Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
The battle between Congress and the District over the city's gun laws continues today.
As we told you about yesterday and the Post wrote today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is grappling with two bills related to the District's new gun regulations. On the one hand is legislation sponsored by a number of conservative Democrats that would dump the regulations all together; on the other, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton submitted legislation simply calling for the District to comply with the Supreme Court's June decision on the city's gun laws.
We've been told that the committee will markup Norton's legislation today at 1 p.m. While this is good news -- it basically means that Norton's alternative could get to the House before the more aggressive version -- there are plenty of factors in play. Members of the committee could try to add the stronger language as an amendment to Norton's bill, or they could just vote her down. And even if her bill gets through, that's won't necessarily stop Republicans and their Democratic allies from pushing their version through too. Basically, the fight won't end today.
Whatever we all think about the District's ham-handed approach to crafting new gun regulations, we know this much -- this isn't anybody's business but ours. Period. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) has already indicated that he's looking to amend the current regulations so that they're less restrictive while keeping some basics of the current regime -- gun registration, for example -- intact. This is a positive step, and one Congress should allow to run its course. (Do we all need guns right NOW?)
If you think the District isn't complying with the Supreme Court's decision, tell your elected officials so. But letting Congress trample on home rule on this issue sends them the message that it's OK that they trample on us in the first place. It's not.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Whatever we all think about the District's ham-handed approach to crafting new gun regulations, we know this much -- this isn't anybody's business but ours. Period. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) has already indicated that he's looking to amend the current regulations so that they're less restrictive while keeping some basics of the current regime -- gun registration, for example -- intact. This is a positive step, and one Congress should allow to run its course. (Do we all need guns right NOW?)
Would Councilman Dingleberry have proposed any of these changes if the city wasn't in danger of being smacked down by the feds? Probably now.
And asking, "Do we all need guns right NOW?" is like asking "Do we all need free speech right now?" or "Do we all need jury trials right now?".
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton submitted legislation simply calling for the District to comply with the Supreme Court's June decision on the city's gun laws.
Well, golly, Mrs. Cleaver, I thought they were already doing that? Oh, my bad. Nickles and the Mayor were just being a**holes about complying with the Heller ruling. I swear, these people have their heads so far up their a**es they have to use dental floss to get the earwax out of their teeth.
But letting Congress trample on home rule on this issue sends them the message that it's OK that they trample on us in the first place.
Sure it's okay for them to trample on DC. It's in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States...
Love that pic of the Beretta "machinegun" that I'm not allowed to purchase in DC.
Bah. Same ol' song and dance as yesterday's thread on the same topic.
Here's the kicker about home rule: it exists only b/c Congress says it does. It doesn't give any exclusive authority to the DC city gov't. It simply allows the DC city gov't to function and carry out responsibilities that are constitutionally enshrined in Congress and historically were delegated to a Commissioner, set of commissioners, city council, etc.
In most cases, I agree that once Congress gave power to an elected city gov't, it needs to step out of the way unless that city gov't royally screws up (see, e.g., federal financial control board brought to you by Marion Barry's idiocies).
But, where you have the city gov't stating rather explicitly that it plans on openly flouting the requirements of a Supreme Court decision, that qualifies as the city gov't royally screwing up.
Again, let's say that in 2020, Mayor for Now Monk E. R. O'tica gets the city council to pass a law stating that protests are no longer allowed, unless all protesters register for a permit, go through background checks, and can only have 14 people at any protest.
Under Martin's view, this would be perfectly acceptable since the elected gov't officials voted such a law into effect. And, under Martin's view, if the Supreme Court ruled against such a law but the O'tica administration said it would barely comply with the ruling and maintain incredibly tough regulations, it would be a sacrilege for Congress to step in and address such a blatant violation of the Constitution and the authority of the Supreme Court's decisions.
Now, there's the rather lame argument of "Well, the elected officials passed it, so it's a legitimate law." Sure. Except that our elected officials aren't like other states' elected officials b/c they exist only because Congress allows them to exist. You want them to be just like other states' elected officials? Simple! Change the Constitution to make DC a state. Problem solved! Maybe!
Cranky - You forgot that a Monkeyrotica administration would mandate that all protestors would have to do so naked except for a pink feather boa and be very, very sexy. That's a major "plank" in my "platform."
That, and setting fire to the Reichstag and blaming it on whitey.
Boomhauer,
Mendelson expressed skepticism from the beginning, so yeah, I think he was going to propose amendments regardless (I also think it's important to note that he is submitting them for the council's first session since early August, so it's not just because Congress is acting.)
As for the guns, I think your comparison is somewhat foolish. Let's put it this way - though limited, District residents have access to different types of guns now. So it's not like they can't have guns at all. The issue is whether the District can impose certain regulations on things like semi-automatic guns. I think in certain regards they can, Congress thinks they can't (at all).
Though I disagree with the way the council and mayor approached the new regulations, there still exist legitimate questions as to what can and cannot be limited or regulated. The Supreme Court only offered so much guidance on the issue, leaving many of the details to be hashed out by local legislatures and citizens. That's what the D.C. Council is doing, and Congress is trying to circumvent that.
Whatever we all think about the District's ham-handed approach to crafting new gun regulations, we know this much -- this isn't anybody's business but ours. Period.
Period? WTF? The constitution is not a local document. Its trampling by local officials in the first place means that oversight IS NEEDED.
As for the guns, I think your comparison is somewhat foolish. Let's put it this way - though limited, District residents have access to different types of guns now. So it's not like they can't have guns at all. The issue is whether the District can impose certain regulations on things like semi-automatic guns. I think in certain regards they can, Congress thinks they can't (at all).
That is a laughable assertion. District residents could not have guns at all. The district has proven it wants to play games with this and it is for that reason Congress has its position.
FIE, Monkeyrotica, only ONE Reichstag burning reference allowed per week!
@ boost: I don't see how it is a laughable assertion that DC residents have always been able to keep and maintain long arms. Shotguns, rifles, bayonets, RPGs. I personally have a small tank parked in my backyard just in case the tyrants come (um, did I miss something?)
Considering that the "right to haves me a gun" is namely for the sake of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government (yea, like handguns would help against the 82nd Airborne if they were sent in) and to defend our homes and the right to pursue happiness or whatever the hell, I don't think it is a laughable assertion to say that long arms can do both those just as well as a handgun. The 12 gauge leaning up against the wall by my bed would stop a burglar just as fast as your Beretta.
My first act as Mayor will be to make formally change the name "District of Columbia" to "Island of Sodor." You don't have problems with First and Second Amendment rights on the Island of Sodor, because Thomas the Tank Engine is a very useful engine. Sir Toppem Hat has all gun rights and free speech advocates and gypsies rounded up and Thomas takes them to Dachau where they're re-educated. Go Thomas!
They're two, they're four, they're six, they're eight
Shunting trucks and hauling freight
Red and green and brown and blue
Time to round up all the Jews...
Monkey, Change the reference in your campaign literature from "jews" to "right wing nut jobs with brain tumors driving corvettes, and carpet bagging snowbillys" and I will join your campaign for mayor of Sodor. I volunteer to be party planner/secret police detail.
Always two there are. A master and an apprentice. No more. No less.
Man, I just spit out my Diet Coke on my keyboard reading the Sith Creed.
I demand reparations!
Boost,
If you choose, you can buy a handgun, have it transfered to the District's sole licensed dealer, and go to the police department and have it registered. Check for yourself.
The issue is whether the District can impose certain regulations on things like semi-automatic guns. I think in certain regards they can, Congress thinks they can't (at all).
Though I disagree with the way the council and mayor approached the new regulations, there still exist legitimate questions as to what can and cannot be limited or regulated. The Supreme Court only offered so much guidance on the issue, leaving many of the details to be hashed out by local legislatures and citizens. That's what the D.C. Council is doing, and Congress is trying to circumvent that.
There are precise things that need to be fleshed out would be true, but in the context of the current debate it's abundantly clear that DC is completely and utterly retarded. Let's take a look again at how clear SCOTUS was in regards to the current debate
From page 54 of Heller:
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Hmmmmm, seems clear enough. Pretty much conforms to what we have now (i.e. no guns in schools, city buildings, etc.) All pretty reasonable.
Page 53:
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
From page 55:
Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”
From page 56:
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
From page 57:
“the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster...It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police
So the 1934 NFA is still in tact. Pretty clear also. Also look at "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes", weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”, and "handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." . A semi-automatic handgun is a typical weapon possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. So there goes the semi-auto ban.
From page 58:
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
From page 64:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
So requiring guns to be locked and disassembled while in the home is unconstitutional. Seems pretty clear also.
From page 57:
In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251
From page 54:
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
Looks like SCOTUS seems fine banning concealed firearms.
So, Martin, what specifically do you think needs to be clarified?
Boomhauer, I (heart) you. With the exception of the concealed carry mention and the felon laws, that was exactly what I read to the Council in August. I also added the "save the city some money and do it right the first time" line, all to no effect.
Martin, don't forget to add in the five trips to the MPD and $215 in fees to get said gun after X amount of time. Not quite like picking up a loaf of bread.
Now, what would happen to Martin's argument at #13 if the city were to change the law and require Mr. Sykes to get a business license for his gun transfer shop? Does anyone really believe MPD would actually grant such a license? Sykes is opening his business because of a quirk in how the city interpreted zoning regulations. That quirk won't happen again and I have little doubt that quirk will soon be statutorily expunged. So, if Sykes were to lose his license, then what Martin? There would be no way a DC resident could legally own a handgun because there would be no licensed gun dealer to accept a handgun purchased out of state.
And, since the zoning regulations have been tweaked to make sure no gun store can actually open in DC for sales of weapons, it would mean the handgun ban would de facto be back in effect.
But how dare Congress comply with its constitutional authority and intervene when the city is clearly doing all it can to not comply with the letter (forget about the spirit!) of the Heller decision.
holy fuck, boomhauer. i relent. give me a fucking gun now. there is no way you can debate with a 10,000 word dcist comment. i love big brother.
Nice write up boomhauer. I notice you have silenced all dissenters. I would keep that handy for the many more posts on this continuing saga. I am sure some will conveniently "forget" your post and keep arguing that the city is doing nothing wrong.
And to think I was chided not too long ago by Mayor O'Tica citing Godwin. pffft
Just so I can put this thread in perspective, are there people out there who are actively pursuing pistol ownership?
Is that what's got the dander up? Want one, but can't have one in DC.
IMGoph:
With a long lunch and too much time on his hands, a lowly DCist commenter can do anything ;)
As for pistol ownership, I'm not planning on getting one. I only really care because the District is blatantly violating the second amendment, flushing millions in legal fees down the toilet, and stupidly clinging to an obviously ineffectual social and legal policy.
Compared to the bathetic and over-the-top performance of our Police Chief in front of the house committee, E.H.Norton is putting herself in the (rare) position of actually appearing to be the relative voice of reason on this issue. Lanier seems to think that we'd have thugs with concealed handguns roaming the streets if this passed.... Er, wait a minute...
While I agree with Boomhauer's reasons as well, I am directly affected by this legislation in that I both own a semi-auto pistol out of state I can't bring in and I would be interested in buying another semi-auto pistol and rifle sometime down the line (both likely with magazine capacities greater than 12).
Regardless of magazine capacities, it's always prudent to leave one round for yourself. Never know when those zombies will leave only one avenue of escape.
i'll stop arguing about this if i can just get the pro-gun crowd to admit this:
with more guns around, there is more likelihood that someone will be shot.
more water=more chance of being wet.
more wind=more chance of messed up hair.
agreed?
There's a great book by Geoffrey Canada called Fist Stick Knife Gun. He relates his experiences growing up in the Bronx and how the level of violence was always high but held in check when it was limited to you fists. In fact, the altercations were policed by the older kids on teh block to make sure that no one got into a fight with someone too large for them.
When weapons were introduced to the hood, knives and eventually guns, this fragile but needed restraint was made unnecessary and impractical. And as a result, lethal violence sky rocketed. It's an easy and interesting read. GC is the director of the Harlem Children's center. He offers some very compelling and reasonable insights into the causes and practical solutions for poverty/violence in inner cities.
Thought I'd share that with you peaceniks/ activist/gunslingers/survivalists. I'm actually pretty good with a gun, we used to have a range in the local high school if you can believe that. But I don't want one. I don't hunt and I don't know what would I do with it.
Boomhaeur et al.,
First off, let me make this much clear - I support giving District residents the right to own a gun. I also object to the way the D.C. Council and Mayor Fenty have approached the regulations they imposed.
That being said, I believe this is a local matter to be dealt with locally. Whether or not Congress has the power to do something about it is besides the point for me -- and I hate when they step into our business anyhow -- because District residents have a number of options within the democratic framework they can use to correct the current regulations. I think it's telling that Dick Heller didn't scream for Congress to get involved -- instead he filed a lawsuit. Props to him.
States and cities pass laws and regulations all the time of questionable constitutional value. Moreover, states and cities have also dragged their feet when it comes to correcting constitutional wrongs. But you don't see Congress jumping over itself to pass laws forcing those states and cities to respect the constitution. Ultimately, it is the role of the courts to judge whether something is constitutional or not. We may all hate the approach used by the city -- I know I do -- but that doesn't mean that we all don't have the usual democratic channels to force those to change. Instead of posting such long comments, start writing letters to your council members and start jumping on to lawsuit against the city.
This isn't really a question of substance for me, since I agree with all you guys on the issue of whether or not we should be able to have guns. It is, though, a matter of style. I'm the type of person that doesn't much care that Congress has the right to intervene in our affairs -- I just don't think they should. The gun regulations are clearly evolving. And while they may be evolving more slowly than most people like, no one ever said big changes happen fast. If you're upset about it, you have options to address it locally. Having Congress step in and completely dump every regulation -- including the more sensible and defensible ones -- violates the spirit of local rule and forces the decisions of unaccountable politicians on to the District's residents. That's simply not democratic, whether or not it's constitutional.
ClevelandRocks, I be interested in seeing what Mr. Canada came up with for solutions; I'd really hope that he attempts to change the culture of violence where you need to punch-hit-stab-shoot someone in the first place.
IMGoph, I'm not sure it's that simple. I think it makes a difference who has the guns. If there were more police around (more good guys with more guns), would that mean a greater likelihood of someone being shot? Or, would those police deter the bad guys with guns and less people would be shot?
Now admittedly, not every citizen is cop-quality. However, if there weren't more good guys than bad guys around, our society would totally cease to work. I think that more guns in responsible citizens hands could help, rather than harm the current situation.
"if more guns in responsible citizens hands could help, rather than harm the current situation". I dunno, Maybe!
But one thing i do know .. the ~28 year DC ban on handguns did not work and would not have worked for another 30 years. Regardless of how i feel about guns, congress stepping in, or our elected officials, I'm glad we have a new opportunity to fix it. I just hope they can do so without acting like recalcitrant teens.
I don't agree that the 28 year ban on hand guns didn't work. I think the most you can say is that the evidence is inconclusive. Is violence high in dc? sure is. However, how do you know that things will be better with the ban lifted? Or that for the last 3 decades things would have been better with no ban in place? How are we going to measure that? For example, are we going to look at what the NRA tells us to believe?
I appreciate the passion people feel for all the states rights issues involved and I appreciate that some people might be gun enthusiasts and feel left out or suffer for want of one. However, the most important issue surrounding gun legality is public safety. Are we certain that allowing the citizenry easier access to fire arms will make the general public safer? And here, we're mostly talking about home robbery and street violence. (If you are in the narco game, then you're on your own for this one.)
Personally, I have a hard time seeing it work. If it were sword fights we had to worry about, I might live with that. But gun fights? no way.
But, I can see arguments on both sides. If the crooks have them already, then why shouldn't I have one too? If the crook thinks I might have one, he'll think twice before attacking me. Maybe so. Or, maybe he'll come at you twice as hard to disarm you. Maybe muggings will become much more high-risk and deadly than they already are. Or maybe he'll leave you alone and select a 'weaker' member of the pack to pick off. Now all you've done is shift the focus of street crime to the even more vulnerable members of society.
OK, so maybe we all gets guns. We all get strapped. We all pack 9s on the bus Jerusalem-style. To me, this only charges every altercation, every dispute or argument from a fender bender to some one calling my mom a whore (she's not, FYI) with the chance to go from a verbal altercation to a seriously violent one.
For this to work, are we counting on each of having the sense and restraint to not pull out our guns and start shooting? Or are we counting on people being able to pull out their gun in a timely fashion, aim properly and then once that's done, actually put a bullet in someone. Chew on that. Do you trust the douche next to you on the bus to draw on someone and not shoot you by mistake? Personally, I do not trust 99.94% of the people I know to handle a gun responsibly. To expect that we all have the good sense to store, load, handle and carry them with care and safety in mind is to invite disaster.
From my perspective, the heart of the issue is not just the lethality of the gun, as if that wasn't bad enough, but the lethality of the owner. Until we all learn that guns are for self-defense only, not for solving personal disputes, then we are just making everyday idiots into armed and dangerous idiots.
Now, if a gun owner had an education, job prospects, a happy life, a strong family, good self-esteem, an understanding of how to resolve conflicts peacably, a sense of humility, a competent shrink, and a healthy respect for all living creatures....then sure, let HIM have a gun. Fuck it, give him lots of guns. Anyone else....no way. My experience has been that Americans are too angry, too hot tempered, too impulsive and too full of sublimated rage to deserve the right to own. It makes violence too easy. I don't want people like that to be armed.
Cleveland you are flat out wrong or in some sort of denial. I think the burden of proof lies on those encouraging or introducing the ban to show that it will work or has worked as the case may be. They are the ones who must provide the warrant that supercedes the 2nd ammendment. Show the evidence that the Nation's strictest and longest living handgun ban did work. Generally speaking the gun ban was put into law to take illegal handguns off the streets and strictly remove them from every citizens house. OK so i'll give you the second it was effective in restricting the average citizen from keeping a handgun in the home.
Everyone in this post is well intentioned no doubt, but most of the arguments i've read (with a few exceptions) mostly seem to me to be highly emotional touchy-feely personal opinions with little substance .... Probably the same kind of arguements that kicked the ban off 29 years ago ...good intentions and bad assumptions.
Now, if a gun owner had an education, job prospects, a happy life, a strong family, good self-esteem, an understanding of how to resolve conflicts peacably, a sense of humility, a competent shrink, and a healthy respect for all living creatures....then sure, let HIM have a gun. Fuck it, give him lots of guns.
Way ahead of you, buddy. I've stockpiled enough firepower to handle a zombie insurrection, the siege of Helm's Deep, and the return of King Cetshwayo's Zulus to Rorke's Drift. And as a founding "member" of PPAS (Priapic Primates with Aspergers Syndrome), I feel I'm uniquely qualified to comment on this when i say, "O BLAARGGAG!?"
Li@erahk0:
Listen man, I'm taking this argument off the 2nd amendment tip and bringing it back down the streets. . Let's put our legal wrangling and emotional cries for personal rights aside for a few minutes and just get real about guns.
Are you safe and practiced in your gunmanship to draw your weapon quickly, to go from safe position to aiming without a misfire, are you trained to aim at a distant, moving target, do you know which part of the body to aim for, can you be sure to not hit another person in defending yourself, Are you skilled at target discrimination, what's you level of awareness of your target fixation, AND here's the really big question...are you prepared to bullet in another human being and kill them violently and suddenly?
You know the army spends a lot fo time and money training soldiers on how to get over the "don't kill instinct." It's a major part of military training. Are you ready to go through that to make sure that you are ready to use the gun you advocate having?
Let's be real. A chef with a dull knife is a danger to himself and his tomatoes. Likewise, a human with dull gun handling skills is a danger to himself and the rest of us. So, put the blather about gun rights aside and think about the consequences of mass gun ownership. Should every 18-year old douche bag have a gun? Because next to cell phone, and a car, that's what they will all want for themselves. Sounds awesome!
I don't know about you, but I drive and talk to my gun all the time. Isn't that right, My Precious? I wants you and its my birthday....
[crashes into jersey barrier, bursts into flames, hobbit steals gun]
No! Baggins! Thief! We hates you! HATES YOU!
@Clevelandrocks: Yes, as you said, that's what training is for. It's another reason why DC's zoning adventures which will make a target range nigh-impossible is bad policy. Guns w/o training is probably worse than only criminals having guns. That's especially true with regards to carrying outside your home where you may be able to retreat from a threat and there are others around.
But, if some guy breaks into your home, doesn't respond to "Get out, I've got a gun" and instead comes after you and you're in fear of your life, you shoot until he's not a threat and call the cops.
Is that likely to happen? No. But things that aren't likely to happen still do, which is the same reason people have smoke alarms, flashlights and buy lottery tickets.
Don't forget the condom in the wallet.
I'm not professing legal guns on the street but i do support working a reasonable law that supports them in the home.
I think the reality is that your high moralistic minded total ban (if that's what it is you want?) is an overly simplistic and ineffective law supporting a utopianish yearning for a behavioral control that is just not currently possible -- without mandatory brain surgery for everyone. I sincereley hope that our kind will evolve to your moralistic benchmark soon (preferably without the surgery or genetic engineering).
You're right. I'm moralizing. I have it in mind that a world where people who own guns be trained and vetted as responsible enough to use them without harming the rest of us.
It's why I like my drivers to have this thing called a license which is alleged to indicate a level of driver training, and why I like my police to attend cop-school, and my lawyers to law school, and my doctors to med school. I like people who are about to engage in dangerous activity to be trained and accredited.
But if you feel comfortable with, say, the Doctor Nicks of this world to cut you open, more power to you. I don;t want that risk. My right, in my moralizing opinion, is to not have to worry about amateurs with firearms. Are we gonna make it legal to rig the front yard with frags and smokes next? because it's our "right"? Sorry, rights aren't absolutes, they have to coexist with other rights. Or is that too much morality for one person to handle?
Erakh0: I agree with you, except on one point, I think that some on this thread are showing a utopianish yearning for a behavioral control in reference to guns making people safer, like little kids with “if I got my gun everyone will leave me alone” fantasies, when in fact nowhere has that been show to work.
Something that is always left out in these discussion is the singular nature of firearms (keep in mind I am an owner), but they are a tool with only one purpose, and that is to destroy. People compare the right to speech, assembly, etc. but those rights have positive benefits. Speech can offend, even kill I suppose (with the help of a firearm of course), but it can do great things too. Guns just kill, or at least put holes in things. You can't do anything positive with a gun, you can't build a house, grow tomatoes, write a novel, open a bottle of wine (without making a mess). In fact a gun is useless without the intent to kill, be it a deer or person. If you don’t want to kill, you’d be better off with a high-powered taser, fire hose of pepper spray, or Doberman. Shooting someone in the shoulder is not a more effective means of stopping them (when the risk of blowing their head off or missing completely is weighed) than say shocking them until they grind their teeth and shit themselves. People say "I can defend my family with one, which is a good thing" but c'mon, the statistics of household gun fatalities have leaned against that assertion forever, and you can defend your family with much less potentially-destructive things than a handgun. As such they can't be compared to other "tools" guaranteed to us in our rights, or at least we all have to be understanding of the righteous reinvestigation of the tool whenever it is brought up.
I also find it amusing that the primary reason the founders provided the right- i.e. distrust of government, is not brought up much by the tremendously pro-military handgun advocates now. I love the contradiction of it all (and all the more reason to have every sort of armement in the hands of the people of DC). The right is there, as part of a well maintained militia, to defend us against Power. To fight back against the military, or state should we ever have too (a completely ridiculous idea now, witness the overthrow of Bagdad for evidence as to how successful a few well armed citizens would be). It is sort of distasteful in modern times to think that a major reason we have the right is to defend ourselves against the very people that we wave the flag at and scream USA, USA, USA as the jets go screaming overhead.
There are people who remember pre-ban DC (like my parents in Cap Hill for over 40 years) who bear witness to its success. So much of this discussion is taken up by new-comers or people who lived outside the city during the “troubled years”. For those who remember, it was not "bad assumptions" that sparked the ban, it was dealing with life in a small city filled with poverty, and armed like a flavela in Rio. I am not saying the ban is legal or not, obviously it isn’t, just a reminder that this is not an academic debate- it’s real world. Not that it matters but I have been mugged twice and I know in both cases a handgun on the street would have made things worse for me, not better, either resulting in a wild west shootout, or killing three 15 year olds over a $30 cell phone. The times I was burglarized no one was home, so I doubt a gun would have helped then either- but a dog sure did the second time, the only way I know it even happened was the kicked-in door and shoe skid marks trying to escape on the back fence (obvious crack head burglar, a breed of CHUD almost gone now).
@timmaroo:
I would be all for a practice range in the district. I would enthusiastically be for time on the range being mandatory for gun owners. So, if that's part of the deal, then I'm for it. I also think there should be a tax and special insurance required. Call it "Pack and Pay".
To your other point, honestly, I don't see how guns are like smoke detectors. Unlike smoke alarms in your house or flashlights you keep around in case the power goes out—guns. are. dangerous. Kids don't end up dead because smoke alarms work or flashlights provide light. Usually it's the opposite. If you bring a gun into your home, you better lock that thing up. If you don't, your kid will find it. And besides, what good will it do you if it is locked up while you're being burgled?
Maybe you don't have kids? Well, then I think the issue is still how fast you can get to your gun in the middle of the night . If you lock it up for safe keeping, then it's gonna take a while. And then what, you are going to blast away, willy nilly? In your apartment? A risk shooting your sleeping neighbors? Getting robbed in your home at gunpoint sucks. No doubt. But militarizing the world in response to a small risk is overkill. More importantly, it ends up adding even more danger and risk into the situation.
So guess what? there's no perfect solution. Our world is dangerous. I have yet to be convinced that adding more guns into the mix evens things out and makes us good guys safer.
@stmove: bravo sir, bravo.
@CleavelandRocks I don't have the problem with regulated or licensed drivers, lawyers, doctors and indian chiefs you seem to think i do? Maybe i'm wrong but you seem to equate that belief with my antihandgun-ban. You seem to imply that all people supporting the second amendment or at least wanting to see concrete evidence that gun bans work are kooks, right-wing nut jobs or of that ilk. You also seem to think i yearn for the days of the wild west and sidearms. I think you've mistakenly taken my fair assessment to your extremes. (but i'll gladly take any of that back if i'm worng.)
Maybe i didn't report it in my arguement but I think there's room in a "reasonable (gun) law" (those are my earlier words) that gun owners might show evidence of training and perhaps sound mind. Again i think that's reasonable and not as far fetched as your ramble tries to make me seem. My problem is mostly with the extreme case or argument of all or nothing for a total ban on all handguns for everyone but police and military.
Again I truly hope we ALL can reach that level of human manifestation you seem to genuinely want where gun violence will no longer be - but i hope i'm not the first one there. ;-)
@stmover Keep in mind I have been trained with several types of guns, I am not a handgun owner, nor do I plan to be, but if a firearm saves a life then I think that is a positive. I don’t think that is useless.
Regarding the founder’s original intent and modern times and regardless of whether you are right or wrong about the government – I still would probably want one at my reach.
You seem to think I want or am arguing for people to be legally able to walk around with side-arms or derringers, well that’s wrong and different from legal ownership and safe storage in your home.
I don’t understand the argument that the gun ban was successful when ~10,000 kids have been murdered mostly by their peers since the ban started. Do you honestly think the ban ...Helped prevent an additional 10,000 murders? I don’t.
Stay safe stmover
@erahk0:
Yo yo, it's Cleveland that rocks, not Cleaveland.
No one likes a rambler, I gather. So I'll offer some clarification. The point about doctors and lawyers and drivers is that if you choose to undertake a dangerous activity, such as cutting people open, or driving a car or flying a plane, most of us agree that a license and training of some kind are required. It's not just so we can track you if you screw up, it's to make sure that before you attempt these things, you have demonstrated a level of skill over an extended period of time. I think that owning and operating a firearm is the same as owning and operating a car, a plane, or a surgeon's knife. You need to know what you are doing before you attempt it. It's dangerous. And, it's not just dangerous in the way that car driving is. Guns serve one purpose: to kill, to be dangerous. Stmove (gun owner) really said far better than I ever could.
Holding fast to the sanctity of the 2nd amendment is wonderful stuff to talk about, but in practical everyday reality, it don't think it helps our society to think in these terms. In my opinion, call it moralizing or whatever you want, not everyone should have a gun. If you're not competent enough to put a bullet in someone, and if you don't have the stomach for it, then...guess what, you don't need a gun. You won't be able to use it in the right way. And what is the right way? for home defense? If home defense is your worry, I respect that, but buy a guard dog, go learn some krav maga, or get a taser.
res'pec.
Cleveland, apologies for the misspelling.
AARGH. Once Again I am late on this one, but I have to weigh in.
Stmove, I WAS living here during the "troubles" (1984-1995). If you didn't think it was that bad then you must have been caught up in it all smoking crack.