The Gun Lobby’s War On Democracy and Local Control In D.C.

[Truth4Justice]

The Gun Guys

September 10, 2008

The Gun Lobby’s War On Democracy and Local Control In D.C.

The good citizens of our nation's capitol are held hostage by the gun lobby that continues to abuse its power -- with the help of a patsy Congress -- to dictate the public safety policies of the District of Columbia. Currently, the gun lobby is frantically trying to eviscerate the sensible gun regulations that D.C. enacted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller that stripped it of its handgun ban.

How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can't pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities? The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

Gun zealots continually preach about government's abuse of power. But that is exactly what the NRA and their puppets in Congress are doing.

Instead of letting residents have a voice about their own safety, to pass sensible gun regulations, the gun lobby treats the residents of our nation's capitol as less than citizens. A-rated NRA Congressman use the gun issue to score cheap political points in their home districts to please the gun lobby, all the while beating D.C. residents like a pinata over the gun issue.

It must be satisfying for Congressmen who support the NRA's radical agenda to wreck a community, harass local leaders trying to save lives from gun violence, and fly back home and wash their hands of the violence they have enabled in a vital American city.

D.C. is not just any city mind you. The District hosts the most powerful government in the world, replete with summits and visits by ambassadors, heads of state, multi-international businessmen, foreign dignitaries and military leaders.

More at:

http://www.gunguys.com/#post-3181

[57_TomCat]

1. What a crock of manure. N/T

[Truth4Justice]

2. Did you fall into the outhouse hole?

[virginia mountainman]

10. No but somebody over at Gun Guys did...

And they evidently liked it.

[Tejas]

14. They are the apogee of hypocrites

"How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can't pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities? The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning."


hint: DC has HAD restrictions for 30 years, it has not worked to reduce anything, 150+ citizens are still murdered EVERY year. Do the GunGoyles really think everyone is really that stupid?






by the way:
"How does a Congressperson (McCarthy) from Long Island have the gall to tell the residents of THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY that they don't have enough restrictions on guns."

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. You're so sure it didn't help?

Can you say there might not have been 200, 250 gun deaths each year without the ban? You have no basis for comparison to say it has not worked to restrict anything. That is just a guess, rooted in your own preconceptions.

[Tejas]

27. gotta love the criminal apologists

a 31-year-old law that prevents handgun registration
a law that requires rifles and shotguns to be either disassembled or disabled when being stored
a law that requires a permit to carry a gun in your own home.



Helped criminals, that's about it.

Feel free to debunk at will.

[Truth4Justice]

29. Its just like that biased Lott crap study about 250,000 cases of crimes stopped by a gunowner....

It has NO basis in fact, has been proven to be a lie, but the gungoons keep right on quoting it like its the Gospel.

You cant teach people with preconceived notions with the facts. They will believe what ever they want to believe until the stuff hits the fan and their guns are on an endangered species list. }(

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. "You cant teach people with preconceived notions with the facts." You are a shining example of that.

[SteveM]

53. "Gungoons"? A little of that ol' time culture war? (nt)

[spin]

58. Please post some sources to support your arguement...

You may well be right, but it's difficult to determine without research. Merely making a statement like It has NO basis in fact, has been proven to be a lie, but the gungoons keep right on quoting it like its the Gospel. will do little to convince any pro-gunner of the validity of your argument.

In most cases where a gun owner does stop a crime, the situation is not important enough to make it into any database.

For example, an intruder attempted to break into my home and my daughter pointed a revolver at him. He fled. She called 911 and they responded. This incident was never reported in the local news nor did it end up compiled in any statistics. No one was hurt. End of story. This is very common of most situations in which a firearm deters a crime. Only the truly tragic incidents make the news and of the remainder only a very very few will be verified for any statistical study.

So any report that claims a number of crimes stopped could be open to fair criticism. That doesn't mean that such incidents don't happen.

Lets suppose that the statistics are wrong and that only 1/2 or 125,000 incidents happened. Or for that matter lets go so far as to say that only 1/10th or 25,000 incidents happened. Maybe only 5000 incidents happened. Let me ask you, would it have been better if even in the 5000 incidents, the situation would have resulted in death or injury to the innocent party?

[one-eyed fat man]

62. Of course DC's gun ban works!!

As seen by the following comparison on the 25-year anniversary of the DC gun ban (in 2001):
(FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (October 28, 2002): 77.)

Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban went into effect
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total for all VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,000

Washington, DC crime rates according to CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL1150000.html
Personal crime risk: 346
Property crime risk: 171
Personal crime incidents (per 100,000) 1,325
Property crime incidents (per 100,000) 4,667

Alexandria, VA crime rates according to CNN
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL5101000.html
Personal crime risk: 73
Property crime risk: 128
Personal crime incidents (per 100,000): 296
Property crime incidents (per 100,000): 3,859

If the reason that DC is so dangerous is because they don't ban guns in Virginia, is Virginia so much safer because they ban guns in DC?

[SteveM]

52. If D.C. says they reduced deaths with the ban, THEY should prove it (nt)

[spin]

25. Well we may soon know what effect...

allowing honest citizens to own firearms will have on the crime rate in D.C.

It would be even more interesting if they allowed trained citizens to carry concealed. But I doubt that that will ever happen.

[SteveM]

51. I smelled the gunguy steamers from a half mile & avoided their office (nt)

[tularetom]

3. Guns are readily available in nearby Maryland and Virginia

so those that want to use them to commit crimes will still be able to obtain them. The only people hurt by the restriction on ownership of firearms in DC are the district's law abiding, overwhelmingly minority residents. I'm not sure the ban on handgun ownership was necessarily supported by a majority of these folks.

DC residents have little enough control over their own neighborhoods. They should at least have the ability to protect themselves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. And according to what i've read, the residents support the ban

by something like 70/30.

[krispos42]

9. Doesn't make it Constitutional or legal

What was the public support rating for the Patriot Act when it was passed? Military Commissions Act? Telecom immunity? Invasion of Iraq?


I went to the Minnestoa History Museum a few months ago for their traveling exhibit on terrorism. The Wobblies, Ararchists, German sabatours during World War I, KKK, 9/11, Oklahoma City, etc.

Scattered throughout the display were Gallop polling stations asking questions about things like warrantless wiretaps, detention, etc.

Some of the percentages of the neocon answers were worrisome indeed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. My answer was a reply to:

"I'm not sure the ban on handgun ownership was necessarily supported by a majority of these folks."

The consensus among those who live there seems to be that fewer guns = less gun crime.

The DC ban does not ban all guns. It bans particular problematic weapons that have a higher incidence of use in crimes. As long as there are weapons available for legal ownership, the 2nd amendment is not violated. And on that aspect, what, exactly, is the difference between the federal government restricting the ownership of automatic weapons and a local government restricting the ownership of semi-automatic handguns?

[TPaine7]

17. BS

As long as there are weapons available for legal ownership, the 2nd amendment is not violated.

This is laughable and silly.

A knife is a weapon that can be owned in D.C. A sharp stick is a weapon, and it can be owned in DC. A rock is a weapon, as is a fist.

Read Heller.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. The topic is firearms, not rocks and sharp sticks.

Perfectly good, lethal firearms have ALWAYS been legal in DC. Only certain particular ones were not.

And yes, getting sucked into posting in these gungeon threads just because they show up on "recent threads" does remind me of "Catch 22".

Logic flies out the window.

[DonP]

21. Actually no they weren't legal in DC

"Perfectly good, lethal firearms have ALWAYS been legal in DC. Only certain particular ones were not."

Handguns of any type were totally banned, just like here in Chicago, probably the next test case.

Long guns, as long as they were bolt actions or lever guns, and none of the deadly semi-automatics were "sort of" allowed, but not allowed to be lethal because the law required them to be stored unloaded and/or disassembled and/or with trigger locks. No provision in their gun laws allowed for a citizen to actually legally unlock their gun and defend their home.

When questioned on this during Heller, their lawyer said the mayor had assured him that they could would deal with an issue like that on a case by case basis. How comforting.

Today they are trying to only allow revolvers of 8 round or less but no semi-auto pistols, a 120+ year old technology.

It's going to cost their citizens another $10 or $20 million to get their officials to finally obey the SC decision, plus the legal costs of the plaintiff.

To quote the CJ in questioning Fenty and their lawyer; "What's so 'reasonable' about a total ban"?

[TPaine7]

33. Logic, facts, reality, and good morals all fly out of the window

Perfectly good, lethal firearms have ALWAYS been legal in DC. Only certain particular ones were not.

I challenge you to read the following, examine the evidence (it's heavily linked and sourced) and admit, at least to yourself, that you are wrong as far as guns in the home are concerned. The government of the District made self-defense with a gun in one's home illegal.

An unloaded gun that is also disassembled or trigger locked is not an arm for any practical purposes. It is about as useful as a rock or a sharp stick.

I agree with you that "logic flies out the window":

In the Heller case, anti-gun forces were put in the position of defending things they usually try to obscure (and that the media studiously ignores).

Here is a brief discussion of the meaning of these terms <“reasonable,” “common sense” and “sensible”>--in the real world. (This text was written before the Heller case. Ignore the numbers, they are for footnotes that appear in the original text.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Sensible Gun Control”
…consider a city with “reasonable,” “common sense” gun laws.49 The
District of Columbia‟s laws earn high grades from the Brady Campaign, and they approach (Obama’s)
total urban gun bans.

It is a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that can actually shoot bullets. Guns are
ok, as long as they are useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they must always be unloaded. In order
to be doubly sure, they must always be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it is a crime. The excuse that you are trying
to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—will not do.

When confronted with this reality, the District tried to argue that they don't really mean it. They tried to
convince the Supreme Court in Heller that there is an exception for self-defense.

Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of
the District‟s other laws.50

The problem is that they met and defeated that very defense in McIntosh v. Washington. 51 It is illegal to
load a gun in your home for self-defense. Period. Defending your business with a functional gun is legal.

These are the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns is even worse.
You cannot possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you have a registered
handgun, you need a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits are
impossible to get.52 And of course your registered handgun must remain useless at all times. (You may load
guns kept at your place of business.)


These “reasonable,” “common sense" laws—carefully designed to prevent gun crimes, self-inflicted
wounds, and armed toddlers—caused Parker (the lead litigant in the original DC case, the precursor to
Heller) distress. A community activist, her outspoken opposition to drugs earned the enmity of a local
dealer, who threatened to kill her.

She should depend on the police, says the common wisdom. They are professionals, pledged to serve and
protect. Less known is the fact that they have no obligation to do either, as established in court:

Illustrative of this failure is the case of Warren v.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d
1 (D.C. 1981.) In the late winter of 1975, three women (Warren, Taliaferro and Douglas,
plus Douglas‟s four-year-old daughter) were asleep in a rooming house on Lamont Street,
NW in the District. In the early morning hours, two burglars entered the property and
raped Douglas. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas‟ screams and called the MPD at
6:23 a.m. to report a burglary in progress. They were assured police were on the way. At
6:26 a.m., three cruisers were dispatched to the rooming house on a “priority 2” call. One
officer knocked on the door while other officers remained in their cruisers. Receiving no
response at the door, the officers left. Warren and Taliaferro watched in horror from the
roof of their building before crawling back into their room, where they continued to hear
Douglas‟ screams. They called the MPD again at 6:42 a.m. and asked for immediate
assistance. Again, they were told assistance was on the way. The dispatcher never
dispatched additional police, unbeknownst to the two who yelled reassurance to Douglas
and were, as a result, discovered by the burglars. All three women were then abducted at
knifepoint and held prisoner for 14 additional hours, while being beaten, robbed, raped
and directed to perform sex acts on each other.
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to
respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed.53

To summarize, the District‟s position is that you must pay taxes for police who have no duty to protect
you.54 You may possess long guns, but they must always be kept in a useless condition, even when you are
under attack. To meet Heller’s legal challenge, the District now maintains that there is a self-defense
exception—a position they have previously defeated in court. Under this newly adopted position, a person
under immediate attack is allowed to assemble or unlock their weapon and load it. D.C. desires that the
Supreme Court should not address this “reasonable” law, still on the books, nor the legal precedent set by
the District‟s victory, but should take the District at its word on its future enforcement.

So let‟s take them at their word (for the sake of discussion only).

A law-abiding woman lives alone. She keeps a long gun as allowed in the District. At 2:00 AM, a drug
dealer breaks into her house and the race starts. She must awaken from a dead sleep, remove the lock (or
assemble the gun!), retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, and bring it into position in time to protect
herself.

Absent Special Forces training, this is a very tall order.

Source: To see the footnotes and follow the links go to www.obamaonsecond.com . Search for “Sensible Gun Control” to find the section.

[beevul]

34. "As long as there are weapons available for legal ownership, the 2nd amendment is not violated."

"As long as there are books available for legal ownership, the 1st amendment is not violated."


No. On both counts.

[krispos42]

36. Okay

And it's good to know how DC residents feel. However, feelings are not enough to override the Constitution. If they want to do something else, they're welcome to use their legal experts to study the issue and craft something Constitutional and hopefully effective.

The guns that DC attempted to ban are owned almost exclusively by honest and law-abiding people that purchased them legally. Banning them punishes the law-abiding for the acts of the law-breaking.

You must also remember than gun bans are an attempt to control an action by controlling the hardware. Unlike robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc., which we outlaw because the act we're outlawing is inheirently a violation of a person's body and/or property, outlawing the ownership of guns is outlawing something that is not a an inheirent violation of a person's body or property. It's an attempt to make such violations less common and/or less violent.

As long as there are weapons available for legal ownership, the 2nd amendment is not violated.

Ha ha, very funny. That logic something that sounds like it came out of the Yoo torture memo or Gonzo's office.

Tell you what. Let's have the Bush Administration censor all broadcast media. Hey, as long as there are free speech outlets, the First Amendment is not violated. I mean, you still have the Internet, newspapers, magazines, books, and the soapbox, right?

And on that aspect, what, exactly, is the difference between the federal government restricting the ownership of automatic weapons and a local government restricting the ownership of semi-automatic handguns?

Explosive devices and fully-automatic firearms are indiscriminate weapons in that they have areas of impact when they are fired. Non-fully-automatic firearms are discriminate weaopns in that they are precise points of impact when they are fired. The former can reasonably be subject to tighter legal controls, the latter cannot. And it doesn't matter which government agency is doing the regulating, it's still a violation of citizens' rights.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Yea, what about interracial marriage in the 1950's and 60??

What about Slavery in the South???

A "right" is a RIGHT. I don't care what people think.

[bossy22]

13. i bet if you polled residents in the bible belt states

they would support banning abortion by something like 70/30

so that damn Roe V Wade is infringing on those citizens right to self government- see that arguement can be used to back up anything

just because people support it doesnt mean it is constitutional and/or should be done

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. A majority of cops would like to get rid of the 4th Amendment.

[Truth4Justice]

32. Thats true. Lots of people are all for gun control laws.

[krispos42]

35. Just about everybody is for gun control laws

The question is "Which ones?"

In my opinion and the opinions of others here, gun control laws should be effective and minimally intrusive.

By "effective" I mean able to accomplish a specific goal. Typically this goal is the reduction guns in the hands of criminals but also includes accidental deaths.

By "minimally intrusive" I mean as close to anonymous cash-and-carry as possible..


Under these prescribed conditions, things like a ban on "assault weapons" is not effective because it does not reduce the guns in the hands of criminals or accidential deaths.

Things like waiting periods and gun registration fail on both counts in that they don't disarm people that shouldn't have them and they unnecessarily intrude on privacy.

[slackmaster]

37. Why should the 70 be allowed to dictate what the 30 can do inside of their own homes?

Are the wants and needs of the 30 not worth protecting?

[SteveM]

54. At one time, most people in the South supported apartheid (nt)

[spin]

59. But it is possible that the residents will change their mind...

after they read stories in the local newspapers where honest citizens use firearm to deter crime. Of course this assumes such incidents will be reported.

[katandmoon]

18. So you are saying that Congress can co-opt a local government

Whenever the NRA (or any other special interest group that fills its pockets with money and puts the screws to Congress to intervene in the District's affairs) objects to that locally and popularly elected government's laws.

You are saying you would want Congress to overturn YOUR state's, city's, and county's locally enacted laws, to make YOUR legislators dance to ITS tune.

You do realize that's what you're saying?

No, I don't think you do.

Gun lovers think that forcing their killing machines on everyone who doesn't want them is more important than human life. Period.

And it's completely irrelevant that DC residents can buy guns elsewhere. That is not the issue here. The issue here is Washington, DC's, ability to pass its own laws for its own citizens, and not have them upended by the every paternalistic Congress.

[tularetom]

20. I'm saying that DC residents have not been well served by congress or by their

local government (which is more or less a creature of congress since it needs congressional budget approval to operate).

And when your elected representatives don't act to protect you you should be able to rely on the constitution.

And who the hell said anything about congress - the SC repealed Heller congress had nothin to do with it.

I don't agree with very much these robed douchebags do but they fucked up and got this one right.

[bossy22]

22. Federal Law Trumps State law

thats why even if your state legalized marijuana, its still illegal unless the federal government says it is

[spin]

23. Congress has supreme authority over Washington D.C.

The United States Congress has supreme authority over Washington, D.C.; residents of the city therefore have less self-governance than residents of the states. The District has a non-voting at-large Congressional delegate, but no senators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

[tisfortomi]

50. co-opting local government?

You are saying you would want Congress to overturn YOUR state's, city's, and county's locally enacted laws, to make YOUR legislators dance to ITS tune.

That's essentially the argument that was used to defend segregation and Jim Crow against federal interference. However, in theory at least, local law cannot trespass on rights that are explicitly protected by the Constitution. Outside those explicit protections, local law is free to do whatever it wants.

Gun lovers think that forcing their killing machines on everyone who doesn't want them is more important than human life. Period.

It's not clear what you mean by "forcing." No law requires you to have a gun. If anyone uses a gun to force you to do anything, that is certainly a crime but has nothing to do with the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

[SteveM]

55. You don't have a good understanding of the Constitution...

But you have a good understanding of culture war animosity, to wit: "Gun lovers think that forcing their killing machines on everyone who doesn't want them is more important than human life... ... Period."

The issue isn't Congress co-opting a local government. The issue is whether or not D.C. will conform to the law of the land as regards the federal courts and their rulings. NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT can pass laws which violate (or get around through subterfuge) the laws of the land. Frankly, if my local government and state violated the U.S. Constitution, then yes, overturn the law. In D.C.'s case, since it is not a state, the Congress must step in and hold the hand of a tantrum-throwing child which refuses to abide by the Heller decision, and further seeks to keep much of it's original ban in place.

If D.C. or Sunflower County or Study Butte passes an unconstitutional law, it should be dealt with. Swiftly.

[slackmaster]

4. You'd impose "local" tyranny on DC residents instead of letting them decide for themselves

What's so special about DC or any other locality that it should have the authority to dictate what people keep inside of their own homes?

[krispos42]

6. Ah, gunguys.com

Almost as rational as the NRA. Just... opposite.


Repeated use of the word "sensible" doesn't make it so. Republicans advertise their repeal of habeas corpus as "sensible", too.




"Local control" does not extending to violations of Constitutional rights. That's why we're a Constitutionally-limited democratic republic. At least in theory.

[DonP]

7. That is just hysterical, in more ways than one

Hysterically funny and hysterically sounding at the same time. The sky is falling!

Flash: Gun Guys determine that residents of DC are too stupid and/or dangerous to be trusted to own guns for home defense like every other city and state!

DC lost Heller big time and they have made it clear that they are going to stall compliance with the Heller decision as much as they think they can get away with. Classifying the same sidearms their own police carry as a "machine gun" is just one prime example of their lunacy. They are already being dragged back into court but hell, it's only taxpayer money they are using to pay the legal bills, so who cares.

Now to have these phony "Gun Guys" going on about Democracy.

Try substituting the word "Voting" for "Guns" and see how comfortable you are with your position, "... the gall to tell residents of Georgia/Alabama etc. that they can't pass reasonable restriction on voting to assure honest elections" and step back to the days of Lester Maddox and George Wallace. They were just trying to keep the election down south honest I'm sure, that's what the ax handles were for.

After all, just because the Supreme Court has decided something is an individual right it doesn't mean you have to abide by that decision, right?

[virginia mountainman]

8. Gun Guys ROFLMAO

The good citizens of our nation's capitol are held hostage by the gun lobby that continues to abuse its power -- with the help of a patsy Congress -- to dictate the public safety policies of the District of Columbia. Currently, the gun lobby is frantically trying to eviscerate the sensible gun regulations that D.C. enacted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller that stripped it of its handgun ban.

I guess the US Constitution does not apply in DC...What bullshit.. What is "sensible" about a near total ban?

How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can't pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities? The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

Again what is reasonable about a near total ban on civil right?

Gun zealots continually preach about government's abuse of power. But that is exactly what the NRA and their puppets in Congress are doing.

The abuse, is where law abiding citizens, are practically forbidden from their civil rights. A wrong, is being corrected.

Instead of letting residents have a voice about their own safety, to pass sensible gun regulations, the gun lobby treats the residents of our nation's capitol as less than citizens. A-rated NRA Congressman use the gun issue to score cheap political points in their home districts to please the gun lobby, all the while beating D.C. residents like a pinata over the gun issue.

It must be satisfying for Congressmen who support the NRA's radical agenda to wreck a community, harass local leaders trying to save lives from gun violence, and fly back home and wash their hands of the violence they have enabled in a vital American city.

What about the people that cannot protect their families? The local government has failed to protect anything, except for Mayor Fenty, who has a police detail to protect him...

Upholding the US Constitution, is NOT scoring "cheap political points" It is forcing compliance, upon a small group of elites, who wish to ignore the US Bill of Rights.

It must be satisfying for Congressmen who support the NRA's radical agenda to wreck a community, harass local leaders trying to save lives from gun violence, and fly back home and wash their hands of the violence they have enabled in a vital American city.

ABSOLUTELY, it is incredibly satisfying to "spank" local leaders, who shit on the Bill of Rights. I am glad to take part in it myself.

D.C. is not just any city mind you. The District hosts the most powerful government in the world, replete with summits and visits by ambassadors, heads of state, multi-international businessmen, foreign dignitaries and military leaders.

Absolutely, and it should not be hypocritical, by being selective about civil rights that they "protect".

Gun Guys ROFLMAO!!! What assholes.. I am glad, MY, Democratic congressman, has taking the correct stand on this issue!

[TPaine7]

11. LOL

:rofl:

[spin]

24. If D.C. had limited ownership to flintlock pistols

like this one:



I'm sure the GunGuys would have approved as long as they were stored unloaded.

[tburnsten]

26. With the flint in a separate, locked container

And it would have to have "smart-gun" technology or else!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. An Op-Ed from the gunguys. That's some funny stuff right there.

You might as well of posted Hitler's stance on gun control.


David

[Boomer 50]

38. In response......

How the hell does ANY elected official think he or she has the right to dictate to me how and with what I choose to defend my family??? Sorry but you're the pot calling the kettle black.

Pro-gunners are trying to give the citizens of DC the same rights and availablity to defend themselves against the rampant crime that has gone on unabated by a failed city counsel for over three decades that all other Americans have. Gun control didn't work, let it go. Let's try something new instead of acting insane... you know, trying the same BS over and over and expecting a different result.

Give the citizens of DC the opportunity to effect change. Quit trying to keep them enslaved... and that is all that these anti-gun insane laws are doing. If someone doesn't want to own a gun that is their choice. Don't DARE assume you have the right to deny me the choice to own a gun to defend myself. I for one will not tolorate it.

[Flyboy_451]

39. Let me see if I have this right...

Those in support of banning particular types of firearms (semi-autos in this case), support the claim that this will make it harder for criminals to acquire guns commonly used in crime. Prior to the Heller decision, all handguns were banned in D.C., with very few exceptions. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) were required to be locked up or disassembled. To even legally posses a gun was, for all practical purposes, nearly impossible. In spite of all this "control", crime rates remained among the highest in the nation. Those who support the ban, state that this is because of guns being acquired illegally, or brought in from areas outside of D.C. If this is the case, how does a restriction on these guns work to reduce this crime rate? Won't the criminals still have the same access that they have always had?

The Heller decision was vague in that it stated that reasonable regulation could be implemented, yet failed to establish what was or was not considered "reasonable".

Webster's Dictionary defines reasonable as:

1 a: being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b: not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c: moderate , fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d: inexpensive
2 a: having the faculty of reason b: possessing sound judgment

Based on the arguments presented by those in favor of the ban, I find it quite difficult to describe a law that restricts the law abiding from owning an item that is readily available to the vast majority of the remaining population of the country, as reasonable. Particularly when this law, by admission of it's supporters, has been ineffective at preventing criminals from acquiring these guns in the first place.

JW

[spin]

40. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future...

I'm sure the results will be carefully analyzed by both pro-gun and anti-gun groups.

To be honest, it's hard to predict what the final outcome will be. There may be a drop in home invasions into an occupied dwelling after one or two criminals end up shot. Street crime and drug gang related crime will probably still continue unabated.

It would be far more interesting to see the effect of shall issue concealed carry licenses in D.C. That may well be a pipe dream considering the attitude of the local government.

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,<33> which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.<34> Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.<35>

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[Flyboy_451]

41. time will tell...

My personal opinion is that there is not likely to be any significant change in the immediate future. There are many things that influence crime rates, and while I think that the growth in gun ownership does offer a level of resistance to violent crime that has been largely absent in DC, it is not likely to influence crime rates as a whole.

The number of gun owners will certainly increase, as has already been seen. However, the DC laws are still quite restrictive in that it has only opened the door for protection within the home. I think it is likely to see a decrease in home invasions while the residence is occupied, but the limited privileges allowed by the DC laws are not likely to have a dramatic effect on crime rates as a whole. Guns are most effective at reducing crime when they are available. Correct me if I am wrong, but DC law does not provide for use of a handgun outside of the home by the average citizen.

The real issue will be interpreting the outcome of the change in laws. Both sides will surely try to claim a victory in some way or another, but the situation provides for pretty limited data. I think the most important crime rates to watch will be occupied home invasion and domestic violence. These are the most likely to be influenced by the new laws.


JW

[spin]

49. I believe you summed it up accurately...

Currently Washington D.C. has no plans to issue concealed carry permits to trained and qualified individuals and I doubt if they will ever implement such a program in the near future.

But even if they were to, the crime rate might not significantly decrease. Most people who have concealed carry permits do not go looking for trouble. They definitely don't consider themselves police or vigilantes.

We may read the occasional story in the news where someone with a firearm is able to defend their home or their life. We will definitely hear if anyone missuses the weapon they were able to acquire after the SCOTUS Heller decision.

[benEzra]

42. I take it you OPPOSE a Federal "assault weapon" ban, then...

considering that ~45 of the 50 states have considered AND REJECTED that particular bait-and-switch nearly every year since the early 1990's. So you oppose new Federal bans, right?

Or is it OK for the Feds to impose top-down, one-size-fits-all policies, as long as they are the ones you like?

[east texas lib]

43. It now appears to be moot point...

At least for the OP.

[pipoman]

47. I wonder where our friendly interloper

from the north is with her uploaded tombstone image.

Edit: :rofl:

[east texas lib]

60. Indeed!

The silence is deafening.;-)

[Flyboy_451]

44. assault weapon??

I'm not sure precisely what it is that you are asking, so if I get it wrong, kindly let me know.

The current legal struggle in DC is not about an assault weapons ban. It is about whether or not semi-automatic pistols can legally be banned within DC. The proponents of this ban state that their aim is to keep them out of the hands of criminals. When asked why the original ban on all handguns in DC was ineffectual, their answer is that criminals attain the guns across the state line, and then illegally bring them to DC. My position is that if a complete ban on handguns did not prevent criminals from accessing semi-auto handguns, how is it a reasonable progression of logic to believe that banning the ownership of these guns by law abiding citizens accomplishes what an absolute ban did not?

As for assault weapons...Long guns as a whole are used in less than 3% of violent crime according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Banning "assault weapons", as defined by the 94 crime bill, would not act to decrease crime by any appreciable degree, as most of the weapons banned were long guns. Further, to ban a gun based on appearance, rather than function, provides no objective criteria to identify such firearms. The original assault weapons ban was a failed piece of legislation that should be allowed to rest in peace.

Bans on "high capacity" magazines are another portion of this type of legislation that has little to no effect on crime as well. Those who wish to be in possession of a larger quantity of ammunition that is readily available, will simply use multiple magazines, and reload when required. Add to this that there are currently millions of this type of magazine currently available, and the fact that criminals do not rely on legal means of access to acquire guns. Once again, failed legislation that should be allowed to rest in peace.

The solution to violence is not a ban of equipment, but lies in the need to change peoples views about the profitability of crime. Until harsh penalties are consistently enforced on those that seek to do violence with a gun, the problem is likely to remain. When the risk of sever punishment is so great that criminals begin to rethink the possession of a gun, we may be able to curb violence. I think this strategy has a far better chance of being successful than legislation aimed at preventing law abiding citizens from owning specific types of firearms. Particularly so when past efforts at this type of ban have proven ineffectual.

JW

[benEzra]

45. I agree with you. I was responding to the OP's hypocrisy decrying congressional meddling

in D.C.'s public safety policies, when he/she and the "gunguys" have loudly called for Congress to override most states' rejection of the "assault weapon" fraud and impose a new Federal AWB.

I shoot a 2002 model SAR-1 recreationally and competitively, FWIW. :)

[Flyboy_451]

46. ok...

I thought maybe you were but I was not sure due to the way your post was written.

By the way, for those that support the AWB here is something to think about...

The anti-gun crowd constantly berates gun manufacturers for sidestepping the assault weapons ban by simply producing a gun with minor changes from those made prior to the ban going into effect. As an example, AR-15 style rifles never went out of production, they were simply built without collapsing stocks, flash suppressors or bayonet lugs. So in essence, they were never removed from public access, thus they were still as available as they always were prior to the ban, just without these items...With this being the case, how is it that the assault weapons ban is in any way responsible for any decrease in crime? Either it was garbage legislation that did nothing because manufacturers easily sidestepped it or it was effective in removing these types of guns from the streets. Which was it????


Nice rifle Ben. I hold a Class II manufacturers license (machine guns and destructive devices excluding explosives)and my current inventory is about 250 various full autos, suppressed or otherwise interesting firearms. The one that usually attracts the most attention is the "Ma Duece". A large part of my business is with local law enforcement although I also do corporate outings where you come shoot machine guns rather than going to play golf.

JW

[spin]

57. Very interesting occupation and a question...

Would you choose a full-auto or a semi-auto weapon for self defense?

I have had the opportunity to fire a full-auto weapon on several occasions and "rock and roll" is a lot of fun.

I actually prefer a revolver for self defense, but than I've spent a lot of time practicing double action shooting. Of course I'm merely a civilian with a concealed carry permit. If I were an LEO, I would chose a different weapon.

[Flyboy_451]

61. Nothing at all wrong with a revolver!!!

Your question is not really easy to answer in that it deals with personal opinion, and I would guess that I have a bit more training than the average person when it comes to crisis resolution. The guns readily available within my home for defensive use are not full auto. However, I do keep a semi-auto, short barreled M4 carbine in the bedroom, that has a suppressor attached to it. The suppressor is in place to reduce not only noise, but muzzle flash and recoil as well. Then there is also my Glock 22. This is my duty sidearm on the department and I wear it pretty much any time that I am awake, whether in uniform or not.

While a full auto is useful in the hands of someone with a high degree of training, my opinion is that it becomes less of an advantage as training is reduced. If I were to use a full auto for defensive use inside a home, it would most likely be a carbine chambered for a pistol cartridge. My personal preference would be either .45ACP or 10MM, as both of these cartridges have a good track record for this type of purpose. I would also prefer for this carbine to be of the select fire variant, allowing for a two or three round burst, as opposed to sustained full auto. Control of the weapon and conservation of ammunition is more important than volume of fire in most situations.

Just a side note; my favorite revolver is my 4" S&W 625. Loaded with a quality defensive ammo, this is a truly formidable fighting gun.

JW

[spin]

63. I also own a S&W 625 but with a 5" barrel...

In my opinion, one of the best choices for a home defense weapon. The recoil is manageable but the .45 acp round has been proven effective over the years. It is a very easy weapon to reload when using full moon clips. My daughters home defense weapon is a S&W 25-2 .45 acp revolver and she used it once to stop an intruder from breaking into our home.

The select fire option on a full auto weapon is very useful method of controlling bullet placement and enhancing the weapons accuracy. I was trained to fire short bursts, but with many full auto weapons it's very easy to fire a long burst of six or seven rounds. I doubt if I will ever desire to own a full auto weapon...but if I were to want one the carbine you describe would be an excellent home defense weapon.

For civilian use, I believe a semi-auto weapon is more than adequate. But I see no problem with people who desire to own full auto weapons. The process of obtaining one is expensive and requires navigating a lot of bureaucratic hurdles.

Full auto weapons in the hands of licensed citizens or police do not significantly contribute to gun violence in the U.S.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

***************snip********************

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source). http://members.cox.net/arporro/photos/Shooting.pdf

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. The OP is now gone.

[spin]

56. If the Democratic Party were to concentrate on...

the criminal element that misuses firearms. As you suggest When the risk of severe punishment is so great that criminals begin to rethink the possession of a gun, we may be able to curb violence.

Crime shouldn't pay.

It's obvious that honest citizens are not the problem.

For some reason the party I support lacks a commonsense approach to gun violence.

If I were a criminal, I would vote for Democratic candidates who supported gun control. Denying firearm ownership to the people I preyed on would be job security.

[aikoaiko]

48. The anti-Gun Guys are on the losing side of this constitutional issue - now all they have is crying

Too bad, so sad.

[gorfle]

65. I wonder.

How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can't pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities? The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

I wonder if the citizens of Washington D.C. would "have the gall" to tell the residents of Alabama that they can't have "separate but equal" bathroom facilities or bus seating?

Constitutional rights are for everyone in this nation. If one part of the nation is compromising those rights, it is right and just that the rest of the nation "have the gall" to take action to stop it.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. Results of the vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080917/pl_cq_politics/politics2953144

[tburnsten]

67. Good

I hope that windbag fienstein fails miserably in her claimed attempt to fillibuster.

[one-eyed fat man]

68. Bloviating blowhards

with anti-gun credentials are not exactly in short supply in the Senate. The question is can you find 60 pro-gun Senators who will tell them to sit down and STFU.