The Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C.

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?

imported post

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

TFred wrote:

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

TFred

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Them having the right to defend their own lives helps THEM.

As far as voting rights in DC, change the Constitution or make them "honorary" residents of some other state.

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Them having the right to defend their own lives helps THEM.

As far as voting rights in DC, change the Constitution or make them "honorary" residents of some other state.

Click to expand...

WHO WOULD WANT THEM??:banghead: Virginia says NO! We were part of D.C. at one time.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Them having the right to defend their own lives helps THEM.

As far as voting rights in DC, change the Constitution or make them "honorary" residents of some other state.

Click to expand...

WHO WOULD WANT THEM??:banghead: Virginia says NO! We were part of D.C. at one time.

Click to expand...

Cede them back to Maryland where they belong, its not like their politics are any different anyway.

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.

Click to expand...

Not this one.

They deserve the right to self-preservation afforded by arms regardless of the vote.

Now, although I disagree with giving them the vote, I would be mighty impressed and might just reconsider if, once armed, they had a little insurrection demanding the vote.

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.

Click to expand...

Donkey!!! Pay attention. They already have gun rights. Those rights have been infringed by tyrannical government.

P.S. they will not be given gun rights, the government will simply be made to respect those rights (Rights for all of us, not just DC residents.)

imported post

Thundar wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

SNIP They already have gun rights. Those rights have been infringed by tyrannical government.

P.S. they will not be given gun rights, the government will simply be made to respect those rights (Rights for all of us, not just DC residents.)

Click to expand...

+10

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.

Click to expand...

Seems like a fair trade off to me.

DC.... youwant something that's un-constitutional , so...........lets make a deal.Youdrop all of your gun laws and enforceFederal gun laws.It'smore than likely that you'll even receive plenty of help in thefuture to make it all legitimate with the encouragement of 2/3 of the states to support a constitutional amendment.

But, Nope.You want it allyour way. Now you're the ones standing in the way ofyour citizens having a representative in Congress and possibly even more.



DC needs to realize that they're a part of the good ole' US of A and not a country all by themselves.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

MetalChris wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

Governments don't have rights

Click to expand...

That's what I thought! Apparently we're both just a couple of "Constitutional extremists."

Click to expand...

Me Three, and the other thousands of members here too.

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

Click to expand...

To quote a famous Sailor: " I yam what I yam!"

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

imported post

The District of Columbia and its politicians are a circus freak show. They do not need a Representative, and it is unconstitutional besides.

What they need is a calliope at city hall to play at the Council sessions.

Honestly. Once, a Councilwoman - I forget her name but she was a laff riot with all her gaffes - said (in a debate over no-fault auto insurance) that "Black folks want to believe two things: They want to believe they can win a lot of money in the Lottery, and they want to believe they can win a bunch of money suing somebody" (This woman is herself Black.) She also chaired the "D.C. Beautification Committee". This committee had as its Headquarters a - words fail me - dilapidated old school building in the worst part of town, with a tattered-to-strips and barely recognizable American flag flyng from a bent mast. When this woman was voted out of office, Federal marshals had to physically evict her from her office in City Hall.

People om this forum who are new to the D.C. area or who have never lived here may think I am making this up. I assure you EVERY SINGLE WORD is true. Marion Barry was (and remains) only the most publicly visible example of the buffonery factory that is the government of Our Nation's Capital; and there are lots more stories just like yall just read above. Yet these fools want to dictate how others live and want an active role in making laws for the rest of us???

I DON'T THINK SO!!! :cuss:

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.

Click to expand...

Would I agree to violate the constitution if they agree to continue to violate the constitution but only to a lesser extent? Are you seriously asking that question?

Tell you what, I'll agree to following the constitution as originally written and eliminate DC "home rule" and force congress to follow their constitutionally mandated role of governing DC, how about that? Along with that I'll agree to the elimination of all federal laws restricting the keeping and bearing of any arms. I'll also agree to support the repeal of the 17th amendment thereby giving "teeth" back to the 10th amendment as originally intended.

imported post

I read where many of the liberal Dems in Congress squeeled like pigs when they learned that their "un-Constitutional" bill had the "Constitutional" 2A mandate attached.

It should be pretty clear that the Dems in Congress have no respect for the Constitution.

imported post

Welp, that the New Your Times for you. That article is filled with disinformation and propagandist terminology.

Most certainly the worst being, that the government has no rights of any kind at all. Much less a fundamental one... We the People have those.

DC does not deserve a vote any more than Afghanistan does. It is not part of this country, and none who live there are citizens of the USA. They themselves have declared so, many times.

imported post

Dammit, where are the mushroom clouds when you need them?

imported post

ixtow wrote:

DC does not deserve a vote any more than Afghanistan does. It is not part of this country, and none who live there are citizens of the USA. They themselves have declared so, many times.

Click to expand...

I trust that nevertheless you would be prepared to allow to the 600,000 DC residents the means to defend themselves against those like you who would oppress them.

The franchise issue should have been put to bed with the 23rd amendment, either with full representation or with retrocession of all parts of the district but the mall.

The commentary in this thread is starting to feel like a Thomas Dixon novel, and deserves to be left in the 19th Century along with the Organic Act of 1801.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I trust that nevertheless you would be prepared to allow to the 600,000 DC residents the means to defend themselves against those like you who would oppress them.

Click to expand...

I am prepared, and I fully support, the arming of EVERY man woman and child on the face of Gods green earth. the District of Criminals is no exception

The franchise issue should have been put to bed with the 23rd amendment, either with full representation or with retrocession of all parts of the district but the mall.

Click to expand...

I fully support the retrocession suggestion. The United States was founded as a Republic of Sovereign States, with equal representation in the Federal Republic ( the Senate) and founded for free and independent persons, each with equal representation in the Republic ( the House).

I personally don't even support the popular vote for Senate positions, as that simply one more way to destroy States rights. If citizens of DC wish to live their, they know the price.