High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Remove all ads!

Vietnam was essentianlly a civil war. We just chose the losing side. I was thinking about the revolution in Iran as a modern example of how citizens can shut the government down with strikes and demonstrations. Even our revolution began as a political revolution. The guns came later (at Lexington and Concord). Even that event was fairly organized on our part. Our Revolution would have been over much quicker if it more general support among the population (there were quite a few citizens who stayed loyal to England). It is estimated that only 1/3 of the population were patriots.

Nevertheless, our revolution was won by two things:

1. Washington's ability to keep a real, trained army in the field, which required a government to fund it (The Continental Congress).

2. And the entry of the French, with their professional navy and army.

 

Far out is probably the term you wanted to use.

Look, I don't care whether you afforded yourself a nod to reality before you went off and wrote what I commented on. I am really not interested in using the world the way you wished it ought to be as a basis for a discussion on gun control and tyranny.

 

3. How remote your country was compared to the rest of the empire. It was fairly impossible to get any kind of reinforcement there. Should the full might of the British Army had been there, might have been a different story. We always tended to have our hands full back then....

 

Barmy - The English army landed over 32,000 professional soldiers at New York (which settled on Staten Island as a base). At the time, it was the largest military landing of its kind in England's history.

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

 

I think we're at risk of derailing this thread a bit, but you have to consider how many troops were engaged in the battles of that war. Very few, in comparison to say, the Peninsular War, or the Napoleonic War (both around the same time as the American rebellion, around 20-30 years after) where the troop numbers doubled, and often trebled the numbers we had in America. It was a simple matter of logistics; were the US closer to us we would have been able to continually supply and reinforce, instead of relying on local volunteers and Hessians. It wasn't a major blow to the British Empire at the time to lose such a remote colony... in hindsight, with all the gold and what have you, maybe we should have tried harder!

 

What tyrannical government?

 

Barmy - Oh, no question. If England had been closer to America, you would be speaking "American" today instead of real English.

 

Why? I very much doubt we would have bothered shooting at the British. We still have their Queen as our head of state after all, and the Union Jack on our flag, and until very recently, had British courts as part of our legal system. So we don't exactly hold huge animosity to the British (except on a rugby field).

 

Heh, there's enough Americanisms over here as it is.

 

Awwww...I was looking forward to that.

At this point, I think it's more of a slow news backup plan than anything else. Same thing goes for the lobbyists. I mean, I know they get paid massive amounts of money for not doing anything...but when their sugar daddy/mamma comes knocking, they turn to their backup plan to make it look like they've been working.

Ahahahahahaha! You want "facts"?!?! Dude, you *DO* realize that this is a political forum right? Facts hold no meaning here. When dealing with politics, the facts are always pushed aside by outlandish claims and mindless jabbering on something that's not related at all.

 

I think someone should send the City Council of Chicago a copy of the Constitution. Personally, I don't know what they think they can accomplish with this law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

Considering the back-and-forth nature of the gun-control debate (and it's various laws) in this country, I think there are a lot of people who would reasonably question how solid the 2nd amendment's protection of an individual's rights are. At least, until this ruling. And, of course, a future court could overturn that precedent.

Or at least the Court's ruling on DC.

"Nice" isn't the word I'd use. I'm all for disagreeing with those filling government offices when you think they're wrong, and maybe even disrespecting them if they choose to be a**holes, but you obey them unless they downright break the law. Chicago may be dangerously close to doing that (sort of). The Court, on the other hand, isn't.

 

A state where government loses its legitimacy on the monopoly of violence is also called anarchy. If you'd like to see some first hand, may I suggest a trip to Somalia. You sound like you might like it there. A lot of freedom for those who can afford it and have the strength to keep it.

Personally I prefer a state where the state, which represents and is chosen by the people and is restricted in its power by laws. This state under the social contract has the monopoly of violence in order to be able to enforce the laws within that state, but that might be just my silly totalitarian view.

Probably true, it's legal in Finland too. I read of a millionaire who collected old dysfunctional world war II tanks and repaired them to operational shape. A hobby like any other I suppose. Nothing much dangerous there though since ammunitions for them are obviously illegal and without some heavy industry equipment you could not replicate the shells even if you wanted to. I doubt many countries have laws against owning tanks since a tank without ammunition is not much more than a heavily armored bulldozer.

 

Doesn't anyone else see a conflict here?

No wonder Obama is such an idiot....at least we got the cream of the crop of Chicago's idiots.

 

I fail to see the "Obama is an idiot" connection. Can you explain? Is it only because he used to LIVE in Chicago?

Just sayin'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

You continue with the strawman. Why should I put in the effort when you don't?

 

...Because you can't.

 

The class seems to me to be a fair requirement. The rest of it, though, is complete and total kaka.

Chandos, I wasn't able to see your video, though I have seen Moore's film. I didn't buy it for a second. We have plenty of crime here in Canada, and a lot of people (myself, for example) think that we should be able to shoot intruders who break into our homes to rob, rape, assualt, and / or murder us. Canadian law, however, tends to criminalize the fellow in his own home rather than the piece of filth who broke in.

 

Tell you what. I'll eat my left testicle if you can quote me as saying that an armed citizenry effectively resisting tyranny equates to 'a few guys on rooftops with hunting rifles.'

Quite simply, you've asked me to cite examples to support a claim I never made.