Gun Ban in Illinois Ruled Unconstitutional

[CRYSiiSx2]

In an unusually forceful and straightforward opinion, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously held that the state's "comprehensive ban" on the "use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home" is invalid on its face under the Second Amendment! The NRA had participated in the case with an amicus brief.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-guns-supreme-court-20130914,0,5828194.story

Seems like people are finally starting to wake up! I also loved what happened in Colorado.

[Gunn]

There's no such thing as good guys or bad guys in cases like this, even though I support people's rights to own basic firearms. What needs to happen is we need to come up with fair and better solutions, concerning gun ownership, instead of trying to go to extremes and make half ass solutions to a social problem that obviously involves mental health.

[preacherman76]

Good for Illinois

[Ever Learning]

as gun culture has been part of america for a long time it doesn't seem weird that owning guns in the first place is weird for civilians. if they decided to legalize guns in britain every one would think the politicians had gone mad. i dont think it would be possible to remove guns from america tho

[questionmark]

as gun culture has been part of america for a long time it doesn't seem weird that owning guns in the first place is weird for civilians. if they decided to legalize guns in britain every one would think the politicians had gone mad. i dont think it would be possible to remove guns from america tho

Just as it is impossible to remove Friday night binge drinking from Britain. Every tribe has its totem. Rational or not.

[+and-then]

There's no such thing as good guys or bad guys in cases like this, even though I support people's rights to own basic firearms. What needs to happen is we need to come up with fair and better solutions, concerning gun ownership, instead of trying to go to extremes and make half ass solutions to a social problem that obviously involves mental health.

I disagree. There are "good guys" - the public's RIGHT to self defense has been affirmed. If we were capable in this modern intractably polarized society to reach a compromise then I would agree to control of some weapons that are obviously useless for anything but street use and murder. But because ANY retreat in the face of gun control advocates is seen as weakness and only raises calls for more control.... I cannot agree with control's at any level. We need a national dialogue where reasonable people can discuss this issue and try to come up with an approach short of banning weapons but that allows some to be more readily controlled by ACCLAMATION of the public by ballot. If the citizens of a jurisdiction want to ban a weapons type then let them. Then those who lost the referendum could choose to live elsewhere or could abide by the community's voice.

[Gromdor]

Here in Iowa there is a movement to allow guns for the blind. The intent is to not let physical disabilities prevent gun ownership. Depending on how this all plays out, there is also talk of further pushing it to allow gun ownership for mental disabilities too.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/

[questionmark]

Here in Iowa there is a movement to allow guns for the blind. The intent is to not let physical disabilities prevent gun ownership. Depending on how this all plays out, there is also talk of further pushing it to allow gun ownership for mental disabilities too.

http://www.usatoday....-blind/2780303/

I fail to see the scandal in that if every brain amputated, unreliable and incapable of handling a gun can also have one.

[supervike]

Well, now the war can officially begin in Chicago...

The 'bad guys' have had the guns and we see what is happening in the city. Lets see what this does.

Will it reduce crime, or escalate it?

Edited September 15, 2013 by supervike

[questionmark]

Well, now the war can officially begin in Chicago...

The 'bad guys' have had the guns and we see what is happening in the city. Lets see what this does.

Will it reduce crime, or escalate it?

neither nor

[Gunn]

I disagree. There are "good guys" - the public's RIGHT to self defense has been affirmed. If we were capable in this modern intractably polarized society to reach a compromise then I would agree to control of some weapons that are obviously useless for anything but street use and murder. But because ANY retreat in the face of gun control advocates is seen as weakness and only raises calls for more control.... I cannot agree with control's at any level. We need a national dialogue where reasonable people can discuss this issue and try to come up with an approach short of banning weapons but that allows some to be more readily controlled by ACCLAMATION of the public by ballot. If the citizens of a jurisdiction want to ban a weapons type then let them. Then those who lost the referendum could choose to live elsewhere or could abide by the community's voice.

Our right to defend ourselves when our life is threatened in our homes is called "survival", not being a "good guy".

There can be NO good guys in life threatening situations involving a gun, when someone has to defend themselves and kill another person. Don't try to paint it politically black and white, this is a shade of grey. When you've killed someone, you've killed someone, despite the reason...and that's something negative a person has to carry with them the rest of their lives; no matter how tough a person thinks he/she is about it mentally. Just ask combat vets who've killed people in war.

And I guess you missed the last part in my first sentence, where I said "even though I support people's rights to own basic firearms". Maybe you just ignored that, possibly? Now why would I say that? (BTW, just to be clear from any further misinterpretation, when I say basic firearms, I mean what we can currently own now, besides nukes)

But maybe I'm misinterpreting your entire post by saying; Perhaps you believe that anybody with a serious mental illness should have access to/own a basic firearm? Because that is what my greatest concern is about. Yes/no?

Here in Iowa there is a movement to allow guns for the blind. The intent is to not let physical disabilities prevent gun ownership. Depending on how this all plays out, there is also talk of further pushing it to allow gun ownership for mental disabilities too.

http://www.usatoday....-blind/2780303/

Oh yeah, there we go...that's a great idea. Let's just let people with suicidal tendencies have special access to nukes why we're at it. I guess I've lived long enough anyway.

(P.S. That wasn't directed at you, Gromdor)

Edit: Doggone typos, again. Arrrgh!!!

Edited September 15, 2013 by Purifier

[Bavarian Raven]

there can be NO good guys in life threatening situations involving a gun,

Erm...yes there can be. A young woman defending herself from a rapist with a gun...surely you can't suggest that SHE is the bad guy in the situation... to name one of millions of examples.

[Gunn]

Erm...yes there can be. A young woman defending herself from a rapist with a gun...surely you can't suggest that SHE is the bad guy in the situation... to name one of millions of examples.

Neither. Again, shades of grey.

[Bavarian Raven]

Neither. Again, shades of grey.

So you are saying it's partially her fault that some guy wants to rape her? Wow.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[Gunn]

So you are saying it's partially her fault that some guy wants to rape her? Wow.

I'm not sure how you interpreted that out of my last comment. Clarify how you believe I said that.

Edit; I think there is a lack of communication going on here, as to what I mean and what you think I mean.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Purifier

[Yamato]

Constitution 1 Gun-hating Liberals 0

[Bavarian Raven]

@ above. What you said was there can be no good / bad when it comes to using a gun. I said yes there can be clear cut cases where one party is clearly the good and one clearly the bad - my example was a women protecting herself from being raped. She is clearly the victim in this situation. You implied this was not always the case. This is my take on the last couple posts.

[Gunn]

@ above. What you said was there can be no good / bad when it comes to using a gun. I said yes there can be clear cut cases where one party is clearly the good and one clearly the bad - my example was a women protecting herself from being raped. She is clearly the victim in this situation. You implied this was not always the case. This is my take on the last couple posts.

Alright, let me try again......

First off, in the scenario you described, let me be clear; It's obvious the women is a victim of the attempted rape, therefore protecting herself with the gun is a situation of survival. Because nothing good comes out of it in the end.

The guy attempting to rape her is definitely in the wrong, but killing someone is wrong too. So how do two wrongs make a right? Do you believe killing someone, with the use of a gun, is a pure, good, positive, well-to-do, holy thing?

There can't be any winners in this, there is no good guys. Not calling her a bad guy either. It's really all negative no matter how you look at it. So how are you pulling a positive out of that, when it's a totally negative thing?

If you think I'm saying she doesn't have the right to defend herself, that's not what I'm saying. If you think I'm saying she brought it on herself, that's not what I'm saying. She has every right to defend herself, but killing is killing no matter how one tries to put a positive spin on it. It doesn't make her bad, just the need to survive with a negative side effect.

[Bavarian Raven]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree... cheers buddy.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[Babe Ruth]

Here in Iowa there is a movement to allow guns for the blind. The intent is to not let physical disabilities prevent gun ownership. Depending on how this all plays out, there is also talk of further pushing it to allow gun ownership for mental disabilities too.

http://www.usatoday....-blind/2780303/

Colbert treated that Iowa proposal on Thursday night.

[+and-then]

Our right to defend ourselves when our life is threatened in our homes is called "survival", not being a "good guy".

There can be NO good guys in life threatening situations involving a gun, when someone has to defend themselves and kill another person. Don't try to paint it politically black and white, this is a shade of grey. When you've killed someone, you've killed someone, despite the reason...and that's something negative a person has to carry with them the rest of their lives; no matter how tough a person thinks he/she is about it mentally. Just ask combat vets who've killed people in war.

And I guess you missed the last part in my first sentence, where I said "even though I support people's rights to own basic firearms". Maybe you just ignored that, possibly? Now why would I say that? (BTW, just to be clear from any further misinterpretation, when I say basic firearms, I mean what we can currently own now, besides nukes)

But maybe I'm misinterpreting your entire post by saying; Perhaps you believe that anybody with a serious mental illness should have access to/own a basic firearm? Because that is what my greatest concern is about. Yes/no?

Oh yeah, there we go...that's a great idea. Let's just let people with suicidal tendencies have special access to nukes why we're at it. I guess I've lived long enough anyway.

(P.S. That wasn't directed at you, Gromdor)

Edit: Doggone typos, again. Arrrgh!!!

No I would not want mentally unstable people to be armed DEPENDING on what that disability was...it's a slippery slope unless there are agreed guidelines. The old Soviet system had lots of "mentally defective" people didn't they? But concerning the impact of killing another human being - I am talking about defending one's life. For most people that trumps everything else, including potential PTSD.

[questionmark]

No I would not want mentally unstable people to be armed DEPENDING on what that disability was...it's a slippery slope unless there are agreed guidelines. The old Soviet system had lots of "mentally defective" people didn't they? But concerning the impact of killing another human being - I am talking about defending one's life. For most people that trumps everything else, including potential PTSD.

lets hear you opinion about that once you have been at the receiving end of it.

[CyberKen]

http://www.chicagotr...0,5828194.story

Seems like people are finally starting to wake up! I also loved what happened in Colorado.

The Left Wing Loons in Colorado are claiming voter suppression but CNN laughed them off the air.

Gun Grabbing Liberals get thrown out of office!

[CyberKen]

Constitution 1 Gun-hating Liberals 0

Don't forget about the Senator Ted Cruz victory over Feinstein.

Constitution 2 : Gun Grabbing Liberals 0

Edited September 16, 2013 by CyberKen

[Gunn]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree... cheers buddy.

Alrighty then, same here. Cheers, slick.

No I would not want mentally unstable people to be armed DEPENDING on what that disability was...it's a slippery slope unless there are agreed guidelines. The old Soviet system had lots of "mentally defective" people didn't they? But concerning the impact of killing another human being - I am talking about defending one's life. For most people that trumps everything else, including potential PTSD.

lets hear you opinion about that once you have been at the receiving end of it.

^Exactly! It's easy for them to say all that at the moment, until it happens to them. I wonder how Chris Kyle, if he could be here after being killed by a unstable individual, would respond to their unwavering mentality concerning mental health issues and guns.