D.C. streamlining gun registration

[burf]

The D.C. Council gave preliminary approval Tuesday to an amendment package that eliminates a slew of prerequisites to getting a firearm approved and logged in to the Metropolitan Police Department's tracking system. The Firearms Amendment Act of 2012 is expected to pass when the council takes it up again in April.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/2012/03/dc-streamlining-gun-registration/344791

It looks as though progress is being made in the District.

[Pacafishmate]

1. In before the antis say that DC will now become a shooting gallery.

[rl6214]

3. In before the DC resident starts whining about not having representation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. Are You Whining......

........about gun rights again in a place you neither like or live?







.

[rl6214]

32. Oh I LOVE going to DC

My son lives 45 minutes away so I normally get there at least once a year to visit the museums, monuments and other sights. Tried to get a tour of the White House last year but couldn't get in.

"about gun rights again in a place you neither like or live? "

Try again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Super

......but of course if that is your idea go DC, you are missing a lot........and your certainly can't bring a gun to many of those places.





.

[rl6214]

34. "you are missing a lot"

What am I missing? What should I go see the next time I am in DC?

"and your certainly can't bring a gun to many of those places. "

I do know that, I make it a point to make sure I check the local laws wherever I am going so I do not get myself caught in a situation. I certainly am not going to try to get my gun checked in at the capital building when I go take the tour. Took the tour there two years ago, didn't get to see as much as I would have liked to. Did get to see Speaker Pelosi's office though.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Guns in DC

I'd be happy to show you what I think is the real DC next time you are in town. We have a lot more going on than national monuments....but be a good sport and keep the gun at home.

[shadowrider]

10. Uh, it already is

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. So.....

....if DC is already a 'shooting gallery' as you claim, the law relaxing our gun regulations had what impact?




.

[PavePusher]

20. So far, IIRC, a 25% drop in the murder rate.

Perhaps you should try more of that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. So

....you disagree with Shadowrider?

[PavePusher]

23. Not at all.

A 25% drop still leaves D.C. in the top 10% or higher of urban murder rates, i.e. still a "shooting gallery".

You've got a looooong way to go.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Too funny

....you don't even know the facts. Come back when you do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. The recent public humiliation at the hands of the Wash Times reporter is clearly driving it

DC was looking quite foolish

[burf]

4. My guess is they didn't

want to be dealing with further litigation on the gun issue. It certainly doesn't appear they are "opening the floodgates" for gun ownership.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. The changes they are making are mostly cosmetic. There are still serious impediments to private

gun ownership for DC residents. Had she not been paid to do the series, I doubt she could have afforded all the time it took. Hopefully DC gets slapped down again on their ongoing draconian restrictions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. A Guess Indeed

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Right Professor

.....because the Washington Times is so well known for it's PROGRSSIVE agenda............NOT.

How many people read that GOP rag? Oh that's right...........20 times fewer than the Washington Post.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. I noticed that amidst all the carping from you lot about the source of those articles...

...there was little, if any, disputation of their accuracy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. They could not be accurate since they were from an accursed source

That seems to be the common theme of those who are trying to discredit them while blindly ignoring the contents. They have had a much wider audience that typical Mooney Times articles and have resonated with some I would not expect.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. It was also on Facebook and Twitter and was broadly distributed online

I had colleagues with no interest in firearms sending links to me about it. While I would not call it viral, it was getting there. It got a whole lot more exposure than typical Mooney Times reports.

Much of it had to do with the how it was carefully packaged as a nice almost perky young woman wanted to buy a pistol and look at all the nonsense the DC put her through. Clearly the DC cops were getting annoyed by the series. While not at the same level as the Mayor snorting Coke, it was still quite embarrassing. Appearances matter in politics and DC is a purely political town.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Oh good grief......

....do tell what Mayor while in office or for that matter out of office was caught snorting coke. (Barry was a member of city council caught smoking crack).........but what again does that have to do with guns????

Oh never mind...it just reflects poorly on your arguments.

Do tell me, do you have to be 'nice and perky' to buy a gun?

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

Oh right.......it's about appearances........

Not a very strong argument.

.





.

[shadowrider]

11. I notice

Anti-gun people quote from "right-wing" sources and no one gets on them for it. Maybe it's because the article matches their agenda. In that case, it's ok.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. Try Again

It was a PRO-GUN advocate who started the thread quoting a right wing Mooney article. My post was in response to his.






.

[burf]

15. Yep, I'm the pro-gunner who used the link.

It was one of many that were about the subject. The question I have: Is there anything in this story as reported factually incorrect?

BTW, I did check on the Brady site, but did not see anything reported. But can't say that I'm surprised.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Heh Look

....it's the Washington Times.


I've long ago stopped trying to discern their reasoning and logic. For twenty five years' they called gays ......homosexuals. Where they 'factually correct'.......sure.....but completely wrong. So they spoke in tongues........about homosexual 'marriage' rather than gay marriage (without quotes). Meanwhile Mooney was conducting communal marriage ceremonies for thousands of couples who are strangers. I don't put a lot of weight in anything they say.

But alas, I'm off topic..........find a better source to support your gun agenda perhaps from a more reputable center or left perspective.

I can't speak regarding the Brady organization. I'm not a member and only occasionally visit their sight.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. I find something almost noble in your refusal to abandon the genetic fallacy.

I also await your principled defense of California's Proposition 8. After all, it's what the voters there wanted, amirite?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Not Related to Guns

.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Neither was your comment about the Moonies' homophobia in post #16

It would seem some digressions are more digressive then others...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. That Wasn't the Entire Post

And cited to diminish the credibility of a right wing newspaper as it relates to a gn story it published.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. But yes.....

I also admitted I was off topic.

[ileus]

12. You really think the WP would post something against their anti2A agenda?

[shadowrider]

13. So are you saying because this is a "perceived" right-wing rag

The story is false and not to be trusted?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. See Post16

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Not as much as

.....a progressive using a conservative rag to make a case about gun laws in a community they do not live in.