Deer Dies After Lion Attack Inside National Zoo
WTOP: Fenty Using Police Escort for Cycling Team Rides
'Trun' on to the 15th Street Contraflow Bike Lane
D.C. Foster Kids Are in Need of Christmas Presents
Photo of the Day: November 9, 2009
As we return from the Fourth of July weekend, many of us are still recovering from celebrating America's independence and a system of representative government that guarantees that each and every citizen can have a voice in the policies and decisions that affect their lives. But of course, no Independence Day is free from irony for District residents -- while one of the rallying cries of the movement for independence from Britain was a lack of representation (while being taxed, no less), the 600,000 or so of us in D.C. still live with that reality, some two centuries later. Somewhere, the Brits are smirking.
Plotkin Calls Out Norton: D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is about as close a political institution as you get in this town. In office since 1991, Norton is rarely challenged come election time, much less is she confronted on her leadership of the D.C. voting rights movement on the Hill. On Sunday, WTOP Political Analyst and voting rights agitator Mark Plotkin took Norton to task in a Post op-ed for her role in the recent demise of legislation that would have granted the city a voting seat in the House. "Since the bill passed in the Senate this year, Norton has had more than ample time to move the bill in the House. Instead...she has been consistently inconsistent. One day ready to go, the next day timorous. She is acting not like a 'warrior on the Hill' but rather a conventional politician who can't and won't act. For Norton, the status quo is far more acceptable than pushing ahead into possible opposition," he writes.
I may not agree with his argument that the legislation needs to be passed whether or not a gun amendment is attached, but I do appreciate his finger wagging of an otherwise untouchable local pol. (Could we expect anything less from a guy who got booted from the White House two year ago and called President Obama an "ingrate"?) A rising chorus of criticism against Norton could signal an additional split in an already fractious local coalition fighting for D.C. voting rights.
The Gun Amendment That Never Goes Away: Thought that amendment stripping the District of its gun laws would have gone away by now? Yeah, so did we. But today DC Vote is warning that the amendment may be slipped into an appropriations bill for the District that is being marked up in the House tomorrow. "There is a real possibility that the NRA will attempt to add a gun amendment to D.C. appropriations," said Ilir Zherka, DC Vote's Executive Director. "We're doing everything in our power to thwart these attacks on the District." Historically, the D.C. Appropriations Bill -- where Congress gives back the District's tax dollars -- has been used to make political points and impose unwanted programs on the city, so seeing the gun amendment thrown in there for good measure wouldn't be much of a shock.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Excellent round up Martin. Snaps to Plotkin (who usually annoys me) for calling out Norton. What really bugs me is the lack of inward finger pointing on this issue. Everyone blames the NRA, Congress, Republicans, Obama, etc., but it is apparent that there are different opinions among our "leaders" (whomever they are) on the issue. Let's get it out and see where people stand.
As for the gun amendment-we all knew it was coming. DC Vote knew it was coming, but have yet to realize that they are powerless on this issue. And as much as I don't like Congress telling DC what to do with their gun laws, DC screwed themselves on this one. They knew this would happen.
Good lord Martin. You're like the dude behind the velvet curtain - out of touch with reality on this gun amendment issue. Focus on getting voting rights railroaded through.
Get over the gun amendment.
Get over the gun amendment.
Get over the gun amendment.
There. Now if I click my heels, I'll be magically transported to a world of voting rights. Or so I hope, until the next fiasco erupts.
Tell me more about this "dude behind the velvet curtain." What's he doing there? Is he wearing pants? More importantly, does baby want Blue Velvet?
Dread,
I really don't think I'm out of touch here. I truly believe that giving up home rule for one voting seat is not a decision that anyone should ever have to make. It's easy to make the argument when it comes to the gun laws since the city has been so obtuse in how it crafted its post-Heller rules, but home rule is bigger than that one issue.
Agreed, but unfortunately no one in DC is even thinking about doing the sane thing, fixing the gun laws and taking the issue off the table. Their "hoplophobia" is so great that they waited until the vote issue was dead before admitting that, at least one portion, of the laws would not pass court muster. Why didn't they do that earlier? Why did they pass it to begin with when they KNEW it was a non-starter? We just need folks who look at the big picture.
NewHCE's last sentence hit the nail on the head - look at the big picture, which is voting rights. Not the f*ing gun amendment. Sure, I know you think that it would be nice to have your cake and eat it too, but that's not going to happen. So you need to stop being wishy washy in your coverage and either say you're for voting rights or against it. Yes, you can also say that you don't like the gun amendment, but if it gets put back in (which it undoubtedly will) you have to effectively support because that's the only way voting rights passes. Distasteful to you, I know, but that's the entire point of the NewHCE/DPR diatribe. If you want voting rights, you have to push for it no matter what or not at all.
Oh, and this comment from Zherka:
"It is unacceptable that certain members of Congress continue to use DC as a testing ground for bad legislation that they would never even consider in their home districts."
...is total BS. Even WITH the changes in the amendment, DC's gun laws would still be stricter than most states.
You can bet a Governor Marion Barry wouldn't put up with this sort of treatment. He'd be far too busy dodging the tax collector and stalking random women and their fresh, delicious babies.
I like the gun amendment. I hope they keep putting it in until I'm free to exercise my 2nd amendment rights in our nation's capital without wading through the extra DC BS.
The incompetence and hubris displayed by the council and the mayor have invited a rebuke. To hell with home rule if it's bozos like these calling the shots.
"To hell with home rule if it's bozos like these calling the shots."
Let's extend that thought to the whole country, shall we? Wherever there is an incompetent or somewhat crazy public official, let us allow Congress to step in and rule for them. How much local democracy would be left?
As for your Second Amendment rights, you can exercise them freely in D.C. now. If you bought or have a handgun, head down to the police department and start the registration process. Sure, it's not terribly easy, but it's also not prohibitively difficult. The Supreme Court never said that regulations and restrictions were unconstitutional, because they were smart enough to know that even gun-lovers have to respect the rights of cities and states to craft gun laws that respond to their particular needs and conditions.
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Oh boy. Cue talking points. Answer this question, Martin and I will agree with you 100%:
Why is a rifle with that can be extended from 31" to 34" more dangerous than a rifle with a fixed stock that is 28" long? What "local conditions" does this address?
It is these types of meaningless provisions that keep the issue going. You CAN restrict a right for the interest of public safety, but the gun laws don't do that. They exist solely to discourage people from exercising their right. THAT is the problem.
Don't pretend DC is like the rest of the country. What other municipality would thumb their nose at a supreme court ruling with such glee? Where else do the waters of incompetence run this deep?
I have no problem with registering a firearm, but DC's special take on the issue is ridiculous and overly cumbersome. I get the argument that this should be handled through the courts and in principal I agree, but I feel enough of my tax dollars have been wasted on this already.
I have no problem with congress putting the smackdown on this group of pandering do nothings. They spend their time arguing about baseball tickets, going on junkets, and stalking people. They are like squabbling children that need an adult to hand down the truth. In reality I feel congress must act on behalf of the citizens. DC government has shown it can't handle the issue.
While they're at it they should send some accountants to check behind Mr Gandhi. Do you really think all the embezzlement leaks have been plugged?
Home rule is all fine and good if things are working, but on specific issues in which it isn't I support a higher authority stepping in to take action.
What other municipality would thumb their nose at a supreme court ruling with such glee? Where else do the waters of incompetence run this deep?
I dunno. Alabama?
I'm curious, if having a gun is so important, so vital to the American experience, why is it such a burden to "[wade] through the extra DC BS"? Do people do a lot of deer hunting in Rock Creek park? or maybe quail and pheasant over at the Arboretum?
If for defense, should I be worried that there are people walking down the street that I wouldn't think to avoid but are actually holstering a firearm and are ready and willing to use it at a moment's notice? Should I be riding my bike down 7th street with one hand on a gun just in case?
I have always and will continue to be completely flabberghasted at the sense of entitlement gun advocates seem to have. Lets not kid ourselves, it's not advocating for 2nd amendment rights; in too much of the debate it's advocating for guns in and of themselves...the use of the 2nd amendment has very good reasons tied directly to historical context, but acting like 2009 DC is 1880s Dodge City is immature - the 2nd amendment is a screen in this way.
If you would like protection in your home, fine no big deal, there are avenues for legitimate gun ownership. If you live or work in a part of DC that is so dangerous that you feel the need to defend yourself with a semi-automatic, perhaps you should consider moving. If you can't stand the fact that a large portion of DC residents don't see a need for everyone to be packing, are in fact fearful of gun misuse, and are eager and willing to have a legal framework of safeguards, however meek, I am sure there are nice pieces of property in Montana or Idaho where you can go to town all day on whatever inanimate object or legally huntable(?) animal happens to be around.
Otherwise, I believe my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to being mowed down by a stray bullet) trump anyone's "right" to not wade through "BS" to play vigilante.
[note: davep, the you is more general here, and I apologize for the snark - it's not personal since I don't know you. But I get tired of appeals to the 2nd amendment as if the Bill of Rights was the word of God almighty and has never had need for context and making an appeal to it somehow frees one from fully laying out his/her argument. Also, long comment...my bad.]
and my post snuck in under the wrong reply chain...should go above
Actually, crime was quite low in Dodge City in the 1880s because everybody was armed. The "wild west" image of daily shootouts was a creation of sensationalistic newspapers and perpetuated by Hollywood. Violence was limited to gambling halls and bordellos; criminal activity outside the saloons was almost nonexistent. The difference between then and now being "the code" that criminals tended to victimize eachother. Violence against law-abiding citizens was met with either a noose or a bullet, whereas now they'd tend to get parole and a book deal.
"Should I be riding my bike down 7th street with one hand on a gun just in case?"
No. That is illegal. The question is whether individuals, should they choose, have the right to have a firearm in their home for self defense.
"Lets not kid ourselves, it's not advocating for 2nd amendment rights;"
That is exactly what it is like.
"but acting like 2009 DC is 1880s Dodge City is immature - the 2nd amendment is a screen in this way."
No it is not. DC's gun laws are the strictest in the country. People are only asking that we are given some of the rights the rest of the country enjoys.
"If you live or work in a part of DC that is so dangerous that you feel the need to defend yourself with a semi-automatic.... there are nice pieces of property in Montana or Idaho"
That is like saying if you don't like living where blacks can vote, then move somewhere else. It is an enumerated Constitutional right. Period.
"Otherwise, I believe my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to being mowed down by a stray bullet) trump anyone's "right" to not wade through "BS" to play vigilante."
Yes, you are correct. All of us who want to exercise our 2A rights just want to play vigilante. You got me.
I want to take my gun to the saloon/gambling hall/bordello. That would be fun and exciting...and a little risky. Why is that not OK anymore? Where did this country go off the tracks?
Got to church on Sunday if you want or not. I don't care what you do so long as you stay off my lawn.
I am also tired of "they wouldn't do it in their own district" argument. Look, DC is more like a big city in a state, and Congress is like the state legislature. When you look at it in this context, these types of battles happen all the time.
Correction: DC is like a big city in a state, and Congress is like a state legislature that is composed of overpaid notary publics, fornicators, and whoremongers from A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE. Also, their Bean Soup f**king sucks. WTF ever happened to Dominiques Senate Navy Bean Soup? Why can't I find that anymore? And what about their Turtle Soup? That was some good soup. Not as good as terrapin soup, but you can't find that anymore neither and that's a Maryland tradition. Goddamned Endangered Species Act, wiping out all the good local soup. Now I have to order my turtle meat from Laos. WTF is up with that? I mean, $h!t, if I'm going to order Laotian soup, it's gonna be that pho stuff, not turtle soup. But try telling that to Congress. They just tell you to quit calling this number or just hang up in your face. I hope you choke on your goddamned bean soup, you f**king f**kers! And my taxes go to pay for that goddamned soup! They better hope they have good security around their kitchens, I can tell you that. Because if I ever get my hands on that Senate Navy Bean Soup pot, they're gonna have a cholera epidemic on their hands that'll be worse than the Great Egg Salad Sandwich Defenestration Debacle of 1902, an event that nearly toppled the Roosevelt administration and indirectly led to the Second Boer War.
A better photo for this thread would be an olde-time soapbox derby.
The voting rights bill is dead in the water. The DC Gov't's position on guns was astoundingly dumbass. Eleanor Holmes Norton is lazy. Bean soup gives me astounding gas.
There, I believe I covered all the bases.
You forgot the brothels where the prostitutes all have derringers in their garter belts. I get all my history from the Ye Olde Wild West Photo Studio where the tourist families get sepia-tinted daguerreotypes taken of themselves.
That's hot.