Comments on: Trouble in gun-banners’ land

By: NHMagenta

NHMagenta — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:24:20 +0000

Seeing as this case only applies to Washington D.C. I don’t see it mattering all that much although I would love to see the Supremes come down in favor of gun rights for law abiding residents of D.C.

I do realize a decision in favor of the current gun restrictions in D.C. would be a major source of political capital for the Brady Bunch!

From Article VI Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(emphasis added)
This could allow a North American Union to abrogate the Second Amendment if the NAU charter explicitly restricts the RKBA of ordinary citizens.

By: Lanzman

Lanzman — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:14:39 +0000

The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, refers very specifically to the rights of individuals. It is not a collective right ascribed to some “militia” . . . the militia was understood at the time to include every able-bodied male capable of bearing arms. And the phrase “well regulated” simply means “adequately prepared” in the language of the times. *Any* gun control law is unconstitutional in keeping with “shall not be infringed”. The right to self-defense is absolutely fundamental to a free people.

By: graysonret

graysonret — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:41:33 +0000

Mr. Marion Barry. Saw him twice. Once I was with a group that hosted a party for some D.C. businesses back in ‘84. He totally ignored us hosts (white) and stayed with some of the businessmen (black) with newspeople in tow. 2nd time was when I was with a group that worked hard for months, putting together and opening a healthcare clinic for the homeless in ‘89. When we opened, he came “roaring in”, cameras in tow, announcing, “Look what I’ve done.” Felt like saying, “You b*d!”. He didn’t do a darn thing to help, just took the credit. Can’t stand the man.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:17:19 +0000

Typical DC trashy politics. Remember Marion Barry?

You mean Councilman Marion Barry (D-Ward 8). Show some respect for the Mayor-for-Life.

By: garyt

garyt — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:00:29 +0000

LGM I thought the democrats were for the constitution. Why mess with the 2nd amendment? If you start with one amendment it will be a matter of time before the others are picked off. Unless you want Muslim law or Stalin law I would leave the consitution alone. The murders here where I live are guns brought in from Old Mexico. Law abiders always have a harder time obtaining guns then those who are in the lawless category.

By: Chief RZ

Chief RZ — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:43:37 +0000

Typical DC trashy politics. Remember Marion Barry?

By: zorro

zorro — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:57:12 +0000

PS, I love my HK mk23 .45

By: zorro

zorro — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:54:51 +0000

On January 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm, ArmoredCAV said:

Show off!

As for lgm, read/write the complete 2nd Amendment:
“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.”

The right mentioned, to keep and bear arms, belongs specifically to the people, “…the right of the people…”, the same “people” mentioned in Amendment I and Amendment IV. Are you implying that these amendments (I & IV) refer to rights belonging only to militias as well??? I think not.

By: brooklyn red

brooklyn red — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:33:07 +0000

lgm #42, nice try but the reason that homicide in NYC has gone down is that it has become so expensive that the less affluent & more likely to run w/a drug gang demographic have been displaced to the suburbs where guess what, the crime rate is skyrocketing. Kinda like Paris, oui?.

The average price of an apartment in Manhattan is 1.43M & those folks don’t do drive-bys… but if you would like I could recommend some housing projects in Brooklyn where they locals would be more than happy cap you & leave you under a bridge… oh the irony.

By: txvet2

txvet2 — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:19:43 +0000

FWIW, since the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the Federal Government, and since the 10th acknowledges the right of the states to legislate in all areas not specified, it would seem to me that the gun ban in DC should be overturned because it is federally controlled, but the decision should be narrowly written so as to have no bearing on state or local gun control laws.

By: AlohaGuy

AlohaGuy — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:09:30 +0000

It’s like committing hari-kari.

Except of course it’s usually spelled harakiri…but I suppose the Washington Post reporter was too busy singing “Carey-Okie”…

By: JohnHolliday

JohnHolliday — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:58:46 +0000

My choice is a SigSauer SP2022. It's about the only 9mm that the socialist CA legislature has deemed fit.

By: graysonret

graysonret — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:58:23 +0000

Any male citizen was considered part of the militia at the time of the Constitution, and for good reason too, since we didn’t have a real standing army. The other reason for this militia goes back to the revolution; the private citizen picking up his flintlock and going to fight against the English government. It was, and still considered, a right of the citizens to rise up against an oppressive government. One thing a government hates, when it tries to control the citizens, is armed militias.
First thing a government will try to do is gun control. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed occasionally with the blood of patriots.” Thomas Jefferson. Once a government takes away a right or liberty, it very rarely gives it back. Giving up the “right to bear arms” means the end of the right of citizens to dissolve an oppressive government. Maybe today, we don’t need it, but who knows in the future with our grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Are you willing to state that all will be well 50-100 years from now? I’m not willing. I never believe in giving up hard-won rights won by the blood of our ancestors and founding fathers. Already I see our rights diminished by a lot of “yes, but” laws curtailing our freedoms. The Bill of Rights have been under assault and few care. Always some sort of excuse is given. We’re too busy wrapped up in our own lives to care.

By: SHoward

SHoward — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:57:47 +0000

Jim M., That would certainly explain why I can’t understand a blasted thing this state tells me. I left my English-Socialist dictionary back in Florida, so I’ve had to rough it. The official state language isn’t actually Spanglish, either. It’s a peculiar mix of Pig Spanglish, Beaurocrititis, Mandarin Chinese, with a little Klingon in the curse words. The letters the state might send for legal briefs (an obvious oxymoron) also must be translated to legalese. The translators are from France. They speak Frog.

By: JohnHolliday

JohnHolliday — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:50:56 +0000

Gun control is constitutional: “A well regulated militia . . . ” is not a private person with a pistol in a drawer.

Yes, government can regulate guns; i.e., you can’t have your own “personal nuclear deterent” but you can own a pistol for self protection. No matter what the government says. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t mean much if your life and liberty are constantly threatened by criminals and your pursuit of happiness is just getting through another day without becoming a crime statistic.

Crime in New York City has fallen in part because of helpful gun control policies…

Wrong again. See “Freedomnomics” by John Lott, Chapter 4, Crime and Punishment, specifically page 147, but you should read the entire book. Right to carry laws always decrease crime (that is, they have a positive impact on crime prevention) and gun control has either no impact or a negative impact. Always.