Oral Arguments in Illinois Carry Case (Shepard v. Madigan)

[TPaine7]

It's too early for celebration, but it's not looking good for the opponents of bearing arms.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=12-1269_001.mp3

[Loudly]

1. Guns and ammo in the hands of the public is a menace.

Something to strenuously oppose.

[TheWraith]

2. Good luck with that.

Your position is an extremely minority one even among Democrats. And one which is completely contrary to scientific evidence.

[Loudly]

3. The science is that bullets kill and maim.

The science is that people point guns and pull triggers for capricious reasons.

[petronius]

7. True, but for anyone keeping score at home this is the 2nd 'Ban Them All'

post I've noticed in GC & RKBA just today...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Indeed the trolls are busy today.

Such posts would not be allowed in many other groups, GLBT for example

[shadowrider]

37. Alert and send it to a jury

it'd be a 6-0 decision to let it stand.

Mention regional bigotry however, and it's hidden by 4-2 or 5-1.

[Glaug-Eldare]

4. Since Heller/McDonald, criminalizing them is going to require a Constitutional amendment

And, for better or worse, that's a long row to hoe. It's going to mean persuading enough of the Congress that the Bill of Rights needs to be shortened, and that's going to take far better evidence than I've seen presented in the past.

[Loudly]

5. Nah it just needs a different composition of SCOTUS.

Make it easy on ourselves.

[TPaine7]

6. Do you think Obama will appoint justices that disagree with his stated position? n/t

[Loudly]

9. He evolves.

And I welcome that.

You might want to give it a try.

[TPaine7]

11. I have evolved. I once opposed the RKBA as did Obama.

I hope he continues to evolve until he champions the right completely and with passion.

[Loudly]

14. Did you suffer some lack of oxygen to your brain?

That isn't evolving.

That's DEvolving.

[TPaine7]

19. So, is it your position that our president, who took the same path, also devolved?!

Remember to breathe, you need the oxygen.

[Loudly]

20. If he said it to secure the lunatic vote, I'll cut him the slack he needs.

He knows Americans loves them some guns.

But I'm sure he realizes what inexcusable harm they cause.

He's from Chicago.

[TPaine7]

22. Chicago is a gun free paradise (or it was before MacDonald). How would Obama

find out anything about gun crime living in Chicago?

[Loudly]

44. Chicago borders on Indiana.

Hoosiers will sell you guns, ammo and fireworks on a drive-thru basis.

[SGMRTDARMY]

45. Your usual answer Shares.

Blame others and deflect. I gotta hand it to you, your good at it.

[Loudly]

47. You asked why Chicago suffered from gun crime despite the ban.

That's the reason.

The ban needs to be seamless and complete, from sea to shining sea.

Otherwise guns will brought in from gun worshiping jurisdictions.

[SGMRTDARMY]

49. Chicago suffers from gun crime

because of the crushing poverty in certain neighborhoods, lack of jobs, gangs, but not because of guns coming in from outside the city.
Gun worshipping jurisdictions? Is this the new buzz word for the banners?
You will never ever get a gun ban, you don't have the american people on your side, you don't have SCOTUS on your side, hell, you don't even have the POTUS on your side.
"the ban needs to be seamless and complete, from sea to shining sea".
What a crock.

[Loudly]

51. Can blacks marry whites? Can men marry men? Can women marry women?

Times change, fella.

Get on board.

[SGMRTDARMY]

52. Times do change

but not the 2A.
I will never get on board with your nightmare of banning guns, what would be next, banning free speech? Banning the need for a search warrant for your home?
You would do better in the old Soviet Union.

[gejohnston]

54. The gun worshipping state I grew up in

Blacks could always marry whites. Some of the states with stricter gun laws like South Carolina, not so much.

[TPaine7]

56. Hmmmm... "from sea to shining sea." Now where have I heard that before?

I think your stay here will be short, SharesUnited.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. He's bound and determined to get Prohibition 3.0 going.

I can already see the tagline: "THIS TIME, IT'S SURE TO WORK!"

Incidentally, searching the string 'sharesunited "sea to shining sea"' will return 792 results...

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Shares, you're recycling your own post from two years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=318469&mesg_id=318486

sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. A single, seamless gun-prohibited zone from sea to shining sea is required.

As it stands, guns leak in from outside those jurisdictions which are trying to do the right thing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. I do hope that you mean to ban ALL GUNS...no military, no police. NO GUNS FOR ANYONE AT ALL

otherwise you are saying that some of us are MORE equal than others . . .

no firing weaponry for anyone. no bows and arrows. no slingshots. no tanks. no bombs. no spears. no knives. those can be projected as well, yanno.

[gejohnston]

46. do you know this for a fact?

1-800-ATF-GUNS (1-800-283-4867)
http://www.atf.gov/contact/hotlines/

Any Indiana individual or FFL selling to anyone in Illinois without going through an Illinois FFL is a federal felony. Please report it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

[Loudly]

48. Spare me. They sell to Hoosiers who bring them over.

Why must you provoke me with your feigned obtuseness?

[SGMRTDARMY]

50. Pot

meet kettle. Like I said, your great at blaming everyone else for Chicago's violence but refuse to look at the real underlying problems of the violence.

On edit: Chicago is probably the most corrupt city in the U.S..

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. there is only one poster feigning obtuseness and it is not you. n/t

[gejohnston]

53. That is also a federal crime.

If I give you a gun, I committed a federal crime. If Ceasefire Chicago has a "buy back" and someone from Indiana brings a to them, that is also a felony.

[DonP]

84. And your evidence of that is ... where?

Just show us a few articles about Indiana citizens arrested and prosecuted for smuggling guns over the border to Illinois.

How about one example to prove your point?

That's about the dumbest and most ignorant statement I've seen here in a week or two.

Don't forget to wash your hands really well after you pull out your next "Fact".

[SGMRTDARMY]

26. Ahhhhhh

so now we're lunatics.
Got it, SharesUnited.

[SGMRTDARMY]

30. Chicago banned handguns up until McDonald v Chicago

so how would he know about Chicago's gun violence if guns were banned, I mean, after all, we know how well bans work, so Chicago should have been free of gun violence, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. So when you changed from sharesunited, was it evolution, devolution or metamorphosis?

[ileus]

66. Now you're being a true Progressive...

What good is being a progressive if you're going to be regressive on the one right that can assure you remain being.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Obama has evolved on this issue, just like many here and wants to leave the issue alone.

You are the one behind the times and incorrect.

[Glaug-Eldare]

8. And in McDonald, Stevens cited the absurd Cruikshank decision as his rationale

i.e., "the 14th Amendment never happened!" Not so far a stretch for him to put his fingers in his ears and scream, "the 2nd Amendment never happened!" Is that the kind of justice we want on the court?

[Loudly]

10. The 2A has been deliberately misinterpreted.

And people will be killed and crippled all over this country tonight because of it.

[TPaine7]

13. That is true.

It has been interpreted to not include the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home. Because of that, criminals will be able to, safely and securely kill and cripple innocent people all over this country tonight.

Good point!

[Loudly]

15. Access to guns and ammo is the problem.

Manufacturers and sellers are the real criminals.

As well as legislators who protect manufacturers and sellers from strict liability.

[SGMRTDARMY]

31. Well it seems the courts, the people, and the legislators

don't agree with your position and thats all that matters, not your hand wringing, not your proclomations that the SCOTUS got it wrong.
And if I were you, I wouldn't count on a future SCOTUS to overturn any gun laws.

[armueller2001]

38. so that would mean

Those who manufacture and sell knives, baseball bats, gasoline, matches, cars and alcohol are criminals as well right? Because it's their responsibility if someone misuses their product?

[Glaug-Eldare]

21. What do you believe the 2nd Amendment protects, in that case?

Can you give me an example of a law that would violate the 2nd Amendment?

[Loudly]

43. Sure. Let's analyze the relevance to modern American life of the 3A too.

[TPaine7]

55. The Third Amendment is very important.

An Amendment doesn't lose value because it is not violated.

If the government obeys the rules, that doesn't mean that the rules are irrelevant.

[Loudly]

57. The 2A enabled slavery and the American Civil War.

Never again.

Mooted.

[SGMRTDARMY]

59. The 2A enabled slavery and the American Civil War?

Really? I thought slavery was enabled by southern politicians back then, and the Civil War was enabled by Northern states who wanted slavery abolished. I guess all this time I was wrong. Who knew.
Seriously SharesUnited, quit trying to revise history.

[Glaug-Eldare]

61. I get the feeling we'd argue quite bitterly on that subject.

While the cause of secession was despicable, I still believe that states have the right to secede, and this right is moot if they are forcibly disarmed by another despot like Lincoln. I am extremely hostile to the concept that my home is a mere administrative district which has no right to choose its own future and defend its choices.

[gejohnston]

62. huh?

how so? The CSA was a separate country, its government tried to buy guns from Europe and manufactured their own. You think guys joined with their squirrel guns?

[PavePusher]

70. Ri-i-i-i-i-ght..... n/t

[Straw Man]

81. 2A and the Civil War: a classic Shares meme.

When are you going to revisit some of your other favorites, like "gun-free oasis, from sea to shining sea," and "bullets entering our bodies"? Are you afraid that the forensic rhetoricians are going to out you as a zombie?

[Glaug-Eldare]

58. It hasn't come into play lately, but it's quite apparent.

It would be unconstitutional for any civil or military authority to require me to host soldiers in my home in peacetime. I have the right to refuse them, and if they commandeer my house anyway, I can file a valid lawsuit alleging violation of my 3A right.

Now, you said "Let's analyze the relevance to modern American life of the 3A too." It's not "too" unless you give me an example of when I could sue over violation of my 2A right.

[Clames]

12. Oh look, Shares is back.

Didn't you learn your lesson last time? Oppose all you want, the rest of us just laugh. Maybe you'll find a shoulder to lean on with Hoyt...

[Loudly]

17. Laugh at loss and grief and suffering.

If bullets ventilate you, your laughing will cease.

[Clames]

18. Just laughing at you.

My laughing will never cease as long as you post in this group.

[safeinOhio]

24. For those that post a personal attack on

those that post a point of view with no personal attacks in it------
Lilly Alan says it best.

&feature=related

[SGMRTDARMY]

27. Oh yeah

thats original.

[Clames]

32. Pot kettles black again.

You don't have room to preach on personal attacks...

[SGMRTDARMY]

33. I could be wrong

but didn't he launch one on you a week or so ago because you didn't have a star?

[safeinOhio]

34. I am sometimes guilty of

responding to personal attacks, but never to a post that is not using a personal attack. Your response was to post #1 and I found nothing in that attacking anyone personally. But, you'll have to admit that it is a wonderful video.

[Clames]

65. Wrong again.

My response was to REPLY #1. Not post #1, or the OP's post if you wish. Also, there is no personal attack there at all, just observing a fact. Keep trying, you'll get there someday.

[safeinOhio]

67. Right.

accuse someone of being someone else and bringing up another member that isn't mentioned in the post you respond to? Yet, your response doesn't even touch on the topic of the post.

You seem to often attack the person and not the idea. But, from now on I'll just accept that you just do that.

[SGMRTDARMY]

68. Back atcha buddy

You've done the same thing also. As have I, as have just about all of us. There are very few posters here who haven't done what you are claiming. The one poster that comes to mind is Spin.

[safeinOhio]

69. I only make personal comments about a DU

member after personal comments are made about me. If I make a mistake, I apologize or correct it. I don't see most others doing that. I don't make comments about people that are not posting in the thread, as many have done here. I'm not in anyway perfect and do make mistakes. I admit that and try to correct my mistakes. You are correct about that poster that does not make personal comments. However, their are few times he is ever attacked personally. We should all be like that and stick to issues and not personal views about the poster.


But, thank you for your opinion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. If textual analysis has any validity at all, DUer Loudly is in fact, former DUer sharesunited.

Pointing out this violation of DU's TOS is hardly abusive. Granted, the poster in question might be engaging in a truly epic impersonation- but I strongly doubt it.

[Clames]

72. Once again, wrong.

No personal attacks here. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, it is observing a fact. If you are offended by people observing facts then maybe this group isn't for you.




Glad you have an opinion though...

[safeinOhio]

73. So now you are making fun of my race?

[Glaug-Eldare]

74. Huh? n/t

[safeinOhio]

75. Don't bother

responding to my post anymore as I now have you on ignore. Feel free to take your racist comments back to StormFront or whatever.

[gejohnston]

76. bad thing about homophones

it does create confusion. I think the accused is honestly confounded.

The phrase was introduced to English in 1542 in Nicolas Udall's translation of Apophthegmes, that is to saie, prompte saiynges.

The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans, which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur[1] and/or confusion with playing card references such as "black as the ace of spades".

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

Sometimes interpreted as derogatory from the sense of spade that refers to a black person. However those two expressions are etymologically unrelated; this refers to the digging instrument, and the other to the card suit.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/call_a_spade_a_spade

[oneshooter]

77. Try this from WIKI. It is NOT a racial slur.

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

Oneshooter

[Clames]

78. Fine with me.

If you don't have the education to interpret that phrase and you think it had anything to do with racism I'm quite happy for you to ignore me. You are not worth my time.

[hack89]

82. You are kidding, right?

that is not a racial slur.

[SGMRTDARMY]

83. You've got to be kidding us right?

Accusing a DU member of being a racist or making racist comments is pretty darned serious, I suggest you look up the context in which the comment was used, climb off of your high horse and apologize to Clames. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that most of us here have you pegged for what you really are.

BTW, as I am fairly sure that his comment was alerted on, you'll notice that it was allowed to stand so it was not interpreted as a racist comment.

[ileus]

36. I was wondering why I hadn't seen that posted for a while.

I noticed it right off but with a different user name...

I just couldn't/can't remember who always posted it in the past.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. welcome to du. enjoy your stay. have a nice day.

[SGMRTDARMY]

25. So tell us

how well is that going, you know, the whole "strenuously oppose" thing?
Sooner or later, IL will join the rest of the nation with some sort of CCW law, especially now that king Daley is gone, and all your hand wringing will not stop it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Not to worry, many of us will strenuously oppose your position

[Atypical Liberal]

39. So what about all the people who saved their lives or the lived of loved ones with guns and ammo?

What that a menace, too?

Would you give up everyone's ability to save their lives because of the people who do bad things with guns?

[ileus]

35. Let's hope this removes power from the 1% and restores it to the 99%

[Logical]

41. A short synopsis would have been nice.

[spin]

60. I agree. (n/t)