| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
Smoker/NonSmoker Compromise
| Open Air Anywhere |
| [ 12 ] 92% |
| |
| Wherever It Is PC To Smoke |
| [ 1 ] 7% |
| |
| On Personal Propery Only (Car/Home) |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
Total Votes : 13 |
|
by smallbird
on Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
runamok wrote: smallbird wrote: LOL Krabbi! Besides that, how can you trust a doctor who was educated in India? I certainly wouldn't! I'm sorry but I have to point out WHAT AN INCREDIBLY IGNORANT STATEMENT THIS IS!
I apologize for being ignorant!  |
|
|
smallbird
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 245
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:55 pm |
|
Jay wrote: That's news to me Lynda, with all due respect. I know Chicago plans to fight the Supreme Court's decision, because self-defense isn't limited to defending yourself in your own crib.
Jay,
The case the Supreme Court heard and ruled on was the DC handgun ban. In DC they banned handguns except for law enforcement personnel. You couldn't even have one in your own home. You could only have long guns (rifles, shotguns) BUT they had to be dismantled OR have a trigger lock and be unloaded. If you wanted a handgun you were out of luck as you couldn't get a license for it.
Read the Supreme Courts ruling. They upheld that the Constitution guarantees our right to own and keep arms, the handgun being the favored weapon of the majority of the citizens. DCs ban prohibited that.
I don't know about Chicago's law as I don't live there, but I understand it is similar to DCs or at least that is what Mayor Daly wants it to be and he's now spitting nails that he can't put that in place yet.
However, I will say that from what you wrote to start with that I replied to first, it is THAT thinking that has your Mayor and many others upset with the Supreme Court for upholding the constitution.....they envision gun battles over every little thing. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 341
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:07 am |
|
I'm sorry for being a smoker who doesn't live in an area of the nation where you are more likely to see most of the people following laws, including small laws. I'm sorry for not being in a ciry where you are more likely to have residents using guns only within their cribs and only if intruders enter.
But anyone who thinks ALL of the gun owners in a town like Chicago are only gonna be using them for what the Constitution states isn't thinking straight. Using a gun for anythang otha than self-defense in a home is law-breaking. And I've seen enough law-breaking in this town over the years, it might make an average smoker puke. And that includes "small" law-breaking.
He's gonna have a hard time fighting that decision. But I will wish him good luck. He's trying to make the Chicago streets safer, not worse. And this decision DOES make the streets worse. Daley isn't stupid. There are 1000s if not mills of law-breakers here who get away with the law-breaking easily. I'm sure shooting someone in the streets at nite as part of self-defense is considered to be law-breaking (since that didn't happen in a crib the gun owner lives in). And now those folks have a new excuse when it comes to defending themselves in the streets.
I heard people are still smoking at the beaches and getting away with it. That's anotha Chicago law being broken easily. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:36 am |
|
Jay,
I don't know where you got the idea that I or anyone else here, is talking about living in places with no crime. Chicago is no different than DC, L.A., NYC (where I grew up in the Bronx), or Phoenix where I live now. Also, many places DO have "right to carry" laws in place and many people, law-abiding also, have a license to carry a concealed weapon.
We all know already that law-abiding citizens do NOT commit crimes. Most people are generally capable of controlling their tempers and not allowing themselves to go out of control over the stupidity of someone else, unless they have no anger management skills.
We all know already that criminals have NO problem getting any guns they want and never once doing it legally and that there isn't a law on the books that can stop that. I seriously doubt many of us here live in a safe place where no crime ever takes place and personally I find it ridiculous that you are attempting to say that is what I said.
That was NOT the discussion or my argument.
MY point was, which you obviously are choosing to ignore or misunderstand, that using your logic of pulling a gun just because someone says something to you about smoking, and possibly using it, is the very reason that places like Chicago and DC want to BAN THE PEOPLE FROM OWNING AND KEEPING GUNS (which ONLY punishes the law abiding citizen and does nothing to stop the criminals anyway).
MY point was that it is reactions like yours, to something that is really nothing more than someone being rude and ignorant to you, is the very reason why control freaks want the guns out of our hands.
I personally don't give a [doodee] what your neighborhood is like. The reason it is that way is because those living there allowed it to go that way and people do nothing to change it, but expect the government to. IF enough people in your neighborhood don't like the way it is, then they work together in the neighborhood, with the police department to change it................and yes, it has been done in other places where the citizens, UNarmed no less, took back their neighborhood from the drug dealers and thugs.
I'm all for the Supreme Court's decision even though I personally feel that violence should never be a first reaction but a last choice when all else fails OR when one's life is in immediate danger.
My initial comment was in response to your Quote: Jay wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled it's legal for me to shoot ANYONE with a compact gun as part of self-defense. Self-defense includes someone harassing me by criticizing me for my smoking and/or for my race. It's not just about harassing me physically.
I pointed out that the Supreme Court did NOT rule that it was legal for you to shoot anyone as part of self-defense. The Supreme Court ruled that banning handguns in the home, as DC had done, was UNconstitutional. The reason being that the people had the right to defend themselves from harm in their own home. And no, self-defense does not include shooting someone for verbally harrassing you by criticizing you for your smoking, or even your race. It's rude and ignorant of them, yes, but you don't have a right to shoot them for being dumb and rude with what they say. THAT is my point, and yes, it IS about defending yourself against PHYSICAL HARM only. IF you can't handle a verbal rudeness and ignorance without violence, I'd suggest you have more serious problems than smoking or your race or even where you live (yes I know that's a tad harsh but you are not listening to the polite arguments).
Could you just imagine the anarchy that would exist IF we could just kill everyone who said something rude and stupid to us? And trust me, I can come up with at least a dozen names off the top of my head that I would love to shoot for saying something stupid and rude to me. THAT kind of thinking is why the control freak anti [name your favorite hatred here] wins and the rest of the world suffers for it.
With rights come major responsibilities. In order to exercise your rights, you MUST be responsible in the exercising of them. You simply cannot toss aside your responsibilities just because some asshole doesn't like your smoking, skin color, body size, hair color, religion, whatever. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 341
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:36 pm |
|
>>>>MY point was, which you obviously are choosing to ignore or misunderstand, that using your logic of pulling a gun just because someone says something to you about smoking, and possibly using it, is the very reason that places like Chicago and DC want to BAN THE PEOPLE FROM OWNING AND KEEPING GUNS (which ONLY punishes the law abiding citizen and does nothing to stop the criminals anyway).
This is why I'm ignoring what you say, because this is NOT the reason why places like Chicago and DC want to ban people from owning and keeping guns. They don't want people to own and keep guns cause the cities are tired of kids getting murdered, they're tired of seeing innocent adults getting murdered at "the wrong place at the wrong time." Antis approaching smokers ain't common at least in my town.
A real smoker wouldn't accept facist-like treatment anyway. If an anti has nothing betta to do than to approach me and just to make me feel bad as a smoker, then you're seriously mistaken if I'm supposed to accept that mistreatment. This is one reason why it's easy to pass a smoking ban. Because smokers accept the lies and treatment from antis. It's real easy to push mills of brainwashed smokers around. But if more smokers saw the truth, antis would learn the hard way smokers are sick and tired of putting up with bully-lke treatment.
Maybe if it was the otha way around, where I approach the anti (which I would neva do) I'd see your point. But pulling out a gun just cause someone says somethang bad about smoking is NOT the reason why Daley doesn't want guns period. I know if I pull out a gun just cause someone says somethang about smoking, that person betta call me a sick name or shove me before i actually pull it out.
The only major responsiblity with using a gun is having a legit reason for pulling it out period. And self-defense is a legit reason for pulling it out, whether I'm inside a crib or outside in public. Shooting someone for their skin color is not a legit reason for a Chicago cop to kill a Black little kid. Especially when the kid poised no threat whatsoeva. But those type of things happen here.
Cops are supposed to be the role models for law-abiding citizens. But part of me believe some of those Chicago cops are secret racists. That's why I can't call all of them law-abiding citizens. If some of them learned to stop coming up to me when I'm smoking outside when I'm more than 15 ft away from a building, or learn to stop using my smoking as an excuse for coming up to me, maybe I'll respect them more often. I do know there are more important thangs going on in the city that they need to deal with.
I doubt someone is gonna get killed in this town for simply saying somethang rude like "I don't lke you smokers." (Well leave me alone if you don't want trouble.) But if that person includes name-calling or even a simple push (where that person starts the mess), that's a different story.
An anti would neva think of approaching me like that. Cause they know I'm a Black person, and they know it's real easy for me to get arrogant if they push my buttons. They might have an easier time making a smoker feel bad for his/her choice if that person isn't the type of smoker who believes in defending him/herself literally. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:47 pm |
|
Jay wrote:
the reason why places like Chicago and DC want to ban people from owning and keeping guns. They don't want people to own and keep guns cause the cities are tired of kids getting murdered, they're tired of seeing innocent adults getting murdered at "the wrong place at the wrong time."
Are you seriously suggesting that not allowing the people to "keep and bear arms" is going to stop the criminal element who commit these crimes? Are you seriously suggesting that the criminals will actually obey the law and NOT have any guns? Are you seriously suggesting that if law-abiding citizens are prohibited from owning a gun that no child or innocent bystander will be murdered? Because that is what you just implied.
Your gun laws do NOT stop the criminals from committing crimes and/or shooting and killing innocent people, children included.
Jay wrote: A real smoker wouldn't accept facist-like treatment anyway. If an anti has nothing betta to do than to approach me and just to make me feel bad as a smoker, then you're seriously mistaken if I'm supposed to accept that mistreatment. This is one reason why it's easy to pass a smoking ban. Because smokers accept the lies and treatment from antis. It's real easy to push mills of brainwashed smokers around. But if more smokers saw the truth, antis would learn the hard way smokers are sick and tired of putting up with bully-lke treatment.
No one said you had to put up with it. I simply suggested that pulling a gun was an inappropriate, if not dangerously over the top, response to some asshole's rude comments.
I'm not a brainwashed smoker, up until the past year or so, I was just being considerate and fair to non-smokers (my own mother and sister don't like smoke). But TC has gone too far and now my back is up and my heels dug in even deeper. No, I won't tolerate rudeness. I will meet rude comments with a few choice words of my own. Threatening someone with any kind of a weapon is uncalled for in that situation in my opinion.
Jay wrote: The only major responsiblity with using a gun is having a legit reason for pulling it out period.
No Jay, that is NOT only not the only major responsibility; but it's the least of the responsibilities. No sane law-abiding person would have a gun for any other reason than self-defense or hunting......ok, there are gun collectors too.
Gun owners' responsibility is the knowledge in keeping it in good working order, the knowledge of knowing how it works, the knowledge of knowing how to use it properly; and then, you don't pull a gun out unless you intend to use it.
Jay wrote: And self-defense is a legit reason for pulling it out, whether I'm inside a crib or outside in public.
IF that's your only option in the face of immediate physical danger to your life, yes it is. I never said it wasn't.
Jay wrote: Shooting someone for their skin color is not a legit reason for a Chicago cop to kill a Black little kid. Especially when the kid poised no threat whatsoeva. But those type of things happen here.
You're right. Skin color, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any number of other reasons are NOT legit excuses for anyone, cop or not, to kill anyone (regardless of skin color). Your city is NOT the only city with its share of bigots, criminals, racists, idiots, nannies for cops. Those types of things happen, and those types of people live, in every major city in the country, and even in rural areas (just to lesser degrees).
My point is that you are talking as if Chicago were the only place in the world with such problems. It's not. Just seems that way as that is where you live. We have shootings here in Phoenix daily, and we have our share of idiot cops with no manners, no class, and bigoted as all get out. But that's NOT the reason I'm considering getting a gun and learning how to use it. My reason is just that I honestly feel the day will come when we the people will have to fight our own government because that's where I see it going.
Jay wrote: Cops are supposed to be the role models for law-abiding citizens. But part of me believe some of those Chicago cops are secret racists. That's why I can't call all of them law-abiding citizens.
I wasn't talking about cops when I said "law-abiding citizens". Law-abiding citizens are just that..............normal average everyday people like you and me. In places like DC and Chicago the ONLY people allowed guns are COPS & CROOKS. Tell me, exactly how safe does that make you feel? Wouldn't you feel safer IF you also were permitted to own and carry a gun for self-protection? DCs gun crime rate has increased since they prohibited handguns 32 years ago. DCs death by firearms is the highest in the whole nation. How safe do you think the average person feels there?
On top of that, there is the added fact that there is NO DUTY for police to offer "personal" protection to anyone. Cops are only to enforce the law and catch those who break it. They have no obligation to protect each of us personally, nor do they have the manpower to do that. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that (I don't remember the date or case - sometime in the last 40 years I believe).
Allowing all to carry weapons on the street................I see the point, but have mixed feelings on it. Look at some of the things you wrote prior to this. People in the heat of anger could whip the gun out...............think of road rage. So while I agree we have a right to protect ourselves all the time, inside and out; I also find I don't trust the majority of people out there to use good judgment OR have good anger management control.
So explain again to me why ONLY cops and criminals should be allowed to have guns? |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 341
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Darkseid
on Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:36 pm |
|
| "Ain't nothin' wrong with shootin' people-long as the right people get shot."-Dirty Harry, Magnum Force |
|
|
Darkseid
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 1350
Location: Peoples Republik of oHEILo
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by naptownKrabbi
on Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:40 am |
|
|
|
naptownKrabbi
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 354
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Darkseid
on Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Darkseid
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 1350
Location: Peoples Republik of oHEILo
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
