It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

page: 11
54
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think we're debating semantics. By 'defensive' side I meant on the 'receiving' end, and those tactics are relatively unchanged. I think you were thinking more on the 'offensive' side.

in any case, I think we agree.




posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hahaha, probably. And even if we don't agree perfectly, we seem to be on the same wavelength.


Loving your analysis in this thread, btw.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly.

I quit worrying about "rules" the first time some SOB pulled a knife on me, and I didn't have one. He didn't seem to care, so neither did, or do, I.

As you say, I'm just going to win. By most any means necessary. There are certain lines I won't cross, but there aren't near as many as there used to be.

In the eyes of many, that makes me some sort of coward or whatever. As though I'm supposed to care... As long as I can look myself in the mirror when I get around to shaving--which isn't often these days, I can live with their opinion of me.

If my family is in danger, I'll become the cheatenist MF'er around. I come from the back, and from the shadows, and from beyond their reach...with no notion of "fair play" involved. F with me, and you'd best toss out the "rule book", because I already have.

Leave me alone? I'll be nice to be around. Don't? Won't be. ...and there's a whole lot of folks just like me 'round here.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It appears we do. That must mean we're right!!




posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
This wont hold up in court its Washington DC all over again. They banned sales and the supreme court said youcant Dothan and now people in DC can buy guns again.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and after the 4th circuit ruling today it will see scotus again. They just ruled Assault rifles arent protected by the 2nd amendment.


I didn't catch the ruling, do you have a good source or two I can review?



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, if there were such a thing, no semi automatic rifle in existence could reasonably be called an assault weapon, given that semi automatic rifles are not used by any of the armed services to perform actual assaults. Its fun switch or go home. Even if the weapons carried by assault troops happen to be fired in semi auto mode some of the time, the fact of the matter is that without a fun switch, what you have is a civilian pattern rifle, unless of course we are talking about dedicated sniping tools, like Barrets or Cheytac gear.

Point of the matter is, unless the thing is a bullet hose, unless the trigger mechanism is designed in order to permit fully automatic fire, calling the thing an assault rifle is like calling Pauly Shore a Shakespearean actor.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

We'll need a definition on what an assault rifle is. It's come to the point where there a groups of folks who don't see this the same way.

Perhaps there is a good debate thread at work here.


There is an easy way to define "assault weapon". Get yourself 30 million liberals and stick a motion sensor on their bungholes and show them pictures of different weapons. The ones that make them pucker the most are assault weapons for sure. The ones that have the lesser puckering effect will be "Possible assault weapons, with the option to go full assault weapon upon future unexpected puckering".

We'll have to make sure there aren't any irritants or contaminants to skew the results. Things like logic and reason and common sense can make a liberal's bunghole pucker tighter than anything else.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
This wont hold up in court its Washington DC all over again. They banned sales and the supreme court said youcant Dothan and now people in DC can buy guns again.


This isn't the same SC, remember? I wouldn't expect the same results as much as this court has changed since then. I don't trust Trump and therefore, I don't trust his judge. And there might be another one by the time this goes to court.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Gorsuch actually kept the Supreme Court similar to what it was so far as ideology. He is a Constitutionalist like Scalia was. I see no way this will pass Supreme Court muster, but in the meantime, stay out of Deerfield. It's open season on humans there.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Gorsuch actually kept the Supreme Court similar to what it was so far as ideology. He is a Constitutionalist like Scalia was. I see no way this will pass Supreme Court muster, but in the meantime, stay out of Deerfield. It's open season on humans there.

TheRedneck


Scalia wasn't really so much of a constitutionalist in my view. He was more of a christian conservative (IMO). There is a difference. Remember that Scalia was obviously anti-gay and anti-abortion. This isn't a Constitutional view. It's a religious one. It's just that there is some overlap between Christian conservatives and libertarians. Scalia's views often made libertarians like me happy but left us disappointed on things like gay rights and abortion.

Whether or not Gorsuch is similar to Scalia, however, the fact remains that I don't trust Donald Trump. And so, I don't trust anyone he has put into place. I also don't trust GWB and GWB was responsible for two of the current justices. And I sure as hell don't trust Obama. So that's five of the nine who might screw us when the chips are down. Roberts definitely turned on us on Obamacare.
edit on 6-4-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Looks like there's already a lawsuit filed, as the ordinance directly defies state law:

www.chicagotribune.com...

But, as I said before, we all know Illinois isn't the best at following laws.....



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew


I don't think they have much of a chance with that. Even if they do it still leaves the 40 or so towns with similar ordinances and more importantly Cook County as still requiring input from the Supreme Court.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


proper use of your environment such as using others as a meat shield is fair game to me to save myself. if i dont know them im using them to soak up the damage.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Not to try and derail the thread, but gay rights and abortions are not directly addressed in the Constitution. Therefore a strict Constitutionalist justice would vote against special constitutional rights on these issues. Both are technically the venue of the states, if the Constitution is strictly applied.

Of course, strict application means fully automatic firearms must be legal to own as well...

This is the issue we face when we try to rewrite a document based on public opinion at the time: there is no way to be sure what a decision will be, because it depends more on subjective opinion of 9 people than on what was actually written into law.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Not to try and derail the thread, but gay rights and abortions are not directly addressed in the Constitution.


Nevertheless, man was obviously a Christian conservative whose views were based more on his religion than anything else. Just strictly speaking. I'm frankly sorry he's gone because I'm more conservative than anything on a lot of issues. But I don't agree with them on abortion and similar religion-tainted issues.

And frankly, anytime the balance changes on the highest court in the country it's a cause for concern if you were happy with the way things were. A new judge is a new judge. We won't know where this guy really stands for a long time, most likely. We're guessing based upon what we know about him. I do know one thing about him that gives me pause. He is opposed to euthanasia. Which is a religious view if I've ever heard one. This man is opposed to "death with dignity" and that worries me because I am a libertarian. This is not a libertarian view.

edit on 6-4-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The phrase "Christian conservative" is over- and mis-used in my opinion. I am a Christian, but that does not necessarily lead to predictable opinions. It might surprise you to know that, even as a Christian, I oppose outlawing abortion... not because I support abortion (I certainly do NOT) but because I am pragmatic enough to know that doing so would lead to effective suicides of young women. Which is worse than the other? I cannot say.

I am in complete support of legalization of marijuana. It is a plant, made by God, and not evil incarnate.

I support freedom of all religions, not just mine. It is God's place to say what is true and what is not, not my place. That also means I support Christians having the same rights as Sikh, Hindu, or Muslims. And we can extend that to mean that the government has no business being in the business of defining a religious ceremony such as marriage... meaning that one's church of choice (or lack thereof) should define who can and cannot be married. Of course, the government can choose which marriages to recognize, but that should be on the basis of whether or not it is performed in the proper religious context (and that includes an atheistic context), not by whether the circumstances apply to any particular religion.

So you see, one cannot accurately use the term "Christian" to define political views, any more than one can accurately use the term "assault weapon" to define a particular weapon.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The phrase "Christian conservative" is over- and mis-used in my opinion. I am a Christian, but that does not necessarily lead to predictable opinions. It might surprise you to know that, even as a Christian, I oppose outlawing abortion... not because I support abortion (I certainly do NOT) but because I am pragmatic enough to know that doing so would lead to effective suicides of young women. Which is worse than the other? I cannot say.


So you're telling me that his opinions on things like abortion and gay issues were not influenced by religion in any way shape or form? I don't buy that.

At any rate, my point was that a guy like Scalia would cancel your rights (or anyone else's) for religious reasons and use whatever spurious legal excuse they could fabricate for it. And if Gorsuch is anything like Scalia, he is a Christian conservative first. Which is fine if everything you care about falls in with Christian conservatism.


I am in complete support of legalization of marijuana. It is a plant, made by God, and not evil incarnate.


I kind of doubt Gorsuch would agree with that.


So you see, one cannot accurately use the term "Christian" to define political views, any more than one can accurately use the term "assault weapon" to define a particular weapon.

TheRedneck


Well, you certainly can use it as a generality. Christian conservatives are (generally) pretty predictable. As are liberal atheists. There's always some variation. We're attempting to predict the behavior/views/rulings of a SCOTUS justice based upon what we know about him. This isn't always 100% accurate. But, for example, we do know the man wrote a book about physician assisted suicide before he was nominated. So we can have a pretty good idea of his views on that. And it's pretty unlikely his opinion on that particular issue is going to change at all. This is the issue I feel predicts his decisions pretty well. This man is not a libertarian. Maybe that's awesome for you but it's worrying for someone like me.



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


So you're telling me that his opinions on things like abortion and gay issues were not influenced by religion in any way shape or form? I don't buy that.

No, I am telling you that one need not be religious to hold those beliefs. I wasn't always a Christian, but I have always believed that a child should not be murdered for convenience. Just because he is a Christian does not automatically dictate his opinions. He is also a Supreme Court Justice, sworn (on a Bible) to uphold the Constitution in his decisions.


I kind of doubt Gorsuch would agree with that.

You're probably right. I wonder if that could have anything to do with his experience (or lack of such) with the plant?

Nah, couldn't be... has to be because he read a book.


Well, you certainly can use it as a generality.

True enough, but we're not talking about a generality; we are talking about one man. If we were discussing a group, then we might could predict the majority opinions of that group, but the smaller the sample size becomes, the less accurate and reliable those predictions become. Neil Gorsuch is the smallest sample size possible.


This man is not a libertarian. Maybe that's awesome for you but it's worrying for someone like me.

I have been described as a libertarian before, so don't assume I will oppose a libertarian decision. I generally don't seem to fit any stereotypes, sorry. I believe what I believe, and the basics of what I believe has not changed in almost 40 years. Smaller government, restricted to their duties as defined in the Constitution, with enforcement of reasonable laws irrelevant to who those laws are being enforced upon.

I cannot stand Gary Johnson, though.

If that makes me a libertarian in your mind, so be it. If it makes me a Christian conservative in your mind, so be it. Just don't expect me to follow those stereotypes.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and after the 4th circuit ruling today it will see scotus again. They just ruled Assault rifles arent protected by the 2nd amendment.


I didn't catch the ruling, do you have a good source or two I can review?


Caetano vs. Massachusetts

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016

Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)


A woman was arrested after her abusive boyfriend broke into her residence. The woman, who had multiple restraining orders / full order of protection against the boyfriend (which he continued to violate), received a stun gun from a friend for protection. She gave multiple warnings to the boyfriend before zapping him. During the police investigation they arrested the woman for possession of a dangerous weapon. The officers stated they didnt agree with the arrest.

She was charged and found guilty. She appealed to the highest court in Mass, who upheld the lower court / appeal court rulings. The case made its way to the US Supreme Court where the justices ruled that her actions under the circumstances were justified. The said the law in question was invalid and extended the definition of firearm to ALL forms of bearable arms. The court also stated, again, that the 2nd amendment is fully applicable to the states.
edit on 6-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)







 
54
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join