D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violates individual rights

[AngryAmish]

<http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153>

This is big but the link is not the best.


"BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."


This is a legal blog but I can't find a real news article right now. The opinion itself is one the front page of Drudge.

Why is this big? For many years 2d Amendment jurisprudence has held that there is no individual right to own a handgun. DC Circuit (the most powerful appeals court in the nation) says that there is an individual right to a handgun. The 5th Circuit says there isn't. The Supreme Court usually takes cases where there is a conflict between the Circuits. If they hear this one, it will be heard during primary season.

Finally, don't please don't move this to the gungeon. This is an important issue that can effect elections and people's everyday life no matter where you stand on the issue. Also I edited the headline to fit.

[Mike Daniels]

1. As if the gun ban worked in DC anyway

[primavera]

6. True

Given that you can practically get a gun from an automated dispenser just across the bridge in Virginia, DC's efforts to make the District safer have been a pretty effective demonstration of why these sorts of laws can't accomplish much while they're purely local.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Wait a minute

I am a PROUD VIRGINIAN...

If Virginia is the problem here, why is our crime rate not even in the same BALL PARK as D.C.??

I also have a Virginia C.C.W License, this is a GREAT day!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. About time

I live in MD rather than DC due in part to the assinine gun laws in the district.

[bluestateguy]

3. Good

The law-abiding citizens of Washington D.C. have the right to defend themselves in that crime ridden city. They should not have to depend on the corrupt, incompetent police force to do so.

[krispos42]

143. They have always had the right to defend themselves

The question is "With what?" DC sez you can't use guns, so sorry, call the police.

[Mike Daniels]

211. That's comforting given that the DC police are pretty imcompetent

There are already guns by the boatload in DC. The problem is the only ones in possession with them outside of LEO's are using them to terrorize their communities.

The ban was a joke and there's no way anyone can argue otherwise.

[Squatch]

4. Another good precedent that reaffirms that "the people" are individuals

[winter999]

5. Finally! I was wondering when honest citizens could

own a gun like the criminals.

[derby378]

9. One small correction to the OP

The 5th Circuit, in US v. Emerson, has ruled that there is an individual right. I think you're probably thinking of a ruling from the 9th Circuit.

[NoGOPZone]

10. Potentially a huge decision. The article you link does mention

that it could potentially be overturned by the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals, since this was the ruling of a three judge panel. Should the entire court uphold the decision, it is likely as you say that SCOTUS will hear the case. This would be a conflict not just between DC and the 5th circuit but several others.

[AngryAmish]

69. en banc panals are quite rare

They usually happen when the Chief judge does not like a decision of a panel he is not sitting on. I do not know who is the Chief but I would not hold my breath.

[Bukowski Fan]

11. "If I didn't have this gun

the King of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Do ya?"
-Homer Simpson

In all seriousness though, I was a strong advocate of gun control once. Now, I'm really on the fence. I can see both sides to this debate pretty clearly. And it affects me greatly. I'm a working class white boy living in gun-smoke city (Anacostia). For those of you who say it's racist for me to fear for my life because of the color of my skin versus those of my neighbors, grow up and get real. The DC police don't even come over to this side of the river. For all intents and purposes there are no DC police here.

I remember fondly when I first moved here, I heard gunshots outside my apartment. Not like in the distance gunshots, in front of my apartment gunshots, and saw kids running up and down the street. I called 911, they said it was not an emergency and to call 311. I called 311 and they said they'd send someone over. They didn't.

The unfortunate state of affairs is one where although the handgun ban, and lest we get confused, it is just handguns that are banned, has curbed the crimerate somewhat, it is still FAR from acceptable. And I for one, am willing to forgo my liberal preconceptions about "root causes" in order to see if a lift of the ban would help any. Perhaps I would not be harassed so much if there was a possibility I was strapped. On the other hand, the possibility I was strapped might just facilitate me getting shot in the face first to avoid any trouble.

Generally speaking, I still feel the more guns are out there, the worse things are, in MY neighborhood anyway. After all, we're talking about a DC handgun ban, which the residents of my fine city overwhelmingly support. And if there's one thing this city hates MORE THAN ANYTHING, it's other people, epsecially congress folk and rich suburbanites, coming into to OUR city, and telling US how to govern it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. "If I didn't have this gun

I changed four words in Bukowski Fan's post. See what it sounds like now:

"After all, we're talking about segregation, which the residents of my fine city overwhelmingly support. And if there's one thing this city hates MORE THAN ANYTHING, it's other people, epsecially congress folk and rich suburbanites, coming into to OUR city, and telling US how to govern it."

Or try this one, where I substituted the other way:

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say handgun ban now, handgun ban tomorrow, handgun ban forever."

Sorry, B. F., you're gonna have to amend the Constitution to win this one.

[davepc]

12. Appeals Court Guts D.C. Gun Ban (Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901090.html

A federal appellate panel today struck down parts of the District's gun law as unconstitutional, ruling that the city cannot bar people from keeping firearms in their homes.

The decision was a victory for six D.C. residents who said they wanted to keep firearms for self-defense. But it could have much broader implications: The case eventually could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court as a test of the thorny issues surrounding the Second Amendment and the public's right to keep weapons.

The District has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation -- barring all handguns unless they were registered prior to 1976 -- and that law has come under attack over the past three decades in Congress as well as the courts. Today's ruling guts key parts of the law, but does not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and other D.C. officials were reviewing the opinion and planned a press conference for this afternoon.

The ruling came on a 2-to-1 vote by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

...

[meldroc]

13. Sweet!

Good to know there are still some judges that uphold the Second Amendment!

I can understand some gun laws - instant background checks for gun purchases, and harsh punishments for use of guns to commit crimes. Banning them completely is idiotic.

[brokensymmetry]

16. Yes!

I agree completely!

[torrentprime]

264. AH-gree

Completely. Protective and regulatory laws are one thing; bans and diarming the population is un-American. Often, minorities are the first to need adequate gun protection: ask blacks in the south during the civil rights movement and the GLBT community, anywhere and anytime.

[napi21]

14. this was posted already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=377421&mesg_id=377421

[NickB79]

15. This will be good

:popcorn:

[SlipperySlope]

17. Great news!

Wow, about time! Hopefully SCOTUS will grant cert and affirm the individual right. Get rid of this election-losing dog of an issue for all time.

[primavera]

18. That's right!

Let's usher in those happy days of kids blowing off their own kneecaps! Yee ha!

[Lilith Velkor]

26. Oh noes, now DC's gonna have guns everywhere!

:rofl:

[davepc]

19. Brady Campaign plays the "activist judges" card...

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=878

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

[Squatch]

20. Refresh my memory...where have I heard that term before?

[DemKR]

21. Activist judges n/t

[brentspeak]

22. Owning a handgun isn't the problem; it's who owns the handgun

To get a handgun permit in NJ (so you can have a handgun in your home -- there is no real CCW in NJ), citizens must first get an ok from the local and state police. It's not just a matter of passing a background check; if the cops determine the individual is someone who might not be trusted to use the handgun properly, then no permit is granted. This actually works out well, as we have few suburban handgun incidents -- unlike many other states.

[struggle4progress]

23. Wingnut judges:

... Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented ... http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,72527.shtml

The partisan "mastermind" in charge of Bush's intel probe
Whenever there's a vast right-wing conspiracy, Judge Laurence Silberman keeps turning up.
By Michelle Goldberg

... A veteran of the Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan administrations who is close to Vice President Dick Cheney, Silberman has a reputation as a fierce ideologue who doesn't let his judicial responsibilities get in the way of his Republican activism. David Brock, the repentant former right-wing journalist and Silberman protégé, describes his former mentor as "an extreme partisan" who seems to relish "the political wars." Kevin Phillips, the former Nixon staffer who authored the recent "The Bush Dynasty," said on NPR on Monday, "In the past, Silberman has been more involved with coverups in the Middle East than with any attempts to unravel them." ...

Silberman's sojourn in the world of political scandal began during the run-up to the 1980 presidential election when, as a member of Ronald Reagan's campaign staff, he, along with Robert C. McFarlane, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Richard V. Allen, Reagan's chief foreign policy representative, met with a man claiming to be an Iranian government emissary. The Iranian offered to delay the release of the 52 American hostages being held in Tehran until after the election -- thus contributing to Carter's defeat -- in exchange for arms ...

After working for Reagan's election, Silberman was rewarded with an appointment to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country. After the Iran-contra scandal, he was part of a three-judge panel that voted 2-to-1 to reverse Oliver North's felony conviction. Voting with him was David Sentelle, a protégé of Jesse Helms who according to Brock named his daughter "Reagan" after the president who put him on the bench ...

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/10/silberman/index.html

June 23 , 2005
Thomas B. Griffith and Rule 49
He Practiced Law Without a License, Now He's a Federal Appeals Court Judge
By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

... Rule 49, of which Mr. Griffith was contemptuous, is a rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. It says: "No person shall engage in the practice of law in the District of Columbia or in any manner hold out as authorized or competent to practice law in the District of Columbia unless enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia Bar, except as otherwise permitted by these rules."

None of the exceptions applies to Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith found the rule quaint and chose to ignore it. He practiced law for three years in that jurisdiction without the required license. Had the licensing authorities known of his transgression he would have faced discipline. Happily for him, he left the jurisdiction before anyone noticed that he didn't find the court's rules to his liking ...

Having successfully flaunted the rules of the court on which he now serves he moved to Utah to became chief legal counsel for the University of Utah. He served in that capacity for four years. Acting as legal counsel for the university of Utah is considered practicing law in Utah.

Utah, like the District of Columbia has a rule against practicing law without a license. Rule 1.0 of Chapter 13a of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State of Utah provides: "Except as set forth in subsection (c) of the Rule, only persons who are active, licensed members of the Utah State Bar in good standing may engage in the practice of law in Utah." ...

http://www.counterpunch.org/griffith06232005.html

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Speaker]

152. ...

I always wonder how 2nd Amendment Dems are able to reconcile the fact that, although they call themselves Dems, they applaud the decisions of right-wing activist judges and rejoice at the setbacks suffered by their fellow Democrats. It must feel weird.


Maybe because we support ALL of the Bill of Rights, not just some of it. And, maybe because we trust our fellow citizens with guns more than we trust George Bush's government with guns.

[mark414]

24. a victory for the second amendment

[scavenger]

27. Major ruling against D.C. handgun ban

In 2-1 vote, appeals court says Second Amendment is not limited to ‘militia’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
--------

This is a good thing if you support the constitution.

[onehandle]

28. nt

[scavenger]

29. sorry

I see this has already been posted

[piedmont]

30. It's still a good ruling, though!

[billbuckhead]

31. It's bad thing if you support human life

USA, worst of all industrialized nations is murder, gun crimes, gun deaths, incarceration and fast fading in quality of life across the board. Due to our failed gun policies we are now even behind many third nations such as India in murder.
Read the comparisons and weep for our sick nation. BTW, Metro DC has a lower rate of murder than nearby gun friendly Richmond, Va. Chicago has a lower murder rate than than nearby gun friendly Gary In.
<http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita>

[piedmont]

35. approx. 180,000,000 unarmed civillians were killed by their own governments (Germany, China, USSR)

I care about human life very much, which is why I support the people's right to defend themselves from criminals and criminal regimes.


"Due to our failed gun policies we are now even behind many third nations such as India in murder."

No Bill, that's due to our failed policies on drug prohibition, mental health care, and incarceration. It's the homicidal intentions we should work to eliminate.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

51. BULLSHIT

"No Bill, that's due to our failed policies on drug prohibition, mental health care, and incarceration. It's the homicidal intentions we should work to eliminate."

The phony "war on drugs" should cease immediately!!!

Then there'd be money for mental health care and treatment...

As for incarceration, your failed experiment at locking up everyone you can catch should also be ended. It DON'T WORK!

[piedmont]

54. Uh, you just agreed with me on every point, right?

Our (as in the United States') policies on drugs, mental health care, and incarceration are dispicable and failing and contributing to our murder rate by increasing homicidal motivations. To clarify, I called them "our" policies speaking as a U.S. citizen, not a Democrat (which I am). But as far as I know, even the Democratic national platform doesn't say anything about de-criminalizing drugs.

[ProudDad]

188. Nope

the British, Belgians, etc. are just as wrong headed in their drug policy but they ain't got NEAR our death rate from guns.

It's the guns...

[piedmont]

203. It's not the guns, it's the desperation in the people who use them to kill. nt

[billbuckhead]

227. No matter how desperate they are, they're generally less powerful w/o a gun

That's why soldiers are given assault rifles and if you gun guys have your way, we will all have to carry guns, go through metal detectors and police will have to armored robots. So much for increasing freedom.

[Pavulon]

229. Assault Rifle is newspeak nazi word, infantry

are issued select fire rifles. rifle or carbine. service weapon.

At one point it referred to a select fire (fully automatic) rifle that fired a cut down cartridge, like the ak-47.

Assault Rifle is currently a scare word used to describe a semi automatic rifle that looks scary but is rarely used in crime.

[piedmont]

232. Actually, "assault weapon" is the term the gun-o-phobes invented for certain *scary* semi autos

Assault rifle still refers to an automatic or select fire rifle. See, the term "assault weapon" was chosen precisely because it is easily confused with assault rifle.

[billbuckhead]

238. Actually Hitler invented the term

Can't make evil like this up. Here's some creeps on the high roads whining about the truth about the origin of the "assault rifle".

<http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=226235>

[piedmont]

240. Then it must be EEEEEEEEVIL!!!!!!11111

Like I said, the STG44 was the first weapon that combined selective fire, small size, locked breech, and large magazine. That's an assault rifle, not an "assault weapon."

[billbuckhead]

241. So a rifle is not a weapon?

:crazy:Like wrestling with a pig in a mud puddle.

[piedmont]

248. The terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" describe two different sets of firearms.

:crazy: right back at ya.

[billbuckhead]

252. Semantics semantics semantics from gun worshipping sophists

So a rifle isn't a weapon? Only in gunwacko world.

[krispos42]

254. A rifle is a weapon. A weapon is not necessarily a rifle

This is an assault weapon:





So is this:




And this one:





Only one of these is a rifle. One is a shotgun, and one is a pistol.


Now what I can't figure out is that why us knuckle-dragging gun-owners can come up with a precise definition and the über-sophisticated who would not dare touch something as uncivilized as a deadly assault weapon can't get their definitions straight.

[billbuckhead]

257. An assault rifle is a weapon, 2nd amendment weapons are firearms

Sorry about your knuckles. Stand up straight, it might help. Even semiautomatic versions of these military weapons are still assault rifles.

I agree with what war hero and first in his class West Pointer Wes Clark said, "If you want to fire an assault weapon," he says, "join the army." The NRA can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it."

I support Democrats who have views like this.

[krispos42]

262. Okay, mom! :-)

A semi-automatic version of an assault rifle can properly be termed an 'assault-style rifle'. This is because an assault rifle, by definition, must have some form of automatic fire.

And I disagree with Wes Clark on this issue.

[slackmaster]

263. If one carries an assault-style rifle,

Should one attempt to coordinate it with assault-style shoes and assault-style accoutrements?

[krispos42]

255. "Storm Rifle". It is an accurate term, so I can't fault them for using it

It is not inheirently Nazi-ish, racist, Aryan, or German. It is a proper description, being more powerful than a submachine gun (what the Germans call "machine pistols") and less powerful than a battle rifle, giving the advantages of both (within general combat conditions) with the disadvantages of neither.

[Hiram Abiff]

53. DC Homicide rate

billbuckhead
BTW, Metro DC has a lower rate of murder than nearby gun friendly Richmond, Va.



Washington DC has a population of aprox 550,000. They had 195 homicides in DC last year Their homicide rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 per 100,000. This is according to the FBI crime stats for 2005 released in sept 2006.

That puts DC at about 3X Richmond Va.

BTW the homicide total for DC hit a high of 499 in 96 or 97 and only dropped below 200 a few years ago.

[billbuckhead]

131. Any links to prove that assertion? I don't believe it

[Hiram Abiff]

201. D.C.homicide

billbuckhead posted:
"Any links to prove that assertion? I don't believe it"

No assertions here, Just actual numbers. But you knew that.

First column obviously is the year
Second column is the population
Third column is the total homicides
Fourth column is the homicide rate per 100,000 citizens.

1960 763,956     81       10.6
1961 763,955     88       11.5
1962 784,000     91       11.6
1963 798,000     95         11.9
1964 808,000     132         16.3
1965 803,000     148         18.4
1966 808,000     141       17.5
1967 809,000     178         22.0
1968 809,000     195         24.1
1969 798,000     287         36.0
1970 756,510     221         29.2
1971 741,000     275         37.1
1972 748,000     245         32.8
1973 746,000     268         35.9
1974 723,000       277         38.3
1975 716,000       235         32.8
1976 702,000*       188         26.8
1977 690,000       192         27.8
1978 674,000       189         28.0
1979 656,000       180         27.4
1980 635,233       208         31.5
1981 636,000       223         30.7
1982 631,000       194         29.4
1983 623,000       183         28.1
1984 623,000       175         23.5
1985 626,000       147         31.0
1986 626,000       194         36.2
1987 622,000       225         36.2
1988 620,000       369         59.5
1989 604,000       434         71.9
1990 606,900       472         77.8
1991 598,000       482           80.6
1992 589,000       443           75.2
1993 578,000       454           78.5
1994 570,000       399           70.0
1995 554,000       360           65.0
1996 543,000       397           73.1
1997 529,000       301           56.9
1998 523,000      260           49.7
1999 519,000       241           46.4
2000 572,059       239           41.8
2001 573,822       231           40.3
2002 569,157       264           46.4
2003 557,620      249           44.7
2004 554,239       198           35.9
2005 550,521       195           35.4
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

From 1960 through 1975 Washington D.C. averaged 184.2 homicides per year with an average population of 773,500

After the 1976 ban Washington D.C. averaged 269.4 homicides per year with an average population of 598,300

Before the ban Washington D.C averaged 23.8 homicides per 100,000 citizens per year

After the 1976 ban Washington D.C. averaged 45.0 homicides per 100,000
citizens per year

[ProudDad]

189. Don't worry

It'll go up once the 2nd Circuit decision is upheld...

[slackmaster]

222. Are you interested in taking a wager on that?

I would bet on no measurable change in the homicide rate being attributable to removal of the ban.

[krispos42]

57. Those statistics have been gone through a dozen times by you and I

This is an informative video, and the discussion is also enlightening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x18255

I'll re-post my relevent responses in that thread for the education and enjoyment of everybody here.

krispos42 (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-02-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Man, how many times do you have to be refuted?

68% of ALL civilian-owned firearms ON THE PLANET are owned by US citizens. That's 245 million out of 360 million guns!

The UK tried doing things 'your way'. They banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in 1988, and all handguns in 1997.

Their homicide rate in 2005 was TWICE what it was in 1967, with the peak in 2002!

It's getting so bad in the UK that they're holding an emergency to deal with the GROWING crime problem, especially since 3 teens were gunned down in 2 weeks in London!

By contrast, in the US our homicide rate in 2005 was 11% less than in 1967. And that's DESPITE the rise of the double-stack (high capacity) pistol, the flood of post-Cold-War civilian-legal Soviet-bloc 'assault weapons', and the popularity of civvie-legal AR-15s as Vietnam vets sought to privately own the rifle they had depended on in combat.

If you want to live someplace with strict gun laws because you think it will make you safer, move to DC. Or Wisconsin. Or New York. Or New Jersey. Or Massachusettes.

krispos42 (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-02-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. 40 years ago, the vaunted UK murder rate was one-ninth the US

now it's one-third. They are getting worse, not better.

And the only explanation that YOU have is that Americans are worse people than the Brits.

I have made the argument many times that our poverty (bad economic policy) and illegal drugs and the gangs that make them thrive (bad drug policy) are the cause.

Compare this to the various crime rate listings:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_dis_of_fam_in...

Gee, they look kinda similar.

krispos42 (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-02-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. And any answer why the UK's homicide rate has gone up after their bans?

Hmmm...

As to your shouting 'comment' up there, why are you drawing a line between assaults and homicide?

US: 757 assaults and 4.3 murders per 100,000 people
New Zealand: 748 assaults and 1.1 murders per 100,000 people
Columbia: 59 assaults and 62 murders per 100,000 people

Gee, those Columbians must be all trained ex-special-forces killers, because 51% of fights end in a death, while only 0.56% of US fights end with a death.

And the gun crime rate has been asked and answered.

krispos42 (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-03-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. In India there is a caste system

Everybody for the most part knows their place. That is changing now, I would presume, as their economy is transforming as American jobs go overseas to that country and a middle-class emerges.

In my casual opinion, it probaby also helps that, unlike Americans, Indians are not bombarded daily with advertisements for things they can't afford but are told they need.

Well, let me expand that. They are not bombarded anywhere nearly as much as Americans are. Nowadays it seems that every vertical surface contains an advertisement for one thing or another, and the mailbox is full of credit-card applications from predatory lending companies so they can have the advertiser-supplied dream life.

Again, we also have a bad drug problem and the gangs that supply them. How young are the kids that get involved? 14? 12? 10? The ones being messengers and lookouts and runners?

Despite the hysteria, school-age kids are much more likely to die on school property from playing football than from gunfire, even factoring in Columbine.

You are overlooking the key word here:

American children are at higher risk to die of gun violence than children in other high-income nations. One study comparing violent deaths of five- to fourteen-year olds living in the U.S. and in 25 other high-income countries in the 1990s indicated that America had a gun homicide rate 17 times higher than the rate of the other countries combined. The U.S. had 10 times the gun suicide rate of the other countries."

Gun.

If there were fewer guns in America, presumebly there would be few gun crimes and fewer gun suicides. But would the overall crime rate, the overall homicide rate, and the overall suicide rate change?

I don't know, but I doubt it. As the article you stated above says,

He compares homicide rates among what he describes as "frontier" countries: the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These nations have in common per capita incomes, cultures, histories, and language. By 2000, the U.S. actually had lower rates of property crime and violent crime–such as assault–than each of the other countries.

So the relative lack of guns does not stop property and violent crime.

My personal problem with that paragraph is that, compared to the other three nations, we have many more urban and poor areas, we have a higher population density, we have a drug-use problem that the other countries don't have, and we are much less homogeneous.

For example, Australia is Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%

New Zealand: European 69.8%, Maori 7.9%, Asian 5.7%, Pacific islander 4.4%, other 0.5%, mixed 7.8%, unspecified 3.8%

Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%. That totals up to 66% European, mixed 26%, and 'other' 8%, but Nationmaster is unclear if the 'mixed' included inter-racial, or just part English and part French.

United States: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%. However, included in the 'white' number are a lot of Latinos, which are ethnically culturally, and linguistically different from traditional 'white' America.


A further thing I would like to point out is that our non-gun murder rate is high as well. Our homicide rate is 4.3 per 100,000 per year. Our gun homicide rate is 2.8, so our non-gun rate is 1.5 per 100,000 per year.

That puts us in the region of Iceland's, Australia's, and Canada's combined rates with just our non-gun weapons.

In order for your ideas to be valid in this case, we would have to assume that every single gun-wielding murderer would have stayed home and watched TV instead of killing. Since, as you pointed out earlier, most people know their killer, I'd say that is pretty unlikely.

A good part of the gun murders would instead be done with 'other'. So now we have the original non-gun homicide rate of 1.5, plus the new gun-converted-to-non-gun homicide rate.

What do you think for a conversion rate? 25%? 50%? 75%?

That gives us a gun-converted-to-non-gun homicide rate of 0.7, 1.4, or 2.1, for a total of either 2.2, 2.9, or 3.6, all three of which is *still* a lot higher than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Or industrialized Europe, for that matter.

The real problem here is that for for some sort of gun ban to work, it would have to done balls-to-the-wall nationwide. And after spending hundreds of billions of dollars compensating people for the guns the govenment confiscated, and unknown more billions on police raids, court costs, prison time, and the like, the end result wouldn't be too impressive. And it would be years coming, if at all. In Britian they are still waiting for the lower crime and homicide rates after their gun bans.

That same money invested in stronger police forces would do a lot more to lower both the homicide and crime rates, and faster. Or investment in schooling. Or economic investment. Remember, crime plummented under Clinton's good economy and COPS program.

[AngryAmish]

70. Comparing murder rates b/w Chicago and Gary is foolish

Almost all of Gary is poor. Only parts of Chicago are poor. Poor people do the majority of violent crime (it's true). So the rate will be higher in a poorer area that has no richer people.

[billbuckhead]

113. India has less murder than America and they're poorer than Gary, IN

It's easy access to guns that supercharges America's murder rate.

[Odin2005]

87. correlation does not equal causation

Canada also has fairly lax gun restrictions and IIRC they aren't nearly as violent as the US is. it's a cultural problem, guns having nothing to do with it. In many European countries with very strict gun laws thugs have just went to stabbing people.

[billbuckhead]

127. These people are dying CAUSE they're getting shot. There's your causation

They're not getting bird flu. They're not getting knifed. They are dying and creating billions of dollars in medical bills CAUSE they're getting SHOT. There's your causation.

[ProudDad]

32. This is a lousy thing

if you support the Constitution as it was meant to be...

I'm sure the "founding fathers" didn't mean for every other yahoo to have a loaded handgun in their waistband...

Sad day for the country, good news for the bloodthirsty...


On Edit: This is the DC circuit -- the most right-wing of them all...

[piedmont]

33. That's odd-- you don't think the "founding fathers" were capable of expressing their thoughts?

"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."

Pretty f'ing straightforward, to me. Unless by "the Constitution as it was meant to be" you meant "without that pesky Bill of Rights."

[hollowdweller]

34. I hope the Supremes rule for the 2nd!

As much as possible I would like to see the gun control issue be taken off the table legislatively.

I'd like to see the Supreme court support it as an individual right and better define the scope.

This issue more than any other is responsible for Dems getting voted out of office and I'd like to see it be a non issue so some of the important stuff like protecting SS and national health care could pass.

[Speaker]

155. ...

This issue more than any other is responsible for Dems getting voted out of office and I'd like to see it be a non issue so some of the important stuff like protecting SS and national health care could pass.

Bingo! I am praying we don't commit Hari Kiri with gun control again ( although Carolyn McCarthy is trying.)

[Endangered Specie]

43. Im sure they didnt image phones and internet...

maybe we should be limited to feather pins.

[ProudDad]

48. WELL REGULATED MILITIA

WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA WELL REGULATED MILITIA


What part of WELL REGULATED MILITIA don't you get?????

[piedmont]

55. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Hell, the first clause could have said "A fried peanut butter sandwich, being necessary to feed Elvis," and it wouldn't change what the amendment guarantees-- the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In all the other amendments, "the people" means every one of us individually.

[MGD]

122. "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States

who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

[poorinnaples]

56. THE RIGHT...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

THE RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Clearly an honest & historically sound decision..."the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

Considering our current situation, as timely & necessary as ever. Make mine a double...


Excerpt from the decision:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

[krispos42]

61. Are YOU getting it?

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2000}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

(note: I replaced the square brackets with curly ones so that there wasn't any html problems)

[primavera]

62. So you're saying that the right to bear arms...

... extends to males between the ages of 17 and 45 and to females who are members of the National Guard? Interesting, I haven't heard that one before.

[krispos42]

64. I'm saying the militia is more than the National Guard

This may come as a surprise to some people.

Even if we were to restrict the RKBA to 'militia', far more people would have the right to bear arms than the quarter-million or so National Guardsmen.

And how would NOW and other women's groups take it when they find out that virtually no women can own guns, but half the adult men can?

[slackmaster]

80. My part of the Unorganized Militia is very well regulated indeed

If my neighborhood is cut off from civilization by earthquake, Zombie attack, or other emergency I have enough military rifles and ammunition on hand to arm every household within sight.

The beauty of an Unorganized Militia is how people become organized when the need arises.

[primavera]

118. So you shoot earthquakes?

Does that help stop them? I can see the zombie thing, though, since god knows those peskie zombies are always climbing up from the grave and getting in the way of things. But don't you need silver bullets for them? Or was that werewolves, I forget...

[slackmaster]

164. Shooting at something after it's happened serves no useful purpose

No, shooting at an earthquake would be pointless but I can assure you that after an earthquake there won't be any looting going on in my neighborhood.

My comments about Zombies are to be taken seriously - Zombie movies are allegorical. Think about what they really represent.

[shield20]

101. The Miltia was covered in Art 1 Sec 8

Where Congress was "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia", which they did in 1792 by saying every able body male should get his own musket, etc..

This section already secured the people the right to keep and bear arms with regards to a militia.

The 2nd made sure the PERSONAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was also protected.

[billbuckhead]

115. Every able bodied WHITE male

The Constitution gave no rights for non white males. They were the enemy.

[krispos42]

117. The Constitution has since been updated

They're called "amendments".

And the last time 10USC311 was updated was 1956, and is race-neutral.

[billbuckhead]

130. And it will be updated somemore, but one cannot deny the original context

When the Constitution was written, it was white property owning mans law. That can never be forgotten because of the many hot and cold wars the various viewpoints of the Constitution has caused.

[piedmont]

204. And your point is?

What, you want to throw out the constitution now, 'cause its as eeeevil as those darn guns?

[billbuckhead]

244. The 2nd amendment was steeped in racism, classism and manifest destiny

Deny that and deny reality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. What it means is well established. The right to keep arms is for the purpose of a militia.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quilici2.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[piedmont]

123. The first clause doesn't place any restriction on the action of the sentence.

As I said earlier, you can replace the first clause with "A fried peanut butter sandwich, being necessary to feed Elvis," and it wouldn't change what the amendment guarantees-- the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In all the other amendments, "the people" means every one of us individually.

From the majority opinion in the news item this thread is about:
"Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

[lumberjack_jeff]

185. The decision is directly contradictory to legal precedent.

I find it interesting when gun control opponents praise the language wisdom of the founding fathers while simultaneously pinning their entire logical framework on the belief that the first half of the second amendment is extraneous gibberish.

Absent a state constitution which forbids it, local governments are within their rights to regulate weapons within their jurisdictions. Prior to this court ruling, that point was settled law.

The residents of Washington DC do not have an unabridged right to bear arms that supercedes local government's right to regulate it.

Whether the DC law was practically too restrictive or ineffective is a different discussion.

[piedmont]

206. So was Brown v. Board of Education

That it goes against precedent doesn't make it less valid.

I find it interesting when gun control opponents praise the language wisdom of the founding fathers while simultaneously pinning their entire logical framework on the belief that the first half of the second amendment is extraneous gibberish.

Note that the amendment does NOT say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms for service in the militia shall not be infringed." The first clause may serve to explain their primary reason for the amendment, but it doesn't put a limitation on the right. I don't dispute that the right can be regulated, just like any of the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights. And the reasonableness of some of those regulations is a debate for another day.

[sass29429]

148. Assuming you mean that

I guess you then mean that the individual in the unorganized militia should also be required to arm himself with an adequate state of the art military grade weapon in order to be ready when the militia is called?

You can distinguish the difference between organized and unorganized militia in your state without lloking it up to see what category you fall in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. If the militia is an anachronism, then so is the second amendment. n/t

[krispos42]

214. Well, if they require me to...

I'll gladly go out and buy a military-issue M-16A4. I'm assuming it will be a tax deduction or tax credit of some sort?

The problem, of course, will be arming the 57 million (all-male) members of the unorganized militia.

[primavera]

36. Repuke judges do help

The three judge court consists of: Silberman, nominated by Reagan; Griffith, nominated by George W. Bush; and Henderson, nominated by Poppy Bush. Despite the ideological homogeneity of the court, it was not a unanimous ruling: Henderson voted against it. It's mildly interesting that it was the judges picked by the two most rabid conservatives who were the ones responsible for the ruling.

[LibMan11]

42. The dissenting opinion wasn't against the basic findings...

Only against the finding of Bill of Rights applying to D.C. because it is not a State.

[piedmont]

44. Ha!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[primavera]

45. Like I said, right-wing judges help

No argument. Take old Laurence Silberman. Probably his greatest claim to fame is his overturning of Olly North's conviction for his role in Iran-Contra. But he is also pretty famous for his role while on the FISA Court in expanding the current administration's use of unauthorized wiretaps after 9/11. Then, of course, there's his past fellowship with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, his staunch opposition to affirmative action, his opposition to a woman's right to choose, to gay rights, his opposition to separation of church and state, yep, he's a real right-wing poster boy. Thomas Griffith was, of course, one of Bush's filibustered nominees he finally manage to force through. He's most famous for his opposition to civil rights, particularly women's rights, and there was that business about him repeatedly losing his license to practice law for ethical violations. Ah, and who could forget Karen Henderson, initially appointed to the bench by Reagan and then promoted by Bush? She's the Strom Thurmond protoge who helped gut campaign finance reform. Yep, these are the judges whose decision is being celebrated here tonight. Interesting choice of heroes for a group of Democrats.

[scavenger]

39. I see the constitution

I believe our founding fathers are saying for us to be equally armed as citizens .

I see the constitution saying that a militia has a right to military weapons, as long it is a well regulated military, such as keeping track and securing heavy weaponry and ammo. I also see the constitution saying that the people have the right to own arms just as equal to but not above local law enforcement.

You never know what the future will bring and you must be prepared for it. That's why we have the second amendment.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Ok then, so lets all nuke up.

After all how can we stand against our government's nuclear arsenal if we do not have parity?

[piedmont]

58. The government is your friend. Governments NEVER kill their people.

After all how can we stand against our government's nuclear arsenal if we do not have parity?

The same way the Iraqis do, duh.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Governments are capable of great evil.

"The same way the Iraqis do, duh."

Well that is a good point. How is it that Saddam had no problem keeping the peace? The fact of the matter is that if our army was tasked with performing the level of atrocity that Saddam used against his own people, we could also impose a peace of sorts. Foreign occupying armies rarely do that these days. Our government, if it felt threatened, would not hestitate to rise to the level of brutality for which we are executing the remainders of the Saddam regime: for example the Halabja poison gas attack of 1988 against the Kurds. In our post WWII world it is not generally the foreign armies that commit the worst atrocities, it is the local ones, and they do so to put down any threat to their monopoly of power.

To be clear: I absolutely agree with the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd amendment: we citizens have the right to own and operate all weapons. That meaning is simply obsolete however in our modern world.

[piedmont]

93. Glad you agree

"The same way the Iraqis do, duh."

Well that is a good point. How is it that Saddam had no problem keeping the peace? The fact of the matter is that if our army was tasked with performing the level of atrocity that Saddam used against his own people, we could also impose a peace of sorts. Foreign occupying armies rarely do that these days. Our government, if it felt threatened, would not hestitate to rise to the level of brutality for which we are executing the remainders of the Saddam regime: for example the Halabja poison gas attack of 1988 against the Kurds. In our post WWII world it is not generally the foreign armies that commit the worst atrocities, it is the local ones, and they do so to put down any threat to their monopoly of power.

To be clear: I absolutely agree with the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd amendment: we citizens have the right to own and operate all weapons. That meaning is simply obsolete however in our modern world.

If you think guns aren't effective against modern armies, why do infantrymen carry them? Where are all the discarded rifles littering the streets of Baghdad, tossed away in frustration by insurgents?

For one thing, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi citizens before the war were lightly armed at best, and nowhere near the U.S. gun ownership rates. I'd bet that most Iraqis still don't own a gun even now. But even with those limitations, they're more than enough trouble for us, even if we were to rise to Saddam's level of brutality.

Although handguns would be of limited usefulness, the effect of widespread ownership of rifles could be devastating, even (or maybe especially) in the face of brutality. Every time you kill or rape a civilian, you may create one or more snipers among his/her relatives and friends. And let's not forget that it may only take one bullet to bring down a dictatorship. Krispos has given a little more thought to the effect of snipers than I have-- maybe he'll weigh in on that subject.

[krispos42]

147. Oh dear, am I being painted as an expert?

:blush:

I will note that in insurgent/partisan/guerrilla struggle, conventional warfare is uncommon. The conventional armed forces are too strong for that kind of stand-up, knock-down fight.

What you get are attacks against rear-echelon troops, sabotage, roadside bombings, booby traps, arson, communication blocking and eavesdropping, assassinations, that sort of thing. Even event manipulation is on the order of battle. Setting up the enemy so they slaugher a bunch of school children or something by 'accident'.

And you attack the infrastructure, as well. Set a fire, slaugher the civilian fire crews that show up to fight it. Do that a few times and the civilian fire crews will either quit and have to be replaced by military crews, or they will demand that the occupying army secure the area first. In either case, the risk of a city-wide conflagaration goes up and the occupying army is distracted and weakened.

If you want to be really cruel, you don't kill the enemy soldiers. You disable them so that they live, but without an arm or a leg or something. It upsets both the occupying force and their citizen base at home, as well as creating an enormous drag on the medical services.

Eventually the occupying forces get really heavy-handed, trying to deal with the IPGs, driving more people into the arms of anybody with guns and the guts to use them.



Of course, foreign occupiers can successfully occupy a country for a long time, and by successfully I mean peacefully, but it involves competence, adaptability, understanding, and a lot of good public works projects and the like. The Romans, I understand, would do things in a newly conquered province like build roads and bridges and aquaducts and fountains and other infrastructure improvements. Fair wages, local labor. Kept people busy, satisfied, and in the black, instead of unemployed and poor and angry.

Hmmm.... this sounds vaguely familiar...

[krispos42]

145. One fatal flaw with that argument...

Saddam was an Iraqi! His soldiers and police... Iraqis!

Not only are we foreigners, we have a different language, ethnicity, and religion.

Trust me, if we were invaded and occupied by, say, China, I WOULD be in the army or part of a resistance movement, my loathing for BushCorp aside.

[billbuckhead]

125. But corporate arms merchants are our friends

What a crazy world many live in.

[piedmont]

128. The fact that corporations make many of them doesn't make them eeeeevil.

Corporations make cars, too.

Next smear.

[billbuckhead]

134. Corporations make weapons

[Speaker]

157. Corporations make similac, and grow green beans, and... n/t

[krispos42]

178. And the use of weapons can be either good, or bad

It depends on the circumstances.

Arms dealers can be selling to an honest government, or those genocidal nuts in Darfur. The US government buys its guns from arms dealers. There is an American company that makes automatic AR-15s that the Army buys as the "M16". There is an American company that makes licence-built copies of the Minimi, and the Army buys them as the "M249 Squad Automatic Weapon". There is an American company that makes licence-built copies of the Beretta Model 92F, and the Army buys them as the 'M9'.

Who do you think provided the weapons carried by your local police force? Arms dealers!

[billbuckhead]

184. Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex

applies just as much to small arms as to nukes. Corporate green and blood just don't mix well.

[krispos42]

215. The military-industrial complex only has one big customer...

The Pentagon.

The civilian gun makers have 80 million, many of whom only buy a few guns in their live spans.

It's not the same level at all.

Hell, I've only bought 3 in my lifetime, and got two more as freebies.
!
Of course, depending on how the income tax refund goes, I might be upgrading! :-)

[scavenger]

68. not a controlled weapon

Nukes are wide spread weapons of mass destruction. If the government nuked the citizenry, they would be nuking themselves as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Nonsense.

We have a vast array of tactical nukes that could and would be used to subdue rebellious regions.

[Pavulon]

78. Are you honestly

suggesting the us government will use nuclear weapons against its citizens?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Suggesting? I'm 100% sure they would.

I have no doubt that if we get to a second civil war, which is a distinct possibility, tactical nukes can and will be used.

[Pavulon]

90. Well I disagree

there are other options that do not destroy things that generate power and such. Generally mobs of people dislike tear gas, rubber bullets, or similar things.

Truly violent (armed) uprisings can be dealt with by infantry tactics.

Your view of the current political situation is a bit darker than mine..

Who are the players in the civil war?
Conservative vs liberal. Considering most countries unity governments have parties far more radical on both sides than the current members of ebay on the Potomac, I don't see that as a strong possibility.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

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

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

119. I'm more interested in your "distinct possibility statement."

So people are ready to riot in the streets and overthrow the government? Where? I don't see it? Care to point it out?

I see people upset at the political process, but no where near violent overthrow or States seceeding?

[Warren Stupidity]

170. No people are not ready to riot.

However we are heading off a cliff. Global civilization is faced with the related calamaties of peak oil and catastrophic climate change. Our ruling elites appear to have decided to do approximately nothing to avoid this catastrophy other than to grab the oil fields of the middle east, declare themselves 'king of the hill' and prepare for global conflict. Oh, and they have bankrupted our nation in the process, although nobody is willing to declare the bankruptcy official yet because we are such a dangerous menace.

So back to your point: no we aren't ready to riot yet because at the moment we are still fat dumb and happy in our SUVs, with our couch potato HDTV mini-paradises, with our internet pseudo-lives.

In fact I don't think there will be riots at all. Instead my best guess is that the long slow slide into fascism lite, fascism with a theocratic flavor and a madison avenue veneer, will become overt after the next major crisis, economic, natural, or terrorist. Those of us opposed to the theocracy will be faced with the question of just what to do about it. And perhaps the answer will be: we do nothing. If there is an organized resistance, and that resistance is moderately successful the civil war scenario develops. And then we come to the problem of all that destructive unconventional weaponry.

[Speaker]

159. ROTFLMAO

I have no doubt that if we get to a second civil war, which is a distinct possibility, tactical nukes can and will be used.

Yep, because the congress will allow the gummint to vaporize the cities their mommy and daddy live in. And vaporize their children. And the generals will push the button to kill 10,000 people in their home town. And none of the military will desert.

[Warren Stupidity]

167. The congress at that point

will be one of two congresses, one run by fundaloon theofascists. The cities vaporized (and with tactical nukes we are not talking about actual vaporization) will not be the ones their mommies and daddies live in, it will be the ones we live in.

Which part of 'civil war' do you find confusing? If you think that atrocities are not likely in an actual civil war, I suggest you google 'sherman's march to the sea'. Here, I'll give you a starter from wiki:

"Sherman's March to the Sea followed his successful Atlanta Campaign of May to September 1864. He and U.S. Army commander Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare were decisively broken. Sherman therefore applied the principles of scorched earth, ordering his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies, and destroy civilian infrastructure along their path. This policy is often also referred to as total war. The recent reelection of President Abraham Lincoln ensured that short-term political pressure would not be applied to restrain these tactics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea

[scavenger]

84. Give me an example

As to how the government would launch such a tactical nuclear attack against civilians. How would they get them contained in one or several areas of the country. And how would you contain the environment damage from such attacks.

It can't be done in Iraq so why would you think it could be done here?

[krispos42]

86. In any civil war, the army would fragment

Some units and generals would stay loyal to DC, some would turn to the rebels. How it would play out is anybody's guess, but I'm can see DC nuking a rebel bomber base to destroy the nukes stockpiled there.

And the enviromental damage contained? "After the war"....

[piedmont]

91. Yeah, but if more than one side had nukes, you'd be back to MAD-- which is pretty stable. nt

[krispos42]

199. But the redundency would be gone

Ballistic missile subs operated on the priciple that they got a coded extremely-low-frequency message on a regular basis. As long as they got that message, they stayed quiet and hidden.

But if they didn't get a message two or three times in a row, they operated under the assumption that a surprise nuclear attack has wiped out NORAD, and proceded to launch a pre-planned nuclear strike.

If the nuclear arsenal fragments, that redundency is gone. All the multiple layers of protection stripped away, and a single nuclear strike could take out the ability of a rebel group to launch.

[piedmont]

208. hmm, good point.

I would think, then, that a nascent rebel movement in possession of nukes would consider it imperative to establish such redundancy.

[krispos42]

212. Probably not in the face of power struggles within the rebels themselves

Sooooo much depends on how such a war would shake out that it is impossible to know for sure almost anything!

It's not like this is a common occurance in this country, so the entire process would be very new indeed.

[Pavulon]

92. Are you familiar

with the protocols involving nuclear weapons? Civilians hold nuclear weapons release authority.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. So in a civil war some of those 'civilians' would be on one

side and perhaps some on the other. The point is that control of our huge stockpile of tactical and strategic non-conventional weapons would be in the hands of one or more of the factions in any civil war. Whatever nominal or physical constraints on their use would be quickly circumvented. If a MAD situation developed where there was parity between two opposing factions, then yes perhaps no use would be made of them.

Suppose it isn't even a civil war. Instead the current fascism lite becomes fascism overt and obvious. All of the current structures, rather than divided between warring factions in a red-state blue-state replay of 1861-5, are in the control of a theocratic fascist regime. There would then be no constraints at all on their use of the entire arsenal, tactical and strategic: they would have the football.

This is all theoretical bullshit of course, but the point of a 2nd amendment as a bulwark against tyranny requires one to ask justwhat such a theoretical situation would look like, 200 or so years after the 2nd was authored. The problem I am trying to point out is that handgun control is a farce of an issue here considering the actual nature of such a hypothetical situation.

[scavenger]

97. The same thing could be said with the entire constitution

considering its over 200 years old.

If you want to look at it that way, look at all the death and destruction the republican conservative talk show host, and the mainstream press have done promoting wars. Are you in favor of speech and press control of the first amendment as well?

[scavenger]

95. So where are all the bomber basses at in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I don't believe that you would see any kind of nuclear attack on civilians by the government in any kind of uprising because the results would be devastating on both sides.

The second amendment is very important to your freedom and your children's freedom and your safety as well. If you think the police is going to be there to protect you when you need to be protected you need to come live in my city for awhile.

Its obvious to me that most of the gun crime is brought on by the drug war, not the guns.

[lazer47]

40. How are you going to stand

for your rights once you have been disarmed?

[piedmont]

41. Exactly-- see post #8 nt

[ProudDad]

49. The same way

all of those disarmed folks in Romania, East Germany, etc. etc. did it. As Gandhi (and countless thousands of others) did it in India.

As they said in Chiapas; "We choose to withhold our consent."

They've got you outmanned and out gunned. If you think your stupid handguns and little popguns are gonna mean shit come any violent revolution, you're crazier than I thought.


I wish you 2nd Amendment fundies could live in my neighborhood for a while...you'd change your tune, Or at least, give US the option of getting rid of the fucking things in OUR TOWN!!!

[Speaker]

158. LOL

They've got you outmanned and out gunned. If you think your stupid handguns and little popguns are gonna mean shit come any violent revolution, you're crazier than I thought.

Tell that to the Mujahideen, who threw the second most powerful military on earth out of their country, using WWI bolt action rifles.

Tell that to the VC who threw us out of their country using AK47s and crossbows.

The unarmed people in Darfur don't seem to be doing so well.

[krispos42]

59. I thought the DC circuit was lefty central?

I mean, according to the Libby apologists, the juries are just SO LIBERAL their minds are clouded and they can't think properly! :-)

(This really is a shot at the Libby apologists)

[primavera]

60. Hardly - see my post 21

DC is lefty central; unfortunately, the 'pukes have done a pretty thorough job of stacking the circuit court with right-wing extremists.

[zanne]

173. And that's another thing to worry about.

A cherry-picked court system is unhealthy for everybody. This has been going on since Reagan. Alot of these judges are VERY political.

[AngryAmish]

71. DC Circuit is the appellate court

No juries here (and juries never decide on issues of Constitutionality).

[shield20]

104. Of course they did

Go figure - they thought the people were responsible enough to provide for their own individual security, AND responsible enough to ensure common the liberty.

Why would anyone freely choose to put that burden on someone else???

You can't be that inept or irresponsible, are you?

[Speaker]

154. ...

I'm sure the "founding fathers" didn't mean for every other yahoo to have a loaded handgun in their waistband...

That is exactly what they meant. Read some of the debates, at the time, over the Bill of Rights. The 2nd was intended specifically to allow every man to own and bear arms to defend the country and overthrow the government, if necessary.

A lot of the "yahoos" during the time of the founding owned their own battleships. A lot of folks owned cannons.

We didn't even outlaw the possession of thermonuclear weapons until the mid '80s, and that may well be the stupidest law ever written. If I have a 10 megaton warhead in my closet, who the hell is gonna' take it from me, 1-Adam-12?

Yes, the right of all "yahoos" to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[ProudDad]

190. What part of

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,


don't you understand?




What part of WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED WELL REGULATED

Don't you understand?




mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) pronunciation
n.

A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

Sounds like the National Guard to me....



I get a real kick out of you fundies....

[krispos42]

198. See post #61 et al.

And have a nice evening.

[Vexatious Ape]

38. I couldn't agree more.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. It is a bad thing if you are familiar with DC. nt.

[ProudDad]

50. You've got that right, friend.

We should have the option to get rid of the fucking things in our towns if we want!

[shield20]

103. And will everyone comply?

Or just you and other lawful citizens?

[MGD]

112. No law will ever "get rid of the fucking things"

just like no law will ever get rid of abortions

[ProudDad]

192. Logic Errors:

FALSE ANALOGIES occur when writers overlook the fact that two things being compared are more different than they are similar. http://www.siue.edu/~smoiles/fallac.html

Cute try though...

[piedmont]

207. Do you doubt the ability of Americans to manufacture guns and their ammunition at home?

I wouldn't.

[krispos42]

233. I, for one, do not doubt the ability at all

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com

It's made mostly out of seamless tubing, a couple of springs, and some selectively drilled holes. Plus a little bit of brazing. Of course, there is some filing and/or grinding for a few of the parts. For example, the sear is part of a Allen wrench ground down.

But I looked at it, and there is absolutely no reason that I could not make one with the tools already present in my house.

And I've loaded rifle ammo by hand as well.

[piedmont]

237. Smokeless powder could also be produced in home labs.

It's certainly not as complicated as the chemistry involved in meth labs.

[krispos42]

249. True, although I would not want to try it

Too much ka-bloomie involved for my taste. You would also have to somehow make cartridges and primers. Maybe with some copper or brass round stock and a small lathe?

[ProudDad]

246. This is SICK!!!

Sick crap...

[piedmont]

247. So are meth labs and bath-tub gin. See the connection? nt

[ProudDad]

258. No

I'm afraid your fantasies are beyond the understanding of rational people.

Want to explain your false analogy???

[krispos42]

250. Knowledge does not die

Hence the problem here.

This type of submachine gun is simplicity at it's finest. The Israeli Uzi, the British Sten gun, and the US Grease Gun all operate on a similar principle, although of course the barrel is rifled and the gun is better built.

Quite simply, the 'trigger' is really a latch that holds the bolt back. When you sqeeze the trigger, the bolt is released and driven forward under spring pressure. A round it stripped from the magazine by the bolt and pushed into the breech of the barrel. As the bolt slams to a stop, the firing pin shoots out and hits the cartidge, detonating it. The explosion of gunpowder propels the bullet down the barrel while simultanously driving the bolt backwards. The weight of the bolt and the force of the spring keep the cartridge in the breech for a few precious milliseconds until the bullet leaves the barrel. Then the bolt slams back, extracting and ejecting the empty case. If the trigger is still held down, the bolt slows under spring pressure, stops, and slams forward again, and the process repeats. If the trigger is released, it arrests the forward motion of the bolt.

Manufacturing a modern firearm, with all the ergonomic features, precision tolerences, and interchangeble parts requires a complex manufacturing process, one that cannot be readily done in the basement. But if your goal is to make something basic and short-lived that simply shoots bullets, it is much easier.

[MGD]

216. Straw man fallacies:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Take your straw man down and quit throwing it at me.

[Speaker]

160. .

We should have the option to get rid of the fucking things in our towns if we want!

Get 2/3 of the congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, and you are in like Flynn.

I don't think you'll ever have the votes.

[ProudDad]

191. And this is a good thing?

:shrug:

My neighbors wouldn't agree with you....

[Speaker]

205. Fortunately, my rights are not subject to the approval of your neighbors. n/t

[slackmaster]

76. DC certainly has more than its share of crooks and criminals

Mostly sent there by Mr. and Mrs. America to serve as their elected representatives.

[shield20]

102. Why? Doesn't make sense...

They took 2655 illegal guns off the street last year - how many criminals do you think they took off, and what was the REAL problem if there ALREADY WERE ILLEGAL GUNS?...the mandated one-sided use of guns, OR THE CRIMINALS who used them?

[ProudDad]

52. Fuck this

this post was just flame bait anyway.

Total bullshit....

Waste of time...

I'm out!

[Doremus]

63. I used to be pro-gun control .....

before the Bush junta.

Now I'm completely in favor of gun ownership.

Someday we may have to take to the streets.

Pitchforks are not only quaint ... they are pretty ineffective against tanks.

[FyurFly]

66. You are a smart person...

You may need those "evil" rifles to save you, your family and if needed your country. Guns are tools nothing more nothing less.

[billbuckhead]

85. Guns are pretty much ineffective against tanks

:eyes:

[piedmont]

89. Not according to .50 Caliber Terror.com!!!!!!

"The .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle puts us all at risk whenever we fly an airplane.

These powerful sniper rifles which were designed for the battlefield to puncture armor and destroy targets from long range are easier to get than a handgun. "

".50 Caliber Sniper Rifles were designed to attack parked or landing aircraft, armored personnel carriers, rail tank cars, bulk fuel storage, and concrete bunkers.
.50 Caliber sniper rifles are powerful enough to puncture armored limousines and can be used as tools for assassination.
.50 Caliber Sniper Rifles have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or in other words, 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters generally shoot at ranges of 150 to 200 yards.
Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s.
.50 Caliber ammunition is the largest round available on the civilian market and highly destructive armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds are easily available. "

[NickB79]

100. There are other ways a citizenry can deal with tanks than with guns

The Iraqis have proven that pretty well already.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. Not generally against tanks. Softer targets yes.

But again - we are somewhat constrained in the level of atrocity we can use to supress insurrection in Iraq. There are exceptions of course - we went all out in Fallujah. Saddam had no particular problem putting down Kurdish and Shiite revolts as he had no compunction about jaw dropping acts of barbarism. Using Iraq as a good case for why we need the right to keep and bear handguns is a bit on the silly side.

[piedmont]

114. I don't understand the fixation with tanks

Tanks are superbly useful in large clashes between armies, but damn near useless in a guerilla war. You can't patrol in tanks. You can't go on seek-and-destroy missions in tanks. You COULD blow up other tanks, massed infantry, equipment, etc.-- but again, those targets are few and far between in a guerilla war.

[billbuckhead]

120. Tanks have done a damn good job against 2nd amend type guns

It takes a real democratically empowered type miltia to be trusted to use antitank missiles or IED's. If Israel only faced AK rifles's, they'd still be in Lebanon.

[piedmont]

121. You do undestand that IEDs are IMPROVISED?

I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence. Try again.

As for your second, like I said-- IEDs can be made if they need to be made. That's why they're called Improvised Explosive Devices.

[billbuckhead]

124. I rather my county have antitank missiles than the next door idiot have a gun

If one is really thinking about fighting a dangerous central government, powerful local citizen armies makes more sense than any moran can by the most lethal gun but localities don't have anything to stop tanks.

[piedmont]

129. While that may be your preference, it isn't grounded in reality. nt

[billbuckhead]

132. Guerillas can't win with guns but they sure can win with missiles

Stingers, Kornets, Katushas, whatever.

[piedmont]

133. Guerillas can't win WITHOUT guns, bill.

Show me ONE insurgency fought without rifles. Just one.

[billbuckhead]

135. When the Christians took over Rome

When Black people won the right to vote in the south. When India won independence. When Hugo Chavez won election in Venezuela. "When Communism fell".

[piedmont]

137. Not insurgencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
"An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader."

[billbuckhead]

138. Actual revolutions trump "insurgencies" everywhere except gunnerworld

If you're only imaginative enough to have a hammer for a tool, then every problem can only look like a nail.

[piedmont]

139. And we were discussing situations that call for insurgencies before you entered the thread.

Not every revolution can be accomplished peacefully. It helps to have a hammer in the toolbox if you need it. And I'm glad to see you associate guns with hammers-- they are both tools. You're making progress!:thumbsup:

[billbuckhead]

140. A-bombs are "tools" too

:nuke:

[piedmont]

141. And useless for civilian-led insurgencies. Try to keep up. nt

[billbuckhead]

142. A-bombs are useless for civilian led insurgencies?

:crazy:

[piedmont]

144. If not useless, then virtually impossible to acquire and manage.

I'll concede that many insurgencies would love to get hold of a nuke. But the strategic political ramifications of using a WMD that hasn't been used in over 61 years would probably more than compensate for the tactical benefits.

[billbuckhead]

180. Concede, concede, concede. I'm supposed to take your arguments serious?

:crazy::crazy::crazy: ???

[piedmont]

202. That's the best you can do? nt

[krispos42]

149. Says the guy who's only argument is:

Guns are evil. Ban guns!

When you blame all crime on all guns, then your only tool is disarmament. Nail, hammer.

[billbuckhead]

181. I thought guns had no effect in our high murder rate, it's all societal problems

Now all of a sudden, the only tool is disarmament? It's like Rush rushing to the ACLU when the shoe was on the other foot. The gun lobby side can argue both sides of of every argument like true professionals. As a group, you guys are among the best sophists on the internet.

[krispos42]

213. Ummmm.... I was referring to you... n/t

[billbuckhead]

243. All these nations with low murder rates have no problems, like France?

[krispos42]

251. Never mind

If you haven't gotten it by now, you're not going to.

[billbuckhead]

253. Only America has social problems that cause gunfire

France had those riots and only one person died. Ironically, even disenchanted rioting muslim French youth are better people than Americans in gunner world. Sad world you live in.

[krispos42]

234. Part of any insurgency is stealing from the invaders

Missiles, rockets, and anti-tank mines would be gotten from raided supply convoys, as well as government forces going over to the side of the rebels.

Besides, the way BushCo runs war, I'm sure there will be TONS of munitions storage bunkers left unguarded and unlocked to supply the rebels! :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

172. I'm not sure that is correct.

Tanks are relatively immune to small arms fire and thus are quite useful for urban patrols. Plus they are real good at blowing the crap out of anything nearby. So you run the tank down the street straight at where the fire is coming from, keep your softer targets behind it, blow the crap out of any fortified positions, and then assault with your ground troops. Isn't that sort of basic urban warfare tactics?

[krispos42]

179. There are other problems

One, plenty of cover or RPG teams. An insurgent can pop up at close range and slam a rocket into a tank's side or rear. Or even a track. With a track blown off, the tank can't move. Now either the crew has to abandon a $3,000,000 tank to the insurgents, or the army has to fight to secure the area while it is being repaired.

RPG teams can also fire down from upper-story windows onto the thinner top armor of tanks, the armor that won't stop a shaped-charge armor penetrator.

Tank commanders also are usually out of the tank looking around and manning the machine gun. A ripe target for a sniper.

Two, a mixure of gasoline and styrofoam or powered soap works quite well in making a form of napalm. This sticks to the armor of a tank and burns hotly, eventually causing a cookoff either in the fuel compartment or the ammo bunker. Sort of a sticky Molotov cocktail.

Three, there is also plenty of cover for ambushes, large IEDs, anti-tank mines, etc., in urban areas.

There is considerable risk involved in urban warfare, however you go about it.

[Doremus]

109. My point, which I'm sure you already know, is that an armed citizenry

is in a better position to defend itself against a tyrannical government.

Do you think we'll never need to rise up? I wish I could share your optimism, but alas I'm more cynical ... thanks to the past 6 years of the * junta and the rising tide of fascism in America.

[ProudDad]

193. they are pretty ineffective against tanks.

So are the pop guns you're allowed to buy.

This is a hell of a lot more powerful:

http://www.nonviolence.org/

[madville]

65. Does it really matter

It doesn't really matter at all since criminals have never followedlaws to begin with. The only thing laws do is limit the actions of the law-abiding people, lat time I checked criminals break laws, they don't care about following them.

[slackmaster]

77. You see the logical disconnect at the core of most attempted gun bans

The people most likely to comply with the ban are the least likely to endanger the public if they have weapons, and vice-versa.

[billbuckhead]

116. But when we see someone with an assault rifle we'll know for sure he's the enemy

And not some misguided patriot. Liberals biggest problem around the world isn't beating enemies, it's identifying enemies. Middle eastern moslems aren't really our most likely enemy, the NRA is. Look at the pictures. You don't see Martin Luther King at an NRA Convention. Hell, the Congressional Black Caucus is on the NRA enemies list. No, you see admitted racist Ted Nugent or turncoat and duel loving Zell Miller (an old Lester Maddox protege) giving speeches at the NRA convention. And guess what? Aknowledeged Leninist Grover Norquist is on the board of directors of the NRA. It's not a surprise that NeoCONS love guns and weak gun regulations.

[krispos42]

150. And then what? Use harsh language?

Give'em the finger? Spit on them?

You're trading the ability to do something about it for the ability to know, absolutely, which people are the bad guys?

Oy vey.

[anotherdrew]

67. all it takes is the votes, and we'll come for your guns

get ready, it's high time to disarm America. Anyone who fights back is a terrorist, subject to total property forfeiture and life in jail.

handguns, totally illegal, anyone found with one, 10 years in jail.
any rifle beyond a bolt action, 10 years.
In possession of "advanced" ammunition? 10 more years.
running a factory building any of this stuff? Total property forfeited and 15 years jail time for the owners.
Importing banned firearms or ammunitions? Banned from entry to the US for life and 10 years jail time.

It's time to "send a message"

[benEzra]

72. That's sarcasm, right? (n/t)

[anotherdrew]

96. I suppose it is

or it might compare drug laws with gun laws

[aikoaiko]

98. molon labe, friend.

:bounce:

[Pavulon]

74. Good, It is a political nightmare issue

and a pointless law.

[zanne]

81. So I don't have a right to be safe.

If one of your kids was killed by a drive-by, you'd change your tune. We're not all out in the country, hunting deer. But I have to be afraid to walk down the street and I have to be sure to to be indoors after night falls, because you kids want your guns. Well, thanks alot for caring about my rights. Let yourself think about that for just one minute without searching for "statistics" to post. Real people are involved here. I tell you what; give me your phone number and the next time I hear gunshots at 3:00 am I'll give you a call and you can come protect me with your gun, OK?

[slackmaster]

83. You most certainly do have a right to BE safe

But I have to be afraid to walk down the street and I have to be sure to to be indoors after night falls, because you kids want your guns.

That is a false dilemma, and you don't have a right to feel any particular way. The firearms in my safe and my home do not endanger you.

...next time I hear gunshots at 3:00 am I'll give you a call and you can come protect me with your gun, OK?

The gunshots you hear at 3:00 AM are almost certainly being used unlawfully by people who aren't even legally qualified to have one. Do something about them and you will have actually made yourself safer.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

106. It is already ILLEGAL for kids to have guns

you want to make it double illegal?

Making stupid laws that criminals ignore screws me over. If you live in a place you cant walk down the street you have options. Like encouraging people to enforce the law. Or curfews, which some citied use on kids.

[slackmaster]

79. This is a great ruling for privacy

It restores the right of people to keep a handgun in the privacy of their own homes, stored in a manner of their choosing.

For many years 2d Amendment jurisprudence has held that there is no individual right to own a handgun.

The judges that made this ruling don't agree.

This is an important issue that can effect elections and people's everyday life no matter where you stand on the issue. Also I edited the headline to fit.

Thank you for posting it, AngryAmish. IMO it points to the heart of the issue of where to draw the line between where government can go and where it cannot.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. This *was* settled law. See Quilci vs. Morton Grove.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quilici2.html

VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 6, 1982, Decided

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11, which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders.The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm.

We next consider whether Ordinance No. 81-11 violates the second amendment to the United States Constitution....

Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment....

So much for Stare Decisis.

[Bacchus39]

110. the DC circuit is not bound by other circuit courts

n/t

[benEzra]

111. The DC law went much further...

and prohibited the keeping of ANY functional firearm for defensive purposes. Even a century-old double-barrel shotgun.

BTW, the party platform recognizes the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to own firearms, not a collective right.

[billbuckhead]

136. Let's let rednecks&neocons tell African Americans how to govern themselves

This is a new ugly chapter in America's racist history.

[sass29429]

146. Clarify who is better

The rednecks and neocons who say to blacks that as an American we think you should have the right to defend yourself like any other American, or the folks that say you can't be trusted with firearms because??

If blacks (or other Americans) can't be trusted with firearms, can they be trusted with cars? razors, kitchen knifes? hammers?

[zanne]

171. The problem with your logic is...

You can't kill somebody from a distance with a razor, kitchen knife or hammer. Killing somebody with a gun is easy. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be as much gun crime. It's the easy way out for people who are violent, or people who are afraid.

[billbuckhead]

225. No one can be trusted with firearms, law enforcement by necessity.

The British police often don't have guns.

Here in America,guns are killing almost as many people as car accidents and almost everyone has a car they use everyday.

[Pavulon]

228. Umm.

Sidearm


MP5 extra scary black SMG (communists "distributing" the image")
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7130

lots of guns in england..

[krispos42]

235. How are you different from the Authoritarian Neocons, then?

I mean, really, how many people are killed every year because evidence was aquired 'unconstitionally'? How many people were killed because we don't have a state religion that unifies the diverse peoples and geographic regions into a common whole? How many people have been killed because activists were allowed to 'rile up' the population with differences of opinion? And how many criminals have gotten off because they got a smart lawyer to fool a dozen jurors? And how many crimes and criminals have escaped justice because the government couldn't imprison at will or torture to gain the truth? And the press is causing death and destruction because they are, by reporting, keeping the government from doing what needs to be done to protect the people and allowing dissenting opinions to be heard?

How can we possibley trust the peoople with any of these rights? What about the children?!?!?!?

[benEzra]

153. So people who believe that the 2ndA is an individual right are "rednecks and neocons"?

Let's let rednecks&neocons tell African Americans how to govern themselves

This is a new ugly chapter in America's racist history.

So people who believe that the 2ndA is an individual right are "rednecks and neocons"? Someone hasn't read the Democratic party platform recently...

BTW, you seem to be for home rule only when the policy in question is the one you like. You damn sure oppose home rule when you're calling for more Federal gun bans, when most states have already considered and rejected such bans...

[ShortnFiery]

163. No, not all. Many of us Democrats cherish our rifles and shotguns. n/t

[FyurFly]

197. I'm a Democrat and I love my...

Military-pattern Sport-Utility Rifles! The "guns are bad" meme is on it's way out! I try to take a newbie shooting at least twice a month!

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[billbuckhead]

224. NeoCONS and rednecks are the leaders of the "gun rights" movement

Grover (i got a bust of Lenin in my office)Norquist, Zell( I wished we still had duels)Miller, Ted(yeah, I'm a racist) Nugent, Tom DeLay, Dick(I own 30 machine guns) Cheney, ad nauseum.

Sorry, your movement has such a pitiful reputatation.

BTW, can you deny it's ugly that a majority black city that has consistantly been denied it's rights is now slapped down again?

[poorinnaples]

156. You're slipping...

You forgot "crackers", "trailer trash", etc., etc...

Interesting that US Senator Jim Webb, who recently thumped George Allen, in Virginia, wrote an excellent book, concerning these attempted slurs of middle class workers, in America. Maybe you should bother to read it.

An excellent book, & it makes me laugh every time I see someone throw around these juvenile, what they suppose are derogatory terms.

A book, every American should read, especially if you happen to be Scots-Irish, a Democrat, & intend to grow the party. The title was also Jim Webb's campaign slogan...a lesson that might serve the Democratic party well. Many in the party aren't doing anyone any political favors, by throwing verbal firebombs at those who have historically constituted a very large contingent of their "base"...middle class working folks, from coast to coast.

"Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America"
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916883

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[poorinnaples]

165. Not at all...

The point being, since the Scots-Irish, & the working middle class, will ultimately decide every election, for the foreseeable future, it might be a better plan, & in the party's best interest, to elevate political discussion, above all the juvenile name-calling, & silliness, that too often passes, these days, for debate of very important national issues.

Maybe it's long past time for the children to be seen, & not heard, & let the adults have their say. Possibly let the folks who actually foot the bill, for all these government disasters, discuss these matters like adults, in lieu of the ridiculous, childish diatribes.

Or, we can always "stay the course", & end up with a party, of a few disenchanted, malcontents, hell bent on hurling adolescent brickbats, at anyone who disagrees.

Personally, I'm on board with Jim Webb, since, after all, he did actually win a hard fought election. I like the cut of the man's jib.

Born fighting...

[zanne]

166. Wow! Thanks!

No one's called me young in a long time! :rofl:

[poorinnaples]

168. Actions...

And words, speak volumes.

Forrest Gump summed it up so eloquently...

[zanne]

169. You're so right.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[poorinnaples]

175. And...

Isn't that the whole idea of "the big tent", "growing the party", etc., etc.?

Fact is, if our party would put the whole philosophy of a party of honest, realistic ideas, to practice, they'd be in power, for the next 100 years.

Unfortunately, anyone who doesn't toe the line, of a few Johnnie-come-latelies, but has been in "the party" for damn near 40 years, ends up being a "newbie", in the eyes of a babbling few?

"Hey; just sayin'."...yeah, exactly, nonsense...

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[poorinnaples]

177. And...

"Post count", or throwing brickbats is in no way related to honest & realistic opinion, or a mark of intelligent conversation...

"That's all I'm saying."

[ProudDad]

195. Interesting

big pictures of blood and guts Patton and ronny ray-gun on the cover.

Hmmmmmmm.....


On Edit: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0767916883/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1488705-3084040#reader-link


Well, he was in the ray-gun administration after all...

[FyurFly]

196. I love Jim Webb!!!

Proud Virginian and Proud Jim Webb Supporter!!!!

[billbuckhead]

226. A majority of all American economic classes are for stronger gun laws

I guess you think all city dwellers are rich, gay or black. (I've heard many rural people say stuff like that, then without irony, complain about bigoted Atlanta people)

"Albion's Seed" say the Scots-Irish are ruining America with love of violence, war, weapons, fundamentalist religion, rightwing politics, basically the whole rightwing agenda. Read the book "Cold Mountain" or see the movie and see how great this crowd really is.

[Pavulon]

231. Nope, quickest way

to loose seats. Screw around with gun laws. They dont work, and generally punish people who actually follow the law.

But if you want to turn states red it is a great way to do it.

[billbuckhead]

242. Bullshit. All the POTUS candidates in the lead lap are pro gun regulation

There's always a disconnect between the neoCONs and reality. Like John Lott/Mary Rosh<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

The NRA bogeypersons take full credit for the Contract on America, cutting welfare, NAFTA, failed healthcare reform, etc.

[Recursion]

265. Thank you for reminding me of the gun-grabbers' prejudice against me

And until the antigun people can come to terms with the fact that second amendment democrats are supporting the progressive cause of individual liberty while they are opposing it, this kind namecalling is all I've come to expect from the anti-progressive side of this debate.

Gun control has been a chief aim of every modern tyrant
Gun control is one of the central legacies of American racism
Gun control got * close enough to Gore to steal the election -- how many people has that killed?
But worst and most importantly of all, gun control is an attempt to curtial Constitutionally protected liberties. How someone can approve of curtailing Constitutionally protected liberties and call himself or herself a progressive is beyond me, but I know plenty of people do.

What I don't do, I'll add, is call you names in lieu of addressing your arguments, and I'd appreciate it if you extended that same courtesy.

[Thothmes]

210. Settled Law

Just like Plessy vs. Ferguson?

[w4rma]

151. Good. The vast majority of gun problems in DC are rooted in poverty, not the legality of guns. (nt)

[billbuckhead]

182. Poverty isn't KILLING these people, BULLETS are KILLING these Americans

Look at the coroner's reports.

[Bacchus39]

183. and the hand gun ban did what to save them?

n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

217. You seem to be quite ignorant as to the cause of violence...

Firearms do not cause violence, the situations that people are living in do.

[billbuckhead]

223. Firearms enhance violence and escalate fights into murders

Little arguments turn into murder when guns are easily accessable, that's why we lead the industrilaized world in murder.

BTW, gun pimps are always touting that guns can stop crime, then why can't they also cause crime as well? You guys can't have it both ways.

[Pavulon]

230. I have lots of bullets now

at one point access to millions of them. The never got up and bothered me. Had access to fragmentation grenades, ap mines, m4 carbine, m9, co ax mounted m2. Only thing that got shot were targets and my hearing.

Intent kills.

[Mike Daniels]

236. And how were bullets killing them if there was a gun ban in effect

The DC gun ban only benefits the criminals who are going to disobey the law anyway.

[billbuckhead]

239. BTW, lets legalize murder cause crooks won't the obey the laws. Gunner logic

The guns used in DC are bought in states with promiscuous gun laws laxly enforeced like the DC snipers did.

[ShortnFiery]

162. Excellent, Now we can liquidate the Homeland Security Department

by merely arming the Nuns at our Illustrious Washington National Cathedral! :wow: ;)



If any of you went to Catholic School taught by Nuns, you know that they'll take care of business. :thumbsup: :patriot: O8)

[Springster]

209. Just a minor point - The National Cathedral is Episcopal, not Roman Catholic. n/t

[ProudDad]

187. Another GREAT decision from the DC Circuit

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21gitmo.html?ex=1329714000&en=5188dfa8789fecb9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/20/13013/5804

Consider the source...

[FyurFly]

200. Consider your fear n/t

[ProudDad]

245. My fear?

My fear is that the bullshit "war on drugs" coupled with the bullshit cowboy mentality concerning how well armed the populace "must be" may get me shot by a stray bullet in my neighborhood.

The bullshit "war on drugs" HAS hit my roof with one of your "harmless" fucking bullets, causing my girlfriend, me and our cats to have to hit the deck one night.

De-criminalize drugs and allow certain folks (like us in urban areas) to abolish handguns and we would be able to ACTUALLY be safer. That would be much better than the fear monger bullshit pro-gun solution -- buy a gun yourself.

[FyurFly]

256. Guns will never go away EVER!

put your energy to better use.

[ProudDad]

259. Why, thank you for your support...

:puke: :puke: :puke:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


on Edit:

I'll be sure to relay your good wishes to the family of the next person who's murdered in front of my house.

[AngryAmish]

218. This is the longest thread I ever started

[ProudDad]

260. Are you really angry?

Are you really Amish?


:hi:




What's this: Clop, clop, clop -- BAM Clop, clop, clop -- BAM Clop, clop, clop -- BAM








You got it, an Amish drive-by...

[davepc]

219. I'm suprised it hasent been exiled to the gungeon by now...

maybe cause its LBN and not GD.

anyways, this case I think is going to cause some big waves in the coming years in terms of American firearms policy.

Though if you ask me right now, i'd say its 50-50 the statist authoritarians on the SCOTUS like Scalia will uphold the status-quo rather then then overturn 70 odd years of law at the flick of a pen.

[slackmaster]

221. I totally disagree that this in any way overturns 70-odd years of law

Just a few minutes ago I heard Paul Hemke, President of the Brady Center, claiming that the US v. Miller case was about the constitutionality of local gun laws. He was wrong of course; that was about the constitutionality of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the village handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. AFAIK it has never rules on a local ordinance.

[benEzra]

261. The only change it would make would be to replace the

"rational-basis" test with the "strict-scrutiny" test that is applied to legislation affecting other rights protected by the BoR.

It could probably be argued that the National Firearms Act would pass a strict-scrutiny test if the auto registry were reopened. I don't think protruding handgrip bans would fly, though, and D.C.-style bans would definitely be out.

[Recursion]

266. Well, my beloved hometown (DC) doesn't actually "ban" handguns

Anyone with a permit can keep a handgun in his or her home, and can transport it from that home to some place outside of the city to fire it.

However, no new permits have been issued since I believe 1976 and the city has made clear it will issue no more barring a changed political directive.

DC residents may keep rifles and shotguns in their home (subject to certain storage regulations, IIRC) with a permit, and DC has been willing to issue permits for these, although it is hardly a given.

Now, this is a tough issue for me, as a long-time DC resident.

On the one hand, I very much believe in the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, I very much believe in DC home rule. There have been previous Congressional attempts to overturn the DC handgun "ban" that I have opposed on the principle that Congress should not violate the principles of DC home rule. However, the courts are exactly the avenue for addressing the unconstitutional restrictions of liberty I'm subjected to living here, so I've got no problem with this ruling as such, though I'm worried about what Congress might do to it (Waxman, in particular, by stalling the DC Voting Rights bill is worrying me).

There have been 5 shootings in my neighborhood in the past year. I (along with about 200 other people) was held up at gunpoint a few months ago. Legal restrictions on handgun ownership aren't preventing handguns. It's time to respect our rights as citizens, and find a better way.