Now, my friends… when the liberals violate the law as they are so wont to do (illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, election fraud, ROTC in schools, etc., etc., etc., etc.)… why the hell doesn’t the Executive Branch (the one that ENFORCES the law) step in and do something about it.
In this case, the DC city government is telling the US Supreme Court to stick it. (h/t – The Corner)
District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.
Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.
But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.
I’m not really sure it was Obama’s genitals that Jesse Jackson was aiming for.  In fact, it is precisely Jackson’s brand of liberalism has effectively neutered all sense of right-vs-wrong, lawfulness-vs-lawlessness in the past 30 years. Every thing is morally and legally equivalent in the Libs’ World View.
C’mon Justice Department….. stand up for MY rights for once. You know, the rights actually WRITTEN IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and not the ones made up by the ACLU.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
So, should there be a limit on this at all or should any citizen be allowed to any type of weapon?
It would be nice if the President, States, and localities said “fuck you” to the Supreme Court’s activist decisions.
Always remember that the District Federale is a colony, not a state…so the residents there have less Rights to start with.
I suppose that by DC standards bottom-loading deer rifles are now to be considered machine guns?
I can’t wait to watch the “Second Amendment D”s in Congress fall all over themselves sponsoring bills to overturn DC’s new law or to move from DC the right to self-government on this issue. It is an election year – the only time many D’s remember just how big the NRA actually is.
#1: “So, should there be a limit on this at all or should any citizen be allowed to any type of weapon?”
Citizens without criminal records or diagnosed psychiatric conditions should be allowed to have any type of firearm he or she wants.
Turn Kevin’s question around, is there any restriction on the right to bear arms that a leftist would find unreasonable?
I was just curious. Frankly, The Supreme Court’s decision did overturn a complete gun ban, however it did uphold the city’s ability to regulate who can own weapons and the type of weapons.
Isn’t it one thing to have a basic weapon for self-defense, hunting, etc. (which I do believe in, contrary to what #6 says), but isn’t another thing to to buy weaponry that is designed specifically to allow someone to kill/injure the greatest amount of people in the shortest amount of time?
#7: “Isn’t it one thing to have a basic weapon for self-defense, hunting, etc. (which I do believe in, contrary to what #6 says), but isn’t another thing to to buy weaponry that is designed specifically to allow someone to kill/injure the greatest amount of people in the shortest amount of time?”
No, Kevin. What you’ve described is not “one thing” and “another thing.” They both fall squarely under the same constitutional right and useless, government-employed liberals have no business making these distinctions for all of us. It is reasonable for government to prohibit felons and diagnosed mental cases from having weapons of any kind and government is perfectly within its rights to prohibit private ownership of nuclear bombs. But even suggesting that there’s no big deal with government deciding that one gun that shoots bullets is acceptable while another, bigger gun that shoots bullets is not, just reveals a complete refusal to acknowledge that what we are talking about is a constitutional right. Liberals will never look at private gun ownership and instantly think “constitutional right.” I used to work with an attorney whose hobby was war history, war memorabilia and all kinds of guns from military-issued handguns to machine guns. He loved to go out to the desert on weekends and let-her-rip with his machine guns. He would think about what it was like to be a soldier in WWII and just have a good time. Liberals regard people like him as rather silly and odd and have no reservations deciding, “well, a handgun is one thing, but a machine gun? There’s no reason that anyone will ever need or should have something like that–it’s just weird–why would anyone ever have a machine gun unless they were thinking about killing a lot of people? It could happen.” For liberals the idea of owning a machine gun is totally bizarre–they can’t imagine why anyone would want one (mainly, because THEY don’t want one). But if my friend’s machine guns were suddenly outlawed and confiscated he would NOT FEEL FREE. Liberals think that if they aren’t personally interested in a constitutional right, then it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. They would have no problem with my friend’s machine guns being taken away because he’s a weirdo that needs to get another hobby. And if he complained about it, liberals would just scoff and say “Oh, Boo Hoo! Poor thing had his AK-47 taken away. Puuuhhhhleeeeze!” They don’t get it, they’ll NEVER get it, and don’t want to get it–which is precisely why it’s best for government to leave well enough alone. And besides, all guns are lethal. What is the point of having some ignorant liberal deciding for everyone that this gun is nice, but this one is SCAAAARY, and that one is big and heavy, but that one is acceptable… Beyond handling registrations, etc. they need to just stay the hell out of it.
Also, I just love how liberals are perfectly comfortable acting like the “reasonable thing” would be for gun enthusiasts to just cooperate and go along with the liberals’ efforts to decide what the parameters of the 2nd Amendment are, i.e., guns with 7 bullet magazines, but not guns with 11 bullet magazines, etc. Liberals can’t understand why gun owners are so touchy about their patronizing efforts not to ban all guns, but just the ones that are big and scary. Yet it is this incrementalism that liberals find totally unacceptable when the issue is abortion. The scream that any effort to ban any abortion, including those of of nine-pound babies within 2 hours of passing through the birth canal, is the “first step” to outlawing abortion altogether! Yet gun owners are being “unreasonable” when they oppose some moonbat from deciding which guns are banned based on which ones are “too scary.”
#7 Kevin,
I’m a lousy shot, why shouldn’t I have the ability to put as much metal in the air as possible between myself and an attacker?
SA Striker carries 24 rounds in the big drum. I want the luxury of putting 24 loads of buckshot in the air.
Or as Col. Potter said “Never insult 7 men when all you’re carrying is a six gun.”
Oh, and FWIW, the Thompson used to be sold in Sears Catalogue. Why? The cops rejected its car stopping power so they have to recoup the losses. The Republic didn’t fall then. (Source: History Channel)
Speaking as a Southerner, I can assure you that my gay bretheren here in Texas not only are comfortable with the concealed-weapon law we have here, but also use it.
My most favorite memory is the time a drag queen produced a Walther PPK out of her sequined purse and surrendering it before entering a gay bar. Now THAT was priceless.
As for me (since LW was quoting “MASH”), I always turn to my favorite quote from “Designing Women” on guns courtesy of Suzanne: “I don’t have to worry about self-defense as long as my trigger finger works.”
Right on, girlfriend.
Regards,
Peter H.
(proud owner of a .357 magnum)
Sean A, the Brits, Canadians, and Australians went along with progressive ideas of reasonable gun restrictions and are now all but completely disarmed in Britain and Australia and very close to that in Canada.
And it all started with “reasonable restrictions” on ownership of handguns and semi-automatics.
Kevin, a gun with a 7-round clip is not exactly an “assault weapon”.
The DC gun ban was not only unconstitutional, it was asinine. Criminals remain armed to the teeth and know that potential victims are defenseless.
Why does this need to be pointed out over and over? Why should law-abiding citizens be denied access to weapons that can be used for defense against criminal assault and (it can happen here) tyranny?
As far as automatic weapons go,
Stephen Kazmierczak (NIU shooting) used a shotgun and three handguns.
Charles Whitman (UT Clocktower) had a M1 carbine, a Remington 700 rifle, a 6mm Remington rifle, and 3 pistols.
Lee Harvey Oswald used a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) had a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun, a 9 mm semi-automatic, and a Glock 19 handgun.
Edward Charles Allaway used a .22 semiautomatic rifle.
Some of the worst shootings in our history DID NOT involve automatic weapons. What’s more, private citizens with their own weapons are credited with keeping Charles Whitman pinned down. There’s been several cases where private citizens with their own guns have made a difference in the outcome of public shootings.
Then again, liberals couldn’t be victims if they were armed with a gun and willing to use it. Can’t compromise on their victimhood.
[Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
#13 – TGC, absolutely correct.
Also regarding libtards and victimhood – they think they can “negotiate” their way out of an armed incident. Or heaven forbid, let’s give the criminal what he wants, since he’s a “victim of society.”
The only victim that will be around if someone tries to jack me is going to be the perp himself. Bet on it.
Turning the other cheek is fine and dandy, but I’ve got the difference cocked and loaded in my right hand.
Regards,
Peter H.