Topix Chitown Regulars

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77078 Dec 13, 2012
RACE wrote:
but your paying for the privilege of having a drivers license, not identification. You can get id's for free. That free id is all you need to vote, and is also acceptable for purchasing a firearm.
<quoted text>
Were can you get an ID for free?

Here in IL, you can only get a free ID if you're homeless or over 65. And if you need that birth certificate to obtain that ID, you're still gonna have to pay for that.

Maybe it's different in FL...

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#77079 Dec 13, 2012
How about a ban on all assault rifles. That'd be a start.

Or do you need an assault rifle to protect your home?

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77080 Dec 13, 2012
RACE wrote:
But it WOULD become unduly burdensome...Since there is no regulation on how much insurance would cost, the price of getting insurance for your weapon would deny you the right to have one. If it came to pass that you needed insurance, some vote seeking idiot would propose that the liability be so high that nobody could afford it, so again, only the criminals would have guns.
You don't honestly think it would be set at a reasonable rate do you? And who decides reasonable?
Again, don't worry about my locks and I won't worry about whether your on the pill to make sure you don't push out rug rats that I have to pay for.
Rights are not unfetterd, PEllen. With rights come obligations.
<quoted text>
You are arguing to an absurd end point.Scalia is catching heat for doing that by equating gay marriage with canibalism and murder. Mandatory car insurance did not stop people from driving. My notion is that it would be an inexpensive medical only policy because that is the cost which is passed on to the general public.

Instead of just saying No, come back to me with something that addresses the fact that bullets which come out of guns cause medical expenses and physical inability to do the same things as before the bullet met the person.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77081 Dec 13, 2012
BTW Abby today is a total rehash of what to do with baby teeth colected by teh tooth fairy. Amy is 50% re-hash

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77082 Dec 13, 2012
RACE wrote:
but your paying for the privilege of having a drivers license, not identification. You can get id's for free. That free id is all you need to vote, and is also acceptable for purchasing a firearm.
<quoted text>
Where do you get free state IDs? Not in the states I've lived in. You have to pay for them.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77083 Dec 13, 2012
And I just checked. It costs $25 in Florida to get a non-DL state ID.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#77084 Dec 13, 2012
Toj wrote:
How about a ban on all assault rifles. That'd be a start.
A start to what? Banning all firearms? Don't worry about what I need to protect my home. You don't want to own a gun, that's your business. Or do you want to force you're beliefs on everyone else?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77085 Dec 13, 2012
No one needs an assault rifle. So I'll agree with that. But a simple deer rifle can do more damage than an ak-47 (shot for shot), and you will NEVER get deer rifles banned.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77086 Dec 13, 2012
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text> You are arguing to an absurd end point.Scalia is catching heat for doing that by equating gay marriage with canibalism and murder.
Scalia is an originalist. He believes the constitution should be interpreted as it would have been interpreted at the time it was written. I cannot say I disagree with him. A living constitution is simply a way for folks to change the constitution to be what they want it to be, rather than what it originally was. You may agree with this practice, but you know this, and I know this Ö a living constitution merely circumvents the manner by which the constitution was intended to be changed. That would be dangerous in its own right, but itís even more dangerous when you have unelected officials, such as justices deciding to amend our constitution to make it what they wish it would be. Presto!

Given this understanding, Scalia has taken the position that the constitution has always allowed the legislation of morality. That was the point of his arguments. I canít say he is incorrect, given that for hundreds of years, including at its inception, it was interpreted to allow all sorts of morality legislation.

Do I agree that we should be legislating morality where consenting parties are involved and no harm is done to 3rd parties; no, but I donít agree that the way to go about ensuring this does not occur is via a living constitution notion.

Were I a justice on the S.C., I, unlike many liberal SC justices, would be like Roberts in the Obamacare decision and cast aside my personal opinions and beliefs in favor of the proper legal conclusion. As much as I find Obamacare to be a bain for our country and future generations who will be saddled with 20+ trillion dollars in debt to feed an ever increasing desire of the current generation of liberals to provide handouts to the current generation of welfare kings and queens, I agreed with Robertís reasoning and conclusion.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77087 Dec 13, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
No one needs an assault rifle. So I'll agree with that.
Oh, so we are going to look to need, when deciding what rights folks should have. Okay how about this:

Absent where the mother's life is at risk, almost no one needs an abortion.

Yet women can still get them, EVEN THOUGH there is nothing in the constitution expressly saying women have the right to an abortion.

How can it be that women can have unfettered access to a non-constitutionally guaranteed act even when there is no need, but a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is only applicable where there is a need for that right?

Given this, certainly need cannot be the standard that determines what folk's rights are. Try again Toj and Angela.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#77088 Dec 13, 2012
Most of the posts from the Regs have been crazy lately. Is there something in the water? If you bring something up it seems most posters (not all) like to take the all or nothing approach and not discuss.

Put downs are abundant. It's tiring. It really is.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#77089 Dec 13, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
A start to what? Banning all firearms? Don't worry about what I need to protect my home. You don't want to own a gun, that's your business. Or do you want to force you're beliefs on everyone else?
Right. Right. That's what I said. You do like to over-state things, don't you?

I personally said to start with the assault rifles. My next thing would be to go to enforcement of the present rules and review the present rules.

Unfortunately, everyone is so darn frickin afraid you'll take THEIR gun, discussion is non-existent.

What are people so afraid of on a forum? It's maddening.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77090 Dec 13, 2012
Boy did Apple f' up big time, when they booted google maps. Now google has a new map app you can download for the iphone and it gives you voice navigation, which we previously didn't have on teh old google maps for iphone.

If apple had done it right, gotten their own mapping software that was reliable and given you voice navigation, few folks would have gone back to google maps even if they came out with a new app for it, with navigation.

As it stands now, everyone will use the google maps app (including me ... I'm downloading it right now) and never go back to apple maps.

What a monumental f' up from a business standpoint. I would question the judgment of any company who hires the guy who was fired from apple and who orchestrated it.
no

Pageland, SC

#77091 Dec 13, 2012
no

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77092 Dec 13, 2012
When I first moved and got my DL, I remember that kids could get free id's to use for things like applying for jobs etc. Dont know what the requirements were, but even if you need a BC, the hospital gives you one free when your born. Well, the cost is probably wrapped into the hospital stay, but you get the idea.
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Were can you get an ID for free?
Here in IL, you can only get a free ID if you're homeless or over 65. And if you need that birth certificate to obtain that ID, you're still gonna have to pay for that.
Maybe it's different in FL...

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#77093 Dec 13, 2012
If it weren't for the folks who think we should pick and choose from the buffet line of Bible to live our lives, the craziest people in America would be those who believe we should only live by the buffet of the Constitution, written 200+ years ago but STILL ever so viable and in the moment today. Makes sense!

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77094 Dec 13, 2012
who are you to decide what type of weapon I can use to protect my property? A responsible gun owner is no more dangerous than a responsible non gun owner. Its not the weapon, its the person holding it.
Toj wrote:
How about a ban on all assault rifles. That'd be a start.
Or do you need an assault rifle to protect your home?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77095 Dec 13, 2012
No I am not. You are intentionally trying to dumb down this insurance idea by comparing it to auto insurance. You know that gun control is a hot button issue, and in no way comparable to the insurance coverage required for operating an automobile.

As for the costs, the cost to hospitalize a gunshot person is probably a lot less than a car accident person, or at the most no more expensive, but you cannot tell me that the cost of insurance would be comparable. And even if it were, it would still be wrong because If I buy a car, I only need to purchase insurance if I intend to drive it, I dont need insurance to buy a car, only to drive it off the lot and on the road. But you cant say the same about your gun insurance law. Your saying I should be required to get insurance, even if it is to be a display piece only.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text> You are arguing to an absurd end point.Scalia is catching heat for doing that by equating gay marriage with canibalism and murder. Mandatory car insurance did not stop people from driving. My notion is that it would be an inexpensive medical only policy because that is the cost which is passed on to the general public.
Instead of just saying No, come back to me with something that addresses the fact that bullets which come out of guns cause medical expenses and physical inability to do the same things as before the bullet met the person.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77096 Dec 13, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
If it weren't for the folks who think we should pick and choose from the buffet line of Bible to live our lives, the craziest people in America would be those who believe we should only live by the buffet of the Constitution, written 200+ years ago but STILL ever so viable and in the moment today. Makes sense!
You are wrong. Those of us who don't want to have morality of the religious right imposed upon us have the opportunity to elect representatives who pass laws that do as much. The constitution doesn't say we must ban abortions for example. The constitution doesn't say we must ban gay marriage.

All we have done with this living constitution notion is at times gotten our way by having judges amend the constitution to do what were ourselves cannot do in the ballot box or via amending the constitution.

You know it, I know it, we all know it. So let's just cut the crap and call it what it is.
Timmy

United States

#77097 Dec 13, 2012
Do you think there should be any limits on the type of weapon you can use to protect your property? And if so, what are they?
RACE wrote:
who are you to decide what type of weapon I can use to protect my property? A responsible gun owner is no more dangerous than a responsible non gun owner. Its not the weapon, its the person holding it.
<quoted text>

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min USAsince1680 1,276,302
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 32 min Jacques Ottawa 196,894
abby8-31-15 1 hr RACE 4
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr _Zoey_ 6,421
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 3 hr Lexus1985 465
abby 8-28-15 3 hr RACE 6
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 3 hr Lexus1985 1,720
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages