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    They can try, but this law was already unpopular. Daley would be seriously shooting himself in the foot (no pun intended).

    You are 100% correct.
     
  19. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #19
    Poor parenting is a symptom and a cause. It's recursive, too. You can't expect an excellent parent in those situations. Something has to change to alter the status quo.
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    Widely available birth control would be a good start, I can't see people living in poverty wanting to get pregnant and bring a kid into that situation until they can get out of it themselves, but I could be wrong.
     
  21. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #21
    That would only do so much. If you grow up learning irresponsibility and immediate gratification, you can never be bothered to actually take the pill or put on the condom.
     
  22. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #22
    Only arm da bears!
     
  23. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #23
    Agreed

    YG: I can tell you their justification already. There is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a constitutional right to get married.

    Don't agree with it, but that's the reasoning.

    Back on topic: About time, SCOTUS!

    Now they ought to address the public spaces (Universities, libraries, etc) that feel the need to ban a Constitutionally protected act (carrying a weapon.)

    If they want to deny citizen's their rights, then the Fed ought deny them their funding.
     
  24. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #24
    Perhaps the bigger story of the day...

    Today, nearly half (4) Supreme Court Justices voted AGAINST the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States:

    Imagine that, all of those considered by many to be the liberal activist judges (including Obama's first appointee, Sotomayor) who tend to try and MAKE law instead of interpreting it. Anyone in this forum want to provide any estimates as to how Kagan might have voted? ;)
     
  25. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #25
    Heh, QFT.

    Glad to see gun rights upheld.
     

Share This Page