U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-15-2009, 05:50 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The people of the District haven't passed any laws that affect you. When we place reasonable restrictions on certain rights, it only extends to the borders of the District of Columbia.

Sure they effect us. Its our capitol, its not an independant nation. Its a city in the USA & subject to the same limitations on legislation documented in the constitution as anyplace else. The Second Amendment doesn't say we have a "Right to keep & bear arms anywhere except DC"
Even if nobody there wanted a gun, we know many do, it would be wrong because in the US we are free to move about. If a persn has a legally aquired gun & permit he ought to be able to go with it where he pleases.
I'd like to see & think we will see, national reciprocity regarding gun permits just like cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2009, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I guess it depends on your definition of civilized. Take a look at the crime rates in the 'civilized' cities that you mention. Then compare them to those of some smaller cities filled with the barbaric hoards such as Bismarck, ND or Marquette, MI. Who's more civilized? I won't even bother to ask where life and personal property are respected more--that's too obvious.
How's the opera in Bismark?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmidnightdreamer View Post
Thats Ok, when they find this country of ours over run by the Terriorst type they can get behind those that have guns to protect them.
Who do you think tamed this country and protected this country from the British , French,ect. The militia made of of our great grandparents, great great grandparents, who came and setteled this land. My family has been here from the start and I am proud to say that if my country needed me to help protect our country while our armed forces are ingauged elsewhere...I would proudly follow my family's footsteps. Being female would not stop me! Never has! I have had a male member of my family in every battle but this one. And these young men and women deserve our thanks and respect for the Vallor they have shown.
It is up to us to protect our rights and theirs, And retain each right we were given since the founding of our Nation!
My family has been here since well before the start. A reader of history knows that the militia was a political entity, never an effective military entity. Virtually all our major military leaders wanted nothing to do with the militia -- Washington, Jackson, etc. It's the same issue today: a bunch of Joe Six Packs pretending to be tough guys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
where is it right and just to take ones rights outlined in the Constitution. The constitution is there to protect ones rights, not allow unconstitutional jurisdiction to restrict ones rights. Would you be upset if D.C. decided that ohh I don't know, the races should be segregated again?
Silly and nonparallel issue, but to answer your question, we in the District conform to the rulings of the Supreme Court. Where the court hasn't spoken we are free to interpret the Constitution as we see fit. That's what the document says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Sure they effect us. Its our capitol, its not an independant nation. Its a city in the USA & subject to the same limitations on legislation documented in the constitution as anyplace else. The Second Amendment doesn't say we have a "Right to keep & bear arms anywhere except DC"
Even if nobody there wanted a gun, we know many do, it would be wrong because in the US we are free to move about. If a persn has a legally aquired gun & permit he ought to be able to go with it where he pleases.
I'd like to see & think we will see, national reciprocity regarding gun permits just like cars.
I've got bad news for you: You can't come into the District and "Bear Arms" If you do we will take the gun away and put you in jail. That right was not restricted by the Supreme Court. People who live in the District can keep guns in their homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,253,000 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Silly and nonparallel issue, but to answer your question, we in the District conform to the rulings of the Supreme Court. Where the court hasn't spoken we are free to interpret the Constitution as we see fit. That's what the document says.
and the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment was put in place for the self defense of THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE are protected, and allowed to own arms, not only for self defense but to be the ultimate check and balance of the government. And it most defiantly is a parallel, both are fundamental rights, one is not more important than another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,086,025 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
and the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment was put in place for the self defense of THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE are protected, and allowed to own arms, not only for self defense but to be the ultimate check and balance of the government. And it most defiantly is a parallel, both are fundamental rights, one is not more important than another.
Actually "the people" have no such right and will be crushed if and when a group of them tries to usurp control of the government. Did you not notice that the Davidians lost?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,253,000 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Actually "the people" have no such right and will be crushed if and when a group of them tries to usurp control of the government. Did you not notice that the Davidians lost?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


The founding fathers would disagree with you, it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self protection, it is the final check put into place to control our government when it stops working for the people. Get enough people pissed off, and you will have your removal of government (see revolutionary war, where it was put to test.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 10:53 AM
 
44,585 posts, read 43,115,486 times
Reputation: 14385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


The founding fathers would disagree with you, it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self protection, it is the final check put into place to control our government when it stops working for the people. Get enough people pissed off, and you will have your removal of government (see revolutionary war, where it was put to test.)
The right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

I have this view of government. It is a combination of moralistic-individualistic thinking. I believe that government should be a force for good and that it is a responsibility to participate in government. I also believe that there should be some personal responsibilities when it comes to exercising your rights. I believe you should be able to own any gun you want. With that said, you shouldn't go out and shoot people at random for the fun of it. I am convinced that guns are not the problem. Irresponsible people are the reason to the problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 10:55 AM
 
44,585 posts, read 43,115,486 times
Reputation: 14385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Sure they effect us. Its our capitol, its not an independant nation. Its a city in the USA & subject to the same limitations on legislation documented in the constitution as anyplace else. The Second Amendment doesn't say we have a "Right to keep & bear arms anywhere except DC"
Even if nobody there wanted a gun, we know many do, it would be wrong because in the US we are free to move about. If a persn has a legally aquired gun & permit he ought to be able to go with it where he pleases.
I'd like to see & think we will see, national reciprocity regarding gun permits just like cars.
I agree. I say one should do something about it and get the law changed. Ironic that such an "anti gun" city is also a very violent city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top