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.
I think it's OK for us to decide what guns laws there will be in the District of Columbia.
All of those rights are subject to limitations imposed by the law. Right now in the District of Columbia, the law say if you're walking around with a gun in your possession, you're going to jail. That's the law and it's not under review. Deal with it.
WHen I was in high school, I was accosted by the police because I had a DRILL rifle in my possession. The officer STOPPED me with his gun drawn and POINTED at me. I was simply carrying it home after school, so that I might practice military drill more at home--like we were TOLD we could do.
Why did the police FEEL the need to STOP me, if we're supposed to have a RIGHT to bear arms??
Gun control zealots need to relax and take a deep breath. The figures show that law abiding gun owners are not a contributor to crime. Restricting gun ownership favors the criminals, who will ignore any restrictions in any case. That said, I see gun control as a state/local issue. There are some sound reasons to control firearms purchases in some localities. But it shouldn't be a federal issue.
So whats stopping you from deciding who can pray where or who can say what? Ummmmm maybe the constitution? I'm still curious about your metal detectors.
What stops us from infringing on someones religion. We do. Down in Texas they are busy stopping a polygamist sect of Christians from abusing young children in the name of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Which ones are subject to limitations? None are. Some have penalties if they are abused, such as yelling fire in a theater but NONE require backround checks or are BANNED in entire municipalities.
All rights are subject to restrictions and you got the theater analogy wrong. Justice Holmes didn't say, "If you cry fire in a crowded theater we will punish you." He said you have no right to cry fire in a crowded theater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Your law is certainly in review. If its found unreasonable & if its found that a reasonable law must provide a law abiding citizen a way to own & posess a firearm there will be a carry law of some sort. There already is, your city just wont honor it. Thats why they ended up in court, in case you forgot.
A narrow aspect of our law is under review and I think we will have to modify it slightly. Our outright ban of handguns in the home for all people seems unneccesarily broad to me. I suspect we will have to evaluate the application to keep a handgun in the home on a case by case basis. A few people may have a valid reason for keeping a handgun in their house.
You need to read the DC law under review. It only applies to guns in the home. Our restriction on carrying a weapon is not being challenged.
WHen I was in high school, I was accosted by the police because I had a DRILL rifle in my possession. The officer STOPPED me with his gun drawn and POINTED at me. I was simply carrying it home after school, so that I might practice military drill more at home--like we were TOLD we could do.
Why did the police FEEL the need to STOP me, if we're supposed to have a RIGHT to bear arms??
Please tell me.
Because we empower the police to stop and question people whom they suspect are engaged in illegal conduct. Did the officer subsequently let you go on your way? I wish an officer had stopped and questioned Seung-Hui Cho.
Because we empower the police to stop and question people whom they suspect are engaged in illegal conduct. Did the officer subsequently let you go on your way? I wish an officer had stopped and questioned Seung-Hui Cho.
I wish they wouldn't have been in a gun free zone so someone with a gun could have put him down before he got going...........
Gun control zealots need to relax and take a deep breath. The figures show that law abiding gun owners are not a contributor to crime. Restricting gun ownership favors the criminals, who will ignore any restrictions in any case. That said, I see gun control as a state/local issue. There are some sound reasons to control firearms purchases in some localities. But it shouldn't be a federal issue.
Actually the studies show exactly the opposite. Way more gun suicides occur than murders, and you are much more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance in the home than an intruder.
Law abiding gun owners who keep weapons locked up and unloaded in the home aren't the problem. It's the paranoid nut cases who keep a loaded gun handy for "self defense." Someone in the house is three times as likely to die from a gunshot wound if there is a loaded gun kept in the house.
WHen I was in high school, I was accosted by the police because I had a DRILL rifle in my possession. The officer STOPPED me with his gun drawn and POINTED at me. I was simply carrying it home after school, so that I might practice military drill more at home--like we were TOLD we could do.
Why did the police FEEL the need to STOP me, if we're supposed to have a RIGHT to bear arms??
Please tell me.
Because of all the unconstitutional anti-gun laws currently in effect! This is what we gun owners have been trying to get over to you anti's. If all the anti-gun hysteria would stop and folks could legally carry as the Constitution says, you never would have been stopped. When I was in Wyoming it was common to see people at a gas station or stop n shop type place standing around in the parking lot admiring a new gun one or the other bought. No one even looked twice. THIS is how it should be, not everyone panicking any time they even suspect someone has a gun.
Because we empower the police to stop and question people whom they suspect are engaged in illegal conduct. Did the officer subsequently let you go on your way? I wish an officer had stopped and questioned Seung-Hui Cho.
Oh, come now...it's IN the Constitution, isn't it? It IS a right to bear arms...isn't that what the thread is about?
Yes, once he discovered that the "weapon" was filled with LEAD through the ENTIRE barrel, and the action DIDN'T operate, I was free to go.
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.
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.
Should we have stricter gun-ownership laws?
