Alphecca

ok so unless they want to protect us them selves , fine if not them they need to hush up ... find domething else to fight for .. feed the hungry kids in africa , or better yet help the homeless ...

gina, empowering individuals help the homeless. It lessens street crime. It makes a slight woman physically equivalent to a large man.

More importantly, if we do not follow our constitutional laws, and instead are ruled by men, we will fall.

We have gone way too far down that road already.

Gina:

Jeff and Josh are right:

1) I'm one of those denied Second Amendment rights. Why? By what authority? Where does the Constitution empower the Federal Government to ban guns? If the left applied their reading of the right to bear arms to the remainder of the Constitution, they'd scrap half of the Supreme Court's decisions since the 50s.

2) The "guns vs. butter" argument is inapposite--without guns, we would be unable to protect Americans who make butter. And in this context, it's particularly noxious: DC, remember, had been the murder capital of America. Gina, the crooks already have guns--but I can't.

3) The Founding Fathers didn't have all the answers. Nor did they expect policy uninimity. Instead, they fashioned a process whereby disputed issues could be resolved: Fence off certain fundamental rights; grant only limited Federal powers; and delegate the rest to the smallest possible unit of government. Half a century ago, the left grew impatient. No longer willing to persuade the electorate, they swiped our vote, preferring to substitute their judgment, then lock it in via repeated "Hail Marys" to a pliant judiciary. Today's Democrats -- especially those opposing Souder's amendment -- are anything but democratic.

I was able to catch some of the debate on this earlier today on C-Span

Jeez what a joke. The delegate from DC was going on and on and on with the typical chicken little BS about how if this amendment were to pass children would die by the thousands and the streets would run red with blood.

Why is it that in Annapolis, the nightmare of a mass slaughter as predicted by GFW's like the honorable delegate from the District of Columbia just doesn't happen.

Annapolis is a city just across the river from DC, with a similar population count, and the citizens are allowed to do everything with their firearms that the subjects of the DC government are not.

How is it that with all these "Public Nuisances" AKA assembled firearms and handguns, that rivers of blood fail to run down the gutters of the city of Annapolis as predicted by the delegate from DC?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir....

I live in D.C. Just about everyone here wants the ban to stay. Firearms can be regulated. They should be regulated. States rights. We need to have our right to have our law.

"Just about everyone here wants the ban to stay." Right, I'm sure you speak for everyone in D.C. State's rights my ass, State's rights do not supersede the Second Amendment, despite what people in the state feel like. It's important to have your rights, and if I were in D.C. I would be extremely pissed off that I don't have the right to defend myself just because others don't care about that right. If I go to Wal-Mart and I'm carrying concealed and no one else is, fine. It's their choice, no one is going to make you carry a gun. But I'll be damned if I care what they think about me carrying mine.

Without the right to defend it...the right to life is meaningless.

Those who claim that a reversal of DC's ban on self-defense (which - defacto - is what it is) will increase violent deaths are not interested in the Constitution or the rights guaranteed therein. Of course there will be an increase in violence...but not by those who pay taxes and vote. Those who run DC are quite literally desperate to keep the fact that the communities in the inner city have degenerated into a lawless, disorganized mob that hasn't the willingness or even the ability to abide by the rule of law.

As in many large cities across the U.S., inner city populations have followed the lead of "Progressives" who, since the 1960's, have told them that family is unnecessary and sexual freedom is paramount. These poor, ignorant people have been constantly told that they cannot succeed in the racist society of the USA and that the government is their only means of survival.

The collectivist (Democratic) policies of the last 50 years are to blame for the fact that entire communities are lost to us for at least a generation.

Yet, the people responsible for this blame guns. Why is it that across the Potomac in Northern Virginia people carry guns openly and the crime rate is a tiny fraction of that of Washington?

We are told that poverty causes crime. But it more true to say that crime causes poverty in these areas.

Unless and until the residents of Washington, DC stand up and take ownership (thank you Mr. President) of their situation and its resolution, nothing will stop the violence. Nothing.

DC's experience with gun control is illustrative of the vacuity of the "Gun Control" argument.

The laws of economics are as immutable as those of physics: Where there is demand there WILL be supply.

Gun control is not about guns...it's about control...of the people.

Can the people of DC reasonably expect the Police to protect them? Hell, no!

They must be allowed to do it for themselves.

What people like Marion Wright Edelman fear most is that people will begin to realize that "The Government" is not their friend - but their "Master". A master crueler than any they had 150 years ago.

Rob W.,

I live in Miss. and just about everyone here wants to regulate the "voting rights". Voting rights can be regulated. They should be regulated. States rights. We need to have our right to have our law.

You are with us on this one, right?

Since when did D.C. become a state?

There's an interesting point about a recent Supreme Court case regarding the right to police protection and the 2nd Amendment at www.vengefulzhid.blogspot.com

There was a more relevant Supreme Court decision regarding the right to police protection some years back. Warren v. District of Columbia. Yep, same District of Columbia we're talking about here. Ms. Warren tried to sue for damages after the police failed to respond to her 911 calls. If she'd had even the little six shot .32 my wee wifey drove off a home invader with, she, and maybe even her downstairs roommate would not have been beaten and gang raped.

Annapolis is a city just across the river from DC, with a similar population count, and the citizens are allowed to do everything with their firearms that the subjects of the DC government are not.

You're thinking of Alexandria (or possibly Arlington Co.), not Annapolis.

Alexandria has around 120,000 people. Arlington has around 200,000. Washington, DC has over 500,000 people. The demographics are very different between DC and the As of Virginia.

I'm in favor of the bill, but please, if you're on the side of the angels, keep your arguments well grounded.

As I recall, a few ornery states down South wanted to secede from the Union because, among other things, they felt that the right to own slaves was a "state's right."

I am not sure, but I think that didn't go over too well in the long run. Maybe I should dust off a history book and check.

Maybe I live in a different part of the city but I know plenty of people who want the gun ban rescinded. What I cannot understand is how anyone living in the more crime ravaged parts of town would want the ban kept. Do you imagine for one instant that a street full of residents, some of whome have guns and know how to use them, would tolerate the takingover o the street for criminal purposes. I do not think so.

I'd like to make one more observation here. Both the left and the right are able to get suitably outraged at perceived censorship by the other (whether over art or mentioning God or what have you) and gripe over infringement of the 1st Amendment.

And following the Kelo vs New London decision by the Supreme Court, both the left and the right were justifiably angry at the perceived misreading of the 5th Amendment.

So why, when the District (or for that matter, Chicago) blatently crushes the 2nd Amendment rights of it's citizens, why is it only the right that speaks up? Where is the outrage by liberals over a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, here?

And it IS a true violation of the 2nd Amendment because the District isn't saying, "Okay, if you have training and registration or a permit then we'll let you own a gun..." It's flat-out impossible -- against the law -- to own or carry one. (I'm excluding the provision that if you have one prior to 1976 and it's dissassembled to the molecular level and kept locked in a safe with no door on it, etc.)

So I go back to the original point of my post: If any other Amendment were being violated, there would be outrage and demand for Congress to rectify it. But because it involves the 2nd Amendment and firearms, suddenly there's silence or worse, defense of the violation from half of the electorate.

On the point of Annapolis/Alexandria/Arlington:
Arlington may still provide a good reference, as it has a similar population *density* and demographic as a decent fraction of D.C.
Annapolis is in GFW Maryland, where carry permits are nearly impossible to acquire. That's unless you're a Friend of da' Mayor or similar. Annapolis is also quite gentrified.
Alexandria probably lies between the two as regards gentrification, but it is at least in Virginia where the laws are reasonable, and shall-issue permits abound.

I live in DC, and my in neighborhood, at least among my friends here, the majority want the gun ban lifted. Every house on my block has a dog. Not because they want a pet, though some do, but because it is the only legal form of protection for their house. Big knives dont scare as much as my Doberman's big teeth. I would have prefered other breeds of dogs, but my wife and I went with a Doberman, since we had to leave our Colt's with my in-laws when we moved here from Virginia.

In response to davod about those living in crime ravaged areas that wouldn't want the ban removed. The answer of who is simple. Those who wish to criminally break the law and have an advantage over those who follow the laws. Gun control to an extent is ok, I refer to having background checks on those who purchase a firearm and disallowing convicted fellons of possessing a firearm of any type. However, gun control to an extreme where guns are banned for those who are lawfully biding citizens only make things easier for convicted fellons who do not wish to change thier way of life.

Of _course_ DC has a strict gun ban, like all large cities. Wonder why? It's because the city is predominantly black! Same with many major cities in the 'north'.

You wonder why gun control kicked into high gear only after the Black Panthers started carrying guns around in California?

Gun control is inherently racist!

Prohibition is a price support for vice and criminals.

The violence it engenders is one of the reasons people fear guns.

Funny thing is hardly any of the gun rights folks make the connection.

Why?

Republican Social-ism or as I prefer the Government's Cocaine Price Support and Gang Finance Program.

BTW Social-ism is a disallowed word because it contains cia-lis. You ought to fix that.

I don't want to fix it; it prevents a lot of spam comments.

I'm British, and I just returned to London after two years in Los Angeles. While I was in LA I went shooting one day, and shot a 45, and 9mil handgun. It was an exhilirating experience to say the least.

But, what I can't wrap my head around, even appreciating the extent to which guns are part of the fabric of the US culture, is that the right to bear arms can be ethically justified on the basis of what is written in the constitution. Can it not be recognized, that as transcendent as the principles in the constitution are, they are informed by their age, and that in the modern world, guns are as much an affliction to individual liberty, as the right to own one is an example of it.

I love the US, miss it terribly, and intend to return to live in a couple of years. But, I have the scorching memory of a drunk ex-girlfriend playing around with a handgun ingrained in my mind. And, I will never believe that my liberty is improved because guns are more freely available to people.

Then, Graham, do you also think that 1st Amendment rights are obsolete -- a product of their age? That the Founding Fathers could not have forseen pornography, the internet, radio and TV and movies and the spread of smut or objectionable content?

I believe that the Bill of Rights is timeless and has served this country well for all these years.

All rights have consequences and all freedoms come with a price. I'm willing to pay that price.

A poster compares DC to Annapolis, saying Annapolis is right across the river. First, that ain't quite so. Annapolis isn't right across the river. Second, Annapolis is a wealthy smaller town with totally different economics than DC. Third, Richmond is actually quite similar to DC, and is about as far as Annapolis is. Richmond has terrible crime, yet is smack dab in the middle of gun-happy Virginia.

If you're going to compare DC to other cities, to be fair you need to include places like Richmond.

DC - the argument is about basic democracy. I'm of mixed opinions on gun control. But I am adamant about people treating DC with the basic respect that everyone else gets. If you don't live here, you have no business trying to determine our local laws.

even though it was a first effort, and gis spatial we were two whiteys who admittedly didn't shape files know as much about rap (the history, methodology, japan map the deliverance, even) as about a lot of generalization other music - we practiced several flows gis lab over the track before we actually recorded open gis consortium the raps - the finished product was surprisingly sde credible