Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: More on Parker

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    David Hardy, at his website, www.armsandthelaw.com, has a link to a lengthy debate about Parker at the Federalist Society website. The discussion participants include the Parker attorneys.

    Here is the direct link: http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/

    Separately, if you get a chance, look through the items on Hardy's website.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    A great read. Thanks Citizen!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rupert, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Want a better read? D.C. filed their petition for certiorari this morning. You can get it here. It's good for a few laughs, before you begin slamming your head against the wall. The assertions made are simply laughable!

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I tried to read it. I couldn't. Its as if they were using Cyrillic letters to call up the ghost of Stalin to help their logic. My brainwouldn't process it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    I tried to read it. I couldn't. Its as if they were using Cyrillic letters to call up the ghost of Stalin to help their logic. My brainwouldn't process it.
    It does make a very good argument for banning handguns, while allowing long guns. Albeit, it uses NO logic( not just twisted, but NO logic) in coming to this conclusion.

    It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?

    If the Supreme Court does hear the case and DOES rule in favor of D.C...

    ..I'll venture to say that local gun stores will be looking like "Walmart parking lots"

    After all.. We're Americans.. If we think something is going to be "banned", we just GOTTA HAVE IT!



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rupert, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    psmartin wrote
    It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?
    The question, as presented, tries to make it sound as if these rifles and shotguns that they allow the D.C. residents to keep, are functional as regards the self-defense aspect of the case. We know they are not allowed to keep these guns fully functional and ready to use. This was part of the appellate decision, and will be part of the case, should cert. be granted.

    Whatever else we may think of the individual Justices, they are not fools and will not suffer D.C. to make them appear as such.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    It's interesting that they would make the case, though, that handguns are more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, particularly shotguns. To me, it would make more sense for a criminal who is performing an attack to use a 12-gauge shotgun: very powerful, doesn't require as much accuracy, little to no ballistics evidence, and much easier to get. Hell, if I could legally carry a sawed-off shotgun for self-defense, I'd prefer that.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    Allen wrote:
    psmartin wrote
    It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?
    The question, as presented, tries to make it sound as if these rifles and shotguns that they allow the D.C. residents to keep, are functional as regards the self-defense aspect of the case. We know they are not allowed to keep these guns fully functional and ready to use. This was part of the appellate decision, and will be part of the case, should cert. be granted.

    Whatever else we may think of the individual Justices, they are not fools and will not suffer D.C. to make them appear as such.
    I appears more as a "compromise".. Currently ALL functional firearms are banned, from the reading of their press releases, it appears that if "we"(or the Supreme Court) allow them to continue the ban on handguns, they would consider allowing functional shotguns and rifles in the home. (Probably with $1000 per year automobile-like licensing, registration and insurance)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •