Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: The Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C.

  1. #1
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Duct tape alert!

    Source

    The measure to at long last allow District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House has run afoul of the gun lobby that is determined to deny Washington another fundamental right: to regulate firearms.

    The Senate approved the bill, but only after a callow roster, including a significant number of Democrats, caved in to the lobby and attached an amendment that would strike down the city’s reasonable laws for gun registration and trigger locks and its ban on assault weapons and sniper rifles.

    The gun lobby’s malevolence now extends to the House, where Democratic leaders suddenly pulled back a clean bill. The leadership is agonizing, trying to convince Democrats from pro-gun districts to resist gun lobby pressure for the dangerous amendment. “This is Democratic members doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill,” Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city’s nonvoting House delegate, complained to The Hill newspaper.

    The Supreme Court struck down Washington’s ban on handguns in the home last June. The same decision found that local government can impose reasonable gun restrictions.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in a political bind that calls for true leadership in reminding her members of the basic principle of representative government that’s at stake. Unfortunately, she made clear the Democrats’ wariness over gun control in demurring from Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to eventually restore the federal ban on assault weapons. “We need to enforce the laws we have right now,” she said, parroting the pro-gun line.

    Ms. Pelosi, who has championed Washington’s cause, should not allow the gun lobby to deny the district’s taxpaying citizens their right to a vote in the House — or their right to safer homes and streets.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    How, exactly, is it the GOVERNMENT'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to regulate firearms?

    That is contradictory in its entirety to the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Governments don't have rights. They have responsibilities and duties. Most of those should involve protecting the rights of the people.

    Simply ludicrous.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  3. #3
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    Governments don't have rights
    That's what I thought! Apparently we're both just a couple of "Constitutional extremists."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    wylde007 wrote:
    Governments don't have rights
    That's what I thought! Apparently we're both just a couple of "Constitutional extremists."
    Me Three, and the other thousands of members here too.

    Never thought I'd be an extrememist. I kinda like the phrase.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    The NY Times.....it figures.:quirky

    Onlythe Presscan get away with printing lies under the guise of an opinion.

    Thank God for the First Amendment.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Just allow DC residents the right to own guns without onerous restrictions, and the problem would vanish like Teddy Kennedy's last gin soaked braincell.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  7. #7
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    That's what I thought! Apparently we're both just a couple of "Constitutional extremists."
    In another day and time (fast-again approaching) we would be known as PATRIOTS.

    But hush-hush... we don't want people to know what we're on about or they might want in on it!
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Governments have powers and authority, which is delegated to them by the people.

    The Bill of Rights does not limit our rights to those specifically enumerated. It limits the power of government to control the free exercise of our rights.

    I guess nobody told that guy.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    This is a prime example of liberal educated fuzzythink. Goverment (this one at least) has no Rights... fundamental or otherwise. Government has duties and responsibilities to the PEOPLE who established/elected it... but no RIGHTS!

    This is just another example of the obfuscation that has taken place in the education system abbrogating the actual rights of the peoplefor some sort of governmental permission to exercise them. This isn't mere semantics... it's a whole thought process that's been subverted and eroded by the liberal (MARXIST) education system and useful idiot MSM fellow travelers for the past 40 years or more.

  10. #10
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Besides the vomit-inducing "fundemental right of (the city government of)Washington" aspect of the article, I'm glad to hear that the Senate "caved in" to the "gun lobby" (ie: "Freedom loving Constitutionalists"). Hopefully the blue dog dems with the repubs will get the House to "cave" as well.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Pointing out this kind of drivel from the New York Times is sort of like putting up barriers, cones, and yellow tape around a pile of Great Dane dog-do.

    Or maybe like pointing out the rash on a smallpox case.

    Or even like standing at the edge of the river and shouting "water!!"

    By this time I bet I could make up a boilerplate news article with blanks to insert certain key phrases and from that generate every gun-related "article" the NY Times ever has or will put on the newsstands.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    The Senate approved the bill, but only after a callow roster, including a significant number of Democrats, caved in to the lobby and attached an amendment that would strike down the city’s reasonable (more like UN-reasonable)laws for gun registration and trigger locks and its ban on assault weapons and sniper rifles.
    I don't recall any of the DC gunrestrictions as being reasonable.

    What voting rights? The residents of DC do not have any Constitutional voting rights in either the US Senate or HoR. DC is not a state and thereforethe residents donot have a right to representation in Congress. At least that's the way I understand the Constitution.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    The Senate approved the bill, but only after a callow roster, including a significant number of Democrats, caved in to the lobby and attached an amendment that would strike down the city’s reasonable (more like UN-reasonable)laws for gun registration and trigger locks and its ban on assault weapons and sniper rifles.
    I don't recall any of the DC gunrestrictions as being reasonable.

    What voting rights? The residents of DC do not have any Constitutional voting rights in either the US Senate or HoR. DC is not a state and thereforethe residents donot have a right to representation in Congress. At least that's the way I understand the Constitution.
    Well yeah, but that is because you read what is actually written in the Constitution without taking into account that it is a living breathing document meaning that anything in it can be reinterpreted at will to meet any political agenda that comes down the pike.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    MetalChris wrote:
    That's what I thought! Apparently we're both just a couple of "Constitutional extremists."
    In another day and time (fast-again approaching) we would be known as PATRIOTS.
    but before we can be known as "patriots" again, we must first be known as extremists, then as insurgents, then even "rebels". only then can the ones who survive be remembered as "patriots"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    Ms. Pelosi, who has championed Washington’s cause, should not allow the gun lobby to deny the district’s taxpaying citizens their right to a vote in the House -or their right to safer homes and streets.
    I guess the paper of making up the record has missed the fact that under the pre-Heller D.C. gun laws the people of D.C. did not have "safer homes and streets". Far from it.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    The Senate approved the bill, but only after a callow roster, including a significant number of Democrats, caved in to the lobby and attached an amendment that would strike down the city’s reasonable (more like UN-reasonable)laws for gun registration and trigger locks and its ban on assault weapons and sniper rifles.
    I don't recall any of the DC gunrestrictions as being reasonable.

    What voting rights? The residents of DC do not have any Constitutional voting rights in either the US Senate or HoR. DC is not a state and thereforethe residents donot have a right to representation in Congress. At least that's the way I understand the Constitution.
    If the Constitution does not allow the legislative process to give DC residents greater voting rights, then the Constitution burped, and needs to be fixed.

    I hope the legislation passes: if it is overturned by the Supreme Court, I hope DC gets its voting rights by amendment.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Either civics wasn't taught in all gov't schools or some people weren't paying attention. We learned that DC was intentionally not a state and did not have congressional representation in 5-6 grade civics class. The constitution did not "burp" in this regard. Actually, DC residents did not even have a vote in presidential elections until around 1960 by constitutional amendment.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

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

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Either civics wasn't taught in all gov't schools or some people weren't paying attention. We learned that DC was intentionally not a state and did not have congressional representation in 5-6 grade civics class. The constitution did not "burp" in this regard. Actually, DC residents did not even have a vote in presidential elections until around 1960 by constitutional amendment.
    Just look at the sewer DC has become with Home Rule.

    Bad idea to give that crowd a vote, even by amendment.
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    DC was never meant to be a city either. the constitution specifically lays out what DC was meant to be, which is a District. it was meant to be a meeting place for the seat of government, and to be used for that purpose alone.

    Interestingly enough ( for those of us who still give a damn about the constitution), the constitution authorizes that this district shall be a size "not exceeding Ten miles squared", yet according to Wikipedia, DC is actually:





    Area

    -City
    68.3sqmi(177.0km2)

    -Land
    61.4sqmi(159.0km2)

    - Water
    6.9sqmi(18.0km2)



    anyone see something wrong here?

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    DC was never meant to be a city either. the constitution specifically lays out what DC was meant to be, which is a District. it was meant to be a meeting place for the seat of government, and to be used for that purpose alone.

    Interestingly enough ( for those of us who still give a damn about the constitution), the constitution authorizes that this district shall be a size "not exceeding Ten miles squared", yet according to Wikipedia, DC is actually:

    Area

    -City
    68.3sqmi (177.0km2)

    -Land
    61.4sqmi (159.0km2)

    - Water
    6.9sqmi (18.0km2)

    anyone see something wrong here?
    "Ten miles squared" is 100 square miles. Looks like they have 31.7 square miles to spare.

    TFred

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Keeping the language of the second amendment in mind, especially the term "infringed", I can't seem to come up with what may be called a "reasonable" gun law.

    Can any of you?

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA, ,
    Posts
    689

    Post imported post

    TFRED has it. "Ten Miles square"[d]. It's 100 square miles. Here's an interesting link - http://www.boundarystones.org/.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Wonder how many of you would be willing to accept the enfranchisement of DC's citizens as the price for giving them greater gun rights.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Wonder how many of you would be willing to accept the enfranchisement of DC's citizens as the price for giving them greater gun rights.
    As long as it's by the proper method (i.e. Constitutional Amendment), I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it.

    Btw, it seems apparent that the NRA is pulling some realpolitik here. The Constitution is VERY explicit about DC and Congressional (lack of) representation, so the voting provision would be struck down, while the provision against DC's gun regulations is in full compliance with the Constitution stating (again, very explicitly) that Congress has full authority over the district. Of course this IS the same court which 4 memebers argued that the BIll of Right's protects gov'ts ability to strip the rights and dignity from the citizenry, so who knows.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    "Ten miles squared" is 100 square miles. Looks like they have 31.7 square miles to spare.

    TFred
    my apologies, I misread.

    I had pulled up the info and happened to notice the "ten miles squared", and since I just glanced pver it, I misread it as ten square miles.

    This doesn't negate the fact that the constitution specifically laid out the fact that the capital district was never intended to be anything more than a seat of government.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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