City ponders 'Plan B' if justices void gun ban

[-..__...]

Source: Washington Times

D.C. officials said yesterday a decision by the Supreme Court to strike down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns would force them to revamp the city's stringent gun-control statutes.

"There's just this really anxiety-producing proposition on what would we have if we relaxed these laws," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat. "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

The nine Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments today on whether parts of the gun laws — including those preventing most residents from legally keeping handguns in the city and requiring other firearms to be stored bound and disassembled — are permissible under the Constitution.

The case will focus on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms or only permits their possession by persons associated with a state-regulated militia.

D.C. officials are confident they can prevail before the court, but are bracing for a potential decision not in their favor, which would result in a rewrite of city code.

"At one point, you're just completely focused on winning the case, and on the second point the 'Plan B' is quite obvious," said D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, a Democrat who along with Mr. Gray will attend the hearing. "Any time you lose any type of ruling on any piece of legislation, you have to make the legislation adapt to whatever the ruling is."

Read more: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/METRO/28520006/1004

---

Asshats!...

So, if they don't get their way they'll try to get around the ruling by hook or crook.

I hope the court brings down the hammer of God on Fenty and the city council.

[elleng]

1. WHAT?

"make the legislation adapt to whatever the ruling is" means 'get around the ruling by hook or crook' to you?

And you live WHERE?

[-..__...]

6. Expect DC to test the bounderies.

If the court upholds the lower courts decision to overturn the handgun ban and storage of firearms laws, DC lawmakers will find some other creative way to scoff at "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"... licensing, registration, waiting periods, one gun per month, etc.

"And you live WHERE?"

The United States of America.

Why do you ask?

[Kolesar]

7. Last time I checked, the frontier's closed

No more Injuns to shoot at.

[slackmaster]

49. No Injuns, but there are still home-invasion robbers, rapists, etc.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to arm themselves in self-defense.

[Kolesar]

50. "I don't like Mondays"

We are a degenerate, imperialist nation with culture and tradition to match.

[slackmaster]

51. Guilt By Association logical fallacy?

Or are you just unwilling or unable to acknowledge the distinction between lawful activities and unlawful ones?

[Kolesar]

60. "I am not the one who bought her a gun every year for Christmas"--Bob Geldoff

Don't look at me.

[slackmaster]

62. You have totally abandoned logical discourse here

Have fun jacking off to your own lame ravings.

[depakid]

77. He's referring to a mass shooting in California -not that gun "enthusiasts" care

about things like that.

They're quite happy to condemn their fellow citizens to ever escalating violence- and the world's largest and most expensive prison system in order to satisfy their self indulgence.

"I Don't Like Mondays" was a UK number one single for four weeks in July 1979. Written by Bob Geldof and performed by The Boomtown Rats, it was the band's second number one single.

Geldof wrote the song after reading a telex report on the shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children playing in a school playground across the street from her home in San Diego, California. She killed two adults and injured eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime, and her explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don't_Like_Mondays_(song)

She used the rifle she had recently been given for Christmas by her father.

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

[Kolesar]

83. I would rather live in a country like Australia than a country like the Philippines

Where you don't go out unarmed. I'm sure you got my meaning. We have a brutality in our culture that we cannot seem to shake. My theory at the moment is that it extends from our frontier culture with the elements of vanquishing the indigenous people and protecting against outlaws.

Hollywood was no help as they made the same cowboy film plot over and over again. Now, in the 21st century, I would expect that foreigners watching our gangster films would think that our skies are filled with lead.

Oh, it seems like the apostrophe interferes with the Wikipedia link. I could not figure a fix. Good morning.

[Speaker]

84. Delta is ready when you are. n/t

[Pavulon]

100. My theory is different

but it does require addressing the real generators of body count. That is not school shootings, or spree killers.

Gang/Drug killings
Suicides
domestic violence

The shit in the news are the outliers, the day to day is where effort should be concentrated.

[slackmaster]

92. I'm 50 years old and have lived in San Diego since 1962

I'm very well aware of the reference, and how irrelevant to the discussion it is.

In case you missed it, the Brenda Spencer reference was posted in response to my comment "There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to arm themselves in self-defense."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. And Lots of Legitimate Reasons to THINK Otherwise

-accidents.
-work place violence.
-alcohol impairment.
-drug impairment.
-domestic violence and guns.
-unsecured guns.
-stolen guns.
-no training and/or poor judgment.

[sav99]

243. In simple terms

It's a fairly transparent issue when looked at without pie in the sky blind emotion. Violent crimes happened long before guns were invented. An inanimate object does not take possession of a person's mind and force him to do anything.
The D.C. gun ban has caused many deaths. Many law abiding citizens have been disarmed, effectively removing their human right to self preservation in a dangerous situation. The fact is, that violent criminals in this country are willing to do harm to others. That is a fact. We have been given the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves from those who would harm us. I believe it is a human right, even for those Americans who live in D.C.

It's time to stand up to those who will disarm the law abiding citizen, making her a defenseless victim, easy prey for the violent criminal.

[sav99]

244. To answer your questions

-accidents.
*Far more rare than in other sports. Lets push to outlaw motorcycles, to keep people safe of course.

-work place violence.
*A social/psychological issue. Should we maybe look at the source of the problem instead of the symptom?

-alcohol impairment.
*Why not outlaw the cause then? Alcohol kills more people than guns do.

-drug impairment.
*Why not outlaw drugs? Lets pass a law making crack cocaine illegal. I bet that would work.

-domestic violence and guns.
*Again, psychological issue. Whats causing it?

-unsecured guns.
*Unsecured cars, unsecured knives, unsecured sticks & stones. How about personal accountability for a change?

-stolen guns.
*Criminal mentality. Stolen or smuggled, criminals will always be armed. It's a given. If thousands of tons of illegal drugs can come in every year, I assume illegal guns can too.

-no training and/or poor judgment.
*Good idea, lets mandate firearm training in every high school. Training is important, and so is firearm safety.

[Popol Vuh]

101. WTF?

:wtf:

I do not appreciate the language used to describe Native Americans.

[elleng]

8. I ask where YOU live

because my family lives in the District of Columbia, and I take this matter seriously.

The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is nothing to scoff at; it IS something to understand and enforce.

[-..__...]

11. Where I live is irrelevant.

Doesn't matter if I (or anyone else), lives in downtown DC, suburbia or the Yukon.

The Constitution and BOR applies to all Americans regardless of where they happen to reside.

The issue has no business being decided at the state or local level.

[elleng]

13. Which is why the case is before the Supreme Court.

Localities may, of course, institute their own legislation, which may be tested for constitutionality, which occurs here.

[SteveM]

23. "...have the maximum restrictions on guns..." Goes to intent, credibility...

If a D.C. official says something like this I wonder what the Supreme Court will do to see that its decision is enforced. Wouldn't it disturb you if, forty-five years ago, a high state official in Mississippi were to say we need the "...maxium restriction on voting rights..." in anticipation of an "unfavorable" ruling by the federal courts? IMO, this D.C. official promotes a hostile view toward any ruling and its provisions. The Supreme Court may take notice of that.

[elleng]

39. This case concerns ONLY the District of Columbia,

and its specific prohibition against firearms. Depending on the decision, statutes and rules in other jurisdictions may be challenged, but they will stand until such time as they are challenged and found unconstitutional.

I don't know what official you are referring to, but if he or she says DC is seeking to have the maximum restrictions on guns, its fine with me; as I've said, my family lives in DC, and I have been assaulted by a man with a gun. If the statement was merely reported in the press, the Court MAY NOT take notice of it; it must be in the official record of the case. 'Intent' and 'credibility' are matters at issue in trials, not in cases before the appellate courts.

I think your Mississippi voting case hypothetical is not comparable; it is in the public interest of the U.S. that everyone has the same access to the right to vote, and the same is not necessarily true about the right to bear arms. That is, it may be possible to restrict that 'right' in some ways, while it is not possible similarly to restrict the right to vote.

I've got to run now, and I hope we will hear something about the argument soon.

[SteveM]

63. Thanks. The D.C. Council member seems to have a Jacksonian approach...

"Let them enforce it." Andrew Jackson said this when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of native Americans who were being threatened with removal from their lands in the South. They were removed, via the "Trail of Tears." You're right about the Court not taking notice unless it is in the record. But the remarks signal a resistance to any "unfavorable" D.C. ruling, which may land D.C. back in court.

I don't think there is that much difference between voting rights and the right to keep and bear arms. Where there is a difference is in the right to carry concealed weapons. Here, states may have latitude to restrict unless the standards are so onerous so as to constitute a ban through subterfuge. This is the difference between "may issue" licenses and "shall issue" licenses wherein the former can be used to favor some citizens with a privilege while denying that privilege to others. (See www.progunprogres"sive.com and the site's host who has gone round 'n' round with Maryland in order to get a concealed permit, even after he was threatened with death by neighborhood gangs.) "Shall issue" is a clear cut standard where "everyone has the same access to the right ."

Though there are few restrictions on voting, felons usually lose that right along with 2A.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

203. Thanks

You write: 'I don't think there is that much difference between voting rights and the right to keep and bear arms.'

Thanks but constitutionally, you are wrong. Your constitution asserts the right to 'keep and bear arms'. It does not assert or affirm my right to have voting representation in your Congress.

I believe the council chairman's remarks were simply a reality check that DC will have to rewrite the law to conform with the ruling rather than an act of defiance which you and some seem to think it was.

[smb]

105. That Ain't How It Works

"This case concerns ONLY the District of Columbia, and its specific prohibition against firearms."

You sound like a right wingnut claiming that Brown v Board of Education concerned only that specific school district.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

207. DC is Not a State

Clearly, you do not know the Constitutional issue.

In dissent, Judge Henderson of the US Court of Appeals wrote:

"To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.'

[Tejas]

214. last time I looked, only ONE version of the BOR

There are not two versions, one for DC and another for the rest of the country.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

215. Dismissive

Too bad you cannot recognize that the simple fact the Second Amendment makes reference to state militia's.

DC is not a state. You folks want it both ways.

"Give us our rights" while "Denying us our rights."

No doubt Orwell gun-speak for the 21st century.

[MaryCeleste]

218. Its been found to be a personal right, statehood is not releveant

[Tejas]

238. You'll never get him to concede that fact

He's stuck in the rut of "YOUR government that does evil things to DC" vs the trials and heartache of the daily beatdown that DC receives from Fenty et al.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. What BS

You write: 'The Constitution and BOR applies to all Americans regardless of where they happen to reside.'

Your Constitution and BOR doesn't quite treat ALL people, regardless of where they live, equally, does it?

When it does provide for "No Taxation without Representation," then I'll take your whining about your rights being violated more seriously.

[michreject]

52. As much as it would suck

All those hoops can be jumped through. Better than what they have now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. Right......

Like you give a sh*t about anyone's rights other than your own.

If and when you and your government give the people the right to have a vote in your Congress, then we might consider your Court's authority legitimate.

Otherwise, your claims of moral superiority on the issue of guns in a place you do not live in is nothing more than BS.

And what did D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray say that was so offensive to you: "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

Leave your guns outside our city.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. How?

How are you going to impose your will, to not adhere to the Supreme Court's authority? You may have the will to fight about it but we all know you don't have the means to fight about it. You will be much like an unarmed victim facing a stronger, well armed felon. He will impose his will upon you and you will be without the means to do anything about it. I feel bad when it happens to individuals, I'll sleep well when it happens to the District. I guess you'll really whine about it here though. While you are on this kick can you tell iverglas to shut up, she's from Canada. What right does she have to talk about the US? That's your argument about everyone else and the District, but I'm guessing you are all ready well aware of your double standard. Keep up the "good" fight.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

157. Huh?

David.......darling.....

If and when you and your government gives the people of the District of Columbia the right to have a vote in your Congress, then we might consider your Court's authority legitimate.

Otherwise, your claims of moral superiority on the issue of guns in a place you do not live in is nothing more than BS.

Leave it to you to characterize the District of Columbia imposing their will on anyone other than the District of Columbia. When your government allows me to have an equal voice in it's affairs as you do and when it gives all taxpaying citizens the right to vote, then you can have the nerve to ask me about how I am 'going to impose' my will.

The justice of our cause makes you and your guns seem as impotent as your arguments.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. I appreciate the term of endearment!!!

Sorry I don't know your name otherwise I would return the favor. I was merely pointing out that the Districts citizens have no means to not obey the results of Heller vs. The District, you have no means to impose your will. Doesn't the District have representatives in Congress? Also please point out where I claimed to be morally superior. I only claimed to be armed. Have a nice day.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

170. No

You ask: 'Doesn't the District have representatives in Congress? '

No, we have no Representative or Senator who can actually VOTE on any piece of legislation.

You write: ' I was merely pointing out that the Districts citizens have no means to not obey the results of Heller vs. The District, you have no means to impose your will.'

Impose our will? What part of YOUR will and YOUR government is not being RAMMED own our throats without our participation?

Every law you enact is RAMMED down our throats, but you keep worrying about us 'imposing our will' if it helps us get the right to vote.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

174. Congresswoman Norton doesn't get to vote?

I wasn't aware of that. Learn something new everyday. You're confused, I agree with you. My government is imposing it's will on the District, my only point is that the District residents don't have the means to resist, if that was the residents desire. Please keep pursuing a peaceful resolution to the problem though.


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

177. Thank You

Thank you for your support. I appreciate it. As for the peaceful calling, I completely support it and would ask that you write your member of Congress and ask them to give the citizens of DC .......... ALL ........... of their rights, including the right to vote.

Ironically, the most compelling reason some on this and/or other gun boards have made for owning a gun is the notion it will insure our right to overthrow the government when it takes away our rights. While I loathe all gun ownership, it's hard not to consider it a compelling argument given the half million people in DC are taxed without representation. Isn't that how the American revolution got started?

I look all around me and see vestiges of our democratic principles and yet I do not have the right to vote, which I consider to be the most fundamental right of living in a republic. So when I hear others whine about how my rights and the rights of DC citizens are being denied regarding guns, I want to barf. These are often the same people who have no idea what tyranny we live under.

Thank you for efforts on our behalf.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. You didn't answer my question.

Does Congresswoman Norton get to vote?


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

181. No

Only in committees and her vote does not count regarding guns or any other piece of legislation.

I should add that wasn't always the case. There was a period of time when DC had a single vote in the House but not in the Senate (mid 80s to mid 90s). When the GOP was elected in 1996, that all changed. When the GOP was elected to the White House, King George had the DC license plates below removed from all White House vehicles.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

185. Rules issue

Is this an issue of House rules or a law that the GOP passed? If it's a rules change why doesn't the House change it back? The democrats are in charge.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. They Can

House rules. They haven't partly because it hasn't reached veto proof levels, but of course, they haven't exactly tried much making the Democrats unfulfilled promises of fighting for DC rights be almost as bad as the GOP's opposition.

PS - Hope you were treated well in our hospitals. Was it a VA hospital? That's something else that annoys me...our militia is fighting and dying in Iraq and we have no right to vote.

[EricTeri]

240. No she doesnt...

and considering her tenuous hold on reality, its a very good thing she cannot.

[iverglas]

241. nice smear

No she doesnt... <get to vote>
and considering her tenuous hold on reality, its a very good thing she cannot.

I took a look at her website:

http://www.norton.house.gov/index.php

and didn't notice anything to support the allegation. (It sure had one of the most annoying rolling headline/photo features I've seen in a while, though.)

Care to offer anything?

While you're at it -- could you tell me what her political party is?

... Oh, never mind. I found it.

She's a Democrat. Obviously. They're the ones with tenuous grips on reality, right?

http://www.politicalbase.com/people/eleanor-holmes-norton/13235/

Eleanor Holmes Norton's Biography

Biography Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is now in her ninth term as the Congresswoman for the District of Columbia. Named by President Jimmy Carter as the first woman to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she came to Congress as a national figure who had been a civil rights and feminist leader, tenured professor of law, and board member of three Fortune 500 companies. Ms. Norton also had been named one of the 100 most important American women in one survey and one of the most powerful women in Washington in another.

... Congresswoman Norton has served on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Board of Governors of the D.C. Bar Association, as well as the boards of civil rights, and other national organizations. ...

Moonbat ...

[iverglas]

242. NICE SMEAR

looks good on ya.

And on everybody else who has had not word one to say about it.


HAHAHAHA HAH. Trooooo colours ...

[MaryCeleste]

18. DC Politicians and guns are just like fundies and abortion

they will try to reduce it any way they can, big steps or small inconveniences. The parallels are staggering. Both sides fear independent choices of informed citizens

[Speaker]

85. Excellent analogy.

Both sides fear independent choices of informed citizens.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. Right

I completely support your right to pull a pistol out of your womb. Be sure it has a safety lock.

[virginia mountainman]

2. What arrogant assholes...

Glad to know that DC has money to throw away, for lawyers, legal fees, and DAMAGES as the lawsuits start rolling in...

[elleng]

9. The lawsuits

encouraged by Virginians who sold their firearms to residents of DC? Or to those just passing through?

[SteveM]

25. Prohibition is like a hog wire Hoover dam: never enough fingers.

[Kolesar]

31. I think your mixed metaphor needs some work...eom

[SteveM]

33. What? It doesn't hold water?

[Kolesar]

38. "That's deep" ... eom

[fightthegoodfightnow]

205. Yea........ Don't You Hate Arrogant Assholes Who Represent the People

DC is defending their laws with their money before the Courts.

How much have you spent doing the same thing.

[virginia mountainman]

221. The answer to that question, would surprise you....NT...

[Kolesar]

3. Katherine Harris & Ken Blackwell gave us Roberts and Alito as their legacy

And those right wingers decide to be the first to take up this issue in 70 years. Just goes to show how out of touch the Republican leaders are with the real issues of the American people. They live in this frightful world of degenerate, divisive southern political messages. Well, God, guns, and gays are not going to solve America's problems and they are not going to win them any elections in the Democratic or the swing states.

The history of the early 21st century is going to reflect how pathetic and stupid Americans are.

[fascisthunter]

4. I Concur (nt)

[Laughing Mirror]

12. Me too

nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

10. I believe the case is before the Court

because some gun-loving DC residents decided that the time was right, and the Court was ripe, for such a challenge; there have not been any cases on the issue in recent years.

[SteveM]

27. A right-wing court bails out "liberal" Democrats on a no-win issue. Ironic.

[Traction311]

37. I hate right-wing SC Justices like Alito and Roberts as much as anybody

But when it comes to guns, they are on the right side. Kennedy will be the swing vote. He's too unpredictable, the ruling could go either way.

[michreject]

55. Kennedy kicked ass today

Treated Dellinger like a red headed step kid. (No offense to red headed step kids)

[Speaker]

87. Ummm.....no.

Kennedy will be the swing vote.

Ginsburg will vote 2A. Kennedy will concur.

[-..__...]

146. I would hope so.

And join Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito in doing the proper and noble thing.

I believe Kennedy is in our corner as well as Ginsburg (although we could have a problem with Ginsburg as far as the level of scrutiny is concerned).

The remaining justices (Souter, Stevans, Breyer), well... let's just wait and see.

None of the three are exactly on record as being BOR supporters.

We shall see.

[Nevernose]

76. I don't know why you had to work the South in there

Since that's just as divisive as any "degenerate, divisive southern political messages."

Especially since, of the four people you listed, one is from Ohio, one is from New Jersey, and one is from New York.

You also wrote that "the history of the early 21st century is going to reflect how pathetic and stupid Americans are." I couldn't agree more. It's like something out of the Roman's history of self-destruction.

[Kolesar]

82. It's Cincinnati, the most republican city anywhere

[Speaker]

86. LOL

Just goes to show how out of touch the Republican leaders are with the real issues of the American people.

Yep. That's why something like 36 states have gone from "no carry" to "shall issue" concealed carry in the last 15 years; because there is no public interest.

[Kolesar]

90. If I want insightful political analysis, I won't be going to you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3232138&mesg_id=3233914

[jody]

5. IMO SCOTUS will agree with Laurence Tribe, constitutional scholar and lawyer for Gore in the FL

election scandal.

Tribe said RKBA is an individual right and up to the states.

Nearly all states have statements in their constitutions protecting an individual's RKBA and the 14th Amendment should extend that right to all citizens.

[MaryCeleste]

19. If they do, its the death knell for Roe

If its a right, the states can not abridge it.

[Speaker]

88. "If its a right, the states can not abridge it."

That's what "Shall not be infringed" means.

[SteveM]

32. I wonder what the Court will say about the "militia clause?"

Even here, the practicality of a militia cannot depend upon state or any government regulation in a time of civil breakdown. This is not theory. I believe the Louisiana statutes allow for the formation of an unorganized militia if the government(s) who have nominal power in an affected area are no longer in contact or are unresponsive. This is what happened with the Algiers Point militia when they were completely out of contact with government levels and had to form a local militia to protect against looters, post-Katrina.
And this to say nothing of New Orleans police chief Eddie Compass' fiat to seize all firearms.

It's one thing have a completely ineffective government and another to have a tyrannical one. New Orleans, as befitting its mythic station in American culture, managed both.

[jody]

45. Thanks, I need to find out more about LA law re militias when gov. loses control of an area. n/t

[SteveM]

58. Damn, must be a senior moment. I can't find the source...

I did find these remarks:

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/ffj_emergprep.htm

Whether or not the formation of Algiers Point was "legal" may be moot as there is no definition of a militia per se in Louisiana. The Algiers event does reveal a kind of "organic" relationship between individuals bearing arms and the need to form a community defense, growing out of that individual right. Most states seem to give authority for calling out the militia to the respective governors, and the authority to arm and equip militias to the respective legislatures. But in Louisiana things were incommunicado. Did the Algiers Point militia act illegally or does this "issue" dissolve under the given conditions?

[jody]

59. Could RS 29:8 be the law in question? See link below.

RS 29:8


“A. Whenever, under the circumstances mentioned in R.S. 29:7, it is not possible to communicate with the governor or the adjutant general, the senior officer of a command, upon the request of a mayor, a sheriff, or a district judge, shall order out the forces under his command, or any part thereof, for the protection of the community. As soon as possible, the senior officer shall report his action and the facts to the governor, the adjutant general, and his immediate commanding officer. “

[SteveM]

64. Perhaps, though whatever I read sounded different.

[jody]

70. LA law re civil and criminal liability for militia is interesting.

RS 29:23

§23. Civil and criminal liability of officers and members
No officer or other member of the military forces of this state shall be indicted, prosecuted, or sued for any injury to any person or property performed or committed by him while in the active service of the state of Louisiana in the course of the business of the military forces of this state as required of him by this Part.
Acts 1974, No. 622, §1.

[villager]

14. I'm sure that's exactly what you and your fellow NRA members hope.

n/t

[madmom]

15. you paint with a rather broad brush there don't ya? Why does someone

who believes in their right to keep and bear arms HAVE to be a member of the NRA? Do you know anything at all about the subject? From your little post I believe not.

[villager]

16. Ah, the over-the-top rhetoric of the gun cultist! (Exactly what I was responding to

in the OP -- such "razed earth" rhetoric is precisely the hallmark of NRA style gun "debate," which both you and the the OPer engage in. Whether you're technically members or not matters little -- you are the NRA's spiritual kin.

[bossy22]

20. stop equating the NRA

with all gun owners....if you want to hate us do it the more honerable way...hate us as human beings, not as a faceless organization....its too easy to hate something that doesn't have a face

you wont do that, because you may find a human side that is quite like yours....

[villager]

21. wow - a plea for tolerance and empathy from the pro-gun side! Given the routine

insults I've endured (as have others on this board) simply for the high crime of disagreeing with you and yours, or pointing out that guns actually play a role in gun crimes, I'm impressed.

Does this mean you're willing to see a human side -- a human face -- on the other side of this debate, too?

[bossy22]

24. well it should be evident that we already do

we dont call you by the group "the brady campaign" You on the other hand always bring the conversation back to the NRA as if by insulting the NRA you are insulting us- when in fact many of us dont particularly like the NRA for different reasons (political bias in my case)...

but on the topic of insults- you do the same thing to us- and fine- its a debate, debates get heated..but your attempt to discredit us by connecting us with the NRA is just silly

[villager]

29. actually, yes, we get called "gun grabbers" all the time, conflated with Brady

(not that I mind -- I support the Brady campaign), I've had my intelligence insulted, my patriotism, been called a "liar" when all I was doing was disagreeing, etc. All for the simple "crime" of not being on the pro-gun side of this debate.

The ad hominem attacks are indeed a hallmark of NRA style scorched earth rhetoric.

I will believe the pro-gun folks aren't the NRA's spiritual kin when they start acting differently in these threads.

[MaryCeleste]

22. You use the term gun cultists and then claim they are over the top?

There are gun freaks out there, but its not all that many. In other posts it looks like pretty close to half the people who responded to a DU poll have guns. Are they all "gun cultists" who only joy in life is the profit of firearms manufacturers?

[villager]

30. See my post above -- it was a term I came up with after getting called a

"gun grabber" for the hundredth time.

Sauce for the goose, eh?

Or is the sauce only supposed to flow one way in these "debates?"

[madmom]

40. Ha. I'm a over the top gun cultist... LOL, I haven't touched a gun of any kind in

probably 20 years. Just because I feel I should be able to defend myself and not have to wait 20 minutes or so for police to show, if that makes me over the top so be it. You know nothing about me to equate me with anyone including the op. I do not get into gun debates I let them slide normally because everyone has their opinion and believes they are right. I asked a simple question and get vilified for it.Typical, is that how you would defend yourself against a rapist? verbally bash their brains out? You know, the population of prisons are not allowed guns but they are the most violent places on earth, why so?
As far as being spiritual kin to the NRA, you don't know what the hell your talking about because as I said before you know NOTHING about me.

[villager]

42. and you know everything about me? Again, the double standard.

And it's that one-sided smugness -- rather than a true willingness to engage -- that is the hallmark of nearly all the gunners on this board.

[madmom]

56. Your answer makes absolutley no sense! Where did I imply anything about you?

Talk about your double standard, I merely pointed out that you were making assumptions about me without knowing me or anything about me! You want to talk about one-sided smugness? look in the freaking mirror! I see no willingness to engage just name calling and a holier-than-thou attitude.Is that your idea of debate? You still haven't answered my other question, so I expect none on this either.:nopity:

[villager]

67. you stray farther and farther away from any discussion of the original topic, Madmom

You launch into hyperbole, hypothetical situations, snarky emoticons, etc., etc. -- all absolutely typical of the pro-gun folk on this board.

There's no conversing -- just insults, defensiveness, etc., etc.

btw, what name did I call you?

[madmom]

73. No it's you who are straying, please show me where I launched into

hyperbole, and hypothetical situations? Because I asked how would you defend yourself against a rapist? You're stretching a bit I must say,snarky emoticons, well yeah maybe just one, etc.,etc., ? you got me there what are you talking about? All absolutely typical of pro-gun folk on this board.. I don't know because I normally don't partake in gun debates you know this because I said so in my 2nd reply. There's no conversing? I asked you several questions and all I got in return is rude comments, defensiveness, name calling, ( gun-cultists, smug, over the top,) insinuate that I am insinuating about you. The only reason this thread strayed from the original topic is because of your original post about the NRA and those who own guns.

[villager]

81. Sigh. Hall of mirrors time.

This is why "debate" is so hopeless with gun folk. Once a general comment is made -- "how do you defend yourself against rapists!?" (don't most rapists actually *use* guns to commit their crimes?), then it all becomes posturing and defensiveness.

Shall I tell you about the student I knew who was shot to death?

The cousin of another student?

Etc.

The "smugness" came from your sudden defensive use saying I had no right to comment because I didn't truly know you (you inferred).

Do you truly know me?

Is either germane to this discussion?

And with more and more and more guns available everywhere, is America really safer?

This are the questions we need to *discuss* -- not yell about.

As for "gun cultist," I do use that in a general way against the constant "gun grabber" phrase that all pro gun people are seemingly programmed to use, lemming-like.

If you aren't one of those lemmings, I applaud you, and hereby retract the comment...!

[madmom]

93. I did NOT say you had no right to comment, I said you had no right to assume

anything about me! Just how is that being smug? No I do not know you, and if you are going to make statements about others yes it is germane to the discussion!

Do you want me to tell you about my cousin who sits in prison as we speak for killing his girlfriend with a tire iron?

Is America safer with all the guns? I feel safer with mine! You still haven't answered my question, Guns are 100% outlawed in prisons general population, so why are they still the most violent places in the country perhaps the world?

See debate is not"hopeless" you just saw what you wanted to see and didn't answer my questions?
I asked several, and so far none have been answered, and you say you can't debate? well yeah if you don't play by the rules.

"As for "gun cultist," I do use that in a general way against the constant "gun grabber" phrase that all pro gun people are seemingly programmed to use, lemming-like." I know many pro-gun people and have never heard the term "gun grabber" before this.

You made a very outlandish statement "I'm sure that's exactly what you and your fellow NRA members hope." and think everyone is going to ignore it?

Just because I think I'm safer with my gun doesn't mean: 1. I am smug, 2. I am an over the top gun cultist 3.I shoot people for fun, 4. I yell about keeping my guns 5. am a lemming 6. nor do I question peoples right to NOT have a gun.That is their right also. oh and I almost forgot 7. I have never been nor will I ever be a member of the NRA.

[villager]

95. are more people killed with tire irons or handguns?

Will reasonable, local control of handgun laws allow municipalities infected with gun violence to reign such violence in?

Yes, somewhat.

Will it end all murder?

No.

I don't believe I ever said you shoot people for fun. I said you were using hypothetical situations to justify the uncontrolled proliferation of guns.

I am against such uncontrolled proliferation, however.

And though you seem to support zero checks and balances on weapons procurement, I am glad you're not a member of NRA.

[madmom]

96. My dear villager, you will find that MOST gun enthusiast have no problem

with the gun laws that are on the books, back-round checks, waiting periods,etc. You just assumed that because we believe we have the right to own a gun that we are wild-eyed "gun-cultists".

I don't believe I ever used a "hypothetical situation to justify uncontrolled proliferation of guns" and where did I say I was against zero checks and balances on procurement? As I said before you only saw what you wanted to see, not what was actually there. You are assuming that because there ARE such "gun-cultists" out there, that every one who believes they have a right to own a gun is a "gun-cultist". That would be the same a saying if a person were against say ,abortion, they are the same as those who go out and blow up abortion clinics and doctors, see the difference? I would venture to say that people I have known for many years don't even have a clue to the fact that I even own a gun, it's not something you "flash" around, at least normal people don't, and that's the point of the situation, there ARE normal people who own and believe they have a right to own a gun.

[villager]

97. Well, most of the ones who post around here freak out at the idea of the slightest

restriction on gun availability -- I have the slings and arrows from the gungeon to prove it -- but will likewise acknowledge those that actually "sit down" to discuss, rather than flame away, tend to be the exceptions (once we get to the 6th or so post and both sides suddenly realize there's a human face on the other).

Thanks for letting this settle into a more-or-less actual conversation, and when/if we cross paths in "actual space," the first round's on me!

[madmom]

98. The key here again is communication, not assumption, there really are

quite a lot of gun enthusiast who are level-headed and realize some control is needed just not as much as some people want. I think you just "debate" with the wrong ones. :toast:

[selador]

222. nope

"Will reasonable, local control of handgun laws allow municipalities infected with gun violence to reign such violence in?

Yes, somewhat.
"

i've seen no evidence it will

[iverglas]

103. ah -- here I must correct you!

"how do you defend yourself against rapists!?"
(don't most rapists actually *use* guns to commit their crimes?)

Actually, most sexual assaults are committed by parents and other family members, current and former intimate partners, "friends"/dates ...

Apparently, a woman should keep a pistol under her pillow to defend herself against sexual assault by her abusive spouse.

When it comes to gang/drug-related firearms violence, it's all "root causes" and persecution of the poor and marginalized. Reducing access to the means with which the violence and intimidation can be pursued and that are in fact essential to anyone pursuing the activities in question, to at least reduce the harms those activities result in, be damned.

When it comes to victimization of women, it's all "the little ladies need guns to level the playing field". Root causes be damned.

And hey, never mind the fact that firearms are one of the means used to prosecute those purposes too:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Works/Reducing.pdf

REDUCING DOMESTIC HOMICIDE
While much focus has been made on the problems of illegal guns, most women killed with guns are killed with legally owned guns, particularly rifles and shotguns <in Canada>. On average, one in three women killed by their husbands are shot <more like 2 in 3 in the US>; most (88%) of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns. In an affidavit filed by the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, one shelter worker estimated that at least 40% of her clients had been threatened with a gun.

and that without the firearms in their spouses' hands, the women might not need to be leveling the playing field, and might not be too afraid to leave the situation.

So hmm, you weren't all that off base after all I guess. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Sounds like a problem

Are you for banning rifles and shotguns in Canada?


David

[iverglas]

108. hahahahahahaha

Yes, this is a Canadian problem. Men in the US never threaten their intimate partners using firearms.

Why, just last night I wasn't talking to someone at DU whose good friend's husband has been threatening her with firearms ...

Nope, I don't think rifles and shotguns should be banned in Canada. I'd be quite happy with more stringent controls of various kinds. Why would you ask such an incredibly dumb question? If I tought long arms should be banned in Canada, don't you think you'd have known by now?

What should be done, and should have been done a long time ago, is that firearms owners who have not yet obtained licences and/or registered their firearms should be put on notice that if they are found to be in possession of unregistered firearms or in possession of firearms without a licence, they WILL be prosecuted.

Instead, our RIGHT-WING present government has implemented an amnesty on the registration of long arms while it tries to figure out how to dismantle the firearms registry that enjoys widespread public support.

And of course there should be more resources for women in rural areas and isolated communities who are abused or at risk. They would then feel more able to take measures to deal with the abuse/risks. One such measure is to inform police of violence or threats of violence, obviously. And then what is done is that the firearms licence of the person committing the violence / making the threats is revoked, and his firearms confiscated. But if the firearms are not registered, it's that much harder to enforce those measures.

As usual, a right-wing government is pandering to scum, and failing in its duty to protect the public and individuals in need of protection.

The use of firearms to cause and threaten harm against an intimate partner is not going to be eliminated by any firearms control measure that might be implemented, any more than any other kind of abuse is ever going to be eliminated. But there are measures that can be taken to reduce the incidence of the problem.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. Confused

You argue that we should ban handguns in the U.S., none of your business, but we'll let that slide. Yet you are perfectly comfortable letting these women in Canada be abused by their husbands and boyfriends when you say you have the solution to gun violence, ban the guns. Take them away and these men will stop abusing their partners. Thanks for insulting me, I take care of people you would cross the street to get away from, I get up at 3 in the morning to pick them up out of the floor when they fall on their way to the bathroom, I tell the moms of the kids killed by gang members that their sons are dead. How many people have you treated for gunshot wounds? How many people have you pronounced dead? How many children have you performed CPR on? Please keep being condescending while you sit on your fat ass and do nothing about the violence in your community except blame the right wing government. I appreciate it, it keeps me grounded knowing that not all liberals are good people. I'm not familiar with the word tought could you define it please? If you really believe what you say in the second to last sentence of your post why do you support gun bans in the US? What are these measures that would reduce the problems? What have you done to get your government to put them in place? What do you personally do to help the women affected by abuse? I anxiously await your next barrage of insults and a post vacant of relevant answers, seems to be your pattern. How the weather in your neck of the woods anyway?


David

[iverglas]

219. you most certainly are!

You argue that we should ban handguns in the U.S., none of your business, but we'll let that slide.

Confused, that is ... or just dishonest. I dunno what it would be. Gotta be some reason for you saying things that aren't true, though, eh?

(a) I don't argue anything regarding US firearms policy, as a general rule. I present facts and sometimes draw conclusions from them.

(b) In some instances US firearms policy *IS* my business, whether you like it or not, and in those instances I'll say what I please and you can lump it.


Yet you are perfectly comfortable letting these women in Canada be abused by their husbands and boyfriends when you say you have the solution to gun violence, ban the guns.

I'm afraid you left confused a few stations ago and have arrived at incoherent.


Take them away and these men will stop abusing their partners.

If this is a statement of something you believe, well, there you are. Nothing I can do to help, I imagine.


How many people have you treated for gunshot wounds? How many people have you pronounced dead? How many children have you performed CPR on?

You seem to think that these questions are relevant to something under discussion. I don't.


Please keep being condescending while you sit on your fat ass and do nothing about the violence in your community except blame the right wing government.

Please continue throwing ignorant insults around. They look good on ya.


I appreciate it, it keeps me grounded knowing that not all liberals are good people.

Nothing to do with me. I'm not a liberal, have never claimed to be a liberal, and have repeatedly rejected any accusation of being a liberal. I'm a social democrat, which we'll call as democratic socialist as possible under the circumstances.


If you really believe what you say in the second to last sentence of your post why do you support gun bans in the US?

If you really believe the moon is made of green cheese, why are you eating that table leg?

What the fuck are you talking about????

The second to last sentence of my post was:

The use of firearms to cause and threaten harm against an intimate partner is not going to be eliminated by any firearms control measure that might be implemented, any more than any other kind of abuse is ever going to be eliminated.

Perhaps you missed the last sentence, which followed immediately after the second to last sentence:

But there are measures that can be taken to reduce the incidence of the problem.

None of which has a single fucking thing to do with "gun bans in the US", or anyone's false allegation that I support same.


What are these measures that would reduce the problems? What have you done to get your government to put them in place?

I have worked in every election at every level in the country / province / municipality(ies) I have lived in since 1968 (except the last provincial election, which I had to sit out because of time conflicts with work), and given a pile of money to election campaigns, and been a candidate myself, all in the effort to elect social democrat candidates (except 1968; I was very young and swept up in Pierre Trudeau's liberalism). I have done a whole lot more than my bit to keep right-wing scum out of office, and unseat them if they ever make it in. Even going so far as to vote for the Liberal Party on one occasion, in a strategic vote, such as sometimes seems necessary in a multi-party system, in order to vote against the worst option rather than for the best option, when the best option has no hope of winning.

Measures that would reduce the problems in Canada are a ban on handgun possession -- something that the Liberal Party leader proposed in a recent election, but the Liberals are as credible on that as they were on pulling out of NAFTA and repealing the Goods and Services Tax. My party didn't take a specific position at the time, federally. It should. NDP leader Jack Layton has a long and honourable track record on firearms control from his days in municipal politics, but has taken to pandering a bit to the less progressive Western elements of the party these days. What he has called for is for the US to take responsibility for the harm that results from the ready access to firearms for trafficking out of the US, and do something to address that problem.


What do you personally do to help the women affected by abuse?

Gee, nice of you to ask. These days, I'm not in the loop, but I represented quite a few of them back when I was in practice. Often without pay. And I gave talks to women's groups, and particularly groups of visible minority women, and consulted for them when requested. What do you do ... that you don't get paid for?


I anxiously await your next barrage of insults and a post vacant of relevant answers, seems to be your pattern.

That's nice. And I guess I should look forward to another post full of baseless false allegations.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. I believe you need to correct yourself.

The poster actually said rapists. You then had to change it to sexual assaults, which covers a wide variety of sex based crimes up to and including forcible rape, to fit the argument you wanted to make. Just wanted to point that out.

David

[iverglas]

220. nah, I'll correct you

Where I'm at, there is no offence called "rape". There is sexual assault, in varying degrees. I find the continued use of the term "rape" to be a remnant of a patriarchal definition of women's experiences that I don't choose to adopt.


The poster actually said rapists. You then had to change it to sexual assaults, which covers a wide variety of sex based crimes up to and including forcible rape, to fit the argument you wanted to make. Just wanted to point that out.

What you pointed out is ... nothing.

The statement I responded to was:

Once a general comment is made -- "how do you defend yourself against rapists!?" (don't most rapists actually *use* guns to commit their crimes?), then it all becomes posturing and defensiveness.

The statement is false, although obviously wasn't made with any intent to mislead on a material point: most "rapists" do NOT use guns to commit their crimes. Most men who commit rape are individuals known to / trusted by their victims.

Your little fantasy:

How is a 115 lbs woman supposed to defend herself from a 260 lbs man who just got out of prison, where he worked out 10 hours a day?

notwithstanding.


I have some experience but I cannot defend myself or my wife against three 17 year old high school football players with a gun, if I don't have access to a firearm.

And unless you walk around the kitchen with that thing in your hands at all times, you're still not going to be able to, it would seem to me.

What's wrong with your wife? Don't got her own gun in her apron pocket at all times?


If you have a solution that can solve these problems, I'll be happy to listen.

You could try a good strong door and lock. Or maybe start working your ass off for a political party that will do something to actually keep firearms out of the hands of 17-yr-old high school football players and others likely to attempt to use them to cause harm.

Quelle idée!

Of course, you can also stop pretending that anyone anywhere ever claims to have anything that will "solve" any social problems.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

228. Nice non answers.

There isn't a party that will do something about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

235. Social problems can't be solved, your words not mine.

Seeing that you feel this way I know why you support the 2nd Amendment. Nice to have you on our side.

David

[iverglas]

236. I tell ya what

If you can't resist this urge to say false things about people, I'll volunteer to be your target.

Say all the false things about me you like. I'm used to it around here.


Social problems can't be solved, your words not mine.

Bzzt. False. Feeling better?


The rest of it, I'm sorry, didn't quite rise to the level of false. Just lame.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

237. You'll have to explain then.

You wrote, "Of course, you can also stop pretending that anyone anywhere ever claims to have anything that will "solve" any social problems."


Realize I'm just a dumb old fireman. But that (to me) reads that social problems can't be solved. I'll be happy to listen to your explanation.

David

[selador]

186. IGNORANT of facts

""how do you defend yourself against rapists!?" (don't most rapists actually *use* guns to commit their crimes?""

no, most rapists DON'T

never ceases to amaze me how people can construct arguments and not even get the most BASIC facts right

here's a hint. most rapes are NOT committed with guns. most rapists do NOT use guns to commit rape.

check your facts. THEN, form opinion

hth

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

209. A lot of forcible rapes are committed with weapons.

Even if no weapon is used. How is a 115 lbs woman supposed to defend herself from a 260 lbs man who just got out of prison, where he worked out 10 hours a day? For that matter how was the 60 year old local man supposed to defend himself and his wife when three juveniles with a firearm broke into his home? He wasn't they beat him with the gun, tied him up and then made him watch as they took turns raping his wife. I can handle myself pretty well, some military training, a little mixed martial arts training, a little boxing, a few fights here or there and a few occasions when a police officer was in need of assistance, so I have some experience but I cannot defend myself or my wife against three 17 year old high school football players with a gun, if I don't have access to a firearm. With which by the way I am extremely proficient whereas with my hands or edged weapons I am only moderately proficient. If you have a solution that can solve these problems, I'll be happy to listen.

David

[selador]

212. true dat

i was responding to a specific claim. that is false. the claim was that MOST rapes are committed with guns.

that is simply false. and easily proved to be such. that was my only point.

i don't disagree with anything you say here. i 100% support concealed carry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

213. Thanks for clarifying

[krispos42]

152. LOL

Oh, man, you need a mirror...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Which is better?

The NRA or your spiritual kin, a fascist who took away guns, back in the 1940's, in Europe? Instead of the NRA though I'll go with one of the many groups that filed briefs in support of Constitutional Rights, that aren't affiliated with the NRA. I thought liberals were for the Constitution, not just the parts they like. Keep being a hater though villager it's very becoming.

David

[-..__...]

75. Why pull any punches when you have them boxed in a corner?

Would you be as critical of "razed earth" rhetoric or polices if it were gay rights, minority rights or pro-choice activists seeking to advance their causes?

Quite frankly... the idea of debate in regards to the gun control issue is pretty much pointless if it is to include bans, regulations and compromises. Why? Because "compromise" is out of the question.

And FWIW... I am a long time NRA member.

And also FWIW... I'm extremely pissed about the NRA's earlier efforts to derail the Heller case.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. NRA and Heller

You write: 'And FWIW... I am a long time NRA member. And also FWIW... I'm extremely pissed about the NRA's earlier efforts to derail the Heller case.'

Another example of someone, not unlike critics of the Justice Department, who has no idea WHY or WHAT the NRA objected to in Heller.

[jody]

46. NO! That's what the Dem Party wants because we support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Support Self Government ..... Before All Other Rights

As s/he said "I'm sure that's exactly what you and your fellow NRA members hope."

[L1A1Rocker]

136. But still has the objective of reinstating the so called assault weapon ban

in the party platform. That must be removed!

[michreject]

57. I do

Regardless of your weak NRA assertion.

[-..__...]

74. Hope?

try praying for.

[smb]

17. Separated At Birth

Did Dubya teach these guys how to wipe their asses with the Constitution, or did they teach him?

[Speaker]

89. I'm thinking it's Mayor Fenty...

Who has a roll of Constitution paper on his bathroom wall.

[virginia mountainman]

26. LOL from the sound of DC's attorney on the Heller case...

They better get to planing their "Plan-B"

So far it sounds like he is getting his ass kicked...

[bossy22]

28. :)

[Speaker]

47. Yep

Dellinger got his nuts crushed.

Fenty is already wailing.

[L1A1Rocker]

201. Yeah!!!

[Traction311]

34. Dammit, there is no plan B!

Everyone in DC will finally be able to get a gun, no questions asked. Deal with it!

[northzax]

41. i give it six months

and then Congress will pass a law banning private firearms in the District. you really think they'ss be happy driving up Connecticut Ave from the White House when I am outside smoking and carrying a gun?

on the flip side, since force is all they recognize, maybe a legally armed DC will finally get the right to vote?

[Traction311]

43. I dunno...

You think a bill like that would even pass Congress? Would Bush sign it into law? Hilary? Obama? McLame? Even if it does get passed and signed, wouldn't it be struck down by the SC?

[northzax]

44. sure, the Supreme Court has readily stated

that the Constitution does not always apply to the residents of DC. (see: taxation without representation, control board, congressional oversight, etc) and when President Obama can't even ride in his limo without clearing the sidewalks of the rabble? something will change.

[ButterflyBlood]

54. That'd never pass Congress

Much of the Democratic majority in the House especially is made up of a pro-gun Democrats from rural districts. Also a federal ban would not be any more Constitutional in the eyes of any likely court ruling than the DC ban.

[virginia mountainman]

68. One problem with that...

LOL, The current congress, is the MOST pro-gun in the past 30 years.... The Senate is as well...

They have "almost" more than once, tossed the DC ban themselves, they held off this time, due to it going to the Supreme Court...

Ethier way, the DC gun ban will be dead, ethier the court will kill it, and if they don't the congress WILL.

[northzax]

69. until the first tourist gets killed

you think congressfolk actually want to live by the laws they pass for back home? Of course not, that's why they live here, and stay here after they leave office. There is a big difference between being pro-gun in Peoria and living in a heavily armed city of disenfranchised black people. You think they're going to allow open carry on the Mall? In sight of the Capitol? I work a block from the white house, think they'll let me open carry on my lunch break on Pennsylvania avenue? You have to assume that federal land is still off limits, as per federal law, and a large part of the city is actually federal land, how do you solve that? How about metro? Can I open carry on the train? The bus? Churches? Museums? I'm a bouncer, can I open carry at work?

[ButterflyBlood]

78. Carrying firearms and owning them are two completely different issues

DC would still prohibit carrying them in public undoubtedly even with the gun ban overturned. They simply couldn't prohibit ownership and possession in one's private residence.

[northzax]

99. but how do you get it TO your private residence?

I don't own a car, does that mean I need to have it FedExed to me? what if I take it to a shooting range to practice or get some sort of certification? all sorts of entertaining loopholes, no?

[ButterflyBlood]

102. Actually, you may have to have it FedExed to you in such a case

I'm not sure how explicit the law is in states on this, but it's an issue that's already brought up with other substances like alcohol. I don't have a permit to carry a gun, though I live in a state where you can legally do so with a permit. If I bought a gun and was caught with it returning home and used the excuse that I just bought it and the records and my receipt showed so, then I might get away with it. But if I claimed this after being caught with it a week later or so that certainly wouldn't work. The shooting range excuse might work if you both have a membership at the range in question and you are at a point on a logical route between your residence and the range. The point though is that simply allowing firearm ownership doesn't turn a state into a wild west-esque environment and there's no reason to not expect the same for DC. Frankly I'd be surprised if this affects firearm ownership in DC AT ALL, considering how easy it already is to get a gun there.

[dmallind]

106. All other cities with restrictions manage this easily

I can't carry a gun where I live either, but I can put it, locked and unloaded in a secure container, with separated ammo, in the trunk or furthest and most inaccessible part of my car, and I can carry it again in same condition, between my home and car and car and any place where firearms are used for practice, sold, or repaired. You lack the car, but you would still be covered as conveying it between residence and legal place of use. My gun bag even has a picture of a gun on it so it's obvious what I'm transporting and never been a problem at all. It would be in DC NOW of course, but we're talking hypotheticals and that's how other cities get around it. Some are very restrictive and sya you have to be on your way to range/gun shop or back and make no other stops, others let you carry any gun around in that kind of condition as long as you can say you plan to go to the range some time.

[jody]

109. What you describe is not having a handgun available for self-defense, the issue in DC v Heller. n/t

[dmallind]

110. No - it's not being able to CARRY one for self defense

I'm no lawyer but Heller isn't about carrying from what I see, but DC's ban on even OWNING the right to self defense in your own home.

I can, and people almost anywhere can, strap on a holster and walk around naked with a loaded Desert Eagle in my own house (trust me I don't!). The question was if guns were allowed how do I get around DC with one and the above is how non-CCW folks get around their towns with firearms restrictions with them in most places, because the laws allow for safe transportation for legitimat recreational purposes. Yes indeed they are not available for self defense on the street or at the restaurant, but that's the next step. Let's have capital-dwellers the right to actually have one in their house first.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. Nonsense

Do you even KNOW what the facts of Heller are?

Contrary to what you may have read in your NRA newsletter, you can own a gun in DC.

[EricTeri]

127. Really?

The district court didnt seem to think so, and it certainly looks like the USSC doesnt agree with you.

Sure, you CAN own one, but the processes involved to do so legally are so byzantine as to make ownership virtually illegal.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Huh?

You clearly have no understanding of or under what condition guns are allowed in DC as the law exists today.

No surprise. Heller has been a punching bag for the gun lobby since the beginning.

The 'processes involved'? Where do you folks come up with this sh*t?

Do you make it up as you go along?

EricTeri, you can own a gun in DC. Read the facts of the case and come back.

[EricTeri]

133. You can own the pieces of one

Assembling it into a working device can get you in a world of hurt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. That's Right

Took some time for you to look it up, but you are correct. You can own a gun in DC.

[EricTeri]

135. You cannot own a FUNCTIONAL firearm in DC

And a non-functional firearm is merely an expensive club.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. According to You

But of course, you are correct, a club is far less expensive and is far less likely to accidentally kill someone.

[EricTeri]

139. what the fuck are you talking about?

Are you even aware of your own city's laws?

Please, if we're all incorrect, and the law does allow someone to maintain a functional firearm in their home, by all means - TELL US HOW! You might want to let the USSC know how too because they didn't seem to be able to see any reasonable way it could be done and stay within the law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. That's Correct

DC allows you to have a 'nonfunctioning' gun.

If you do not like that, consider getting a club, which is far less expensive and much less likely to unintentionally kill someone.

[bossy22]

147. and which is

far less effective

[fightthegoodfightnow]

160. Why?

Says who? Are you speaking from personal experience? Didn't think so.

Put a baseball bat next to your locked door.

[selador]

223. a gun or a club

neither is more or less likely to unintentionally kill someone.

[L1A1Rocker]

225. So now you concede DC's law?

[L1A1Rocker]

224. No, according to DC law.

[L1A1Rocker]

137. Just not have an operable one in you home. Yea that makes sense, NOT

[dmallind]

151. So Heller is NOT about possession of HANDGUNS in the home?

It's about carrying instead? Cite if you would because that's never been the subject of any interchange I've heard so far on NPR etc.

[L1A1Rocker]

226. Kinda, here is the question that SCOTUS will decide.

Whetherr the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

One of those laws deals with keeping gunsdisassembledd, one deals with mandatory trigger locks, and the other deals with carrying a firearm within ones own home.

Hope that helps.

[ButterflyBlood]

35. DC should quit wasting their taxpayers money on the most worthless law ever

Seriously. The damn gun ban doesn't work. It should be blatantly obvious. Forget about it, let the SCOTUS strike it down, and move on to more practical and actually effective measures at reducing crime.

[Kolesar]

48. No, it's not blatantly obvious to me...eom

[ButterflyBlood]

53. LOL

DC's gun violence rate doesn't make it blatantly obvious that the gun ban isn't preventing guns from getting on the street?

Even more obvious is the fact that anyone can easily go 10 miles or less outside of the city and buy a gun in a neighboring state.

[Kolesar]

65. So that is what you were trying to say

My strength is energy policy and calculations.

[EricTeri]

128. WTF would it take to BE obvious to you? n/t

[Kolesar]

61. delete

wrong location

[Pavulon]

71. You mean address the cultural

and socio economic issues that drive gang violence and murder.

Oh wait, no they will take the lazy way out. Easier to keep the status quo.

[tachyon]

72. Definition of insanity. Keep doing the same thing hoping for different results.

:shrug:

[JCMach1]

79. Why not outlaw ammunition then? I don't remember anything in the constitution about that

[MaryCeleste]

80. Thats sort of like leaving abortion legal but banning clinics that perform it

A right is a right. It can within reason be moderated, but it excerzize can not be fundamentally banned.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. Like the Right to Representation in Your Government

....... you mean like that?

How about a voice in deciding who sits on a court that interprets YOUR Constitution and it's Second Amendment?

[EricTeri]

130. No, nothing like that

Try to stay on topic, would ya?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

132. You Mean Like This?

How about a voice in deciding who sits on a court that interprets YOUR Constitution and it's Second Amendment?

What part of the Second Amendment, the Constitution and/or the ability to have a vote in your own government that will hear a gun case are you opposed to?

[EricTeri]

141. Keep it on topic for a change would ya?

Its really fucking pathetic when you get right down to it. As soon as your tiny selection of almost-rational points has been exhausted and refuted, you throw out your usual "D.C. doesn't have representation" bullshit.

Grow up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Golly EricTeri

Sorry you have a problem with the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the rights of DC to self government or representation in your legislature who gets to decide who sits on the SCOTUS without any representation from DC.

What's BS is your statement that none of that has anything to do with this thread.

But heh, if you are going to put through that BS, here's one for you: how about we just outlaw bullets since you seem to think the issues are separate.

[EricTeri]

143. I have no problem with the Constitution

And i've already addressed the ammunition issue. Government has not been granted any authority to restrict the sale of it, and neither a state, nor the pissant city council of WDC, could forbid the sale of it without running afoul of the interstate commerce issue.

We really don't want to hear your bullshit about D.C. being a red-headed step-child when it comes to voting. You choose to live there, you can deal with the limitations.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Screwing Freedom in the Name of Guns

You write: 'We really don't want to hear your bullshit about D.C. being a red-headed step-child when it comes to voting. You choose to live there, you can deal with the limitations.'

Right............. if only King George (and I don't mean the current one) said the same thing to the colonists.

I don't give a sh*t what you care to hear. If you don't like my posts, use the ignore feature.

But heh, you keep telling me the right to self government is a 'red-headed step child' to your right to own a gun in a place you do not live.

Give me a f*cking break.

[MaryCeleste]

156. No, its accepting the consequences of your choices

I lived in DC for a year. We thought it would be great. It was not. In all fairness, DC was really at the bottom at the time. When our lease was up we left for better and cheaper places to live without oppressive taxes and unreasonable restriction on personal rights and freedoms. You have that same choice.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

161. Consequences?

What's really sad is you have no idea how pathetic you sound. I'm sure you think the disenfranchised have a choice on where they live and I'm sure you think all citizens in DC should simply move because they can afford to or have the opportunity to do so. What a privileged and cowardly life you have lived.

[sergeiAK]

217. Someone taking your side of the DC V. Heller argument

Posted that those in DC who didn't like the law (ie Heller), should just move. Do you agree?

[L1A1Rocker]

227. Laughing, not relevent to this thread.

[EricTeri]

129. Incorrect approach

You see anything in the Constitution granting government the authority to outlaw ammunition?

Remember, government can do only that which it is specifically permitted to do.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. Wrong

You write: 'Remember, government can do only that which it is specifically permitted to do.'

Too bad the 10th Amendment says otherwise.

[EricTeri]

153. Oh really?

Would you care to elaborate on how the following words give government the authority to do anything it wishes?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Go ahead - explain that one to us. In point of fact, the 10th Amendment quite firmly backs up my assertion that government may only do that which it is specifically permitted to do.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

162. Crazy

You wrote: 'Remember, government can do only that which it is specifically permitted to do."

HOGWASH. Read the 10th Amendment

You now respond: Would you care to elaborate on how the following words give government the authority to do anything it wishes? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Go ahead - explain that one to us. In point of fact, the 10th Amendment quite firmly backs up my assertion that government may only do that which it is specifically permitted to do.'

WOW. You can actually read the Amendment I sent you to. I'm impressed. I stated that the 10th Amendment gives powers not enumerated to the federal government to the States. See that means they have the ability to make any law the federal government cannot. You point to where it SPECIFICALLY (your word) says the government .... oh.....gosh......let's go with government's authority to set EPA emission standards. Of course, constitutional law interpreted over decades allows them to do so, but you will not see that specifically (the EPA) mentioned in the Constitution.

[L1A1Rocker]

229. Are you serious?! Text of the 10th specifically limits the Feds. You deni this?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[rocktivity]

91. This "revision of their statutes" is scheduled to begin March 24

D.C. Seeks Consent To Search for Guns

...Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns...

...(In) the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington...(o)fficers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other...sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast...

That is, they are going to presume people guilty of illegally possessing firearms on the grounds that they live in certain neighborhoods, and request that they "prove" their innocence by allowing their homes to be searched with neither probable cause nor a warrant!
More

:crazy:
rocknation

[ButterflyBlood]

94. Also blatantly unconstitutional

The scary thing though is how many "liberals" are going to defend this if implemented.

[smb]

104. Crap On One Amendment, Might As Well Crap On 'Em All

Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment... they all sort of blur together as they spin by on Fenty and Lanier's custom-printed toilet-paper rolls....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. What's Crap Is

.........disenfranchising over a half million people and denying them representation in your government to make laws and to appoint judges to hear disputes and then listen to you pontificate about 'your' gun rights being violated.

Talk about crap.

[slackmaster]

113. This case is about something much bigger than DC's draconian handgun laws

It's likely to settle, at least for many of us, the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Nonsense

Notice how you failed to respond to anything substanative to any remark I made.

As for 'settling' the 'right to keep and bear arms,' I suspect you are overshooting... no pun intended. No matter what the ruling, it's not going to settle anything until the people have a voice in their government. Is that too 'draconian' of an idea for you?

[slackmaster]

115. You're just trying to 'jack this thread into another of your "we're so disenfranchised" whines

:D

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Not Unlike YOU Whining about YOUR Rights Being Violated Someplace You Don't Even Live

Give me a f*cking break.

My respect for your interpretation of your gun rights is over-shadowed only by your contempt for ANY AND ALL of my civil rights.

[slackmaster]

117. I'll play a tune for you

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Yea......that's About What I've Come to Expect from You

Your government, your courts, your legislature and your laws are enacted, interpreted and enforced without the consent of the people.

Too bad you couldn't simply say that is bad. I might have had more respect for your so-called, self professed gun 'rights' being violated.

[slackmaster]

119. I think you enjoy playing the role of an oppressed person

You do it very well BTW.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Not Unlike You Whining about YOUR Gun Rights Being Violated Someplace You Don't Even Live

Not Unlike You Whining about YOUR Gun Rights Being Violated Someplace You Don't Even Live

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

150. Not unlike you whining about your rights being violated when you chose to live there

[fightthegoodfightnow]

158. Choose to Live

Wow.... isn't that a novel idea in America!!!

You get to chose where you live? Really? But to do that you have to give up the right to vote? You mean I should have to give up my job, sell my home, find a new job that pays the taxes I already pay all so you can tell me how to get the right to vote. I'm reminded of the 60s rant from Cons who said "if you don't love it, leave it." Just never thought I'd hear that sh*t on a DU board.

Gosh, too bad the colonists didn't just tell King George (the original one, not the modern one), if you don't like the colonies, move.

Too bad todays' King George didn't just tell the Iraqi's that if they don't like Saddam, they should move.

I'll give your gun rights the same consideration you give to ALL of my rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

166. Why the double standard?

So it's not alright to limit your constitutional rights in regards to taxation without representation, but it is okay to limit one's constitutional rights in regards to firearms. I think you just made a pro-gun argument. Glad to know you are on our side now.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

167. Difference Is Simple

My local government has my participation through the form of a legislation elected by the people unlike your government.

Our DC gun laws were done with the consent of our people.

None of your federal gun laws were enacted with the consent of ALL the people they cover.

It's called disenfranchisement. Get it now?

I'll leave you to once again come to an erroneous conclusion that I've made any pro-gun argument. It only shows what you do know.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. Your gun laws.

So Heller consented to your gun laws? Why did he sue then? Do you think that everyone, aside from the residents of DC, consented to the Patriot Act? Just because a law is passed, with or without the consent of the people, does that make it legal? If so then the residents of Mississippi need to overturn a lot of civil rights legislation. Since statehood is clearly out of the question, what do you propose to fix this disenfranchisement? I look forward to your answers. Have a nice day.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

172. Heller Voted

WHEN and I mean WHEN Dick Heller lived in DC, he voted for a member of City Council and a Mayor all of whom voted for the law or had an opportunity to repeal the law. Not one city council member has introduced any measure to repeal.

In addition, Dick Heller also had the opportunity to initiate a repeal of the law through a referendum. Instead, I believe he moved to Florida.

Instead, he opted for judicial activism and the hope YOUR courts, chosen by YOUR representative, would make or interpret YOUR constitution in a place we have NO vote or representation in.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. As was his Right.

As a citizen of the United States he had the right to attempt to get a referendum on the ballot, may have been time and cost prohibitive. He also had the right to pursue redress in a court of law. He chose the latter. I personally don't have a problem with citizens having legal recourse when they feel they have been wronged.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

179. Sure

You write: 'As a citizen of the United States he had the right to attempt to get a referendum on the ballot, may have been time and cost prohibitive.'

Actually, no, he has that right as a citizen of the District of Columbia because that is the law that allows for a referendum. There is no federal referendum option available to US citizens regarding US law.

If he has a right 'as a citizen of the United States' to get something on the ballot, do you think he should also have the right to actually........ vote.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

182. Sorry

I misstated my point he has, a resident of DC, the right to a referendum. As a citizen of the US he has the right to go to court. He chose to go to court. No big deal.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

184. Choosing to Go to Courts

You are correct.

He could have chosen to start a referendum. He did not.

He chose to go to a court that was chosen not by the very people it's ruling impacts.

That to me .... is a big deal.

Such is the looney toons of living in the supposed greatest Republic in the world. The reliance on judicial activism rather than the rights of the people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. Federal Courts are never chosen by the people.

Couldn't the same argument be made of anyone filing a suit in Federal Court?


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

190. Federal Court Appointments Come with the Advice and Consent of the US Senate

...... where we have no voting representative.

Federal court rulings regarding DC gun laws lack legitimacy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

193. Do you know if that argument was made?

Seems like a good one. Argue that the federal court has no jurisdiction to rule on DC's laws. At least it would press the issue. It's better than some of the other arguments I read in the briefs in favor of the gun ban. I was only stating though that some judges are in fact elected by the people directly, federal court judges are appointed and this administration has done it without the advice and consent of the Senate.


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

194. Yes....

.... I believe so.

I believe one of the arguments presented by DC was that the District is unique and unlike a state. I also believe that is one of many reasons the SCOTUS can make a very narrow ruling specific to DC without impacting other jurisdictions, although in recent weeks, that seems increasingly unlikely (just my crystal ball).

.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. You may be surprised.

I'm not as sure as some on here in regards to their confidence in the Supreme Courts tossing out every gun law. This Court has at times narrowly construed it's opinions. We'll see what happens.


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

198. I Agree

Tradition suggests they typically make very narrow rulings.

I do think it will be sent back to the lower court, because the lower court made what has been characterized by legal analysts on both sides as being a poorly written legal argument (without regard to the real merits of either side).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

199. In Fact the Dissent in the US Court of Appeals Regarding Heller Said

In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:

"To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.'

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

206. Well that's really the argument

Is it a militia issue or an individual right? I do expect we will get an answer to that argument. I could see though that if it's not deemed to be an individual right, since the District isn't a state, therefore it's residents aren't a member of a formal or informal militia, that the law could stand. A lot of ifs though. You know fight. We are on opposite sides of this issue, but you have acquitted yourself well in this argument. You might persuade more people if you toned down the rhetoric sometimes, I know you are passionate about this issue, it just often comes across over the top. I don't mean to criticize, though. It has been a pleasant discussion. My only disagreement with you is this. We agree that different places have different needs. I do believe though that law abiding citizens should if they choose have the ability to use a firearm for defense of self or others inside their home. I believe, from what I've read, the Districts current law deprives people of that ability. Having worked in high crime areas, the projects and low income housing, I know about the effects of gun violence. I truly don't have a problem with reasonable restrictions, you and I probably disagree on what's reasonable but we do have common ground. No one on either side desires for innocent people to die. You don't rejoice every time innocent victims die without the means to defend themselves and we don't rejoice when someone accidently shoots a child with an improperly stored firearm. We aren't monsters simply people with different experiences. I appreciate your thoughtful input and recognize that you have different experiences which have caused you to come to different conclusions to how a problem might be solved. We can learn from each other if we'll quit shouting at each other long enough to listen. Thanks for the pleasant discussion.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

208. Agree

Thank you for your reasoned remarks and feedback on my delivery, which I will take seriously, given the respect you have shown me and the issues and concerns I have raised. Even though we disagree on much regarding guns, we agree on a lot as well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

210. Thank you

[L1A1Rocker]

200. Good for him.

Makes me proud to be an American.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

173. I'll Let You Know

........ after we are given the chance to vote.

My guess is that by then it won't be YOUR courts interpreting the Constitution, but OUR courts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. When?

When will that be? How will that work?

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

178. New Columbia

The people of DC elected to have a Constitutional convention to write a proposed state constitution in the early 80s. After the constitutional convention, it was affirmed by the voters of DC.

There are two ways a state can enter the union and neither the states nor Congress have heard our appeals or allowed us to join.

We are "New Columbia."

One day our future state may enact gun legislation and when it does, then the merits and constitutionality of those gun laws can be argued before SCOTUS with the legitimacy it lacks today.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

183. Don't see it happening.

I would think it would be easier to align with a border state in regards to representation. Seems mutually beneficial to me. That State gets more representation in Congress and the residents of DC are no longer disenfranchised. As it stands now though I don't believe the Constitution ceases to exist when a citizen enters the District. The District also receives more than it's share of federal funds, which makes the issue a little stickier. I just don't see the District being granted statehood.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

188. I'll Try to Keep on Point

.........so this thread doesn't get deleted and stays on topic regarding guns.

Gun laws in DC are different from gun laws in Maryland and Virginia and for good reasons. We have unique and different needs.

Neither Virginia nor Maryland want DC to be part of THEIR state. Both legislatures have rejected the notion. And certainly, the citizens of DC think our right to representation means WE have "more' representation, since WE are the ones being denied any and all representation and not Maryland or Virginia.

DC gets less than 5% of it's budget from the federal government and that is for DIRECT services like road maintenance, fire safety and police support. Unfortunately, they CONTROL how we spend 100% of our budget, including the remaining 95% we raise from our own taxes. If we want to fund abortions, gun give-aways, condoms, needle exchanges, or whatever, Congress can redirect those funds from our local taxes any way they want.

As for federal jurisdiction, our laws can be exempt from federal buildings not unlike how they are for federal buildings in states. Over 100 embassies in DC are already exempt from both federal and state laws, including laws regarding guns, as foreign land.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. Thanks

Ok I better understand the plight of the residents of DC. I was in the hospital there for 2 months and spent a lot of my young life in DC. In regards to Gun Laws though, I agree that different places have different needs. So after the Supreme Court rules, might be in DC's favor but say it doesn't, then the duly elected representatives of the District will have to come up with a way to suit the distinct needs of the District while complying with the Constitution. I realize that's clearly not the ideal situation as you see it. It will ensure the Constitutional protection of the citizens of DC in regards to at least the 2nd amendment and that's a good thing. May be a pain in the ass to come up with new laws, it always is, but that's the way things work.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

192. But Will You Write Your Member of Congress?

Your representative will listen to you before me. Please write him or her regarding our plight.

DC will do the right thing regarding our gun laws, unlike the unfulfilled promise of this country being a republic or a democracy. It's neither.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

195. They're all republicans.

I will look more seriously at the issue though. Thanks for all the information.


David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

197. Thanks for the Support

... and good luck with your revolution in getting Democrats elected.

Ironically, by federal law, DC is required to have two members of our city council be elected from a 'non-majority' party. It was the GOP attempt to legislate them being in office in DC. More tyranny. Not to worry..... DC got around that by starting the DC Statehood Party now associated with the Green Party. We used to have two GOP members....one Jewish and one gay. The gay one changed parties after being denied a delegate slot to the last GOP convention.

But to stay on topic....... DC gun laws must have the support of the DC people and federal laws must have the support and consent through representation of ALL of the citizens of the US.

[L1A1Rocker]

234. Wow! Two posts up and it's almost word for word whine.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Must Be Easy for You to Mock the Very Principles for which Our Government was Founded

........ while wrapping yourself in the clock of your Constitution.

Gun rights?

Give me a break.

[EricTeri]

155. Mayor Fenty, is that you? N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Wayne LaPierre, is that you? N/T

[L1A1Rocker]

233. And that's what we've all come to expect from you.

[L1A1Rocker]

232. Laughing at the nonsense

of the same old, same old.

[L1A1Rocker]

231. That's because

you didn't say anything substanative.

[L1A1Rocker]

230. Laughing. Same old same old.

[Boomer 50]

154. I'm glad DC is doing this

After all the news coverage this is getting, DC has just assured that SCOTUS is going to rule even more broadly and with more force than previously conceived.

Keep up the good work Fenty!!! You are doing more for 2nd Amendment rights than the NRA has ever conceived of doing!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

163. SCOTUS to Rule More Broadly Based on News Reports?

Clueless. Really clueless.

[L1A1Rocker]

165. What news reports? Oh . . .and YEAH!!!

[L1A1Rocker]

216. Still waiting on those reports you mentioned there FTGF.

[Boomer 50]

211. I suggest that you study the history of the Court

It wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

[Tejas]

239. Yes, Fenty & Helmke with their own

version of "THE BIGGEST LOSER".

Who can tromp on the BOR the hardest, which one can insert their foot in mouth not only deepest but numerous times?

Check your local listings for show times.

[L1A1Rocker]

164. I agree with that 100%

First let me say that I am confident SCOTUS is going to affirm the 2A as an individual right. What I'm not sure on is what they are going to allow as "reasonable restriction".

That said I am very glad that Fenty is making such a public exhibition of what his plans are. I have two points on that: 1) that it MAY anger those on the court to make an even broader ruling that were already inclined to a broad ruling (face it SCOTUS judges are human after all) and 2) It WILL make the judges review their written ruling with a very critical eye to make sure there is NO wiggle room around there ruling.

Thank you Mayor Fenty.