Dey tuk ar ggggguunnnnnz

[Jenksismyhero]

I already can guess how this discussion will turn out, but thoughts?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7086189.story

 

Seems to me any argument about rising crime rates and whatnot are gonna be out the window soon, since the worst states for gun crimes still allow concealed weapons.

 

“We must ensure the safety of our neighborhoods, and allowing concealed carry does not advance that goal,” the governor’s office said in a statement. “Our streets need to be safer, and a concealed carry law would put first responders and the public at risk by allowing more weapons -- hidden weapons -- in public places.”

And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

I think an interesting part of the gun debate, is that people who take the word of policeman in regards to drug policies (keeping them illegal), ignore policeman's recommendations when it comes to concealed carry.

 

And vice versa.

[bigruss]

I already can guess how this discussion will turn out, but thoughts?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7086189.story

 

Seems to me any argument about rising crime rates and whatnot are gonna be out the window soon, since the worst states for gun crimes still allow concealed weapons.

 

 

And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense?

I've always wondered why someone would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anyways, if you bring it out to use it or threaten someone by hinting at having a concealed weapon than it becomes illegal use anyways. Right?

[Jenksismyhero]

I think an interesting part of the gun debate, is that people who take the word of policeman in regards to drug policies (keeping them illegal), ignore policeman's recommendations when it comes to concealed carry.

 

And vice versa.

 

Do they say that? I'd have to ask. I'd imagine my friends would say "what's the difference? criminals have/use guns they're not supposed to have. Doesn't stop them from shooting at us now."

 

 

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense?

 

Well there's the risk of some well-intending citizen trying to go Rambo and getting themselves killed (by police who wrongly identify them or in retaliation) or hurting or killing other bystanders. Something like this happened with Rep. Giffords, someone with concealed carry chose not to pull his gun during the confusion. And then there's the idea that more guns = more likely use of guns. If I fly off the handle and have a gun, I can shoot you. If I don't, I can't. And, with guns being legal, it makes them that much more readily available for criminals to obtain.

 

OTOH I don't personally have any problems with personal firearms ownership or CC.* But I'd disagree with CC being a fundamental right, and I'm iffy on the 2nd really being an individual right as found in Heller and McDonald since they kinda just gloss over the awkward militia phrase.

Edited June 23, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Do they say that? I'd have to ask. I'd imagine my friends would say "what's the difference? criminals have/use guns they're not supposed to have. Doesn't stop them from shooting at us now."

 

Yeah but if nobody can legally buy a .45 or a 9mm, there's going to be a lot less .45's and 9mm's around for criminals to get.

 

OTOH, the prevalence of illegal drugs says that's probably not completely true.

[StrangeSox]

I've always wondered why someone would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anyways, if you bring it out to use it or threaten someone by hinting at having a concealed weapon than it becomes illegal use anyways. Right?

 

If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you show them your gun or draw it, you haven't done anything illegal. Now if you shoot the person as the run away, you've probably committed murder.

[bigruss]

If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you show them your gun or draw it, you haven't done anything illegal. Now if you shoot the person as the run away, you've probably committed murder.

But you've also exposed your concealed weapon...I seriously don't know the law so Im just wondering how that works.

 

I do know that second part, you can only use so much force as necessary to protect yourself (and shooting a person running away from you is a tad excessive over protecting yourself).

[bmags]

Do they say that? I'd have to ask. I'd imagine my friends would say "what's the difference? criminals have/use guns they're not supposed to have. Doesn't stop them from shooting at us now."

Well their representatives have not said that.

[StrangeSox]

But you've also exposed your concealed weapon...I seriously don't know the law so Im just wondering how that works.

 

The whole point is to defend yourself. I can't imagine that it'd be illegal to draw your weapon in legitimate self-defense.

[Soxbadger]

What I dont understand is why the state of Illinois is not allowed to interpret its own constitution. This seems like a states rights issue to me.

 

The US Bill of Rights clearly states that:

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

The Illinois Constitution states:

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

 

If you give meaning to every word, it clearly uses the term "regulated." (I wont even get into the argument that this should only apply to those in the militia because currently the Supreme Court does not agree). The reason it says regulated, is that no one has a right to bear any arm. You cant buy a tank, you cant buy a nuclear weapon, and most reasonable people agree that there should be some limitation to what arms regular citizens can own.

 

Thus if you can regulate the type of arm, why cant you regulate when and where it can be carried?

 

To me the answer is you can, and under the current interpretations the only thing you would not be allowed to do was regulate gun ownership so much that it made it impossible to own a gun. (Think Marijuana stamp act, where in order to get the stamps you had to have the marijuana which was illegal, thus you committed a crime.)

 

Furthermore you have to give weight to the Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Courts right to interpret their own laws. The Illinois Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is subject to police power. That means that the IL govt can restrict gun ownership/usage. In order to win this battle, the US Supreme Court would have to find that the IL Constitution was 1) unconstitutional or 2) that regulating guns is not within police powers.

 

I personally think its a non-issue, Illinois has the right to regulate guns, if the people disagree, we can amend the constitution. But I really dont see that happening, and I really dont see why Federal Judges should be the ones who determine how our state interprets our constitution.

[StrangeSox]

No problem with your analysis there, but I just want to say again that, though I support the right to private handgun ownership, I think the SC had to jump through some hoops to tease it out of the 2nd while ignoring half of the amendment.

[Soxbadger]

I dont agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, but for right now its the way it is, so I framed my argument as states rights, because arent we all tired of the Federal Govt in Washington telling states what to do?

[StrangeSox]

I dont agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, but for right now its the way it is, so I framed my argument as states rights, because arent we all tired of the Federal Govt in Washington telling states what to do?

 

Only if we disagree with the fed policy!

[Jenksismyhero]

Well their representatives have not said that.

 

Because politically they probably don't want to step on the Mayor's shoes and they hope to rise the ranks of the CPD.

[Jenksismyhero]

Only if we disagree with the fed policy!

 

I'm sure you can find an exception or two, but I think it's pretty rare for me to like federal policy more than state policy. Because at the end of the day, I can move to a state that matches my view of how my community/government should work.

[Soxbadger]

I used to lean more against the states, but one day I realized I just dont care what someone in another state does. There are some exceptions on fundamental rights, but as soon as its a gray area, you might as well just defer to the state.

 

If Wisconsin wants to allow guns in preschools, its their stupidity and theyll suffer. I dont have enough time to try and save other people from what I believe to be silly positions.

[StrangeSox]

This probably deserves its own thread but why are States the magic demarcation line? Why not counties? Townships? Why should Springfield be able to push us around and tell us what to do?

[Soxbadger]

At the end of the day civilization is nothing more than imaginary lines in the sand created by humans.

 

Why the state?

 

Because that is how the US drew its imaginary lines. We have a bicameral system and therefore the lines are state and federal. A state can allow local govt more flexibility and there is nothing to say you couldnt have a system where counties or municipalities had more power, it just isnt our system. I could argue why, but the why isnt that important because Im just playing by the rules of the system..

[StrangeSox]

At the end of the day civilization is nothing more than imaginary lines in the sand created by humans.

 

Why the state?

 

Because that is how the US drew its imaginary lines. We have a bicameral system and therefore the lines are state and federal. A state can allow local govt more flexibility and there is nothing to say you couldnt have a system where counties or municipalities had more power, it just isnt our system. I could argue why, but the why isnt that important because Im just playing by the rules of the system..

 

I considered adding the cavaet, it was a broader "what level of government is best" question. Obviously our current system was established with individual state actors and a somewhat weak federal government, though that's certainly changed from pretty much 1787 on.

Edited June 23, 2011 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Yeah but if nobody can legally buy a .45 or a 9mm, there's going to be a lot less .45's and 9mm's around for criminals to get.

 

OTOH, the prevalence of illegal drugs says that's probably not completely true.

When I was a teenager I had to go thru all kinds of rigamarole and shenanigans to get alcohol, but if I wanted drugs I didn't have to leave my block. Or at worst I woulda had to walk like 1/4 mile.

[knightni]

I already can guess how this discussion will turn out, but thoughts?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7086189.story

 

Seems to me any argument about rising crime rates and whatnot are gonna be out the window soon, since the worst states for gun crimes still allow concealed weapons.

 

 

And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense?

 

Cops should use tasers more anyway. I bet the average cop fires his weapon only a couple of times in his entire career.

[Balta1701]

Cops should use tasers more anyway. I bet the average cop fires his weapon only a couple of times in his entire career.

Cops use radars way way way too much. They are sold as you say as a replacement for lethal weapons, but they're regularly used to subdue people for minor offenses.

[Y2HH]

When I was a teenager I had to go thru all kinds of rigamarole and shenanigans to get alcohol, but if I wanted drugs I didn't have to leave my block. Or at worst I woulda had to walk like 1/4 mile.

 

This.

 

There is no point in having a discussion about this, either, as nothing gets accomplished. The reality that exists and the ideals people have don't mesh in regard to gun laws. Regardless of that, in the end, those who hate guns will side with the anti gun laws, those who love them will not.

 

Personally, I'm indifferent.

 

I own a FOID card, but I've never owned a gun.

 

That said, drugs are illegal in this country, yet easier to get than alcohol.

 

If we banned all guns from the US, all you'll be doing is opening ANOTHER black market for the cartels.

[Y2HH]

Cops use radars way way way too much. They are sold as you say as a replacement for lethal weapons, but they're regularly used to subdue people for minor offenses.

 

That's because most cops would rather not take the chance anymore. You may not realize this, but a slight/minor scuffle with someone could end up in the loss of life, or otherwise. Let's see, off hand, last year my brothers partner was making an arrest for a simple "minor offense", and the person he arrested bit him...and then told him she had HIV...which she did.

 

The medication this guy was on the following few weeks was insane.

 

Something similar happened to another partner of his, only this time they stabbed him with a used heroin needle, tough that person didn't claim he had aids.

 

...now you wonder why they overuse these devices? And these occurrences are many, not few.

 

I used to wonder, too...but I don't anymore. I read, on a daily basis, how s***ty cops are. How corrupt they are. How they use excessive force too much.

 

I then get to read how "flash mobs" are busting peoples heads open in broad daylight and stealing their s***.

 

The s*** they deal with everyday compared to what we deal with are apples an oranges. Let's not pretend we know. Hell, my brothers a cop so I *DO* know...but I still don't know. 99% of the people I deal with at my job on a daily basis are educated upstanding citizens. The opposite holds true for police...and it's very easy and convenient to forget that.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH