Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77048 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I believe it does. That's the difference between a "privilege" (like driving a car) and a "right." The government can make you jump through all kinds of hoops in order to drive a car, but not when it comes to exercising your rights.
Perhaps the Supreme's would see it as a tax...

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77049 Dec 12, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment doesn't mention insurance.
Reading Is Fundamental.
I don't have the faintest clue how that would play out, in terms of constitutionality.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77050 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a terrible idea. Requiring insurance is a violation of the second amendment.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it say anything about insurance?


“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#77051 Dec 12, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps the Supreme's would see it as a tax...
I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77052 Dec 12, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have the faintest clue how that would play out, in terms of constitutionality.
Doesn't the constitution cover the government when it comes to issues of safety of the citizens? I think someone told me that when he was lamenting public schools (b/c they're not in the constitution, so we shouldn't have them) and then got onto the topic of fire departments.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77053 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.
Minnesota is a liberal state and we have conceal-carry. THe only thing you have to do is take a special course on how to use your gun and gun safety. Any fee you pay is the application fee for the government to do a background check and make sure you're not a felon.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77054 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.
Many of the 49 states that have concealed carry are "blue" or (yikes!) "liberal" states. How'd THAT happen?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77055 Dec 12, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't the constitution cover the government when it comes to issues of safety of the citizens? I think someone told me that when he was lamenting public schools (b/c they're not in the constitution, so we shouldn't have them) and then got onto the topic of fire departments.
Yes, but there is a specific provision in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms. So that provision will trump.

As far as I know, the only limits courts have allowed to be imposed, were traditional limitations that were customary when the constitution was written limits on concealed guns and locations where you can carry and limits on felons and the mentally ill to carry or minimal waiting periods so that one's back ground can be checked to see if they are a felon.

A requirement to carry insurance has no historical basis. What if you are very poor and live in a poor dangerous area and can't afford this insurance, but need a gun for protection? Upon consideration, I am inclined to think it would most likely be unconstitutional.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77056 Dec 12, 2012
Oh, I don't think the insurance thing would pass the constitutional test, either. And the NRA would fight it tooth and nail.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77057 Dec 12, 2012
The shooter was actually only 22 years old and used a gun that he had stolen. There isn't much you can do to stop someone like that.

At that age, he likely didn't even have a criminal record that would have even prevented him from buying a gun.

IMO, the best way to limit damage is to have law abiding citizens armed. The crazies and criminals will always find guns. Gun laws only work for folks who by nature follow the law and aren't criminals. They don't work for criminals.

OH, and get ready cause 3D printed guns (that is a very exciting technology that will revolutionize things) are going to be on their way VERY SOON. When the price of 3D printers come down, you will be able to make your own gun at home. Even nations that outlaw guns won't be able to stop folks from making them.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#77058 Dec 12, 2012
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it say anything about insurance?
Exactly. So requiring it IS infringement.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#77059 Dec 12, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Many of the 49 states that have concealed carry are "blue" or (yikes!) "liberal" states. How'd THAT happen?
We've got a unique breed of liberals here.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77060 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
We've got a unique breed of liberals here.
Yeah, Illinois is a pretty unique state.

I am not joking when I say that.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77061 Dec 12, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
We've got a unique breed of liberals here.
<blush>

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77062 Dec 12, 2012
I got a new cell phone. Samsung, pay as you go sort of thing. I hate it. It doesn't work in a logical, common sense manner, things seem to take several more steps than necessary (my flip phone was so much easier). I complained to Nick. His response: "What do you expect for getting a phone that the rest of us were using 10 years ago?"

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77063 Dec 12, 2012
being required to carry a 1 billion dollar insurance effectively prevents you from having a weapon. Didnt they do something similar to blacks who wanted to vote?
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it say anything about insurance?

Since: Mar 09

Miami, FL

#77064 Dec 12, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I got a new cell phone. Samsung, pay as you go sort of thing. I hate it. It doesn't work in a logical, common sense manner, things seem to take several more steps than necessary (my flip phone was so much easier). I complained to Nick. His response: "What do you expect for getting a phone that the rest of us were using 10 years ago?"
Heh. Suck it up, get a smart phone! ;)

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77065 Dec 12, 2012
RACE wrote:
being required to carry a 1 billion dollar insurance effectively prevents you from having a weapon. Didnt they do something similar to blacks who wanted to vote?
<quoted text>
Requiring a 20/40 auto policy to get your license plate.(I know driving is a privilege and not a right but that was a 1920's concept, not one for th 2000's)
Showing some sort of identification upon voter registration.

Those are reasonable and not unduly burdensome. Insurance issued paid for and maintained by the manufacturer and commercial seller is another alternative.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77066 Dec 12, 2012
Something some of you might find interesting:

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

In 1968, a Russian sub imploded 1500 miles off the coast of Hawaii. The Russians couldn't find it. We did. Then we secretly built a special ship that opened on the bottom and we created a 3-mile long arm to reach down to the ocean floor and pick up a big chunk of the sub and pull it into the ship to slink away and find out military secrets.

And Howard Hughes lent his name to it so the Russians wouldn't know what we were up to. Cool stuff.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#77067 Dec 13, 2012
Well, I was right. Shitcago's mayor Rhamen Noodle is gonna appeal the conceal carry decision. Told ya so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min wojar 184,994
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min red and right 1,191,720
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min Pastor Gore 51,518
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 13 min Non _cents 5,713
amy 3-3-15 37 min tiredofit 4
Crane inspector accused of taking bribes from L... (Jun '08) 37 min Sylvia 2,898
free server newcamd cccam abox (Jun '11) 52 min arabtera 2
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:21 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:21AM
Shutdown CB Headlines Bears 2015 Free-Agent Big Board
NFL 6:51 AM
Pat McAfee jokingly begins recruiting Ndamukong Suh
Bleacher Report 8:11 AM
Luck Says Goodbye to the Neckbeard
Bleacher Report 8:57 AM
Colts Punter Trying to Recruit Suh
Bleacher Report 9:47 AM
Insider Buzz: Mutual Interest Between Andre Johnson and Indianapolis Colts