DC Handgun Ban
-
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
Which is to say, were normal citizens as absolutist about the 2nd Amendment as the "free speach" preeners are about (their mis-application) of the 1st, then ... well, things would be interesting, wouldn't they?
-
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
To protect themselves from the freaks they armed? What is that, a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Homer Simpson said:
If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [...] Do you want that? [...] Huh? Do you? [...] A gun is not a weapon, it’s a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or ... or an alligator. [...] I don't have to be careful, I've got a gun
'nuff said. ;)
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
digital man wrote:
where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup. :) Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments. Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Homer Simpson said:
If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [...] Do you want that? [...] Huh? Do you? [...] A gun is not a weapon, it’s a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or ... or an alligator. [...] I don't have to be careful, I've got a gun
'nuff said. ;)
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
Smithers-Jones wrote:
king of England could just walk in here anytime
Actually the monarch can't just walk into your house. The only person who can enter your house unnanounced and without a court order or a warrant is the VAT man (customs and excise). On a different note even when I lived in the US I never had a gun and never knew anyone (personally) who did. Never suffered any crime and, again, didn't know anyone (personally) who had either, at least, in a direct or violent way. Used to go out and never lock the front door or the car. So, why do you need a gun?
-
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Homer Simpson said:
If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [...] Do you want that? [...] Huh? Do you? [...] A gun is not a weapon, it’s a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or ... or an alligator. [...] I don't have to be careful, I've got a gun
'nuff said. ;)
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
digital man wrote:
where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup. :) Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments. Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
Indeed it is.
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Oh, okay, that certainly is reason enough to arm everyone. :-)
Oakman wrote:
Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments.
Yes, I know that: I'm not saying the problem is easily solvable. I think it is a great pity that people feel the need to carry weapons.
Oakman wrote:
Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
But we've never really been armed (not for a long time) and the vast majority of people don't miss it. Our government (as appalling and corrupt as they are) have not yet descended to pushing us around with an armed militia. Besides, the British army is entirely professional and would not back a government coup. I think. I hope. Gulp.
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives. And, if as is apparent by the very question you ask, you simply can't understand that, then I am so happy that you are there and not here.
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
-
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives. And, if as is apparent by the very question you ask, you simply can't understand that, then I am so happy that you are there and not here.
Ilíon wrote:
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives.
I guess the conversation would go something like: "You think I shouldn't drink this vial of foul-smelling...something...do you? How about...BAM! HOW DO YOU LIKE A BULLET IN YOUR FACE???" I can see how guns would be necessary. [edit] Sorry, it's completely wrong to call it a conversation, as that sort of implies an exchange of ideas, not an exchange of bullets for life. I guess there's something mutually exclusive about holding a gun and holding an intelligent conversation. What's that old saying? Something about a cake...?:confused:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
modified on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:40 AM
-
digital man wrote:
where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup. :) Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments. Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Build yet more prisons, put more people in them, when you're all locked up mail the key to the Queen. Thanks.
-
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Build yet more prisons, put more people in them, when you're all locked up mail the key to the Queen. Thanks.
-
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Tibet[^] Holocaust[^] Home invasion[^] Not to mention protection from an ever intrusive government.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
cp9876 wrote:
Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time?
To protect themselves as many times as possible in a short space of time...
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
What do you mean? Did this 'right' just materialise out of nowhere?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
Which is to say, were normal citizens as absolutist about the 2nd Amendment as the "free speach" preeners are about (their mis-application) of the 1st, then ... well, things would be interesting, wouldn't they?
All of the amendments have their detractors.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
