125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer, about Twice US Troop Deaths in Iraq

[TPaine7]

Sep 5, 2008 12:40 pm US/Central
125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq
CHICAGO (CBS) ― An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

In May, cbs2chicago.com began tracking city shootings and posting them on Google maps. Information compiled from our reporters, wire service reports and the Chicago Police Major Incidents log indicated that 125 people were shot and killed throughout the city between the start of Memorial Day weekend on May 26, and the end of Labor Day on Sept. 1.

According to the Defense Department, 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period.

In the same time period, an estimated 247 people were shot and wounded in the city.

. . .

"Gang and gun violence continue to be the dominating threat on our streets," Bond said in an e-mail. "Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."

Source: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

Nine out of 10 perpetrators are apparently convicted criminals and the vast majority of their victims are other criminals.

The solution for many is clear--stop citizens with clean records from from keeping and bearing arms as is their Constitutional right.

Can someone explain this clearly and rationally?

Also, please apply your answer to show how onerous gun laws are working in Chicago.

[dkf]

1. I don't get your point.

Are you saying that if law abiding citizens had guns, then the criminals would stop shooting the other criminals?

Or are you saying that restrictive gun laws need to be made stronger because guns originally sold to law abiding citizens are getting into the hands of criminals?

Or are you saying its completely unsolvable anyway so let everyone have guns?

[tburnsten]

2. No, he is implying that they would be capable of

protecting themselves from the occasional (apparently far from the norm) violent crime where the criminal selects a random victim, and also, it makes no sense to infringe upon Chicago residents right to own commonly used weapons of our day and age when the stated goal (to reduce crime or homicides) is clearly not being accomplished or even making headway under the current incredibly anti-gun laws there.

[dkf]

8. I don't think the stats presented support the argument well.

But maybe that is me.

[tburnsten]

59. They don't really support anything

except the fact that whatever Chicago is doing, it isn't helping to curb the violence on their streets. 90% of killers and 80+% of victims having prior arrest records kind of heavily supports the fact that most of the killings are gang and drug related. What would help the murder rate the most then, would be to legalize drugs in some way so that gang activity and drug dealing isn't so profitable, eliminating many of their reasons for existence and also their reasons to kill each other. Random killings seem like a pretty rare occurence.


If most all of the killigns are gang and drug related, why should honest citizens be prevented from owning firearms as is their constitutional right? The murder rate of Chicago is not driven by everyday men and women killing each other, it is driven by a very predictable subset of the community, gang members.

[SteveM]

66. I'm not sure if the "90-80" percents are nation-wide...

but where I live, there are a substantial number of home invasions on citizens with no evident criminal records; in any case, there are some 20% of "gun crimes" (using the numbers cited) which are perpetrated against those without records of any sort. (As an aside, a minor criminal record, esp. for dope, misdemeanors, etc., shouldn't qualify one to be in the "culture of crime" loop, but in fact should give minor offenders the chance to defend themselves.)

I have noticed that MSM has finally been reporting armed resistance to home invasions. I think such reportage is necessary if there is to be in positive effect of general gun-ownership as social policy. I am not convinced that increasing gun ownership among the population will deter or lower crime rates, but we won't know if instances of successful home defense (and there are many) are not reported for the "benefit" of would-be criminals.

[TPaine7]

It's hard to believe that you really can't understand the question

and it is a couple of questions, not a point (or statement).

Here's a rephrase:

Given the reality as described, why do many think the solution is to infringe the right of non-felons of sound mind to keep and bear arms?

If the solution is to infringe the right of sound minded non-felons to keep and bear arms, show how that solution is recommended to us by its success in Chicago.

If that's not clear enough, I can't help you.

[panader0]

3. Twice US troop deaths perhaps

How many deaths overall in Baghdad? Where there are guns there will be people dead from guns. Except for hunting, guns are for killing people.

[sfwriter]

5. Per capita, US Troops and Troop deaths trump Chicago...

Comparing Baghdad to Chicago would be a better comparison for sure. You are right.

[tburnsten]

6. Wouldn't be much good if they didn't would they?

How do you expect to convince an intruder that he should make his way elsewhere without a lethal force deterrent like a firearm? How do you expect to have the final check on government power be in citizens' hands without firearms? The first time a president refuses to step down after an election is going to (in my opinion) be the sign that forced removal is the next step. Hopefully our military and law enforcement will do the right thing and remove the individual to prison themselves, or our entire government could just work around the fellow (have everyone just go to work everywhere except the white house until the mess got sorted out) or we would know for a fact that our entire government needs immediate replacement. If it is that bad already than I highly doubt an unarmed populace could prevail.

[SteveM]

67. What do you propose?

[Arctic Dave]

4. How many were police officers?

How many car bombs did Chicago have? How many 500 or 100# bombs did Chicago have dropped on it? When you figure this out get back in touch.

[Journeyman]

12. Very true. American troops in Iraq function as police officers. Here's a better comparison. . .

Iraq is approximately the same geographic size as California, has roughly the same population (25 million), and about the same number of foreign troops as California has law enforcement (~150,000). For the past five+ years, the foreign occupation troops have functioned as the law within Iraq.

Here's the true comparison: Would anyone in this country be complacent if -- on average -- 2.24 policemen were being killed in California every day? And even at the reduced numbers in recent months, if 254 police officers had been killed in California in 2008 -- a daily average of better than 1 a day -- would anyone feel this was anything less than total anarchy? Would any pundit scoff and compare California to, say, Darfur, and conclude that the situation's acceptable because it could be much worse?

And this doesn't begin to include the civilian toll. Who believes that carbombs and IEDs, dozens of citizens dead in the streets on a regular basis, thousands kidnapped and hundreds assassinated, beheadings, churches bombed and clergy hacked to death with machetes, undrinkable water, people freezing to death in the dark . . . who believes such a total disintegration of civilized society in the most populous State of the Union would warrant a shrug or a smirk or a dismissive wave of the hand? Who would send snarky emails about such Left Coast chaos? And how long would a politician -- any politician in any state or at any level -- how long would they last in office if they made smug and condescending comments about how well the true situation is in California? How obscene would observations about school paintjobs be in such a crisis?

[DoctorMyEyes]

7. apples to oranges

While violence on the streets of American cities is a crying shame - you can't compare the statistics in Chicago to the deaths of only America soldiers in Iraq. What's the population of Chicago? Larger than the number of US troops in Iraq, I'd wager.

[TPaine7]

13. Sometimes apple and oranges can be legitmately compared.

For instance, they can easily have comparable weights, and they have some of the same nutrients.

While it is true that there are less soldiers in Iraq than citizens in Chicago, those troops are in a war. That tends to even things up a bit.

The real point is not that comparison but the 90% figure and the questions I ask based mostly on that figure.

[elehhhhna]

18. Larger than the population of Alaska, for starters.

[iverglas]

9. "More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories"

And amazingly -- 100 PER CENT OF THEM HAD GUNS!!

Ever tried to use a criminal history to kill somebody?

[TPaine7]

15. I've never tried to kill someone.

I am sure that iverglas could figure out a way to kill without a gun, however. Easily.

Admittedly a gun is uniquely suited to intimidate and control, which is why only those who are nonviolent non-felons of sound mind should be allowed to keep and bear them. Good and decent citizens are the only ones entitled to physically intimidate and control others--those others being violent felons, of course, and the occasions to intimidate and control them being crime prevention.

[wtmusic]

17. Calling all citizens who aren't good and decent to turn in your guns

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

19. It seems smarter than calling all citizens who are good and decent to turn in their guns.

I understand that criminals have deep support and sympathy in some quarters, but I favor the good and decent.

Of course the vast majority of criminals won't turn in their guns, but then you can throw the book at them when they are caught.

"The best way to protect the innocent from violent armed thugs is to ensure that honest folk are always disarmed" is a fools formula, IMO. Laugh away.

[wtmusic]

20. Both are equally ineffectual

but because guns are inherently dangerous, the precautionary principle applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[TPaine7]

22. The Constitution trumps the Precautionary Principle

and wikipedia, for that matter.

Some societies have repressed (and do repress) religious freedom, fearing dire results. How would you apply the precautionary principle? It is undeniable that religion has led to great atrocities.

The Founders of this great country learned a different lesson from history. They respected the right to keep and bear arms. In their view, history showed that having the common people armed was advantageous for multiple reasons, and furthermore it was their right.

Modern criminology tends to support their thinking, as does some recent history. (The Japanese didn't mount a ground attack on the US West coast, for example, because common Americans were armed.) I touch on the Founders thinking and on modern criminological evidence in my letter to Obama (see links below).

Can you explain why, in your view, the precautionary principle trumps the Constitution?

[wtmusic]

23. It doesn't trump the Constitution.

Do you advocate the right to sell/buy any guns to anyone of any age, anywhere?

I didn't think so. Guess what? You're for gun control!

[TPaine7]

24. Then I'm also for paper clip control,

since I don't believe I have a right to sell them in your living room.

More seriously, most of the time when the term "gun control" is used, it means more than a requirement not to sell guns to 10 year olds.

I favor safety precautions like no discharges in cities except in self defense. If that is called gun control, then I support that particular meaning of the term "gun control."

[wtmusic]

26. OK now that we've confirmed you favor gun control

all that is left is to iron out the details. The Constitution is out of the picture on strictly ideological grounds.

[TPaine7]

31. I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

The Constitution is most definitely not out of the picture.

Q. Do you support the government preventing disclosure of troop positions, war plans, and other national secrets?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you support speech control?

A. Yes, I support that meaning of speech control.

Q. You realize then, that the Constitution is out of the picture on ideological grounds?

A. No, but can I have some of what you're smoking?

See this thread for more details: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184081

[iverglas]

35. words have meaning

Q. Then you support speech control?
A. Yes, I support that meaning of speech control.

No, you support that instance of "speech control".

What you need to have is an argument for the legitimacy of that instance of "speech control".

Nobody actually gives a shit whether you support it or not.

That may hold water with the Jerry Springer audience, but nowhere else.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

53. "Isn't psychiatric care free in Canada?"

Why? Can't afford it at home?

I'm always up for marrying some poor unfortunate victim of the US military industrial complex.

Feel free to submit your application.

[TPaine7]

80. It nearly worked.

It would have been the perfect crime--murder by humor, over the internet. The jury would have never bought it. And they never would have appreciated the suffering involved in laughing to death. It hurts.

As it was, there was someone there to resuscitate me. And distract me with tragedies. The Bush presidency, famine, plague and pestilence. And the prospect of actually marrying iverglas (as opposed to her diabolically clever joke weapon). Tragedy indeed.

It would take the bard himself to write the tale.

Can't you hear the desperation and shock in our hero's voice?:

What pow'rs against me are arrayed,
that I have come to such a pass?
Is there no shelter in the grave,
that I must marry iverglas!

[wtmusic]

43. The Constitution is most definitely out of the picture

on ideological grounds.

As an ideology, as an absolutism, you have already admitted that there are exceptions to the "right to bear arms" - that the phrase is not all-inclusive.

Your analogy is flawed. It is not a "meaning" of speech control or simply an alternate interpretation - it is a set of circumstances under which, in fact, there is speech control - that speech is not free, as guaranteed by A1.

Just like gun control.

[TPaine7]

44. You are misusing "ideology"

it is not synonymous with "absolutism." Look the words up.

I also think you are straining to disagree. When people say they believe in free speech, they do not mean that you have a constitutional right to convey troop positions to the enemy. See how naturally the word "mean" works in that sentence?

Only by pretending that the Founders or any sane person in the history of law ever believed in free speech as an "absolutism" can you manufacture this "flaw" in my analogy.

False meaning or definition

Free speech: the right to speak anything whatsoever at any time whatsoever at any volume whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever. Examples--reading a comic book out loud during a court proceeding, telling obscene jokes during a college lecture, screaming profanities during a symphony, calling terrorist and giving them a detailed route and schedule for President Obama's motorcade.

Since it is not true that the Founders or any sane person in the history of law ever believed in free speech as you pretend is "guaranteed by A1" it is your criticism of my analogy that is flawed.

[wtmusic]

45. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

If you say the Constitution is open to your "meaning" of what A2 says, then it's also open to mine. Within the scope of any dictionary definition both of our opinions are equally Constitutional - effectively taking the Constitution out of the equation.

If you'd care to debate the founders' positions on owning automatic weapons or any other such contemporary interpretation, I can assure you there's very little info on the subject. It's down to my opinion vs. yours, and yours has no more foundation in the Constitution than mine does.

[TPaine7]

46. "Taking the Constitution out of the Equation"

When did we start talking about automatic weapons? I must have missed that part.

But that's OK. It is also true that "if you'd care to debate the founders' positions on internet communication or any other such contemporary interpretation, I can assure you there's very little info on the subject." So what? There are principles of interpretation that apply. Those principles properly applied are not "my meaning."

By your logic, none of the amendments of the Constitution have any meaning in many places. If using a dictionary we can come up with alternate meanings, then there is not an actual meaning for the passage under discussion.

I am as certain that you would not apply this logic to other Amendments as you were that I do not believe in selling guns to children. This is simply an attempt to ignore the Constitution as far as the Second Amendment is concerned while respecting it for other rights.

You have clearly demonstrated the goal of far too many gun control advocates--taking the Constitution out of the equation.

[wtmusic]

49. You're sidestepping the issue.

If you admit the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation, why is my interpretation any less valid than yours - as long as the fundamental definition is intact? :shrug:

[TPaine7]

55. I think you're misunderstanding the point.

Your methodology is deeply flawed. We cannot confirm that we all favor gun control--defined as not selling guns to children--and then brush aside the Constitution and "iron out the details" as we see fit. That is not the correct way to arrive at a legal conclusion.

Even if you use this methodology to arrive at an otherwise respectable position, your methodology is wrong. The grocery store may be a perfectly legitimate destination, but that does not justify driving through your neighbor's flower bed to get there.

[iverglas]

57. maybe if someone explained it really simply ... again ...

We cannot confirm that we all favor gun control--defined as not selling guns to children--and then brush aside the Constitution and "iron out the details" as we see fit. That is not the correct way to arrive at a legal conclusion.

You cannot assert that one restriction on the exercise of a right is just dandy and then reject another one ... just because.

Any time you want to start offering up some recognized form of justification for your pet restrictions and demonstrating how restrictions you don't like are not justified, you can go ahead and start.

[TPaine7]

58. I've already done that here.

TPaine7 (489 posts) Sat Sep-06-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. People disqualified for mental reasons do not have less rights,

just less capability.

A violent felon loses his or her right to arms as a punishment for crime and a preventative measure. The same is not the case for children and those disqualified for mental reasons.

A legally blind person (nothing personal and no offense intended) is not capable of driving. But she has exactly the same right to travel as everyone else.

A person who is mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun has the same rights as other citizens, they just don't have the same capabilities.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184491#184750

Here is iverglas' erudite response:

iverglas Sat Sep-06-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. such utter bullshit


It can be quite refreshing to read the pure, unadulterated nonsense sometimes.

Strikes me that a person who is "mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun" (translation: bibbity bobbity boo) has exactly the same relevant capability -- stuffing a gun down his/her pants, and pulling it out and squeezing the trigger at will -- as anybody else.


Stuff, nonsense and bullshit. In the service of ... self.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184491#184753

And my reply (the end of this exchange):

TPaine7 (489 posts) Sat Sep-06-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Some are mentally incapable of responsibly posting.

Edited on Sat Sep-06-08 06:18 PM by TPaine7
Most people can understand that "responsibly handling a gun" is not the same as "stuffing a gun down his/her pants, and pulling it out and squeezing the trigger at will." This is an anti-gun fantasy view of reality.

When those mentally incapable of responsibly handling a keyboard post in response to something that wasn't said--in this case "bibbity bobbity boo"--the consequences are different than when someone mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun shoots in response to a threat that isn't actually there.

Looking at this charitably, the level of juvenile hostility indicates that iverglas is a victim of the "gun control reality distortion field." I don't actually care, but it seems impossible that she is as stupid as her response otherwise indicates.

Now one of these posts sounds like it came from an pseudo intellectual Jerry Springer guest. Anyone who can't figure it out which one deserves to believe iverglas.

[iverglas]

61. allow me to reiterate.

Slowly, and with emphasis.

Any time you want to start offering up some recognized form of justification for your pet restrictions and demonstrating how restrictions you don't like are not justified, you can go ahead and start.

I believe I've suggested in the past that you take a few courses in constitutional law before spouting off. Allow me to reiterate.


109. People disqualified for mental reasons do not have less rights,
just less capability.

is not only illiterate (you are trying to say FEWER rights, and reading LESS rights hurts my eyes), it is beyond utterly meaningless and pointless (and quite apart from the ludicrous notion of anyone having "fewer rights" in the first place).

"Capability" has precisely fuck all to do with justification for restricting the exercise of rights. Go look it up somewhere, would you?


Now one of these posts sounds like it came from an pseudo intellectual Jerry Springer guest.

No, two of them do. I wasn't actually referring to a pseudointellectual, myself, or any guest. I was referring to the audience.

I won't bother my head with the question of whether you are a pseudointellectual. You're just plain ignorant of the matters you choose to speak about.




fixed the html

[TPaine7]

63. Blind people are entitle to equal protection of the law--

that is specified in the Constitution. It is a constitutional right.

Yet they can't be licensed to drive, as provided for by law for all other minorities. Deprive all Jews of the equal protection of the laws concerning driving, deprive all blacks, all Asians, all Mexican Americans, all gays, and see what happens. Yet if you deprive all legally blind people, it's OK.

The only difference between blind people as a class and sighted people as a class is capability.

"Capability" has precisely fuck all to do with justification for restricting the exercise of rights.

And she calls herself a lawyer.

I've also offered up deprivation of rights as a consequence of being convicted of a violent felony. This is why it is constitutional that convicted violent felons be deprived of their right to arms. Due process of law is a "recognized form of justification" for depriving someone of rights. Otherwise, prison would be unconstitutional.

A real lawyer would know that.

You're just plain ignorant of the matters you choose to speak about.

Irony. She does irony well.

I don't have time to do this justice now. More to follow.

[iverglas]

79. okay, sweetums

First:

And she calls herself a lawyer.

No, I don't, so you're just speaking untruth here. I am a former lawyer. I therefore do not call myself a lawyer, and have not done so in about 15 years. You've been spending too much time with my fan club, I think.


The only difference between blind people as a class and sighted people as a class is capability.

Nah.

The RELEVANT difference is the level danger to the public that each class would create if its members were to drive motor vehicles.

I was hoping you'd figure it out, but you apparently can't.

"Capability" is not a ground for restricting the exercise of a right.

The possibility of harm to an important public interest IS a ground for restricting the exercise of a right (where other requirements, that I won't confuse you with now, are also met).


I've also offered up deprivation of rights as a consequence of being convicted of a violent felony.

Bully for you.

And I have repeatedly asked how anyone can be "deprived" of something that is INALIENABLE. Are you considering answering?

In the civilized world, nobody has been "deprived" of rights since the death of civil death, which is not practised in any country comparable to the US apart from the US.

Where I'm at, some individuals convicted of some criminal offences are "deprived" of the ability to exercise certain aspects of certain rights. They are denied some exercises of the right to liberty: they may not move about freely on the streets, while they are confined to a correctional facility. However, they may still pick their noses whenever they like. And they may not be confined to their cells 24/7, or placed in solitary confinement, unless the state comes up wtih justification above and beyond the justification for confinement in a correctional institution.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not denied the exercise of their constitutional right to vote, since that denial was held to be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right, by my Supreme Court.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not automatically denied a licence to acquire and possess a firearm, since such a blanket denial would be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right.


No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT. It may, where it has justification, RESTRICT THE EXERCISE of the right.

You really don't have to believe me. You could ask someone who actually knows something. Your bum doesn't qualify.

[TPaine7]

81. The bum strikes back

The bum strikes back

okay, sweetums

*shudder*

I asked her not to call me "dear" before. Personal terms of endearment, even if meant sarcastically, are beyond the pale.

I am a former lawyer. I therefore do not call myself a lawyer, and have not done so in about 15 years.

Apparently I misunderstood some things she said. Ok, point taken. (I have no personal knowledge of any "fan club".)

The only difference between blind people as a class and sighted people as a class is capability.--<TPaine7>

Nah.

The RELEVANT difference is the level danger to the public that each class would create if its members were to drive motor vehicles.

I was hoping you'd figure it out, but you apparently can't.

"Capability" is not a ground for restricting the exercise of a right.

The possibility of harm to an important public interest IS a ground for restricting the exercise of a right (where other requirements, that I won't confuse you with now, are also met).

This wordplay doesn't show that I can't "figure it out"; it shows something else altogether.

The fine legal point that is supposed to escape me is that the danger to public interest is what makes a particular capability (or lack thereof) relevant.

Here are my words:

A person who is mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun...

And what does it mean to responsibly handle a gun? To handle it in such a way that it does not threaten an important public interest, to put it in iverglas' words. Want more?

...the consequences are different than when someone mentally incapable of responsibly handling a gun shoots in response to a threat that isn't actually there.

Really now, what was that last post about? It's simply talking about the dangers to the legitimate public interest, using different words.

To be incapable of responsibly handling a gun is the exact same thing as to be incapable of handling a gun in such a way that important public interests are protected. A good-faith, unbiased reading of my words demonstrates it.

And I have repeatedly asked how anyone can be "deprived" of something that is INALIENABLE. Are you considering answering?

...

No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT....

You really don't have to believe me. You could ask someone who actually knows something. Your bum doesn't qualify.

Actually, she's wrong. I sat on a constitutional law book once, and my bum learned quite a bit. I'll let it speak for itself, since its honor was impugned.

TPaine7's Bum:

iverglas keeps hounding TPaine7 to take a constitutional law class. But one of the first things in the constitutional law book (written by an eminent professor) was that the primary and most basic way to understand the Constitution is to let it explain itself.

For example, if the Constitution itself says that a person can be deprived of an "unalienable right," then neither a 1790's dictionary nor iverglas' opinion on the meaning of the word "unalienable" can trump that.

Let's look at the disagreement squarely.


iverglas:

No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT.


The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As you can see, iverglas is wrong by definition. She is in direct conflict with the Constitution itself. By placing herself above the Constitution, she makes herself unable to understand it.

If we accept that the Constitution itself--and not iverglas--is the ultimate authority on its own meaning, we can begin to approach a working constitutional definition of "unalienable right":

Unalienable right: a right one cannot be deprived of without due process of law.

This definition may not be perfect, in fact it is always subject to further refinement. But at least it has the advantage of not being based in arrogant defiance of the Constitution.

......

I can't believe that she said I'm not qualified. I know stuff. I'm only TPaine7's bum, I know, but I think everyone can see what I've written and know that I'm more qualified than that self-important, condescending, <edited for civility>.

Well folks, there's my bum's take on things. How do you think it did against iverglas?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Except his understanding is consistent with Supreme Court decisions.

Yours isn't.

[wtmusic]

48. You have no idea what my understanding is

so your comment is worthless.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. You don't think the Constitution matters, I think it's your opinions that are in question.

[wtmusic]

51. Maybe you could point me to where I said

"the Constitution doesn't matter". TIA.

[iverglas]

54. "It's down to my opinion vs. yours"

Or, as I have often said, in various ways:

What you need to have is an argument for the legitimacy of that instance of "speech control".
Nobody actually gives a shit whether you support it or not.
That may hold water with the Jerry Springer audience, but nowhere else.


... and yours has no more foundation in the Constitution than mine does.

What some opinions do have is more foundation in the Constitution as interpreted by the constitutionally competent authorities, the courts.

There is never a "correct" interpretation of a constitution, but there are authoritative interpretations. And, of course, it is always possible to argue that even an authoritative interpretation is completely incorrect.

The US Supreme Court said as much about one of its own interpretations, in the recent decision in Lawrence, for instance. It didn't say that its previous interpretation was inapplicable or whatnot, it said it was wrong. So obviously it's perfectly open to anyone else to say the same thing, and seek to persuade the courts or legislatures to agree.

To say that a policy is right or wrong without presenting any argument in support of the opinion is simply to play Jerry Springer audience. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, and it's as good as any other opinion just because all opinions are equally good.

The common practice around here is to say something like it's okay to prohibit people with mental illnesses from possessing firearms because that's the law and I think it's a good law. Queries about what the speaker might say about laws that once prohibited or permitted all sorts of things and that we now regard as very bad and likely unconstitutional laws, although many people agreed with them at the time -- laws prohibiting interracial marriage, laws permitting involuntary sterilization, etc. etc. -- go all unanswered.

But apparently "arguments" like these actually pass for rational, good faith discourse hereabouts ...

[TPaine7]

75. The field is strong with this one.

So strong that she apparently missed this:

"Do you advocate the right to sell/buy any guns to anyone of any age, anywhere?"

Apparently someone (sane) was interested in my opinion. They asked about my opinion.

I know this goes over some heads.

"What some opinions do have is more foundation in the Constitution as interpreted by the constitutionally competent authorities, the courts."

:rofl:

Someone needs to read the definitive case, Heller, and look for the place where it says that the Constitution is out of the picture.

I'll be waiting.

[iverglas]

78. the brick skull is way stronger

It is more than apparent that the chance of an idea making its way through yours is precisely nil.

[tburnsten]

60. Absolutely. Minors and dangers to society

have restricted sets of rights. They are a separate group of people from non-felonious, adult, non-domestic abusing, non-violent mentally ill individuals. Their rights have always been tailored to allow them to live with the most freedom possible while still protecting society from them.

[iverglas]

62. such interesting concepts

Absolutely. Minors and dangers to society
have restricted sets of rights.

I'll have to go find me a minor to test this theory on.

Perhaps s/he doesn't have a right to life, so I'll toss him/her off a bridge and see what happens.

Maybe it's the right to liberty s/he is lacking, so I'll lock him/her up in my basement and wait.

Or I guess I might start by asking you, since you seem to know it all.

What bits of the set are minors not in possession of?

And where did you find the fascinating facts you seem to be in possession of yourself?



For a bunch of people fond of spouting off loudly and at length about these "rights" things, it's all too obvious that not one of you has actually ever bothered to get a clue.

[TPaine7]

71. I've seen it, you've seen it, heck it probably happens in Canada too

so there's a chance even iverglas has seen it.

A mother, a father, an aunt or uncle, a big sister or cousin, or even an unrelated adult assigned by a parent physically forced a screaming toddler into a car and drove with off with him. The child was screaming "but I don't want to go," but it didn't matter.

I didn't call the police, or even take the license plate number. Did you? I wonder what iverglas would do if such a scene were to play out in front of her in Canada. Interesting, huh?

Now imagine that scene with a 20 year old offspring. At least in America, that would be a major felony--kidnapping. It would justify force, up to and including deadly force, by a citizen or a police officer to protect the adult victim. That is explicit in the law where I live.

For those of us who think children have restricted rights for their (and society's) protection, this is easy to understand. I wonder how iverglas explains it?

Could this be yet another manifestation of the "gun control reality distortion field"?

[iverglas]

76. did you think you had a point?

For those of us who think children have restricted rights for their (and society's) protection, this is easy to understand. I wonder how iverglas explains it?

I start by pointing out that while it's a neat trick, you have switched horses in midstream.

You didn't say "restricted rights". You said "less rights".

The EXERCISE of EVERYONE'S rights is restricted somehow.


A mother, a father, an aunt or uncle, a big sister or cousin, or even an unrelated adult assigned by a parent physically forced a screaming toddler into a car and drove with off with him. The child was screaming "but I don't want to go," but it didn't matter.

The example you cite, of children being made to do things they don't want to do, isn't really an example of a restriction on rights. After all, rights are things that exist as between the individual and the collective, not as between individuals and their aunts and uncles. Aunts and uncles don't restrict children's exercise of their right to liberty. They restrict children's movements.

Children's exercises of their rights are restricted, by the state, in exactly the same way that adults' exercises of rights are, in large part.

Children's rights are commonly exercised for them by parents, who are required, by the state, to act in the children's best interests.


Now imagine that scene with a 20 year old offspring. At least in America, that would be a major felony--kidnapping.

And so it would be in the case of the toddler, if the adult in question were not acting under the authority of the parent, who was acting in the exercise of the child's rights in the child's best interests.

Children have a right to life. Parents may not starve their children. And in civilized societies, parents may not deny their children life-saving medical care. Like that.


So, no. Children do not have fewer rights than adults. Parents, in the exercise of children's right to liberty on their behalf, may restrict children's movements. The state may not lock children up and feed them gruel.

See? I told you that you didn't have a clue.


Could this be yet another manifestation of the "gun control reality distortion field"?

Nope. But yours is a fine example of pulling shit out of your ass.

Got any authorities you'd like to cite in support of your shit?

Didn't think so.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dueprocesstudents.htm

The most obvious requirement of the Due Process Clause if that states afford certain procedures ("due process") before depriving individuals of certain interests ("life, liberty, or property"). Although it is probably the case that the framers used the phrase "life, liberty, or property" to be a shorthand for important interests, the Supreme Court adopted a more literal interpretation and requires individuals to show that the interest in question is either their life, their liberty, or their property--if the interest doesn't fall into one of those three boxes, no matter how important it is, it doesn't qualify for constitutional protection. ...

... The cases on this page all concern the due process rights of students. In Goss v Lopez, the Court considers what due process means for students facing temporary suspension from school because of their alleged violations of school discipline rules. The Court concludes that accused students must be afforded an informal hearing with school administrators before such suspensions. In Ingraham v Wright, the issue is whether a hearing of some sort must precede corporal punishment by a school teacher. Finally, Horowitz v Board of Curators considers what procedures are required before a student may be dismissed for academic failure.

[TPaine7]

82. Oh so it all hinges on "less rights"?

Whatever.

A single adult female has the right to marry any single adult male who will have her. A 7 yo does not have that right.

An adult can enter into a contract, an toddler cannot.

A 10 yo cannot enter into a consensual sexual relationship with a 30yo. An eighteen year old can.

That's three rights that children do not have. Put another way, that's three less rights children have.

The example you cite, of children being made to do things they don't want to do, isn't really an example of a restriction on rights. After all, rights are things that exist as between the individual and the collective, not as between individuals and their aunts and uncles. Aunts and uncles don't restrict children's exercise of their right to liberty. They restrict children's movements.

:rofl:

Priceless. Comic gold.

[tburnsten]

84. Absolutely precious.

I have to bookmark this post, I really can't believe she said that with a straight face.



You really did have a good career in the legal field didn't you iverglas?

[TPaine7]

83. More comic gold.

And so it would be in the case of the toddler, if the adult in question were not acting under the authority of the parent, who was acting in the exercise of the child's rights in the child's best interests.

Children have a right to life. Parents may not starve their children. And in civilized societies, parents may not deny their children life-saving medical care. Like that.


So, no. Children do not have fewer rights than adults. Parents, in the exercise of children's right to liberty on their behalf, may restrict children's movements. The state may not lock children up and feed them gruel.

See? I told you that you didn't have a clue.

I hope commenting won't detract from the natural laughs, and spoil the pristine comedy:

You can't deny children medicine, starve them, or lock them up and feed them gruel. Really?!!!!

She sees strawmen everywhere except where they actually exist. No one said children had no right at all. Why did she hear that?

[tburnsten]

73. Well TPaine7 just handed your ass to you

so I guess I don't really need to say any more do I?

[iverglas]

77. the ignorant leading the ignorant ...

[TPaine7]

85. I wonder where that Brady clown is leading her, tburnsten?

It appears to be voluntary, at least.

No kidnapping. LOL

[joshcryer]

30. 37-60% of total traffic fatalities were caused by DUI. And amazingly, 100% of them had vehicles!

Does this poster really have any crediblity around here anymore?

[TPaine7]

32. Yes there are some fans,

but you can smell the Koolaid on their breath. And sometimes the shimmer of the "gun control reality distortion field" shows up in their photos.

[joshcryer]

33. *nod* Just FYI, the 60-37% stat is from 1982 to 2006.

Just so people don't call me on the "margin of error," by misinterpreting what I said. It was 60% of traffic fatalities in 82, 37% in 2007. Has been going down for awhile now.

edit, link: http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

[iverglas]

36. joshie, I've missed ya

Where ya been??

[joshcryer]

56. Took a break from politics.

You probably know how it is.

[Peregrine Took]

10. New police chief made a LOT of personnel changes - upset the applecart.

The old district commanders (however "good" or "bad" they were) were able to keep a lid on the violence in their areas.

New chief dumped them all and brought new people in - which disturbed the chemistry/balance of power in the neighborhoods.

That's the way this native Chicagoan sees it.

[madrchsod]

16. the mother who moved away to avoid the violence

came back and her daughter died.
it`s a war over which side of the street you can walk on....

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Local RW radio nutjob blamed it on Obama today.

Resident hatemonger jerk had a ball talking about it.

[wtmusic]

14. 1180 Iraqi nationals killed - ten times Chicago total

How many Chicogoans had the right to be in Chicago at the time?

How many Americans had the right to be in Iraq?

Next. :eyes:

[gorfle]

21. I figured this would show up here.

I figured this article would turn up here.

While we certainly can make political hay about how poorly gun control seems to be working in Chicago, the bottom line is that most of these shootings are gang and/or drug related.

Chicago doesn't have a gun problem - Chicago has a GANG problem. Give people economic opportunities that are more enticing than gang work and the gang problem will go away.

[pilsengirl]

25. It is a gang problem not a gun problem

I am glad some here realize it. I live with it every day on my block in the Pilsen neighborhood. I call 911 more than anyone can imagine, I have FOID card and I can own a shotgun here but it would not do any good. There are generations of gang-bangers here. It will not change over night and me having a gun won't change it either.

[hendo]

27. but it could save your life nt

[pilsengirl]

29. How would it save my life

when I am unloading groceries from the car and the kids start shooting at each other again and my gun is in the house? I would need to arm myself like Omar Little just to unload the groceries from the car to "save my life". If I did have it, I would be shooting back at a kid. No thanks, I will take my chances. I love my neighborhood and am doing what I can to make it better in spite of the recent increase in violence. I don't need a gun to do that.

[joshcryer]

34. You still have a higher likelihood of getting hit by a car.

If it makes you feel any better.

[iverglas]

37. but if you had a gun

you could shoot that car.

[pilsengirl]

39. Only if the driver of the car

was on the phone would I shoot.

[SteveM]

69. HA! And they're usually driving slowly and make a better target (nt)

[SteveM]

68. The right to keep & bear arms does not come with a warranty...

I have a firearm readily-available for home defense, yet when I leave my house I do not carry it. Therefore, I am more subject to armed attack. Frankly, when I am taking a shower, someone can home invade before I could reach my gun. But the point is to make you and your home as safe as possible, not to provide a 100,000 mile, 10 year warranty that nothing will ever happen to me.

BTW, if kids are shooting at each other, the best thing to do is take cover and clear the area. If they are shooting at you and you have a gun, shoot back; they have forfeited the right to live in a civilized society and should take the consequences, regardless of age.

I commend your neighborhood efforts, more of this is needed. Take a look at the annals of "pro gun progressive" wherein the moderator is taking strong action to clean up his neighborhood: he acquired a concealed weapon permit after gangs put him on the hit list, and has started an Internet "John Watch" where whore mongers are ID'd by license plate. Prostitution and much of the drug activity in his area has been reduced significantly. It should be noted that it took this gentlemen over a year to obtain a permit from the State because they didn't believe the hit-list threats against him, even after notarized testimony from others, and there was considerable political opposition as well to his obtaining a CCW. This indicates a "crimino-centric" culture of sympathizing and enabling the powerful drug/whore gangs in the Baltimore effort.

www.progunprogressive.com

[jeepnstein]

72. It wouldn't

If two warring factions are starting a shoot out, what one needs to do is seek cover immediately.

Most gun violence is the result of criminals having poor conflict resolution skills. Their marksmanship is just as bad. If I hear shooting I'm looking for cover.

Yes, I own a gun. I have a CCW permit. I also have a LEO ID card and a badge. That doesn't mean I'm Doc Holiday. The gun is to protect me in the direst of extremes, not to change the world.

The culture that exists in some neighborhoods that enables this kind of activity needs to change. That's not a firearm issue.

[tburnsten]

64. Might not change for you

but at least you would be able to fight back if you absolutely had to. I don't know about you, but I don't expect armed citizens to solve all (or any) of society's problems, but at least they can keep themselves safe while emergency responders are on the way.

[krispos42]

28. So, the total homicide rate of US soldiers

in Iraq is 43 per 100,000 per summer.


The gun homicide rate in Chicago (pop. 2.8 million) is 4.46 per 100,000 per summer.

So a US soldier in Iraq is over ten times likely to be killed as a Chicagoan. More specifically, a gang-banging Chicagoan with a significant criminal history.


Is that basically what you're trying to say?

[iverglas]

38. just because you got that little thing beside your name

you think your name's Wickerman now??

[krispos42]

42. I was making a point

as opposed to your post.



In fact, this is a point that I've made before in a published letter to the editor in response to some right-wing mouth-breather that had the gall to say that US troops in Iraq were safer than the average DC resident.

[iverglas]

52. I was making a joke

Wickerman ... the resident statistician and debunker ...

[krispos42]

65. Oh

Well, alright then :-)

[Indy Lurker]

41. Chicago is a violent place

Chicago is no where near as violent as Iraq.

But, compared to many places in the US, Chicago is a violent place.


Despite:

Federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms,

and

State law that prohibits sale or transfer of firearms without a valid FOID card.

and

County law that prohibits "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

and

City law that prohibits possession of handguns.


The career criminals of Chicago (More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories) have no trouble getting a handgun to commit murder.


The only people who are not able to get handgun in Chicago are the ones who follow the law.

[SteveM]

70. Ah, hell. More facts and good argument. Party-pooper (nt)

[jody]

74. The Dem platform says “We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American

tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.”

:mad: @#$%&* --- RKBA is not a TRADITION; it is a basic right and not a privilege granted by a king or government.

Moreover, the Dem party platform doesn’t show why citizens in Chicago with a murder rate of 16.4 per 100 thousand don’t need firearms for self-defense but citizens in Cheyenne with a murder rate of 3.6 per 100 thousand do need firearms.

Does it make sense that as violent crime increases, citizens need to disarm because that is what the Democratic Party platform means?

Based on the Dem platform, voters expect a Dem congress and Dem president try to ban firearms.