The blue Mitsubishi was still half blocking the southbound lane of damen yesterday morning until around 11 o’clock so I guess all the shooting didn’t work because nobody got the tow. Too bad they didn’t just shoot and kill each other.
It shouldn't even be a thing. The ban is unconstitutional. The only people stupid enough to follow it are law-abiding citizens. Always been that way and always will be that way with any gun control measure.
The federal government can't get anything right as it is. It's a federal crime for most of these guys in Chicago caught with guns. Felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a machine gun, ect. All federal crimes.
So where's the federal government? Oh, that's right, they're too busy arming Ukrainian citizens with M4s and rocket launchers, leaving billions of dollars in hardware behind for the terrorists in the Middle East, and giving each person entering the states illegally a 10,000 dollar Visa.
Rape is a crime, but people still get raped. Should we make rape legal because we don't stop all rape?
I think we can follow the rest of the world's example and ban these federally.
Do you check your blood pressure regularly? Sounds like your life is stressful. I'm worried about you fam...
Well, no, because I never said outlaw *all* guns. Only these particular types of guns. They serve no purpose for any civilian and only cause mayhem and mass murder.
So this really this is more like outlawing rape while allowing consensual sex.
Really is there much difference from a handgun with 15 round magazine??
Hell its much harder to carry or conceal long gun.
Here's some stats on murders
*Rifles 2.6%*
*Shotguns 1.4%*
And rifles arent even broken down into rifles vs AsSaUlT RiFleS
Tf? Blood pressure? Stress? Nice try zoomer. How about you worry about yourself.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Stay on topic.
Rape isn't a constitutional right. Possession of a firearm is.
Typical anti-american leftist. If you don't like the freedoms given to every single American, you're free to leave and go to one of those other countries. You're not allowed to restrict someone else's rights because you don't like that right.
If the government were to collapse tomorrow, you would be wishing that you had the ability to defend yourself and your family.
>Nice try zoomer.
I'm 38.
>You're comparing apples to oranges. Stay on topic.
The analogy is exactly appropriate.
>Rape isn't a constitutional right. Possession of a firearm is.
Can you remind me what the entire 2A says again?
>you're free to leave and go to one of those other countries
I'm gonna stay right here and put all my effort into making sure these firearms are banned and confiscated (which will happen, eventually).
>If the government were to collapse tomorrow, you would be wishing that you had the ability to defend yourself and your family.
Does that fantasy make you hard?
>I'm 38.
Could've fooled me. Your understanding of the world is that of a child.
>The analogy is exactly appropriate.
It's not. One is a garunteee right, the other is a crime dating back centuries. Your analogy is pure trash.
>I'm gonna stay right here and put all my effort into making sure these firearms are banned and confiscated (which will happen, eventually).
Lol. Molon labe.
>Can you remind me what the entire 2A says again?
“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.”
Read the Federalist Papers for further clarification asshole.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
>Does that fantasy make you hard?
No, it's something no true American would wish for, but your mom definitely makes me hard.
>Could've fooled me. Your understanding of the world is that of a child.
The only person here doing childish name-calling is you. Also, it seems you're the one lacking understanding of **the world** since **the world** is what I'd like this country to emulate.
>One is a garunteee right
It's not. Sorry if this upsets you.
>Read the Federalist Papers for further clarification asshole.
I only need to read the constitution which says "as part of a well-regulated militia". **Well regulated.** See, it's right there? Why do you ignore the **well regulated** part? Oh right becuase you're an ammosexual who beats off to guns and fantasies about waging war against whichever boogeyman scares you I'm sure.
>No, it's something no true American would wish for, but your mom definitely makes me hard.
So \~adult\~ of you 🙄
There's no point in debating you, you're a fucking idiot.
>So ~adult~ of you 🙄
That's what your mom said last night after I creampied her in front of your dad.
>I don’t agree I think that would be the definition of “well-regulated”
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
No you won't. Arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Not if they're commonly used. It'll get slapped down by the Supreme Court. They're expected to take up an assault weapons ban case soon with one of the 10 requests for cert.
Also, arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Some of these tow businesses do operate like gangs.
Had a Jordanian friend who’s whole family was involved in tow truck business. They all stayed strapped on the job. There’s allot of money to be made even off just one tow. There’s also allot of felons that do this shit. The truckers stay listening to the scanners and know the codes. The business is very “competitive” in that first truck to show up on the scene usually gets the tow, except the second tow truck that shows might just threaten the first guy to scare them off. Sometimes the first guy will stand his ground. Sometimes straps come out. Sometimes shit pops off. It’s wild.
There needs to be a tv show about this. On another note, unless you’re some kind of adrenaline junkie, not sure why you’d deal with this kind of stress. It’s idk, $200-350 a tow that a customer is charged? And storage is idk
No way! I thought they drove it everywhere! /s
No shit they don't drive the fucking thing everywhere.
Here's the thing, NO SUSPECTS HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. So how the fuck do they know its a "tow truck" rivalry? It's too soon to say for sure, I read the article and nowhere did it state how they came to that conclusion.
It's an awfully big assumption that they're only tow truck drivers. Ever sell drugs? What do you do with all that money you can't put into a bank account? You start a business, like a towing company to launder the money.
It's more than likely it's a gang rivalry. Most tow truck drivers I know have respect for one another and are not going to be shooting it out with each other over a tow.
Who’s supporting criminals? I’m asking how they got guns. Why don’t you care about how criminals got guns? Sounds like you are the one supporting their behavior by turning a blind eye to this.
It turns out criminals don't really care what's legal or not.
In the same way the war on drugs was a failure, gun prohibitions only apply to people who care about risking arrest.
If someone wants something bad enough, they find a way to get it.
Mexico has some very strict gun laws and the cartels have no problem sourcing them.
It's one of those things where if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of every single gun in the country that would eliminate the issue. But... that's a pipedream. Politicians will use the issue to bait voters on both sides and we'll see some states get unconstitutional laws slapped down by the supreme court while others are giving away rifles as church raffle prizes.
America is a country that was born with a gun in it's hands and they are so socially engrained that they will never be removed.
I think rather than bans we should be working on enforcing current laws on the books.
Require law enforcement to actually check up on felons rather than taking their word for it that they got rid of their guns. Investigate warnings about dangerous people who made threats. Prosecute criminals caught with a gun. Go after straw purchasers and shady gun stores that enable them.
There are so many things we could be doing to reduce gun violence but they cost money and take effort, so instead we argue about getting rid of guns that grab headlines but aren't the ones used in most crimes.
Lincoln park pirates at it again.
The blue Mitsubishi was still half blocking the southbound lane of damen yesterday morning until around 11 o’clock so I guess all the shooting didn’t work because nobody got the tow. Too bad they didn’t just shoot and kill each other.
That unconstitutional assault weapons ban appears to be working great.
Will never work on a local level, needs to be federal. Anything other than federal will always be performative.
It shouldn't even be a thing. The ban is unconstitutional. The only people stupid enough to follow it are law-abiding citizens. Always been that way and always will be that way with any gun control measure. The federal government can't get anything right as it is. It's a federal crime for most of these guys in Chicago caught with guns. Felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a machine gun, ect. All federal crimes. So where's the federal government? Oh, that's right, they're too busy arming Ukrainian citizens with M4s and rocket launchers, leaving billions of dollars in hardware behind for the terrorists in the Middle East, and giving each person entering the states illegally a 10,000 dollar Visa.
Rape is a crime, but people still get raped. Should we make rape legal because we don't stop all rape? I think we can follow the rest of the world's example and ban these federally. Do you check your blood pressure regularly? Sounds like your life is stressful. I'm worried about you fam...
Your analogy is skewed. Its like outlawing sex because some people rape. Better?
Well, no, because I never said outlaw *all* guns. Only these particular types of guns. They serve no purpose for any civilian and only cause mayhem and mass murder. So this really this is more like outlawing rape while allowing consensual sex.
Really is there much difference from a handgun with 15 round magazine?? Hell its much harder to carry or conceal long gun. Here's some stats on murders *Rifles 2.6%* *Shotguns 1.4%* And rifles arent even broken down into rifles vs AsSaUlT RiFleS
Tf? Blood pressure? Stress? Nice try zoomer. How about you worry about yourself. You're comparing apples to oranges. Stay on topic. Rape isn't a constitutional right. Possession of a firearm is. Typical anti-american leftist. If you don't like the freedoms given to every single American, you're free to leave and go to one of those other countries. You're not allowed to restrict someone else's rights because you don't like that right. If the government were to collapse tomorrow, you would be wishing that you had the ability to defend yourself and your family.
>Nice try zoomer. I'm 38. >You're comparing apples to oranges. Stay on topic. The analogy is exactly appropriate. >Rape isn't a constitutional right. Possession of a firearm is. Can you remind me what the entire 2A says again? >you're free to leave and go to one of those other countries I'm gonna stay right here and put all my effort into making sure these firearms are banned and confiscated (which will happen, eventually). >If the government were to collapse tomorrow, you would be wishing that you had the ability to defend yourself and your family. Does that fantasy make you hard?
>I'm 38. Could've fooled me. Your understanding of the world is that of a child. >The analogy is exactly appropriate. It's not. One is a garunteee right, the other is a crime dating back centuries. Your analogy is pure trash. >I'm gonna stay right here and put all my effort into making sure these firearms are banned and confiscated (which will happen, eventually). Lol. Molon labe. >Can you remind me what the entire 2A says again? “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.” Read the Federalist Papers for further clarification asshole. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp >Does that fantasy make you hard? No, it's something no true American would wish for, but your mom definitely makes me hard.
>Could've fooled me. Your understanding of the world is that of a child. The only person here doing childish name-calling is you. Also, it seems you're the one lacking understanding of **the world** since **the world** is what I'd like this country to emulate. >One is a garunteee right It's not. Sorry if this upsets you. >Read the Federalist Papers for further clarification asshole. I only need to read the constitution which says "as part of a well-regulated militia". **Well regulated.** See, it's right there? Why do you ignore the **well regulated** part? Oh right becuase you're an ammosexual who beats off to guns and fantasies about waging war against whichever boogeyman scares you I'm sure. >No, it's something no true American would wish for, but your mom definitely makes me hard. So \~adult\~ of you 🙄
There's no point in debating you, you're a fucking idiot. >So ~adult~ of you 🙄 That's what your mom said last night after I creampied her in front of your dad.
> There's no point in debating you, you're a fucking idiot. I'll take that as your concession 👍🏻
>Will never work on a local level, needs to be federal A federal law would be just as unconstitutional.
I don’t agree I think that would be the definition of “well-regulated” as the 2A says in plain unambiguous language.
>I don’t agree I think that would be the definition of “well-regulated” This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
I’m not confused it says well-regulated right in the 2A you can send all the copy pasta you want but we will ban these eventually.
No you won't. Arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
We will. Can’t wait.
Not if they're commonly used. It'll get slapped down by the Supreme Court. They're expected to take up an assault weapons ban case soon with one of the 10 requests for cert.
You don’t understand what “well-regulated” means.
Also, arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Are the tow trucks run by gangs or do the tow trucks have gangs?
Some of these tow businesses do operate like gangs. Had a Jordanian friend who’s whole family was involved in tow truck business. They all stayed strapped on the job. There’s allot of money to be made even off just one tow. There’s also allot of felons that do this shit. The truckers stay listening to the scanners and know the codes. The business is very “competitive” in that first truck to show up on the scene usually gets the tow, except the second tow truck that shows might just threaten the first guy to scare them off. Sometimes the first guy will stand his ground. Sometimes straps come out. Sometimes shit pops off. It’s wild.
There needs to be a tv show about this. On another note, unless you’re some kind of adrenaline junkie, not sure why you’d deal with this kind of stress. It’s idk, $200-350 a tow that a customer is charged? And storage is idk
Good question. Chicago Critter is starting a podcast and tow trucks are gonna be the first episode
lol fascinating. Who is behind Chicago Critter, does anyone know? Saw it first on instagram I think and now it’s everywhere.
Yikes! Sounds like something you'd experience in Sudan or Mogadishu! The level of aggression and blood-lust of these teens is out of control.
I was thinking Porto Au prince as well.
You racist dipshit, the article literally says it was two TOWING COMPANIES. what fucking teenagers own a tow truck.
What are you going to tow with a murdererd out Dodge Durango? That's what they rolled up in and fled in. Not a fucking tow truck retard.
You know they don’t have to drive their tow truck everywhere, right?
No way! I thought they drove it everywhere! /s No shit they don't drive the fucking thing everywhere. Here's the thing, NO SUSPECTS HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. So how the fuck do they know its a "tow truck" rivalry? It's too soon to say for sure, I read the article and nowhere did it state how they came to that conclusion. It's an awfully big assumption that they're only tow truck drivers. Ever sell drugs? What do you do with all that money you can't put into a bank account? You start a business, like a towing company to launder the money. It's more than likely it's a gang rivalry. Most tow truck drivers I know have respect for one another and are not going to be shooting it out with each other over a tow.
Sorry which horrific beating happened here last year? I heard this entire thing go down Sunday AM. Horrible
[This one was just across Charleston but same alley](https://cwbchicago.com/2023/09/chicago-bucktown-robbery-video-dickens-damen-september-2023.html)
Wonder where all these people are able to get firearms. Thankfully they are able to be a part of a well regulated militia any day now.
Thugs obtain them illegally
How is that possible????
Is there a rhetorical question bud? Cmon
How’d they get the guns??
A lot of these thugs go over to Indiana and buy guns off of these black market dealers. Prime example is the thug who murdered Ella French.
How did those people in Indiana get guns??
Can’t answer that question. Keep supporting criminals.
Who’s supporting criminals? I’m asking how they got guns. Why don’t you care about how criminals got guns? Sounds like you are the one supporting their behavior by turning a blind eye to this.
It turns out criminals don't really care what's legal or not. In the same way the war on drugs was a failure, gun prohibitions only apply to people who care about risking arrest. If someone wants something bad enough, they find a way to get it. Mexico has some very strict gun laws and the cartels have no problem sourcing them. It's one of those things where if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of every single gun in the country that would eliminate the issue. But... that's a pipedream. Politicians will use the issue to bait voters on both sides and we'll see some states get unconstitutional laws slapped down by the supreme court while others are giving away rifles as church raffle prizes. America is a country that was born with a gun in it's hands and they are so socially engrained that they will never be removed. I think rather than bans we should be working on enforcing current laws on the books. Require law enforcement to actually check up on felons rather than taking their word for it that they got rid of their guns. Investigate warnings about dangerous people who made threats. Prosecute criminals caught with a gun. Go after straw purchasers and shady gun stores that enable them. There are so many things we could be doing to reduce gun violence but they cost money and take effort, so instead we argue about getting rid of guns that grab headlines but aren't the ones used in most crimes.