Suspect in 9-Year-Old's Murder Found Dead in D.C. Jail
Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Go Home Already: Make Room
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
On Friday afternoon, we reported that House Democratic leaders were thinking about trying something a bit sneaky for D.C. voting rights, by attaching a measure to a defense spending bill that would give the District a House seat. The rationale is obvious -- many Republicans and conservative Democrats have complicated passage of the stand-alone voting rights proposal, so tacking it on to a larger bill they won't want to vote against ensures that it will finally move forward.
Of course, when Republicans heard of the rumor, they weren't pleased, arguing that D.C. voting rights has no place in a defense spending bill. Responding to those concerns, on Thursday Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) argued otherwise. "Now whether or not that will be included in the Defense bill, it is about democracy. It is about participation. It is about respect...I will tell my friend that I will continue to fight as hard as I can to try to figure out how I can bring that bill to the floor, get it to a vote, and give the people of the District of Columbia, our fellow citizens, the right to vote as the citizens in Baghdad can do, the citizens in Moscow can do, the citizens in every free country in the world except the United States of America, can do."
Watch his full statement above.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The minority party always uses the tactic. The Repubs have already used it a few times this session alone.
The problem is that Hoyer and other Dems just seem to too easily cave when they get the pressure.
when Republicans heard of the rumor, they weren't pleased, arguing that D.C. voting rights has no place in a defense spending bill.
Right...and an amendment allowing guns in national parks made perfect sense attached to a bill on credit regulations.
With voting rights within the District's grasp, 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 grant voting rights to the District of Columbia...
Congressman: Wait a second, 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 Voting Rights-slash-pervert bill?
[entire Congress boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work!
Can someone answer a question? What is to stop the opposition from adding the gun amendment as well.
I've been asking that same question since the first go-round, with no good answers.
i can't get the clip to play.
Its no biggie. Martin summarized it well. Its a pretty lame argument. He should just say "screw you. We are doing it."
Give me my guns and my vote!
Well, you can now legally own a handgun in D.C. (alongside a rifle or shotgun), so you do have your guns.
The vote's still missing, though.
Unless you are poor. 2A is a rich man's only right in DC.
Well, one of the plaintiffs in the Heller case does live in a pretty nice house in Georgetown...
newhce: it's always been a wealthy person's right. if you can't afford a gun, you can't afford one. doesn't matter where you are. until the government starts handing out weapons to every tom, dick, and harry for free, that ain't gonna change.
Martin: Heller was lucky, he got to register for nothing.
Goph: It cost $850 to register a crappy $250 gun.
850, 250, who gives a fuck.
if you're raising 3 kids on $17,000 a year plus government assistance, you're not going to waste $250 on a weapon. you're going to hope and pray you'll have that much to spend on food and shelter.
my point stands—and i guess i should avoid the "wealthy" disclaimer. if you are not financially secure, you're not going to waste you time buying weapons. the $1100 you cite above isn't going to break the back of someone in the middle class and up. we spend that much on a couple pieces of furniture, or a vacation. it's a choice you get to make as a consumer. if you choose to buy a gun, you're not going to be able to buy something else. i'm not going to shed tears for people because it's expensive in DC. lots of shit is expensive in DC.
Interesting. So I guess you think the $2 poll tax put in place in southern states in the 1960s was fine. Yeah, no tears shed for those complainers.
I also forgot to mention the 2 days off of work registration requires. Again, no problem for most people-except those on hourly wages.
The racist and classist roots of gun control are well documented. DC is no different.
To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.
-- Roy Innis
are you actively writing to the manufacturers of handguns asking them to lower their prices so everyone can get one, regardless of income?
c'mon, comparing this to a poll tax is a weak argument. voting should cost nothing. putting a tax on it was clearly an attempt to keep a certain class of people from being able to exercise their right.
making registration more expensive might seem to be on the same sliding scale, but it's not. once you go past a zero cost, you're talking about a different world here. unless guns become free, there will always, always, always, always be some people who can never, never, never afford one. you're going to have to advocate for free guns for all to stay intellectually consistent on this one, newhce.
Not at all. A gun is a commercial product, you can choose whatever model you want. The market place can settle the price. What is a problem is the government artificially inflating the price because they are afraid of poor people with weapons. In San Francisco,
putting a tax on it was clearly an attempt to keep a certain class of people from being able to exercise their right.
That is exactly what has happened with gun time and time again. From the Sullivan Act in NYC aimed at Italian immigrants, to laws against Saturday Night Specials" (originally known as N****town Saturday Night Specials" to the recently defeated San Francisco ban on gun ownership in public housing.
And as far as that family making $17K, they probably don't live in a nice neighborhood in DC. And I see nothing wrong, if a guy chose to buy a gun to protect his family. You don't think a $500 tax put in place by the Gov't is excessive?
i think the $500 tax is irrelevant. that family making $17K is not going to spend $250 on a gun. they don't have that luxury. they might consider it if it cost $5. but until you can find a business model that succeeds in making a profit off of $5 handguns, the other things you bring up are immaterial to my point.
NewHCE - This is just out of curiosity, but in what ways does the government inflate the costs of guns? I'm just trying to figure out how, because of some government action, a $100 handgun actually has to be sold for $250.
It inflates the cost of ownership. In DC, you need to travel to Va or Md. to take a class. It will cost you $150 to $250. Now, the constitutionalality of the class aside, I don't believe the Gov't should require you travel outside of its jurisdiction to exercise a right and 2, if they want to require a class, it should be in DC and managed by the police,and be free or something nominal like $25-$50. Cheh's amendment requires you learn to shoot a handgun at a range (none in DC) just to buy a shotgun. There is no way that is defensible other than to conclude that she wants to make it as expensive as possible.
It is the same way with getting a permit for a demonstration. Many court cases have ruled that you can't charge "excessive" fees for such permitting.
Owning a gun is a right, buying one isn't a right.
agreed. which is why they shouldn't make ownership so difficult.
I would continue, but my copy of The Lost Symbol just arrived.
All this will eventually change after the Chicago case is heard. In addition to incorporating Heller, the court could rule it as a "fundamental" right. This would mean strict scrutiny would need to be applied to regulations.
I can't help but wonder if there are any actual poor people left in SF.
Like, a decade ago, I was walking through the Tenderloin with my SF friend trying not to LOL at what he thought a "bad neighborhood" was.
Heh, it still cracks me up even today.
Of course, in DC, a couple of blocks one way or another can make all the difference in the world.
I know. Even the bums in Union Square have cell phones.
Then you are going to find Bayview and Hunters Point hilarious.
I second IMGoph's Free and Subsidized Firearms for Widows and Orphans Act of 2009. This will definitely make ANC meetings more interesting.
Do I hear a broken record player?
What's a "record player?"