Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive Regulations?
Yesterday the District of Columbia unveiled new firearm rules that are meant to comply with the Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban. The proposed legislation makes an exception to the ban for handguns kept in the home for self-defense, and it "clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home." It also "clarifies" the storage rule for firearms, saying a gun can legally be unlocked and loaded "while it is being used against [a]reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person." Otherwise "firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled [or] secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device." The mention of gun safes is new and, depending on the kind of safe, could allow faster retrieval of a weapon in an emergency. But the requirement that even guns in safes be kept unloaded seems like an unreasonable impediment to self-defense that could be open to challenge.
The city continues to maintain that "most semiautomatic pistols" remain illegal under D.C.'s "machine gun" ban, which bizarrely covers not just automatic weapons but "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot...more than 12 shots without manual reloading," even if each trigger pull fires just one round. As I pointed out last month, there is no shortage of pistols that fire 12 or fewer rounds, but I don't know how many of them "can be readily converted" to fire more than that. If the city claims any handgun that can accept (or be modified to accept) a magazine holding more than 12 rounds is prohibited, would that cover "most semiautomatic pistols"? All handguns except "revolvers and derringers," as the Violence Policy Center argues?
Meanwhile, the procedure for legally owning whichever handguns are allowed sounds pretty onerous:
a. A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD's Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it.
b. The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver's license or doctor's letter), and pass a written firearms test.
c. If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check.
d. MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD's seal on the application.
e. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.
f. The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home.
The question is whether D.C. will make it so difficult to possess guns and use them in self-defense that it will end up back in court on the losing end of another Second Amendment lawsuit.
[Thanks to John Kluge for the tip.]
bubba|7.15.08 @ 5:48PM|#
I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in
DC.
And any semiautomatic pistol can be "converted" by fitting a longer
magazine that extends beyond the grip and holds more than 12
rounds.
So, even with an electronic, high speed safe, I still have to load
my revolver before the intruder gets to me?
Apparently they didn't read the part of the opinion that stated the
regulations can't asinine.
Nigel Watt|7.15.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Wait, so you have to keep the firearm disassembled until there is a reasonable threat? The hell?
|7.15.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive
Regulations?
Yes. Many here predicted as much.
JB|7.15.08 @ 5:55PM|#
"Shall not be infringed." Is it any wonder DC schools are so bad
when the mayor and city council cannot even read that
statement?
All these illiterates can jump in a lake and go fly a kite.
squarooticus|7.15.08 @ 6:03PM|#
This strategy has worked wonders in MA: make the process so
difficult that a lot of MA gun owners are now either "former gun
owners" or "former MA".
Kyle
Paul|7.15.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive Regulations?
Yes. Next topic.
Paul|7.15.08 @ 6:08PM|#
MA gun owners are now either "former gun owners" or "former
MA".
Or illegal gun owners.
Paul|7.15.08 @ 6:10PM|#
but I don't know how many of them "can be readily converted"
to fire more than that.
Any semi-auto gun can be converted to fire full-auto, with enough
gunsmithing skills. The fact that the firearm returns to a state
where it is ready to be fired again--automatically-- but requiring
a subsequent trigger pull, can be modifie to full auto.
Colin|7.15.08 @ 6:11PM|#
This should've been expected.
Why not make those registration fees $10,000, $100,000, or even
higher?
I bet you almost no one in DC will ever get a handgun. And by the
time new lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, Barky may have already
loaded it (no pun intended.)
squarooticus|7.15.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Or illegal gun owners.
Well, that too... but given what the MA government-not to mention
the feds-will do to you if they catch you possessing firearms
against the whims of the ruling class, I really can't believe this
is a very popular option.
It's been clear for at least a decade that gun owners and civil
libertarians in general are personae non gratae in MA; my
guess is that most such people who aren't bound here by employment
or family have packed up and moved on out, which would explain how
MA gets increasingly anti-gun when the rest of country is moving in
the other direction.
|7.15.08 @ 6:22PM|#
I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in DC.
You'd be wrong. Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence
Policy Center holds a Federal Firearms License.
You can verify this for yourself by going to the BATFE's online FFL EZ Check
website and entering the following:
1-54-XXX-XX-XX-00725
(Where the X's are shown will be blanked out on the ATF's website,
so just enter the numbers.)
Or, you can see a screen capture of Josh's license info on
David Hardy's blog.
Ska|7.15.08 @ 6:27PM|#
I just looked at what it takes to legally own a rifle or shotgun (forget handgun, you're dreaming) in NYC, and it's just as bad as this.
ptg|7.15.08 @ 7:12PM|#
They shouldn't be able to make such rules regulations stick. Permits and licensing requirements are unconstitutional where fundamental constitutional rights are concerned.
Paul|7.15.08 @ 7:13PM|#
It's been clear for at least a decade that gun owners and
civil libertarians in general are personae non gratae in
MA
Dude, it's the northeast. Think of it like a line of dominos. You
were the first to fall, we in the West are just beginning to
fall.
|7.15.08 @ 7:35PM|#
"Shall not be infringed" means just that. No offense to any
bloggers, but the inferior intellectual position is "this can't be
taken literally in a modern society" or "the absolute position is
for folks who can't recognize that everything is relative" or
"chaos would ensue if there were no registration and licensing
schemes".
The superior intellectual position is one that recognizes that
there are some absolutes and that the universe has managed to
survive notwithstanding the fact that there are absolutes. The
superior intellectual position recognizes that the framers intended
some things to be absolute. They anticipated the gibberish offered
up by some so-called "intellectuals" to the effect that "well,
there has to be some government regulation, oversight of things
lest we descend into chaos". The founders were smart enough to
dismiss such non-sense as it is almost always offered up by the
king, his men, those that depend upon him or those that curry his
favor. Besides, there is no empirical proof to support the chicken
little cries of Caesar and his supplicants that the sky will fall
without "reasonable regulation" or "more oversight" or "the gvt's
power must be elastic in order to deal with new problems, eh,
crises".
Elemenope|7.15.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Huh. And you, sir, are fortunate enough to be the herald of the
superior intellectual position?
How lucky.
/deserved snark
Elemenope|7.15.08 @ 7:54PM|#
liberty mike --
As usual, I'm not snarking at the position so much as the arrogance
of its presentation. When someone claims to be enlightened, or
superior, or specially-informed, my bullshit meter goes into the
red.
So I could give a damn what the position is you were advocating; as
soon as I read "the superior intellectual position [which just so
happens to be mine]", I immediately thought "hm. Bullshit."
|7.15.08 @ 8:17PM|#
"Sorry, Mr. Jones, looks like your permit application has failed yet again. But luckily we now have your name, address and whereabouts on file as someone interested in gun ownership. We'll be seeing you if any gun crimes happen to occur."
|7.15.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Elemenope-
BTW, let's be real-just fess up. You think that you are smarter
than joe. Its okay, I won't think of you as an intellectual
snob.
Elemenope|7.15.08 @ 8:28PM|#
liberty mike --
LOL, agreed, and no I don't think I'm particularly smarter than
joe. Guy Montag, definitely, but joe? Though I rarely agree with
him (that count is temporarily inflated by the fact we happen to
support the same presidential candidate, and even that for what I
assume are very different reasons) he is usually insightful when
his blood isn't up.
There are certainly commenters here who are a decent amount smarter
than me, or at the very least have had a great deal more training
in fields that I am but a dilettante.
Neu Mejican|7.15.08 @ 8:57PM|#
"Shall not be infringed" means just that.
So then, refute this statement:
A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and bear
arms.
Neu Mejican|7.15.08 @ 9:00PM|#
Prediction:
Liberty mike will refute my absolute statement with examples that
depend upon relative degrees of infringement.
|7.15.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Neu Mejican-
You are absolutely right, though the hour is relatively late and I
shall not infringe on wife time.
Paul|7.15.08 @ 9:39PM|#
A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and
bear arms.
As long as no one is denied a license.
|7.15.08 @ 9:51PM|#
LMNOP-
Though I rarely agree with him(joe)
1)Socialist InSecurity-- For or against?
2)8th month abortion- For or against?
3)"Progressive" taxation- For or against?
4)"Waterboarding" is torture?- for or against?
5)"Public Education"- for or against?
6)"Medicaid/Medicare"" -- for or against?
7)"School vouchers", "gay adoption", "mass transit subsidies",
"glowball warming", etc.
Perhaps you should mention where your "liberal agenda" is actually
different than joe's "liberal agenda"?
|7.15.08 @ 11:01PM|#
A gun license does infringe on the right to keep and
bear arms.
I'll admit, it puts the fringe in infringe. It's not totally
unreasonable, with a certain set of assumptions, to say that a gun
license might be sensible. Unfortunately, it's an infringement.
Elemenope|7.15.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Wowsers! I think this is the first time I personally have been
trolled on this board. Happy day! ;)
Loaded questions abound, but...
1)Socialist InSecurity-- For or against?
I don't find retirement accounts to be a particularly bad thing.
I'm not crazy about taxation in support of it, and there must be a
better way to provide for those who are no longer of working age
but still have every right to continue existing. Many people are
fortunate enough and have enough foresight to save when they are
working; some do not have the capacity to do so. I certainly don't
think millions of octogenarians rotting in the streets is a great
idea. No, I am not particularly intimidated by the notion that this
comes perilously close to "socialist sympathy" around here.
2)8th month abortion- For or against?
Asking someone whether they are "for abortion" is kind of like
asking someone whether they are "for nazis" if they happen to
believe in free speech. My personal political philosophy is rooted
in the notion that all freedom is derived not from "natural rights"
or from property, but from the simple physical autonomy of the
human body (you are in control over most of its actions, and cannot
ever escape it as a prison). It's hard to take that seriously and
not come to the unhappy but necessary consequence that a woman has
absolute control over their body and whatever happens to be growing
in it. I find the violinist thought experiment to be
decisive.
3)"Progressive" taxation- For or against?
For, but not for any silly leveling or "socialist" reason. It
simply occurs to me that owners of the means of production benefit
disproportionately from the creation and maintenance of
infrastructure. So, they should pay proportionately to their own
benefit.
4)"Waterboarding" is torture?- for or against?
Torture. Torture=Bad. A fucking five year old knows this.
Apparently only partisan hacks do not. One thing is for certain;
everyone knows that torture is wrong to be applied to *themselves*.
What deficiency in human empathy causes people to fail to cross
that narrow gap to the other is quite beyond my reckoning.
5)"Public Education"- for or against?
Against. But the private market is not robust enough to step into
the gap instantly. And I should also point out that the peculiar
conditions that created a universally literate population without
public education a hundred years ago no longer exist in this
country, and are unlikely to return even if public schools were
closed tomorrow. Too much has changed with our labor structure,
such as, among other things, women working rather than being at
home teaching their kids how to read. Our civil structure is
heavily dependent upon the assumption of a literate
population.
6)"Medicaid/Medicare"" -- for or against?
Against. However, the private system also blows chunks, far more
than mere market pressures suggest it ought to. You got a fix for
that? Ever been sick?
7)"School vouchers" (competition is good), "gay adoption" (of
course), "mass transit subsidies" (not crazy about them), "glowball
warming" (probably is happening, but is a poor reason to use for
policy when there are much easier criteria to use to come to
similar conclusions), etc.
I also like guns and drugs. Alot. Both personally, and as a matter
of commerce.
Lower taxes are generally good if they are accompanied by reduced
spending. Not all spending is equal; Gen. Bradley was right in
saying that every dollar spent on a tank of a missile is doubly a
theft, and I would just as soon not shed a tear if every dollar
spent on foreign wars and massive military exostructure was instead
diverted to the uplifting of the human condition. It would be a
supreme good to be able to reduce all taxes and reduce all
spending, but priorities can still remain within that
framework.
Markets are extremely impressive distributed data aggregation
machines, but they cannot solve all problems. Just most of them
that include a problem involving distributed data aggregation. Not
so much for problems that have little to do with information.
Perhaps you should mention where your "liberal agenda" is
actually different than joe's "liberal agenda"?
I disagree with joe on, among other things, the utility of labor
unions, the usefulness of regulation, the proper limits of
government intervention in the marketplace, judicial philosophy,
movie taste, and those are just the ones I've had the privilege of
discussing with him. I'm sure there are many more.
I still imagine him to be a more productive and more decent human
being than you, anon, just given the limited data set we have
before us today. Prove me wrong, if you can.
|7.15.08 @ 11:35PM|#
Oh for fuck's sake.
I honestly hope that all of these "all or nothing" pro-gun
activists get cancer and die.
Utterly fucking worthless.
Politics is the art of the possible, and right now, as much as I
wish that the federal government would recognize the absolute right
of US citizens to bear arms, I'm certainly not cretinously stupid
enough to think that it will happen. Not being a mouth-breathing
twatfuck, I'm glad that we were able to get the Supreme Court to
rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and I look
forward to a future wherein 2nd Amendment activists use this
decision as a tool to further the recognition of this civil
right.
The forces of organized gun bigotry did not have their policies
implemented in one fell swoop. Likewise, we will not take back our
right in any manner other than deliberate and incremental
change.
|7.15.08 @ 11:57PM|#
mouth-breathing twatfuck
Thank you for the sublime phrase. I will be using it as much as
possible.
robc|7.16.08 @ 12:32AM|#
mediageek,
New Zealand. Apply where applicable.
(I hope that isnt too obscure.)
Huh?|7.16.08 @ 4:22AM|#
also point out that the peculiar conditions that created a
universally literate population without public education a hundred
years ago no longer exist in this country
The universally literate population is *because* of a longstanding
public education system (that goes back to time of Jefferson and
even before)
Once a critical mass of women and children showed up every frontier
town put up a church and a school - the former paid for at the
collection plate, the latter paid for with some kind of tax. (or to
be fair sometimes the collection plate as well) - but they allowed
every kid* to attend, which is the real definition of public
education.
Now, 150 years ago it wasn't centralized and defintely wasn't
federalized, I'll grant you that. (but 100 years ago it was
assuredly well on its way to being centralized and standardized -
at least on the state level, and especially in the progresive belt
connecting greatlakes/midatlantic/newengland)
*well, every white kid. But there were also very specific projects
to (seperately) teach lettering to the indians, (and to a lesser
extent blacks) and clense them of their savage ways.
|7.16.08 @ 5:05AM|#
"I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in
DC."
I'm sure that if there are any now, they'll be harassed
continuously the same way that Marijuana dispensaries are harassed
by the Feds.
This case is going to go back to court again and again for the next
50 years, until and unless the voters who elect DC officials get
sick of it and elect a pro-constitution city council.
-jcr
|7.16.08 @ 7:59AM|#
I think it will be a long time before that first person uses a
legal firearm to protect their family residence.
"Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too
damn old to take an ass kickin." - Bill Fleming.
Fenty - Molon labe!
|7.16.08 @ 8:03AM|#
A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and
bear arms.
Only so long as the license is a "shall-issue" license.
If its discretionary, then what you have is the right to keep and
bear arms may be denied at the discretion of the state. I think
that counts as infringed.
Even the requirements for a shall-issue license can make it an
infringement. If they cost $1,000 per year, perhaps. Or
"shall-issue" only to white people. I think we would all agree that
would infringe, no?
So, a license requirement is a just a bucket to hold all the
restrictions on the right inherent in qualifying for and keeping
the license. Do those restrictions "infringe"? You tell me.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 8:25AM|#
Huh? --
Those schools didn't have compulsory attendance and certainly
didn't have universal attendance. Many, if not most, children
learned to read from their parents and never set foot in a school
house. The modern compulsory educational system was invented in
Prussia at the turn of the 20th century. Its implementation here
was fiercely resisted, but was finally implemented by fiat
nationally during the FDR administration.
Johnny Nowhere|7.16.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Huh?,
I'll add to Elemenope's comment that there were areas where a
region's largest employer (in Calumet, MI, for example) built and
maintained schools as an incentive to draw workers.
Frank|7.16.08 @ 9:25AM|#
I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different room in the house.
Jim|7.16.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Heller is simply a right wing Roe, and as blatant an example of anti-democratic "judicial activism" as one can find. By affirming both an individual right to bear arms and the ability of the government to regulate the ownership and use of weapons, the Court has embarked upon is a decades-long project of legislation from the bench. Now it is for the Justices hammer out how much regulation is too much, just as they have spent the last thirty years haggling over parental notification requirements, mandatory waiting periods, and the like in the abortion context. As if the Constitution has anything to say about it!
|7.16.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Jim,
Originally I was going to disagree with you, but you're really
exactly right. The Supreme Court has fulfilled the function for
which it was designed: striking down a law contrary to the
Constitution--the Supreme Law of the land. In a sense this is even
an intellectually easier case than the abortion cases because the
court had to first find procreative and privacy rights in the
penumbra of the Bill of Rights. In this case the right to bear arms
is specifically enumerated.
In my view, the Supreme Court should strike down any law that
infringes on this right unless the law is narrowly tailored to
further a compelling government interest. That's what it means for
a right to be fundamental--it cannot be easily limited by
government.
RobertG|7.16.08 @ 10:13AM|#
The fascist are quick to replace the ban with onerous
regulations aren't they? That is part of what being a fascist
it--suppressing the mere riff raft subjects. We see the same
arguments "I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun
should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe"; and how
would a citizen protect themselves with that gun?
The person making that argument probably resents being called a
fascist and considers themselve a good person. Hitler, Mussolini
and Stalin all thought themselves good, they just killed a lot of
people.
These gun bans and onerous regulations are just part and parcel of
stripping the autonomy of the American people and making them
dependant on the State. That is most certainly fascism and I do not
care what lies are told to deny it.
Our Constitution and our Natural Rights as Free People do not allow
for any 'democratic' process to strip us of these Rights (Jim |
July 16, 2008, 9:40am ). No, Heller was NOT Judicial Activism;
Heller upheld a Constitution safeguard. But Fascist feel otherwise.
Heller's one big flaw was the 'reasonable restrictions'. I imagine
that was needed to get the coward Kennedy on board. That kind of
horse trading should not be part of the process, but we are stuck
with it for awhile.If any here resent being called Fascist try to
answer: Why do you feel you and your elected officials have a right
to suppress the rights of others? Why do you think you need to hire
a man with a gun to subjugate our people when they try to act
honestly? If these 'elected officials worked half as hard arresting
actual criminals as they work suppressing our rights we might get
somewhere.
Nuremberg Laws next I would guess; the fascist are busy.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 10:19AM|#
And I suppose it never occurs to people such as RobertG that the
motivation behind such legislation, however wrong-headed it may be
in the cash-out, is jackbooted thuggery.
The notion that people might want gun control because *they
believe* it will result in less people killed...that's
impossible!
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Oh for the love of... here's how that was meant to read:
"And I suppose it never occurs to people such as RobertG that the
motivation behind such legislation, however wrong-headed it may be
in the cash-out, might be something other than jack-booted
thuggery."
[facepalm] Proofread, damn it!
Jim in Houston|7.16.08 @ 10:31AM|#
"Frank | July 16, 2008, 9:25am | #
I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be
required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition
should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required
to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different
room in the house."
Have you given much thought to home defense under such an
arrangement?
PC|7.16.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Scalia did such a great job huh? Where in the 2nd Amendment does
is specify "in the home"? And of course while you have a right to
"self defense [in the home]" you don't have a right to adequate
self defense.
"Excuse me Mr. Rapist, please let me get into my house, get my keys
to unlock my gun, load my gun, and then try to rape me."
I wish Fenty's bodyguards had the same restrictions.
PC|7.16.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I wish they put as many restrictions on public housing vouchers here in DC. I wouldn't need a gun then.
|7.16.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I think it's great! Hopefully the non-clarification by Scalia and the intentionally obtuse reading by D.C. officials will hasten the day this returns to the Supreme Court. Perhaps this time Scalia and company will give a legitimate ruling which fully integrates the operative verb, infringed. Since the definition of infringed is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the bill of Rights was ratified, one must wonder what part of "shall not be infringed" remains unclear?
|7.16.08 @ 12:01PM|#
A gun license (by it's very existence) is a gun registry, which is patently unconstitutional.
Jordan|7.16.08 @ 12:22PM|#
The notion that people might want gun control because *they believe* it will result in less people killed...that's impossible!
Fascism with good intentions is still fascism. The road to hell,
and all that.
RobertG|7.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
"The notion that people might want gun control because *they
believe* it will result in less people killed...that's
impossible!"
No, not impossible and probably true. And it is still fascism. They
are using illegal authority to deprive people of their
Constitutional and Natural Right. So we call them fascist becasue
they are fascist. Perhaps well meaning fascist, smiley faced
fascist, but fascist none the less.
The KKK nightriders considered themselves good people when they
tied a man to a tree and stripped the skin off his back or
castrated him or hanged him.
Mayor Fenty considers himself a goodman I am sure. But Mayor Fenty
and the KKK nightriders are more fascist than liberal
democrat-traditional.
The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions
Dial 9-1-1 and die. Have a nice Reich.
|7.16.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Ah, but Jordan, at least our Fascist Masters will ensure that the railroad to hell runs on schedule.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 12:58PM|#
My point is that throwing around labels carelessly (and
"Fascism" is indeed a careless and barely applicable label in this
instance) not only demeans the meaning and force of the original
word, but also identifies you as a person who is too shrill to
discuss with on the issue.
How, I may ask, do you hope to persuade or convince people if you
call them names? If you truly do believe that their mistake
originates from bad principles rather than malice, perhaps a
different approach is in order.
|7.16.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different room in the house.
Frank, you're quite plainly pontificating on a topic which you
don't understand.
Or you're deliberately trolling.
|7.16.08 @ 1:10PM|#
People who don't know what fascism is should refrain from using
the word fascist. It is better to keep quiet and be thought an
idiot ...
You know who you are.
RobertG|7.16.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Oh we know the definition of fascism. We accept neither Lenin
nor any other to define it for us--we go to the source--Mussolini.
Yes, Mussolini's later adopted by the National Socialist Party of
Germany and Franco of Spain although he claimed otherwise.
Statist, fascist, control. Several of you are real close to that if
you think so or not.
"The law is what the man with the gun says it is". Mao could be
considered a fascist with his slightly different wording. Mao
probably thought he was a good person too. Are you a good person J
sub D?
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 1:45PM|#
RobertG --
Being a prick sets back your goals far more than any "fascist" ever
could. You are behaving like a walking poster-child for why people
should not believe what you do.
I find that far, far more annoying than the statists who are calm
enough to discourse with.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 1:45PM|#
In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no longer trying to convince you. Hence the name-calling.
|7.16.08 @ 1:47PM|#
On the same track, kinda, I just read an article the other day about celebrating Bastile day in France. The intersting point, to me anyway, was that the main reason they stormed the place was to get arms for the people to be able to resist the forces of government. Apparently the French did not learn their lesson, as they soon gave up the right to bear arms again like the rest of Europe.
|7.16.08 @ 1:55PM|#
As a Jewess in the US, I call upon Congress to immediately pass legislation making any NRA membership card a NATIONAL Concealed carry permit! Let's take back the streets!
RobertG|7.16.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Quote:
Elemenope | July 16, 2008, 1:45pm | #
In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no longer trying to
convince you. Hence the name-calling.''
Enjoy.
|7.16.08 @ 3:01PM|#
did the mayor of dc even ready the courts rolling
i that the courts ruled that it was also unconstitutional to make
people lock up or disassemble there guns
on a second nowt every time a dictator has came to power thy have
strep or attempted to strep there subjects ability to defend them
self just start reading history books
the 2nd amendment was made to make Sher the free man is always
free
|7.16.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Elemenope-
Took your suggestion. I just checked out the definition of chaos. I
note that some synonyms are disarray, turmoil and tumult. I note
that some antonyms are order, peace and calm. I suggest that order,
peace and calm do not accurately reflect the state of affairs, much
of the time, in this country, i.e., the everyday occurences of
police brutality, the no-knock raids that kill inocent people,
etc., the daily reality that is hell for so many people who happen
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the drug war,
politically motivated arrests and prosecution, etc.
Please understand that I do agree that late 20th century, early
21st century America is not as "chaotic" as Mugabe world or the
Sudan, Somalia, etc. But, even the case I was talking about
yesterday, the guy who got arrested at the police station for
trespass and disorderly conduct, that type of stuff scares the shit
out of me.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Please understand that I do agree that late 20th century,
early 21st century America is not as "chaotic" as Mugabe world or
the Sudan, Somalia, etc. But, even the case I was talking about
yesterday, the guy who got arrested at the police station for
trespass and disorderly conduct, that type of stuff scares
the shit out of me.
Me too (bold parts for emphasis). I just am somewhat of an
anal-retentive on calling things by what they are. In my mind,
order enforced at the barrel of a gun is still order. Just not any
order I'd want to be a part of.
I wish, and this is a vain wish, that people would stop
automatically associating "order" with "good", and "chaos" with
"bad". Of all the things fucking D & D would be fucking right
about, it is that segregating the moral and ethical domains into
separate axes is the right way to go. A well-ordered society can
suck, and a poorly-ordered one can be free and fun. *Can* f course,
being the important modal particle.
|7.16.08 @ 4:16PM|#
there is even order with chaos
what determines if something is good or bat is the purpose or resin
it was created
or the circumstances at the time of a situation
under the rite situations chaos can be good and order can be
bad
|7.16.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Elemenope and zeracore-
Good points.
Elemenope, I suppose if some Zimbabwian was listening to me
complain about disorder and chaos in America, he might opine, "what
are you talking about? Do you have any idea what life is here?" To
which, (with your approval, I'm sure) I might reply, "its all
relative".
|7.16.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Lysander wrote, "Since the definition of infringed is the same
today as it was in the 18th century when the bill of Rights was
ratified, one must wonder what part of 'shall not be infringed'
remains unclear?"
Indeed. Over the next few years, I expect to see a parade of cases
that are intended to define that very phrase (for legal
purposes).
I really can't square Scalia's reassurance that "reasonable
regulation" of the type now common throughout the country is
permitted under the 2nd Amendment, with the phrase "shall not be
infringed."
I also can't see how a felon or a mentally ill person can be
deprived of 2nd Amendment rights (except during actual confinement
in a jail, prison, or mental health facility), as Justice Scalia
further assures us is still permissible. If that were so, then what
is to stop the authorities from someday "punishing" people by
actively denying their rights to free speech, freedom of religion,
etc., not to mention unenumerated rights, such as the right to
travel, and so forth?
It seems to me that you would have to declare someone a non-person,
with NO unalienable rights, in order to get away with telling
someone that he could not keep and bear arms, especially for
purposes of self-defense. Or the proper punishment for any crime
that now involves the denial of that right (or any others) should
be life imprisonment.
|7.16.08 @ 6:43PM|#
James Anderson Merritt-
Many folks, including some that post here, suffer from the delusion
that government is a necesary evil. Put aside the moral arguments,
for purposes of this argument, the practical, utilitarian arguments
in favor of gvt.being a necesary evil are flaccid.
On the other hand, there is precious little evidence to support the
proposition that an anarcho-free enterprise-tax free, drug law
free, alphabet soup agency free, individualist oriented society
would be a living hell or hell on earth or the dark ages.
|7.17.08 @ 12:05AM|#
conflict caused by human nature
were 2 or more people are together conflicts will happen we need
laws to make Sher we don't kill each other
were there is no laws there is anarchy
were there is no government there is no laws
in a true Democratic society the people AR the government therefor
there is always government
|7.17.08 @ 3:45PM|#
zeracore:
We need laws to make sure we don't kill each other? You say this
because laws have worked so well to that end until now?
Also, you are making a common mistake which our government schools
tend to perpetuate - we do not live in a democracy. The United
States of America is a representative republic. In a true
democracy, every member of the society would vote (or has the
opportunity to vote) on every issue.
The main problem with democracy, and with the current system of
representative government, is called "the tyranny of the majority"
- in layman's terms, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for
dinner.
In a country of over 300 million people in which less than 40%
actually vote, this results in tens or even hundreds of millions of
people subjugated to the whims of a relative few. How can you
justify that?
|7.17.08 @ 5:06PM|#
my personal believe is that every member of a society should
vote
i also believe that are election day should be a national
Holiday
and nothing justify less than 40% of a population that actually
votes we need a much hiyer percentage voting to show the voes of a
society
there must be a system to make sher that the many don't dominate
the few this can go the other way around to
and this is way we have the 2nd amendment
the 2nd amendment is to make sher that one group can't overpower
and dominant another
the 2nd amendment is for defending you self and defending you rites
it comes in handy for hunting for food to
p.s. My post above is to point out that were there are 2 or more
people there will be conflicts of some tip it is after all human
nature
|7.17.08 @ 6:19PM|#
The whole point, zeracore, is that in any system that uses voting to decide on issues, the many will always dominate the few. There is simply no way around it.
|7.17.08 @ 7:12PM|#
and that is y are founding father rote the Constitution the way
thy did thy tried to limit the powers of both the state and federal
government in certain areas sow the many can not dominate the
few
hens the bill of rites
face it if we did not have the bill of rites the few wood be living
in a police state (if not us all)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245