Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) As for Boardwalk...what exactly went on with the distillery in PA? How exactly did we get from Nucky taking it over for Andrew Mellon to Mellon telling Esther Randolph that Nucky told him Arnold Rothstein was illegally running it? Nucky just told Mellon that Rothstein had taken it over? Or this was a plan they hatched all along? Premeditated plan. Nucky made a deal with Rothstein (through Doyel) to take over the distillery in exchange for Rothstein making a deal with Massaria to stop backing Gyp. Massaria pulled his support with Gyp in AC, allowing Nucky to get him. After Gyp was gone, Nucky ratted on Rothstein taking over the distillery to Mellon, who told Randolph (i'm sure at the direction of Nucky). So, in effect, Nucky was able to get rid of Gyp, get AC back and screw Rothstein (more legal trouble I presume). Edit: yeah, farmteam added that Nucky was able to take out a lot of Massaria's muscle too.

espn3.com announcers are so awful.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:38 PM) Because the biggest argument against gun control is that its somehow unconstitutional. So if that is the case, then we cant control guns at all. Otherwise we start with the premise that gun control is constitutional, which means that guns shouldnt be given some sort of special protection. I completely understand grey issues, but whether something is or is not protected, needs to be determined so that we know what rules we are playing with. There can not be "grey" area in that regard. Unless we just say nothing in the constitution is black and white, which is the actual reality. And if that is the truth, then the constitution doesnt really matter, all that matters is how we currently interpret it. Which goes to my original argument, that my interpretation of the constitution does not protect individual citizens right to own guns at all. It protects the rights of those in a regulated militia. Who in 1780 were the masses. The cases we're talking about here do a pretty good job going over the historical context of the amendment. It didn't say, and was not intended to mean, that ONLY people in an existing militia had the right to bear arms. It was that everyone has the right in case a regulated militia was required to combat a government that was out of control. To play your game, either your going to be a strict textualist and disagree with this assessment (also admitting that there is no right to privacy or marriage or whatever else has been read into the constitution because the constitution doesn't provide for it) or you're going to have to admit that the context is what is important and the context isn't really debatable IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) The problem is...he's actually sort of right. The Supreme Court cases and the case cited here, for example, aren't being decided based on whether additional guns are good or bad for the society, they're being judged using the statement that gun possession is a fundamental right and should not be restricted under any circumstances. That's the logic being used here, that's the logic in overturning Chicago's handgun ban, the only question is how far the court is willing to push it. It's being treated as black and white, everyone has the right to have guns...and the consequences don't matter. That is patently false. Go read Posner's decision and the decision in Heller. That right is not absolute.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) If you want the larger scale data, you can go to the data showing that the states with the highest rate of gun crime and gun injuries are the states with...the highest ownership of guns and the laxest gun laws. In the middle of work now so go find the citation yourself for once There are something like 200 successful uses of a gun to defend oneself against a crime per year in the united states, as judged by FBI statistics on justified homicide. On average, a gun in the home is >20x more likely to be used in a suicide, accident, or crime than it is for the gun to be used for self defense. On its face that seems false given that Chicago and East St. Louis are two of the worst in the country and it's illegal to carry guns. And any object can be used with deadly force in any circumstance. Cars are used as weapons all the time. Should we ban them because of the slight, abnormal increase in the overall use of vehicles?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) Since when do statistics matter when it comes to rights? Either 1) the govt can regulate or 2) the govt cant regulate. After that, its just simply drawing fake lines in the sand. As a lawyer you know this isn't true. You know the arguments going into those decisions. Why are you making a grey issue so black and white? It's not that simple. You have a right to own and carry a gun, but there are restrictions. The lines in the sand that are drawn are important in determining what those restrictions should and should not be.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:39 PM) What I am arguing is that the people of Illinois decided that having guns in public places is a danger. Based on the govts ability to restrict other similarly dangerous activity, that seems reasonable. Instead of alcohol replace it with marijuana, and I am not even allowed to do that in my own home. Replace it with buying hookers, and I am not allowed to do it in my home. So based on the fact the govt is allowed to completely ban certain activity, restricting gun ownership to the home seems reasonable. But it's infringing on a constitutional right that requires a higher standard than the standard that applies to your non-existent right to smoke pot or bang a hooker. I know what your saying and I don't disagree, all i'm saying is there's a reason why different standards and considerations are used in determining the legality of those acts. I'm all about letting people drink alcohol, but i'm totally behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to stroll down my street getting drunk with a bunch of kids around. That doesn't mean my stance of limited government generally is somehow less valid. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction? The judge on your court date is going to be bound by whatever law is in effect at the time of that judgment. So if your court date is 200 days from now and the legislature enacts a law in response to this 7th circuit ruling, your judge will be bound by his interpretation of that new law and the prior decisions made about gun rights.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) But what happens if I appeal my fine/charge as an unconstitutional violation of my rights? I don't think it's technically unconstitutional until after the 180 days have passed. The opinion isn't valid until then.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:15 PM) That is a completely faulty premise. Some people can drive fine at .08, some people can not. Some people can handle a gun fine, some people can not. And by law you're legally able to drink up to that .08 but with guns you can't have it except with an overly restricted exception of being in your home. And that's the problem with Illinois law. You act as if I'm arguing gun rights should be limitless or something.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) You said it Anyway, it's a fair comparison, in both cases you're making a decision that puts both you as the carrier/driver and everyone else around you at an increased risk of injury and death by having/operating a device in an unsafe way, the only difference is the magnitude of the change is somewhat worse for DUI's. In one case, it's a constitutionally protected right. In the other, you can go to jail. One involves the inability to control your actions, the other does not. That's not really comparable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) Yes, I agree, people carrying concealed weapons are a good comparison to drunk drivers as they're needlessly putting everyone around them in danger. Oh yeah, TOTALLY the same.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) Why are guns, sex and drugs different? Each of them makes you feel good, each of them could maybe save your life when they are used in the right circumstances, each of them could potentially cause harm to someone else. And its not my logic, I dont prescribe to this fantasy land where drugs and guns are different. My logic is that the govt has the right to protect other people, but should not have the right to prevent me from doing something just because it may hurt someone else. Thus, my logic, is that if you want guns, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone with a gun, something bad happens to you. If you want drugs, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone will taking drugs, something bad happens to you. See how that logically makes sense. So you're cool getting rid of DUI laws? That's your logic here. Edit: and they already have laws that if you hurt someone something bad happens to you. Why isn't that enough?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) I dont think the constitution protects gun ownership for regular people at all. It provides protection for those of us who are in the militia. 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. And here even more interesting is the Illinois Constitution: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So I disagree. I think that the 2nd Amendment has explicit limitations and those limitations are supported by the Illinois constitution. Otherwise the Illinois constitution is itself unconstitutional, because it gave a right to the state that surpasses what the US constitution allowed. That's step one which has already been decided. Step two is limiting that right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) This assumes a self-defense motive for the 2nd which wasn't really law until Heller. Which only became an issue when governments started to ban the availability and use of guns because of a fear of crime. Self-defense became a lame argument in response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) I'm not going to object to your right to bear arms on any private land that isn't mine, and I probably have little problem with it on a variety of public/wilderness lands, but many of these laws take away the right of people to decide what is carried on to their own property, and they take away my right to be in an environment without them. I'm given no decision in the matter. Your right to have a concealed weapon has removed my right to have it around. If you want to go somewhere to hunt meat, great. Go there. I don't have to. But in that case, I'm given the chance to make an informed decision about whether to go somewhere that guns are being used in the way they would have been used at the time of the writing of the bill of rights. I'm not aware of such laws and doubt they exist. That would fly in the face of trespass law. And you keep harping on the point that my right trumps yours. You have no right to be free from people with guns. That's not been recognized.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc. Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference. I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, in a very general sense we're talking about how far government can intervene, but by your logic if the government can't restrict guns then it can't restrict anything. That's not reality and you know it. We have public policy arguments and I think guns are different from drugs or sex or whatever else. Each has to be looked at independently.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) But you both have made a leap of interpretation that you particularly like. That is where this case is...it's taking a particular leap of interpretation. I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) What if I live near a school? What if guns are banned in hospitals, how can I get treatment? No guns are allowed in court, how can I feel safe when I am there? I am a lawyer, is that not a substantial burden for me not to be allowed to arm myself at my work place? I have a right to life. Which many argue gives the right to the govt to make laws to protect my life. The sooner gun rights people actually want to limit govt power the better. The problem is that many gun advocates are the same people who want it to be illegal for me to due lines of coke off a hookers chest after I got done gambling at the local casino. Otherwise, guns are good leverage for me to hopefully get what I want in the future. "Counsel, how is that relevant to the issue before me?"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) Neither is the right to concealed carrying of arms on the street or into my business/property, if you want to be specific about it. The right to bear arms "Anywhere and at all times without acknowledgment" is a modern invention. Hell, when that was written, I seriously doubt you could effectively conceal a legitimately damaging weapon. Actually it's not. The idea that you're free to keep and bear arms only in your home is the real modern invention. At the time the 2nd amendment was ratified people carried guns all the time, freely, in public, because they used them for hunting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) So why do you get the right to have a deadly weapon around me with me not having any choice in the matter? You're right the government should have to have a good reason to deny a person their rights, and that's one I want. Because it's in the Constitution as SS pointed out.

I did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) Wow, so Illinois banned firearms and took away your right to self-defense? And yet you're still alive? Amazing! Except that the government should have a good reason to deny me my rights, not the other way around.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) Which of course...leaves me zero ability to avoid places where people are carrying weapons. Welcome to everywhere except the State of Illinois. And yet you're still alive! Amazing!

Expect Jackson and Sharpton to chime in: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...-bra-pants.html Seriously though, how is that racist? Do only black females have big boobs and big butts?