digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

CONTINUED Gun Control from DC Authorities

foxnews.com — The DC Council plans to vote today on legislation to allow handguns, but only for self-defense in the home with a max mag capacity of 12. There are other restrictions - see article.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+91Note this legislation will 'still require all legal firearms — including handguns, rifles and shotguns — to be kept in the home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks. There would be an exception for guns used against the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm." '

    So . . . any hoplophobic prosecutorial zealot can second guess the firearms owner. "And how did you justify having this firearm assembled and loaded, Mr. Jones? What was the immediate threat? What do you mean you live in a high crime neighborhood? Had someone come through your door in the last minute? If not, again, sir, what was the immediate threat? Your Honor, we recommend a ten year sentence for this evil man."

    Don't believe it? Look at the NJ man facing a 3 year jail term for the "dangerous" unregistered BB gun in his car, or the 12 year old kid who was the first victim charged under massholia's registration scheme, likewise for an unregistered BB gun. Think of the crusade Nifong waged against three young men he *knew* were innocent - the kerry / obambi types are no better.

    The Heller decision was important, a battle we had to win, but the leftist totalitarians will continue to resist this Constitutional right. Like the segregationists of the late 1950s, they will resist however they can because they simply "know" they are "right." HOWEVER, unlike the judiciary of the earlier era, today's Federal bench is liberally riddled with the cancer of elitists who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench by interpreting the law in a "progressive" way.

    Heller was but the opening skirmish of the campaign. Many more innocents will be victimized by these insufferably arrogant leftist vermin and their disdain for the average person.
    • allisonrose870, on 07/15/2008, -3/+23You give the Federal bench too much credit my friend! The Judiciary is charged with interpreting the law, yes. However, that is the one thing the Fed bench is not doing as it renders the decisions of an appointed few. Like you said, they are taking it upon themselves to legislate, not interpret - the exact role they are designed to perform as explicitly and simply stated by our Constitution.

      These unelected elitists' have unabashedly substituted their opinions for the Rule of Law. Interpretation is no longer necessary for these secular progressive socialist elitists and they have basically resigned themselves to handing down rulings that are both unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. And the Congress either looks the other way or facilitates their reckless ways - compromising their obligations, virtue, and honor to the people and the Constitution.





    • ssn697, on 07/15/2008, -0/+21I can envision your second paragraph as a guideline questioning document for every DC gun case. They would use it as a deterrent, for "getting your guns back" or some such nonsense.

      DC is going to do whatever they can to punish their citizens over this ruling. No doubt in my mind.
  • atmenterprises, on 07/15/2008, -1/+49I don't believe the constitution dictates what KIND of means we can use to defend ourselves, right? Does this mean that legislation will have to be introduced to further restrict the type of "legal" firearms we can possess?
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+37Forever how long as they can (likely until challenged in court), undoubtedly other municipalities / states will cling to the restrictions they have rather than bring them into conformance with Heller. Simultaneously, they will enact additional restrictions (which may / may not stand review) which push the limits of Heller. This is an elitist issue. Just as 70 - 80% of the nation are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens and want our southern border sealed, a similar percentage support firearms civil rights. Few in the upper levels of the media, politics and judiciary share those views and will use their control to choke off such demands.
    • BECoole, on 07/15/2008, -1/+29The Constitution says that the people should keep arms that are suitable for Militia use. That means handguns, carbines, rifles, shotguns, and, oh te noes!, Machineguns!
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+16ABSOLUTELY, my friend. We will, however, have to work our way through this. The enemy has had forty years to attack this most essential of rights - seventy-four if you count from fdr's revenuer re-employment legislation (NFA 1934) - and it will take at least that long to root out the evil. It was a good 90 years before civil rights for people of color began to gain traction with the Brown decision, and this one is nowhere near as forceful as that one.
    • OwdenBowden, on 07/15/2008, -2/+16It already has been introduced and used by the anti-American gun control lobby. Do you remember the ban on Assault weapons? The controlling of Amo purchasing?

      I am sick of this *****. I live in NYC and it is impossible (being a law abiding citizen) to get a license (exercise your rights) let alone a weapon. You are not allowed to "defend Yourself" in this country anymore and that scares the crap out of me.

      My advice for all:

      Load up on every and all weapons you can.
      Exercise your rights (even if you don't like the right - Use it or lose it).
      Get Up; Stand Up; and never back down.
    • MarkusGarvey, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5wouldn't they have to amend the Constitution if the wanted to specify the types of firearms you could own?...it seems like the ban on assault weapons should be unconstitutional...how do you defend your country and your rights with a pea shooter?...
  • Gandalff, on 07/15/2008, -1/+55Why did they even uphold the 2nd amendment, case specific in Washington DC if they are not going to follow through. I say drag them back in front of the Supremes and let them give the legislators a good thrashing.

    Get it right or not at all ! ! !
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -0/+16There are two groups at work here. The Supremes did, by the thinnest of margins, uphold the 2nd. But the DC government (with their fellow travelers such as mike bombast in NYC and dickwad daley) will do all they can to impede the pendulum swinging against their elitist schemes.
  • BECoole, on 07/15/2008, -2/+46How are you supposed to transport a weapon from the gunshop to your house under a law like that? Does that make it de facto illegal to take it to a range for practice?
    • wardawg31, on 07/15/2008, -0/+31It is something similar to what happened to a local firework store in my area. The store was located on the state line. The exit of the parking lot was in the opposite state. The opposing state threatened to arrest anyone leaving the parking lot with the fireworks in their car for illegal transportation.

      Thankfully, it was resolved but it shows how far the government can and will go to restrict our personal liberties.

      Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine
  • dawalker, on 07/15/2008, -4/+52All any American has to do is look to England to see the results of allowing criminals to run rampant, which is what gun controls would result in. Worse, you see a society so castrated that they think those who kill to defend themselves have committed a worse crime than the murderer or thief they defend themselves against. And it isn't confined to guns. One of the articles below refers to incidents of self-defense with a cane and a piece of iron - both the victims were prosecuted. Not only is self-defense railed against, the leftist madmen rail against imprisonment for criminals as well.
    The Obama phenomena is foreboding on many levels, but perhaps the most insidious is this reverence for the collective over the individual. Depriving citizens of guns is only one small aspect of that mentality.


    A Second Hand Conjecture » Home & Land Defense
    http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2008/02 ...

    Self-defense no longer a British hallmark - Opinion
    http://tinyurl.com/6y6haa

    A PC produced death for society — New England Republican
    http://tinyurl.com/5cw86j

    Amazon.co.uk: A Land Fit for Criminals: An Insider's View of Crime, Punishment and Justice in the UK: David Fraser: Books
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Land-Fit-Criminals-Insider ...

  • SuperVepr308, on 07/15/2008, -1/+38Sore losers and they are acting like it. Why are these idiots so bound and determined to make sure people that respect the law are unarmed while criminals can have whatever they want? My mind is just boggled by this ***** up mentality. Thank God I live in South Carolina (buy what you want and carry it).
    • groverblue, on 07/15/2008, -0/+16it's to protect the politicians, not the people.
    • eengineer, on 07/15/2008, -0/+10If Americans are all allowed to carry guns then they could in theory revolt. We can't have that. Whats best for us is to give the government more and more of our income and argue amongst ourselves who we want to represent us, the Reps or the Dems (neither wants whats good for you, nor does either care about you).
  • BillE3, on 07/15/2008, -1/+35Read the article yesterday in the UK, the PM publicly admitted that the citizens of England feel much less safe in the now than they ever did. The rate of violent crimes agaisnt people has skyrocketed, mostly attacks with knives. They even tried a stupid law requiring the knive wielding criminals to visit the vicitms in the hospitals! This is a direct result of draconian all out gun bans for the law abiding public. Even the shooting clubs relocated to the continent at various gun friendly countries.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+18One would think even the dunderheads of the ruling elite in the UK would see they had gone too far when their Olympic shooters have to go across the Channel to the Netherlands to practice!

      I remember how my father told of how he responded to Churchill's pleas after Dunkirk by sending the two bolt action .30-06 rifles he had to help arm the British Home Guard because of the paucity of firearms in the populace. Today, the Brits are even more helpless at a local level. It is tragic to think the descendants of the courageous Englishmen who wrote the Magna Carta and founded the widest commercial / military empire the world has ever known have become such willing sheep.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 07/15/2008, -1/+32All Hail the new monarchy, all hail the lords and ladies of the royalty. I am waiting for the coronation of King Barack Hussein Obama. I am sure that Lady Pelosi and Lord Reid will be in attendance. Following the coronation all Ladies and Lords are invited to a banquet paid for by the peasants and serfs of the realm. These liberal elitists are beginning to make me sick. Vote the whole bunch out, Regime change in 2008.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -0/+13DR, your stomach is far stronger than my own . . . I felt the first stirrings of nausea when lbj was preaching his "Great" Society programs . . . compare that to obie's propaganda, btw. Now I have a violently allergic reaction to these vermin.
  • TYRONEBR549, on 07/15/2008, -1/+28I wonder why the bodyguards of these same legislators carry weapons? Could it be that these people only care for themselves and not for the average citizen that has to walk the streets alone and emptyhanded? You can bet that the criminals are not. Does anybody wonder why D.C. is one of the leading crime capitals of the world. Maybe they should have to just carry brooms too.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+17This is why I am one of many who characterize them as elitists. The average person will never live in a gated community protected by private security guards, much less have an entourage which includes bodyguards. These restrictions don't affect these arrogant snots . . . they are, in fact, no different than the Marie Antoinette who suggested the starving masses eat cake if they could not find bread. Corrective action similar to that of the French Revolution would not be amiss today, either.
      • isparadiselost, on 07/15/2008, -1/+12"Corrective action similar to that of the French Revolution would not be amiss today, either. "

        Actually, I believe it is called for.
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+12I'm leaning in that ^^ direction, sir. I await the results in November before making a final decision on this, however.
      • TYRONEBR549, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4And the drums get louder...
      • Nannybell, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4You guys better not be beating on any drums like you are suggesting, because Big Bro. will vaporize you if you do. That would not be a good thing.
  • maz2331, on 07/15/2008, -1/+20You can bet on them trying to go too far in ignoring the ruling, and getting slammed for it. I doubt DC will hit the Supremes again for a long time, but the Circuit Court is really hot to knock them back.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -0/+11Ah, but this depends mightily on the Circuit!

      In the Fifth, absolutely . . . but among the gibbering idiots of the Ninth ‽ ‽ ‽
  • isparadiselost, on 07/15/2008, -1/+20If you read the decision handed down by the SCrOTUmS, you'll realize it was in no way a victory for those hold to Constitutional tenets. It is riddled with language that can be interpreted to be very negative towards the 2nd amendment.

    Based on history, eventually they WILL come for our guns. We will either react as our forefathers did or will end up like other communist regimes - massive population purges. For you JBT who think you're bad asses, you'll be among the first to go. They always get rid of the ones who helped them attain power. They figure if you'll turn on your fellow peasants, you'll turn on them as well.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12It *was* a victory of sorts . . . the court did make it clear it is an individual right (DOH !), thus removing one fallacious argument which the hoplophobes used all too frequently.

      But otherwise you are entirely correct - it was such a narrow decision with so many hooks where the elitist maggots could hang draconian restrictions, requiring expensive further legal action against haughty officials with bottomless pockets from their power of taxation, it really was *NOT* cause for the jubilation I've seen.
  • badthing, on 07/15/2008, -11/+2I see it as protecting children from being killed when they oftentimes get their hands upon these weapons.

    I am still awaiting my visionary version of the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
    • Salesti, on 07/15/2008, -0/+10Actually, that is a RARE occurrence! More kids are injured or killed in car accidents, and more from domestic violence. Far *more* people would be dead if their guns (means of self-defense) were taken from them. BTW, *many* of the people who use firearms in self-defense don't even have to fire -- the crooks get a clue and flee.
      It's a nice thought that we could protect youngsters by restricting gun ownership, but it isn't what works. The children of careless people will always be at a greater risk, regardless of what's on hand to harm them.
    • Coolkid11, on 07/15/2008, -0/+11Yeah we should also outlaw swimming pools because 1000 times more kids die from drowning than from accidently shooting themselves.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/15/2008, -4/+16Other restrictions they are considering:

    Guns may be used in self-defense in the home, only on days beginning with T, in months ending in Y, and only if the date, itself, is a prime number. If these requirements aren't met, then just sit back and at least try to enjoy your rape/beating/robbery.

    When will DC learn, the city is a *****, and it's got nothing to do with gun rights.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/15/2008, -19/+3Reversing the gun ban was a mistake in the first place...Hopefully, more cities and states will pass tough gun control laws
    • Salesti, on 07/15/2008, -1/+10HAH! One of DuggDowner's alter-egos!
      I seeeee you!
  • Hetman, on 07/15/2008, -2/+20Hopefully Chicago will be the next. Downtown Chicago is a gun free zone, and it is completly uncostitutional.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+15And not especially safe after dark . . . .
    • DuggDowner, on 07/15/2008, -12/+2Without another Supreme Court decision, Chicago's gun ban is perfectly legal.
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13Now that is an interesting interpretation of the Heller decision, but any 1L ConLaw student would chop it to bits. The current draconian restrictions in Chicago and its 'burbs (e.g., Mortons Grove) will not stand a challenge under the holding in Heller.
      • DuggDowner, on 07/15/2008, -10/+2Any 1L would know that a Constitutional decision regarding the rights of the citizens of Washington DC does not apply to the states. A seperate Court ruling is needed to expand the Heller decision to the states. I'm not suprised you are ignorant of the legal system since you are ignorant about every other aspect of America.
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7Hey, dumb and dumber, when you move up to high school civics, remember to ask your teacher if the US Constitution applies differently to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. than it does to the fifty states.

        /* rolls eyes
      • LastVisibleDog, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2When it comes to stupid comments - nobody beats DuggDowner

        I have never seen anybody flaunt their ignorance more than DuggDowner
      • DuggDowner, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Hey Iconoclast, I highly recommend you take a class on the Constitution. In 1833 the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and not to the government of any state. It wasn't until after the 14th Amendment was drafted that the Supreme Court began to extend the Bill of Rights to the states. This is called the Doctrine of Incorporation. Because Washington DC is not a state, the Doctrine of Incorporation cannot apply. Instead, the Bill of Rights is applied to DC through the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment. It is because of this difference the Heller decision does not apply to the states. In order for a Supreme Court decision to apply to both the states and the District of Columbia a companion case must be ruled on (See Brown vs. Board of Education which desegregated state public schools, while its companion case Bolling vs. Sharpe desegregated public schools in the District of Columbia).

        Of course I don't expect Icon and his flunky LostDog to understand anything about the Constitution and how it operates. They hate America and revel in their ignorance. So keep on digging me down, but know that you are as wrong on this issue as you are on every other one.
  • Coolkid11, on 07/15/2008, -0/+14How come in areas where there are guns bans the crime rate is extremely high? Washington D.C. has one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. and so does downtown Chicago. Both have bans on guns. Shouldn't the crime rate in those areas be virtually zero? The problem is that pro and anti-gun control groups only look at one variable. You can't say "Guns were banned in Europe and the crime rate is much less, so let's outlaw guns in the U.S." because it's much more complicated than just that. America has problems with gangs so whether we outlaw guns or not, gangs will still have large numbers of members because of how far we are taking the prohibition on drugs. Switzerland has one of the lowest violence rates in the world. Yet, most people have guns. Norway has no guns, and it too, is also peaceful. Why? Because of many other variables besides just guns. The point is prohibiting guns really can't end violence, only gun violence. Criminals will still use guns while law abiding citizens are left defenseless. We need guns in America because it's part of our culture, and to resist the real criminals, those who compromise our liberty for more power.
    • Hetman, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5I agree. The war on drugs create's the opposite outcome of what it was designed to do. All it does is allow criminals to have a steady supply of money. If prohibition on drugs was ended violence would decrease drastically in this country. All the drug war does is empower criminals.
    • Qong, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Great points.

      I don't have statistics, but there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of crimes committed with firearms of any type are directly associated with drugs. Either the person is involved in the drug business, or the person wants drugs and is doing whatever they have to do to get them, e.g. robbing someone.

      If the "war" on drugs was reversed it would do nothing but good for our country. Crime would fall and the drug business would come into the main stream where it belongs; thus allowing honest, hard working Americans to profit from it.

      I believe in individual freedom, so if someone wants to do drugs, then they should be free to do drugs legally and I should be free to associate myself with businesses providing those drugs to the people that want them.
  • wishninja, on 07/15/2008, -4/+14Librals running crazy. Why does it matter if there are 12 or 20 bullets in the gun?
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -3/+8Not to be a pedantic PITA, but calling the cartridges "bullets" is something which is typical of hoplophobic leftist drones, just as they insist on classifying any semi-automatic shoulder arm as an "assault rifle." The projectiles are "bullets," the assembly of projectile, propellant, primer and casing (if any) makes a "cartridge."

      And you are entirely correct, what difference, except in the foil-covered point at the top of a leftist's skull, does the number of rounds in the magazine make? I suspect with DC, they are trying to do something which will preclude semi-auto handguns, or at least those with "high capacity" magazines, as in the 1994 "AWB" legislation.

      • gbudavid, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4I was taught to call them "rounds"
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5This is the generic term the military uses for communication about all ammunition types. Look at the nomenclature on the small arms packaging, though "(number) Cartridges" followed by the type and M numbers.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/15/2008, -12/+3When I don't have my 10 inch Desert Eagle on me, I am sooooo scared!

    • IconoclastStill, on 07/15/2008, -1/+9Smear the slide with K-Y jelly and you can carry it concealed next to your ear.
      • Stevanoski, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7he may be using one of those magnifing mirrors too.
  • BlueSkyfish, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3How come there wasn't this much of an uproar when the first amendment died?
  • proliance, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

    If my weapon is disassembled, I cannot bear it as an arm. That is an infringement.
  • Minarchian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9DC actually has a law that says any weapon capable of loading more than 12 bullets is classified as a "machine gun".

    Ya, I know. Completely and utterly preposterous and insane. But we're dealing with truly insane people in the leadership in DC

    I can see this now law going right back to the SCOTUS.
  • GWBARNHOUSE, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8Psychiatrists have done studies on the liberal mind. It is different. They use different parts of the brain. There are some observations the average, normal person can make. )1 a self perceived elitism and intellectual superiority 2) a paternalism that develops into a passion for controlling other people
    3) a dedication to the idea of equality that always involves into the Robin Hood principle that also doesn't cost them anything---it always involves someone else's money 4) they never give up---even from the grave they try to control people///CONTROL FREAKS
    ======================
    Conservatives would do well to step back and let liberals have complete control. After they have ground themselves and everything else into powder conservatives could use the free enterprise system to rebuild because we the optimism to take a pile of ashes and make something glorious.
    =======================
    What is their focus on someone else's gun? They evidently get some kind of thrill forcing their agenda on other people. This must be the thrill that runs up their leg.
  • rjwusa, on 07/16/2008, -3/+11When will the leftists realize that the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights placed the Second Amendment in the document as a protection against government tyranny? That would include a government led by America hating liberals, leftists and RINOs. Smart guys, the founding fathers were. They can try to control guns all they want. I guess the left will make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Thus, the necessity for guns.
    • Minarchian, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4"the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights placed the Second Amendment in the document as a protection against government tyranny"

      And therein lies the reasons for gun control laws.

      It's tyranny they want, and guns are in the way.
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3"And therein lies the reasons for gun control laws."

        ABSOLUTELY !! In fact, the very first laws denying firearms to Americans on spurious grounds were enacted in the post-Civil War South, to keep the former slaves from exercising their rights as free citizens.
  • Qong, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Why are the citizens of DC electing these Totalitarian leaders?

    Wait a second: The citizens electing these people are the very same citizens that have turned our nation's capital into a crime-ridden wasteland.

    Criminals electing criminals, law abiding citizens being turned into the new "criminals."

    What a strange world we live in...
    • GWBARNHOUSE, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5You are right, Qong, the best thing to do with these bums is throw them out.
      • Minarchian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Not just throw them out, but throw them out with prejudice. Never able to hold a public office again.
  • RudolphtheRed, on 07/16/2008, -5/+0BLAH BLAH BLAH [SENSATIONALIST COMMENT]
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Thank you so very much for presenting the core logical and rational arguments in favor of restrictions on the Second Amendment and while your statements are purely a regurgitation of the usual drivel, they are duly noted.
  • bosssmiley, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Quick question: what good reason can anyone offer me for having a gun larger than a 12 shot sidearm in A CITY?

    Washington DC is not Alaska, or the Mountain States. You don't *need* longarms to hunt the big game, because there isn't any. Surely a 12 shot automatic pistol is sufficient for any reasonable self-protection needs?
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7...you mean semiautomatic.
      It would be nice if it could be kept in one piece, so that I don't have to frantically assemble it as the burglar beats the ***** out of me.
      Also, 12 is an arbitrary number. There is no sociological observation that having a gun with more than 12 rounds in it causes mass murder. However, if I need to shoot from behind cover, I'd like to have more than 12 rounds at my disposal.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Turn it around - what reason do you offer to suggest a magazine of larger capacity than 12 is not reasonable? Granted, it is not likely necessary in home defense, but what about the psychological reassurance to a homeowner taking a stand between a group of thugs and his / her children. In any case, if one trusts the citizen with a firearm and twelve round mag, why not a 15, 21 or whatever capacity mag? There is a law of diminishing returns involved there in terms of the weight and handling characteristics of the firearm. Let the owners decide; its their lives on the line, not those of some politicians with bodyguards.
    • twinklyJesus, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3"You don't *need* longarms to hunt the big game..."
      Um, who the hell do you think you are? Who are you to decide for me, what type of weapon I "need"? I think I prefer to decide for myself, thank you.

      "Surely a 12 shot automatic pistol is sufficient..."

      Maybe, maybe not. I may decide that a pump ***** shotgun is what I need. Or, I may decide I like to use a semi-automatic mini-14 with a 30 round muther ***** clip, so I can shoot all day and not have to re-*****-load! Where does it say ANYWHERE, that it's up to YOU OR WHAT YOU THINK?
      • bosssmiley, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2Rant acknowledged. Now please answer the question.

        One good, coherent reason that you should carry such a monstrosity as a semi-auto mini-14 in city limits is all I ask. What the hell are you expecting to encounter that requires that volume of firepower?
      • Stevanoski, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Dang Gort, I've got to start setting time aside to read your comments every day, You rock.
      • twinklyJesus, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3@Bosssmiley:

        Because I choose to. For no other reason other than it being MY decision not yours.

        According to my understanding of the Constitution, I get the right to choose for myself. You do not get to decide for me. I am the boss of me. Your opinion is YOURS to have and you can use it to govern your life and only your life. Your opinion does not matter to me on any subject regarding decisions I make about my life, as long as you aren't injured. (not if you "might" be injured)
  • diamondbigdog, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, the Heller case specifically dealt with a a gun in a person's home so that is all the SCOTUS could rule on. however, the important part is the assertion of individual right. This was stated by every person who debated the amendment when they wrote it and the quotes from them leave no doubt about it. The left has re-interpreted it over the years to fit an agenda.

    The number of rounds should not be dictated. What business is it of anyone why I want to have 20 rounds instead of 10 or 12? Does the First Amendment restrict how many words a person can use when exercising free speech? It is an insane argument. If you are law abiding the number of rounds you have is of no consequence. If you are a criminal you will not obey that law anyway.

    If gun laws work why do cities like DC and Chicago make their police officers carry guns?
    • hughesunderdahl, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0You are clearly a pinko commie. Move to Cuba if you dont want the right to bear arms.
  • legolas68, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3The DC crowd will continually re-regulate the lawful citizen's right to bear arms in a fashion that will drag each new measure before the Supreme Court over the course of years. It's vital that those with the legal might keep up the good fight and meet each new challenge. It's too easy to tire and accept the arbitrary "machine gun" and "12 round capacity" rule.
  • thoughtcrime, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Checking my favorite legal blog (the Volokh Conspiracy), it appears that there are now numerous post-Heller attempts to only marginally water-down firearms laws that were clearly placed in jeopardy by the recent SCOTUS decision. This nonsense in DC is no different. Even more sickening, Volokh reports several POST-Heller court decisions that once again, claim that the 2nd Amendment is a COLLECTIVE right, not an individual one - unbelievable as that may seem. Leftists see what they want and ignore the facts, the law, and just about every other objective measure. Same old sh*t, different day.

    Although the Heller decision specifically dealt with a total BAN on ownership, the majority opinion (written by Justice Scalia) very clearly indicates that government cannot impose an overly onerous burden on gun owners (i.e., a defacto ban) - much in the same way that the Communications Decency Act posed an undue burden on 1st Amendment rights.

    What's really significant about Heller, is not so much the knock-down of the DC ban, but that by clearly defining firearms ownership as an INDIVIDUAL right, government must now use the least-restrictive means to achieve overarching public welfare responsibilities.

    So in short, this new law will soon wind-up back in the courts, only to be booted back to the morons running the worst city in America.
    • IconoclastStill, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3The problem is the anti-freedom pols have the bottomless pockets of the power to tax to support their efforts to suppress us, while those who seek to advance the cause of freedom must rely on the private sector.
  • MarkEarhart, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."-- second amendment to the United States Constitution

    INFRINGE- 1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Webster's on line dictionary)

    Does nobody else see the absurdity of there being any question here about the gun rights of anyone anywhere in America?
    • 2bsbc, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

      -Al (I'm an attention whore) Gore

      As far as I'm concerned there are two sides to this issue; the blow-hard "living document" types, like blow hard Gore, and sane minded originalists.

  • hughesunderdahl, on 07/17/2008, -2/+0All those nigs in DC voted for crackhead Marion Barry, what did you expect?
  • dlbfromLA, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3True GUN CONTROL is a solid 3 inch group at 25 yards, nothing more and nothing less!!!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.