God damn, I love punctuation.
(my bold)
The whole line of discussion was about what Democratic politicians would like to have happen if they had their druthers. And what they want, is to ban guns. We know this because, wait for it - they banned guns when they could.
Yes, you can get a CCW permit in Chicago today. That fact is not in dispute. It’s also not responsive to the point Pantastic was making, which is Democratic politicians in certain areas really want to ban guns.
No, the point was to use the word Chicago as a trigger word, if you’ll pardon the pun, and it worked. Regardless of the fact that his description of Chicago is about 180 degrees from accurate. It had the desired effect, which is why gun rights advocates throw the word Chicago around so much. It gets reactions and nodding agreement from those already viewing Chicago as the nightmare for gun owners that some people want it to be, even though it is a completely false narrative.
I don’t think Chicago is the worst case scenario right now. Chicago falls under the 7th circuit which is more friendly than the 2nd or 9th, or 4th for that matter. But Chicago is a good example to use when looking at the landscape of gun rights holistically. Looking at just the legislative angle, Chicago was a pretty bad place for gun rights. But taken together with the courts, that was addressed and continues to be addressed. So when I talk about Chicago, I use it as an example to stress the importance of federal appointments to the bench as a line of defense against bad state and local laws. Chicago is a success story for the courts, and why the judicial appointments are so important, maybe the most important part of the executive.
So really, I’m grateful that Chicago and its people pushed their bans so hard that SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd amendment nation wide. I’m glad that Madigan miscalculated and lost such that the people of Chicago now have shall issue CCW. And the attorney fees are nice to fund other litigation.
But I look to places like New Jersey, and California, and those places are much worse off in terms of gun rights. They are not buttressed by the courts and those localities don’t have much hope in the near term. A few more judicial appointments, maybe 1 or 2 more SCOTUS turnovers, and the story could be different. The Democratic politicians there, unchecked by the courts, have created an environment that is unfriendly to gun rights. The only difference in Chicago is the courts are different. There is no question that absent the courts, Chicago would be just as bad for gun rights as it had been for the past many decades. That’s the point. If Democratic politicians wanted to be seen as less anti-gun - they’d push for less anti-gun laws.
I decided to re-write Pantastic’s post, using Bone’s interpretation of what he intended to say:
One can look to Democratic-dominated areas like IL (especially Chicago) to see what ‘common sense regulation’ looks like, and it is consistently ‘anyone who wants a gun can get one, and anyone who wants a CCW can get one’. Sure the platform doesn’t explicitly say ‘we want anyone who wants a gun to have one, and anyone who wants a CCW to get one’, but the practice does - and costs them significant votes.
Seems like the meaning has changed, but **Bone **is a moderator, and he says it’s the same, so I’ll take his word for it.
I’ve never felt as afraid of anything in my life as gun right supporters are about getting their guns taken, and nobodies guns are being taken or are even in any danger of being taken. We had 11 school shootings from Jan 1st to Jan 23rd this year and there is not one peep about any regulations coming about as a result. I guess I just do not understand this fear. It doesn’t seem rational to me.
That’s not precisely true in an absolute sense, but by and large the threat of serious gun control inhibiting the people’s RKBA further has been staved off for now.
Maybe that’s because that statistic is basically gun-control fiction?
They had a complete ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms until the Federal courts ruled that they were required to allow carry in 2013, and Chicago continues to try to implement laws that make concealed carry only technically legal like the overturned ‘no carry within 1000 feet of parks’ law. They still don’t even have gun stores or gun ranges inside of the city (at least as of late 2017). That is, in fact, as close to a complete ban as they can get away with - it’s just like Texas has as close to a complete ban on abortion as they can get away with. Texas had a ban, then were told they couldn’t, and over the decades coming up with laws that are practically a ban (like requiring abortion clinics to adhere to overly restrictive requirements) that eventually get overturned.
I was not at all wrong - Chicago has as close to a ban on ordinary citizens owning and using guns as it can get away with, just like Texas has as close to a ban on abortion as it can get away with. The fact that the courts have struck down both bans repeatedly just indicates that what they can get away with is not a complete ban, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t pushing for as close to said ban as they can get away with.
Washington Examiner? Really? Couldn’t find a source that isn’t right wing? You don’t think they have a partisan point to make with that “news” article? You want to be the one to tell the families of Bailey Holt and Preston Cope that their deaths don’t matter because some other instances last month involving guns being used at schools weren’t as bad as that one?
Was the shooting in Las Vegas also a lie? What about Sandy Hook. The point is, no serious discussion of gun grabbing is happening as a result of any of this. Nor is there going to be any time soon. The GOP thanks you for your votes and donations though, even though this fear is akin to the fear that the monster under the bed is going to get you unless you cover up with your sheets.
Their argument seems to be that two of those shootings shouldn’t count, since one of them was with a pellet gun and one of them was a suicide. OK, fair enough. So it should instead read: NINE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN FIRST 25 DAYS OF JANUARY!!!
Which, um, still seems like a huge fucking problem.
You were wrong and you’ve also clearly never been to Chicago. There is no ban, there isn’t going to be a ban. It’s ok to admit that you were wrong. If you worded things differently you may have found a way to say what you wanted to say without being wrong, but the words you did use were wrong.
My god, what have I done!
Ah, the obsession of gun nuts. A mention of gun control in a thread, and boom, it’s in the absorbing Markov state of a gun debate.
That, and any suggestion that Israel might should get out of the West Bank. Don’t mention it unless you’re prepared to argue for days.
“And you may say to yourself…”
While your rephrasing is pretty absurd, what happens if we narrow it down to just Chicago, which is the area that triggered you? Then when we look at common sense regulation in Chicago alone, we get an interesting picture - a person who wants to get a gun can buy one, but only if he leaves the city, as the city prohibits gun stores. And anyone who wants a CCW can get one, but only if he leaves the city, as the city prohibits gun ranges and live fire is required to qualify for a CCW. So really, looking at Chicago one sees that ‘common sense’ regulation appears to mean ‘technically one can buy a gun, but we won’t actually allow any stores to sell them, and technically one can get a CCW, but we won’t actually allow you to perform all of the steps to get one’.
That suddenly looks a LOT less open than you were trying to present it as. In fact, that looks an awful lot like how anti-abortion laws work, where you get ‘well, there’s not a TECHNICALLY a ban, but you need to travel way out of the area to do it, sucks to be you if you don’t have time off from work and means for long distance travel’.
The words I used were perfectly correct, at no point did I claim that there was a ban - ‘As close to a ban as they can get away with’ actually rather clearly indicates that there is not currently a ban.
It didn’t trigger me, it was just pointed out that you were wrong about Chicago. You’re probably wrong about LA and DC too, it just didn’t come up.
That’s why I can’t get a CCW: My house prohibits gun ranges and live fire is required to qualify for a CCW. I can’t really bear the time and expense of leaving my house to get a CCW, so it’s effectively banned.
As the article points out, the usual suspects were too busy being deceptive / disingenuous / inaccurate in their reporting by parroting that statistic to bother to fact check it.
Sure, and I’m confident that the NYT had a “partisan point to make” in citing that “statistic” as well. What’s your point?
That’s not even remotely close to what I’ve said.
No, and also more things I’ve never said.
If you want to have a serious discussion, I’d urge you to try to pursue one without resorting to phoney-baloney statistics.
I’m completely confident that I’ve got a far better grasp of how to prevent the gun-control monster from getting me than you do.
If I recall correctly you live in Utah, correct? What gun monsters are coming for you out there exactly? There is zero chance that you will ever have to part from any of your precious guns. It’s ok to not be afraid. Fear is not something that you have to let get the best of you. Life is way better if you can overcome that.
This shows just how little you know. Chicago is surrounded by suburbs that this doesn’t apply to, and there is no ‘long distance travel’ required. What do you think the maximum time from the heart of Chicago to a suburb you can get your CCW and gun is? 20 minutes? Holy shit what an imposition:rolleyes: You are as ignorant of Chicago area geography as you are of its gun grabbiness apparently. Why don’t you worry about where you live and let Chicagoans worry about our home. Thanks for the concern though.