If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox DC)   D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban has worked so well that the Supreme Court is considering allowing guns back into the District as a reward to the people   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 903
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

7368 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2008 at 10:06 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



903 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-18 11:17:06 AM  
www.liberalswithguns.com
 
2008-03-18 11:17:13 AM  
ReisFlynn: absoluteparanoia: Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.

I do, actually, sleep pretty well. Funny that.


Good for you? Thanks for adding to the discussion.
 
2008-03-18 11:17:45 AM  
I don't understand why the first amendment isn't read the same way as the second amendment, even though the language structure is similiar.

As an aside, is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling like the Democrats are trying to control the people? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything...just posing a question.

The more I feel people want to take away guns and give them to the government leaves me feeling very wary. That's how the revolutionary war started...
 
2008-03-18 11:17:46 AM  
Isn't Virginia Tech a "gun-free zone" as well?

That worked out well didn't it?
 
2008-03-18 11:18:01 AM  
absoluteparanoia: Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Most defensive uses of a firearm don't end up with anybody shot, or even shots fired. The 94' Kleck study found 1.5-2 million "defensive gun uses" per year (many of them "show and tells", where the threat runs off after a gun is brandished), at a time when total gun deaths (including suicide, justifiable homicide, police shootings) was around 38,000 a year. And something like half of the people involved in self-defense with a gun believed that their own lives were in peril. Even assuming half of them were wrong, and using the lower estimated number of defensive incidents, you get 375,000 saved vs. 38,000 dead.
 
2008-03-18 11:18:08 AM  
Dimensio: dittybopper: Even so, accidental deaths by firearm are at an all-time low of 789 (0.29 per 100,000, 2005). That's less than the number of people killed in bicycle accidents every year (927 in 2005, with a rate of 0.31 per 100,000).

Given this number, I am curious as to the lack of advocacy of tighter bicycle control laws in this country, especially relating to the safe storage of bicycles.


Because of the efforts of the bicycle manufacturers' lobby, of course. They're trying to sell their death machines at the public's expense.

/did I get that right?
 
2008-03-18 11:18:10 AM  
From the link of trhe languige analysis above, came a wonderful counter to liberal gun control doublespeak.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

If that had been in the Consitutuion, applying it in the same way pro-gun control types apply the second amendment means only a federally controlled group would have a protected right to keep and read books, not the people.

Anyone else think thats how the framers meant to 'protect' rights? hmmm?
 
2008-03-18 11:18:26 AM  
Snarfangel: Retrocession to Maryland is cheaper.

Yeah, but DC was originally Maryland AND Virginia.

Plus Maryland sucks big donkey dick compared to DC. In almost every measure possible. We'll stick to ourselves thanks.
 
2008-03-18 11:18:35 AM  
If I hear of a gun ban coming into effect soon...you can bet your sweet ass I'm buying a hand gun.

Could you imagine the shiat that will hit the fan if low-life criminals know that the average person is not carrying a weapon to defend themselves?

/Non-gun-owning-gun-romantic.
 
2008-03-18 11:18:35 AM  
bv2112: ReisFlynn: But could the military suppress the citizens if, say, every other house in the country was armed? That's a different story.

If everyone in Hiroshima owned an arsenal back in WWII, I don't expect the outcome would have been radically different.

Yes, I am extrapolatingcommitting the logical fallacy of reduction to the absurd, but I'd rather not have heavily-armed neighbors during times of peace.


FTFY.

If it gets to the point the government is nuking it's own people, we're farked anyways. Game over, reset the world, humanity is done with, lets just hope enough life survives that in a billion years there might be a new race of sentient beings to hopefully not repeat the mistakes.
 
2008-03-18 11:19:21 AM  
bv2112: I'm trying to exercise my right to not get shot, buddy!

I'm sorry. Which amendment is that?

/Joke.
 
2008-03-18 11:19:44 AM  
ShawnC1032: SouthParkCon: Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems to me that "militia" and "right of the people to keep and bear arms" are actually two seperate subjects.

Exactly if people honestly believe that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all the people then they have to believe the same on the other 9. If they wanted to make it a militia right then they would said it was reserved for the militia. Also the last time the Supreme court ruled on this issue (1939), they said that the militia meant all the people.



I think it's somewhat of a given that the 2nd is a personal right. What I believe, after a pretty significant amount of legal scholarship, is that the correct way to read the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

"Since it will be necessary for the federal government to keep a, professional, disciplined, and standing army; The right of the people to keep weapons to protect themselves against potential tyrannical use of that army shall not be infringed.

The Key to this is the placement of the 2nd,right next to the long forgotten 3rd Amendment which ALSO concerns itself with protecting against another tyrannical use of a standing Army. King George III, used "quartering" laws to require colonials to feed and house his soldiers in their homes. Obviously he also used this as a away to put prominent dissidents under virtual house arrest. Thus the 3rd Amendment specifically forbid the government from making quartering laws

HOWEVER

Even if the court Affirms my POV, I very much doubt the gun laws will change significantly.

See, we are used to thinking Constitutional Right = Government can't restrict it; but this is simply not so. All constitutional rights are subject to "reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner" when the State can articulate a "Compelling governmental interest" for the restriction.

Now for things like the first amendment, this means VERY few restrictions because short of stopping an incited Riot, the government has very few legitimate reasons for restricting speech. They DO however have a LOT of legitimate reasons for restricting firearms as a way to reduce gun crime, shooting deaths etc,

So while elevating the right to keep arms to a constitutional right will allow SOME additional protection against the most arbitrary restrictions (like the districts) it will not turn America into the NRA's Utopia
 
2008-03-18 11:19:54 AM  
Bomb Head Mohammed: Please tell me again why it is OK to have handguns but not ok to have personal thermonuclear weapons. I have yet to hear one pro-gun genius be able to explain this without resorting to "distinctions without a difference" such as "one is arms and one is weapons."

Actually thats exactly, it. Even during constitutional time there was "arms" which meant personal defense weapons carried by one person, and ordnance which was things like cannons or bombs.
The constitution clearly defines the right to arms, it does not define the right to ordinance.
 
2008-03-18 11:20:03 AM  
FilmBELOH20: Well here's my counterpoint from a person who, like your group, obviously has no agenda whatsoever...

And what does "A well regulated militia" mean? Nugie boy seems to have a severe case of ADHD, for he forgot the first HALF of the amendment.
 
2008-03-18 11:20:18 AM  
Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

Oh, fark you! Do you mean the two guys that didn't listen to your dumb-ass little phrases like "This is a gun free zone" and "killing people is illegal"? That's your example, you fooking tool? That's the best you can come up with is a bunch of bullshiat rhetoric from the Brady Bunch, and then pictures of two guys who broke all kinds of laws and then killed defenseless people?
 
2008-03-18 11:20:23 AM  
bv2112: Luthiel: If you don't want to exercise your right to bear arms, go right ahead. But don't try to strip that right from people who DO choose to exercise it, OK?

I'm trying to exercise my right to not get shot, buddy!


Do you think that you're in danger of being shot by someone who legally owns a gun?
 
2008-03-18 11:20:28 AM  
atate_esq: This argument is made by people that don't understand how the Constitution works. It isn't a grant of rights really, but more a list of limitations on how government can regulate rights.

Thank you.

Too many people think that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to bestow rights upon the people. The rights discussed are assumed to already exist, and the purpose of the document is to place limits and restrictions on the government's ability to infringe those rights.
 
2008-03-18 11:20:36 AM  
Cambo_: The gun nuts in this thread don't seem to realize that the vast majority of murders are crimes of passion. If you don't have access to a gun, and you get really angry about something, it's a lot less likely that you will kill whatever you're angry at.

The home invasion scenario that keeps getting brought up is really not that common. This is why countries with more gun restrictions have fewer murders.

As for the whole overthrowing the government thing, do you really think that a well-armed populace stands a chance of overthrowing the US millitary? If Dubya wanted to turn the US into a faschist state, then sending a tank column and a few Apaches to any centres of armed resistance would quiet them down pretty quick.


Woverines!!!!

/Ahhh, so in Iraq theyyy'rrrre stalling?
 
2008-03-18 11:20:49 AM  
i221.photobucket.com
Yee Haaa
/my aim is a little off this morning
 
2008-03-18 11:20:57 AM  
incrdbil: From the link of trhe languige analysis above, came a wonderful counter to liberal gun control doublespeak.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

If that had been in the Consitutuion, applying it in the same way pro-gun control types apply the second amendment means only a federally controlled group would have a protected right to keep and read books, not the people.

Anyone else think thats how the framers meant to 'protect' rights? hmmm?


/Applaud
 
2008-03-18 11:21:05 AM  
absoluteparanoia:
Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Dimensio: Please explain and justify this statistic, and explain what you believe that it means.

Technically
, he's right. But only technically. The statistic is that your family is around you more often, therefore the you're more likely to shoot them should you accidently discharge your firearm.

This is like saying, "You're more likely to shoot a tree in a forest than a criminal."

The argument has fail.
 
2008-03-18 11:21:06 AM  
samimgreen:
You know, that actually makes a ton of sense. If a person is going to join the army if they are going to need a volunteer militia, then it seems it would be best to have people that actually knew how to fire a gun. "Oh look the French/English/Indians/Spanish are coming to conquer! Everyone, get out your Declaration of Independence and wave it at them until they go away!"


What army?

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803

No, it seems that we were supposed to be the armed force, and get rid of the army. So, of course, we'd need guns!

But, uh, we didn't get rid of them ...
 
2008-03-18 11:21:12 AM  
ReisFlynn: Yes, I am extrapolatingcommitting the logical fallacy of reduction to the absurd, but I'd rather not have heavily-armed neighbors during times of peace.

FTFY.


What? You're telling me Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen?
 
2008-03-18 11:21:27 AM  
img222.imageshack.us
 
2008-03-18 11:22:44 AM  
12 Inch Pianist: I am neither a numbskull nor an imbecile. The weapon is properly secured, yet readily available, in a biometric safe that can only be opened by my wife or I.

This is responsible gun ownership. I am neither (a) in favor of the DC gun ban (b) a gun nut.

But you do have to admit that half of the U.S. populace is a below-average IQ, and that they may not be the most responsible gun owners.
 
2008-03-18 11:22:56 AM  
ReisFlynn: Nightsweat: Threats from Internet big shots and then a reduced murder rate?

So your working theory is that the people who will obey the law and turn in their guns are the ones that were going to break the law and kill people?


And thus the brilliant thought process of the pro-gun control fanatic is displayed. Well done.
 
2008-03-18 11:23:04 AM  
bstud: Isn't Virginia Tech a "gun-free zone" as well?

That worked out well didn't it?


It was supposed to be a Mung-free zone but somebody screwed up.

/don't blame the guns - blame the anti-depressants
//anti-depressants MUCH worse than guns for our society
 
2008-03-18 11:23:07 AM  
"That idea of the government rebelling against its people also begs the question, do you really think you can take on the U.S. military with guns?"

A swarm of tiny ants will kill a deadly scorpion.

Besides an armed populace is a counter balance to government power. The mere presence of an armed citizenry balances government even without open warfare.
 
2008-03-18 11:23:20 AM  
dittybopper: You might see a reversal of the trend toward smaller rifle calibers, given the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

Smaller than .227 (roughly 5.56 mm)? Really unlikely.
 
2008-03-18 11:23:38 AM  
dittybopper: absoluteparanoia:
Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.

Actually, assuming he doesn't have a criminal record, or things like reckless driving or DWI arrests, he isn't more likely to shoot himself, his wife, or his kids.

The single biggest predictor for accidental firearms related deaths is prior reckless behavior by the person with the gun.

Even so, accidental deaths by firearm are at an all-time low of 789 (0.29 per 100,000, 2005). That's less than the number of people killed in bicycle accidents every year (927 in 2005, with a rate of 0.31 per 100,000).


interesting....
 
2008-03-18 11:23:50 AM  
Pythagoras:

I don't understand why the second amendment isn't read the same way as the first amendment, even though the language structure is similiar.

As an aside, is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling like the Republicans are trying to control the people? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything...just posing a question.

The more I feel people want to take away guns and give them to the government leaves me feeling very wary. That's how the revolutionary war started...

Yea. Just wait until the strict constructionist authoritarian supreme court gets done with this. *That's* gonna be a flame war.
 
2008-03-18 11:24:07 AM  
Luthiel: Do you think that you're in danger of being shot by someone who legally owns a gun?

In all honesty, I never feel in danger of being shot by someone who owns a gun, whether it be legal or illegal. I think this case won't do much as far as safety in the District is concernet; however, I think the gun-acquiring process should be made rather difficult so that only responsible, mentally balanced people can own guns.
 
fj
2008-03-18 11:24:08 AM  
George Kaplan

That's the real reason we need guns. To shoot people who make these stupid images.
Just as a deterrent for anyone else considering it.
 
2008-03-18 11:24:09 AM  
worshippingchristian.org
 
2008-03-18 11:24:11 AM  
mattharvest: Glasgowsfinest: malcy: America and guns always amuses me

Yeah, but I find it a bit weird. Even the idea of a "National Rifle Association" is a bit strange to me.

Concepts like the American perspective on guns (I'm an American, btw) cannot be understood in isolation from the history involved: the role guns and non-professional militia played in our revolution (and thus our Cultural Myth) cannot be overstated. For Americans in the post-colonial period, guns were talismans that kept the King of England out of our bedrooms. Slowly their purpose changed - after all, no Founding Father could have predicted the Gattling Gun (or even Mitrailleuse) much less the advent of personal automatic rifles. Like all symbols, many Americans now mistake the symbol for the meaning itself (a similar shift has occurred with the American flag).

I admit being unsure why the French don't have a similar love of guns, given their bloody revolution, but perhaps The Terror tempered their love of violence. Similarly, the damage wrought on most European nations in WWI and WWII removed some of the romanticism of guns.

Australia and Canada - nations who won their independence through bloodless votes - are obviously coming from entirely different philosophical standpoints (and carrying their parent-nation's lack of love for guns).

We must always remember that our love of something today was borne out of the simple desire or use of something yesterday; the gun-lust that pervades much of American culture is not just about firepower.


Well said, and I think you nailed the part about no stomach for guns after WW1 and 2. I've said this myself to folks around these parts.

I do wonder however if European Jews feel the same?
 
2008-03-18 11:24:24 AM  
incrdbil: From the link of trhe languige analysis above, came a wonderful counter to liberal gun control doublespeak.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

If that had been in the Consitutuion, applying it in the same way pro-gun control types apply the second amendment means only a federally controlled group would have a protected right to keep and read books, not the people.

Anyone else think thats how the framers meant to 'protect' rights? hmmm?


The funny part is that the framers wrote extensively about what they meant. And they meant individual gun ownership. But we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good flame war
 
2008-03-18 11:24:35 AM  
dittybopper: Actually, assuming he doesn't have a criminal record, or things like reckless driving or DWI arrests, he isn't more likely to shoot himself, his wife, or his kids.

The single biggest predictor for accidental firearms related deaths is prior reckless behavior by the person with the gun.

Even so, accidental deaths by firearm are at an all-time low of 789 (0.29 per 100,000, 2005). That's less than the number of people killed in bicycle accidents every year (927 in 2005, with a rate of 0.31 per 100,000).


You left out the suicide-by-gun rate, which is substantially higher. About 5.6 per 100,000 compared to the homicide-by-gun rate of 3.4 per 100,000.
 
2008-03-18 11:24:40 AM  
absoluteparanoia:

But you do have to admit that half of the U.S. populace is a below-average IQ, and that they may not be the most responsible gun owners.


I may also believe they may not be responsible in their use of the right to assemble, vote, or speak as they will. That doesn't mean they should be nedied those rights because they might not use them well.
 
2008-03-18 11:24:57 AM  
Luthiel: Because of the efforts of the bicycle manufacturers' lobby, of course. They're trying to sell their death machines at the public's expense.

/did I get that right?


I believe that you are correct. In fact, last June I was able to purchase a multi-gear trigger-shifting "urban assault bicycle" (as literally described by the vendor) without undergoing a background check.
 
2008-03-18 11:25:18 AM  
nictamer: And what does "A well regulated militia" mean? Nugie boy seems to have a severe case of ADHD, for he forgot the first HALF of the amendment.

Dude. This has been covered over and over again.

A well regulated militia means a well equiped and functioning militia.

That first part of the amendment is not an independent clause. It can't stand on it's own, gramatically. Therefore, it is merely modifying or explaining the independent portion of the Amendment "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed...why (now look at the modifying clause), because a militia needs to be well equiped.

The militia is everyone from 18 to 45 (males..though I think we'd agree that women are now included).
 
2008-03-18 11:25:35 AM  
bv2112: ReisFlynn: Yes, I am extrapolatingcommitting the logical fallacy of reduction to the absurd, but I'd rather not have heavily-armed neighbors during times of peace.

FTFY.

What? You're telling me Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen?


What? Are you telling me Hiroshima and Nagasaki were US cities rebelling against the US government?

Damn, my history books are all wrong, I guess.
 
2008-03-18 11:25:42 AM  
absoluteparanoia: You left out the suicide-by-gun rate, which is substantially higher.

Should outlaw tall buildings and all the poisons in my cleaning closet.
 
2008-03-18 11:26:01 AM  
bv2112: Lee451: I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that in every state that has made concealed carry permits easier to get the crime rate has plummeted.

Hasn't the crime rate plummeted in every State, regardless of whether or these laws were passed? Correlation does not entail causality.


Differing rates of reduction do, though.
 
2008-03-18 11:26:22 AM  
absoluteparanoia: Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.

Everyone who isnt retarded please raise your hand... not so fast absoluteparanoia

Retarded argument from a retarded person. Lets break this down logically:

I am pretty sure owning a gun period, increases the chances of a gun accident. In the same sense that owning or operating a car will increase your risk of a car accident. In Manhattan there are probably far less fatal car accidents per capita than anywhere else. Because, well, people dont have as many cars per capita.

So, by owning and/or operating something improperly, you will automatically increase the risk of dying from it. No matter what it is; whether it is a car, knives, a fireplace, chainsaw, lawnmower, wood homes, a home in an earthquake area, etc...

The key to all of these things is that if something is properly maintained and handled, it cannot cause death. If everyone obeyed every traffic law, there would be no car deaths or accidents. If everyone obeyed the law in every city, state, and country in the world that says murder is not allowed, then there would be no murders.

Basically your argument seems to be based on the assumption that if you can die from improperly operating something, than it should be banned. The problem is that use emotion to back your myopic and deeply rooted irrational fear of things. If you break it down logically, instead of just using your own personal fears and lack of knowledge on how to properly operate a firearm, you would probably see that a firearm is just a safe as a butter knife. Only when used improperly or illegally does the firearm become unsafe.

So, rather than a ban on firearms, someone who isnt a total moron could see what is needed to prevent accidents is to require better training. And to reduce crime... well your guess is as good as mine. But I fully support life sentences for anyone misusing a firearm in a crime. But they have already proven that they will not obey a law as old and as universal as "dont kill your fellow man". How do you think they will feel if they hurt your feelings by breaking a gun law?

/rims
 
2008-03-18 11:26:26 AM  
xria: I really can't see the point of gun control in a limited geographic area with no border controls. So you really have three options:

1) Ban guns (or types of guns) across the country and maintain border controls to limit the flow into the country
2) Ban guns in the area in question, but also put up border controls around that area (seems very unlikely to succeed)
3) Don't ban guns (or types of guns) anywhere in the country

The sort of piecemeal approach in the US seems completely pointless. Gun ownership should basically be a federal decision - and with the current situation, I can't see a ban being reasonable, despite preferring personally that I live in a country with very limited gun ownership.


This. Local gun control is worse than useless, because all it means is that law abiding citizens won't have guns, but criminals will, since there is this device called an automobile that allows people willing to break the law to drive to places where guns are legal and buy them there.
 
2008-03-18 11:26:59 AM  
AlwaysRightBoy: Yee Haaa
/my aim is a little off this morning


*snicker*
 
2008-03-18 11:27:22 AM  
img216.imageshack.us
 
2008-03-18 11:28:02 AM  
img182.imageshack.us

Had to do it. :-)
 
2008-03-18 11:28:03 AM  
If you want a handgun ban to work you need to change the second amendment - which I'm sure the gun lobby/NRA would LOVE.
 
2008-03-18 11:28:18 AM  
bv2112: Luthiel: Do you think that you're in danger of being shot by someone who legally owns a gun?

In all honesty, I never feel in danger of being shot by someone who owns a gun, whether it be legal or illegal. I think this case won't do much as far as safety in the District is concernet; however, I think the gun-acquiring process should be made rather difficult so that only responsible, mentally balanced people can own guns.


Ok, as long as you think the right to speak freely, assemble, or worship a religion recieves the same treatment and regulation--with licensing required and government regulation of all you can do in those areas, I can see no logical inconsitancy with your beliefs.

/not saying I'd see much sanity in them though...
 
Displayed 50 of 903 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report