Rahm's new Police Chief on gun rights

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
No, I explained the one restriction on "tailoring laws to a specific situation" and expressed my opinion that having to live within the confines of the 2nd amendment is not so bad. If you agree, why not just say so?

By the way, your response does not answer my question, so I'm still not sure you realize we are talking about the second amendment here. You seem to have lost track of the conversation along the way. Can you please just answer yes or no:

Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?
You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.
I never asked for your opinion on whether living within the second amendment is bad or good, but you did seem to express one without asking:

"Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.

First of all, that's just not true. For example, while Chicago has been forced to allow citizens to possess a handgun in the home, they have interpreted that to mean ONLY one handgun, and ONLY in the house, not on the porch, in the garage, or in any unattached shed buildings. Those laws, and many others related to guns, are unique to Chicago and written by Chicagoans, so they are tailored to their specific situation.

Secondly, what debate were you talking about? I assumed it must be the debate about the one restriction that we have imposed on "tailoring laws for their specific situation": the second amendment. As I said in response, "They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible."

It seems to me that explaining why it is so terrible would continue the debate that you said you wanted to continue. If you do not agree that it's terrible, that's fine, just say so. I have managed to explain Justice Stevens' position that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use is interstate commerce, but I doubt anyone has gotten the impression that I agree with that view.

Since Bull Gator is gone, we do not seem to have anyone here who is willing to admit that they favor the view that the second amendment only applied in the past and cannot be used to end gun bans. Given that absence, the debate you said you wanted cannot happen unless someone steps up as devil's advocate here and argues the anti-gun view of the second amendment. Are you as capable as I am of articulating an argument with which you may not agree?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
No, I explained the one restriction on "tailoring laws to a specific situation" and expressed my opinion that having to live within the confines of the 2nd amendment is not so bad. If you agree, why not just say so?

By the way, your response does not answer my question, so I'm still not sure you realize we are talking about the second amendment here. You seem to have lost track of the conversation along the way. Can you please just answer yes or no:

Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?
You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.
I never asked for your opinion on whether living within the second amendment is bad or good, but you did seem to express one without asking:

"Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.

First of all, that's just not true. For example, while Chicago has been forced to allow citizens to possess a handgun in the home, they have interpreted that to mean ONLY one handgun, and ONLY in the house, not on the porch, in the garage, or in any unattached shed buildings. Those laws, and many others related to guns, are unique to Chicago and written by Chicagoans, so they are tailored to their specific situation.

Secondly, what debate were you talking about? I assumed it must be the debate about the one restriction that we have imposed on "tailoring laws for their specific situation": the second amendment. As I said in response, "They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible."

It seems to me that explaining why it is so terrible would continue the debate that you said you wanted to continue. If you do not agree that it's terrible, that's fine, just say so. I have managed to explain Justice Stevens' position that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use is interstate commerce, but I doubt anyone has gotten the impression that I agree with that view.

Since Bull Gator is gone, we do not seem to have anyone here who is willing to admit that they favor the view that the second amendment only applied in the past and cannot be used to end gun bans. Given that absence, the debate you said you wanted cannot happen unless someone steps up as devil's advocate here and argues the anti-gun view of the second amendment. Are you as capable as I am of articulating an argument with which you may not agree?
To my statement of "Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation." you have said "Untrue".

You really believe that is untrue? What do you believe their thinking is when they applauded the COP's statement?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
No, I explained the one restriction on "tailoring laws to a specific situation" and expressed my opinion that having to live within the confines of the 2nd amendment is not so bad. If you agree, why not just say so?

By the way, your response does not answer my question, so I'm still not sure you realize we are talking about the second amendment here. You seem to have lost track of the conversation along the way. Can you please just answer yes or no:

Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?
You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.
I never asked for your opinion on whether living within the second amendment is bad or good, but you did seem to express one without asking:

"Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.

First of all, that's just not true. For example, while Chicago has been forced to allow citizens to possess a handgun in the home, they have interpreted that to mean ONLY one handgun, and ONLY in the house, not on the porch, in the garage, or in any unattached shed buildings. Those laws, and many others related to guns, are unique to Chicago and written by Chicagoans, so they are tailored to their specific situation.

Secondly, what debate were you talking about? I assumed it must be the debate about the one restriction that we have imposed on "tailoring laws for their specific situation": the second amendment. As I said in response, "They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible."

It seems to me that explaining why it is so terrible would continue the debate that you said you wanted to continue. If you do not agree that it's terrible, that's fine, just say so. I have managed to explain Justice Stevens' position that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use is interstate commerce, but I doubt anyone has gotten the impression that I agree with that view.

Since Bull Gator is gone, we do not seem to have anyone here who is willing to admit that they favor the view that the second amendment only applied in the past and cannot be used to end gun bans. Given that absence, the debate you said you wanted cannot happen unless someone steps up as devil's advocate here and argues the anti-gun view of the second amendment. Are you as capable as I am of articulating an argument with which you may not agree?
To my statement of "Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation." you have said "Untrue".

You really believe that is untrue? What do you believe their thinking is when they applauded the COP's statement?
Yes, it is obviously untrue, as they do have laws tailored for their situation by themselves that exist nowhere else, as I said.

Now, that I have answered another of your questions without receiving an answer to mine, will you answer: are you or are you not aware that we are talking about the second amendment?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
No, I explained the one restriction on "tailoring laws to a specific situation" and expressed my opinion that having to live within the confines of the 2nd amendment is not so bad. If you agree, why not just say so?

By the way, your response does not answer my question, so I'm still not sure you realize we are talking about the second amendment here. You seem to have lost track of the conversation along the way. Can you please just answer yes or no:

Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?
You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.
I never asked for your opinion on whether living within the second amendment is bad or good, but you did seem to express one without asking:

"Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.

First of all, that's just not true. For example, while Chicago has been forced to allow citizens to possess a handgun in the home, they have interpreted that to mean ONLY one handgun, and ONLY in the house, not on the porch, in the garage, or in any unattached shed buildings. Those laws, and many others related to guns, are unique to Chicago and written by Chicagoans, so they are tailored to their specific situation.

Secondly, what debate were you talking about? I assumed it must be the debate about the one restriction that we have imposed on "tailoring laws for their specific situation": the second amendment. As I said in response, "They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible."

It seems to me that explaining why it is so terrible would continue the debate that you said you wanted to continue. If you do not agree that it's terrible, that's fine, just say so. I have managed to explain Justice Stevens' position that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use is interstate commerce, but I doubt anyone has gotten the impression that I agree with that view.

Since Bull Gator is gone, we do not seem to have anyone here who is willing to admit that they favor the view that the second amendment only applied in the past and cannot be used to end gun bans. Given that absence, the debate you said you wanted cannot happen unless someone steps up as devil's advocate here and argues the anti-gun view of the second amendment. Are you as capable as I am of articulating an argument with which you may not agree?
To my statement of "Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation." you have said "Untrue".

You really believe that is untrue? What do you believe their thinking is when they applauded the COP's statement?
Yes, it is obviously untrue, as they do have laws tailored for their situation by themselves that exist nowhere else, as I said.

Now, that I have answered another of your questions without receiving an answer to mine, will you answer: are you or are you not aware that we are talking about the second amendment?
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.
I was afraid that you were once again unable to understand. Thanks for confirming before too much time was wasted.

Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.
I was afraid that you were once again unable to understand. Thanks for confirming before too much time was wasted.

Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
I've been aware that we are talking about two different things, and am not one bit surprised by your inability to accept that.

You have been talking about the Chicago gun Supreme Court case for months, and ask why some folks are not allowed to tailor gun laws?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.
I was afraid that you were once again unable to understand. Thanks for confirming before too much time was wasted.

Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
I've been aware that we are talking about two different things, and am not one bit surprised by your inability to accept that.

You have been talking about the Chicago gun Supreme Court case for months, and ask why some folks are not allowed to tailor gun laws?
That is a second amendment case, and it is what I was talking about. I was wondering what YOU were talking about when you said they could not tailor gun laws to their specific situation. If not the second amendment, what were you talking about?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.
I was afraid that you were once again unable to understand. Thanks for confirming before too much time was wasted.

Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
I've been aware that we are talking about two different things, and am not one bit surprised by your inability to accept that.

You have been talking about the Chicago gun Supreme Court case for months, and ask why some folks are not allowed to tailor gun laws?
That is a second amendment case, and it is what I was talking about. I was wondering what YOU were talking about when you said they could not tailor gun laws to their specific situation. If not the second amendment, what were you talking about?
The world they live in, and it's not an abstract bit of case law for them. It's where the Pentagon sends their docs to learn how to treat gunshot wounds. Pretty rare night when they don't have at least a couple, or at least a body that can be studied for effects.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
You are talking about the second amendment, I am not.
I was afraid that you were once again unable to understand. Thanks for confirming before too much time was wasted.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
I've been aware that we are talking about two different things, and am not one bit surprised by your inability to accept that.

You have been talking about the Chicago gun Supreme Court case for months, and ask why some folks are not allowed to tailor gun laws?
That is a second amendment case, and it is what I was talking about. I was wondering what YOU were talking about when you said they could not tailor gun laws to their specific situation. If not the second amendment, what were you talking about?
The world they live in, and it's not an abstract bit of case law for them. It's where the Pentagon sends their docs to learn how to treat gunshot wounds. Pretty rare night when they don't have at least a couple, or at least a body that can be studied for effects.
When you say "it's not an abstract bit of case law" what is the "it" you are referencing?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?
Dead bodies. That's the it for them.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?
Dead bodies. That's the it for them.
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?
Dead bodies. That's the it for them.
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.

 

wabbiteer

Super Anarchist
9,781
1
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?
Dead bodies. That's the it for them.
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
Tom's right to sell guns to criminals and lunatics is enshrined in the US Constitution.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
You want me to support your claim again? I already tried...

Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation.
They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts.
Since I said that, the courts have ruled that if they are going to require range time as a condition of gun possession, Chicago must allow gun ranges, so now there are two restrictions on gun ownership that have not passed second amendment scrutiny.

The law saying that handguns are only allowed in the home, but are not allowed on the porch or in the garage, and many other laws are still in effect, and the vast majority of them will never be challenged on second amendment grounds.

But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?
No, the point in that sentence is about their understanding. You parsed out a half-sentence there.

 
Shame for the debate you said you wanted to break down because of confusion about what the meaning of "it" is, Mark.

From context, it looks like you may be talking about a court case, but I have gotten into trouble making assumptions about what you might mean before. Besides, if it is a court case, I would guess it might be a second amendment case, but you have already said that is not the case, so I'm out of guesses.

What are you talking about?
Dead bodies. That's the it for them.
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
Tom's right to sell guns to criminals and lunatics is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Actually, that sort of thing is prohibited. Federally, and stately......

 

wabbiteer

Super Anarchist
9,781
1
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
Tom's right to sell guns to criminals and lunatics is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Actually, that sort of thing is prohibited. Federally, and stately......
Really? If someone who is not an FFL is not required to do a background check before selling a firearm, then how are they prohibited from selling a firearm to a criminal or lunatic?

 
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
Tom's right to sell guns to criminals and lunatics is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Actually, that sort of thing is prohibited. Federally, and stately......
Really? If someone who is not an FFL is not required to do a background check before selling a firearm, then how are they prohibited from selling a firearm to a criminal or lunatic?

Ok, ya got me there, and I don't know. Except that in our state I'm pretty damn sure that ALL firearm sales/transfers have to include the use of an FFL guy. Regardless, I just got my 03 FFL the other day, and I can g-damn garantee you that if I ever sell anything out of my collection, I'll be triple safe to be sure that it's going to someone who seems to be on an even keel. So to speak.....

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,105
1,890
Punta Gorda FL
But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?
No, the point in that sentence is about their understanding. You parsed out a half-sentence there.
So, these people who do not understand why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, do you suppose they are just stupid, or what? They are allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, and the law banning guns from porches and garages is proof. That's a Chicago original, and exists nowhere else. Whining that you can't do something you are doing is rather foolish, don't you think?

 

Latest posts




Top