...DC style:

Quote :

"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."

7/17/2008 7:11:57 PM

So DC residents can buy ten-round capacity revolvers (WUT?), but not seven round capacity semi-automatic pistols.

I wonder how long it will be before somebody tries to call that an unfair limitation on personal freedoms related to weapons purchases. Also, would this include things like shotguns, repeating rifles, etc? Or only guns with quickly replaceable magazines like a semi-automatic pistol or AR-15 or something?

7/17/2008 7:53:09 PM

he should tell the police to fuck themselves, then go register one of these:

7/17/2008 8:30:12 PM

wtf is their god dam problem up there? i really don't even understand the logic behind all of this bullshit

7/17/2008 8:36:21 PM

ri-god-damn-diculous

dc police needs to get their head out of their ass

7/17/2008 8:38:45 PM

sounds like some official is trying to have a dick-measuring contest with the supreme court.

7/17/2008 8:58:57 PM

Quote :

"sounds like some official is trying to have a dick-measuring contest with the supreme court"

i agree, the police dont make the laws

7/17/2008 9:16:21 PM

Quote :

"wtf is their god dam problem up there?"

"their" problem is that they have a homicide rate that is through the roof and their scared shitless that this latest ruling will dramatically increase the homicide rate. they have no idea how this is going to turn out for them.

with that being said, i still agree with with what the supreme court ruled and i dont agree with what is stated above.

its going to be really interesting to see what kind of effect SCOTUS's ruling will have.....

7/17/2008 9:32:59 PM

You know handguns have triggers. Machine guns have triggers.

Handguns = Machine guns.

Eat that, Second Amendment.

Who here keeps wanting to give gov't more power over us???

7/17/2008 10:21:46 PM

come live in my neighborhood and tell me that you don't want some type of restriction for gun ownership




and i'll add the disclaimer that i'm fully in favor of second amendment rights, but there has to be some type of equilibrium....

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2008 11:05:58 PM

lol my parents told me they thought i'd like dc but all i ever hear is how its hood as fuck and has like a top 3 homicide rate in the country

7/17/2008 11:30:50 PM

Quote :

"come live in my neighborhood and tell me that you don't want some type of restriction for gun ownership"

You're working on the assumption that harsh restrictions would affect criminals. That's more than likely incorrect.

7/17/2008 11:32:56 PM

i think shes saying it will be easier for criminals to get guns if there are no restrictions

7/17/2008 11:33:55 PM

^^^^ if more people in your neighborhood could LEGALLY own weapons, maybe, just maybe some good people would own weapons, thus deterring the undesirables from causing trouble. This whole notion that making something illegal will deter a criminal from obtaining it is entirely ludicrous.

^ criminals get the guns anyway. We already fucking see that.

7/17/2008 11:35:00 PM

key word, easier

7/17/2008 11:36:39 PM

does the ease really matter? either way, the criminal has it. However, in only one of them will the law-abiding citizen be able to have it for deterrence and use against the criminal.

7/17/2008 11:53:37 PM

Quote :

"lol my parents told me they thought i'd like dc but all i ever hear is how its hood as fuck and has like a top 3 homicide rate in the country"

Yeah, DC itself. Some of the satellite cities around DC are pretty nice. I like parts of Alexandria when I've been there, but we haven't really gone to DC and driven around to look at stuff. My parents hate the traffic so we don't usually look at real estate there, haha.

I don't think I'd want to live in the DC area just because of the traffic and real estate prices.

Also, time and time again it seems people keep trying to argue that criminals are going to (keep) get(ting) guns if we loosen restrictions on firearms sales or try to use the second amendment to prevent firearms bans from happening. A little clarification is needed here. When we undo meaningless bans such as the assault weapons ban or if we undo the law in DC that prevented people from owning handguns, we're making it so people can buy guns again. Yes, people can buy guns again. Criminals can still not buy these handguns, legally, as there is a background check pretty much everywhere you can think of to get a handgun. People who want to get a gun so they can be gangsta bitches and rob some old people can legally get a gun since they don't have a criminal record. These people make up a rather small portion of the people who buy guns legally, however.

Again, the reason I argue against gun bans is that I know that people like me (that is, people who have no interest in being bitches and who would rather own a gun for self-defense and plinking) far outnumber people like the little gangsta bitches (in most areas). I also know that no matter how many different restrictions or arbitrary limitations we put on firearms purchases and firearms themselves that the determined and repeat criminals out there will still be able to get guns through some source. These are the people you need to be worried about as they're the ones that will repeatedly commit the violent crimes involving a gun that you hear about on the news. So you see, the reason I argue against silly bans like this (and asshole workarounds like the DC PD seems to have come up with) is that, while it stops a few "new criminals" from getting their hands on a gun, it stops far more people who are law abiding citizens from purchasing a gun for recreation and for self-defense. The bans on handgun sales affect a great many people, but statistically speaking only a small number of those people are going to get the gun to commit a crime with it (excluding suicide). If you ban all of those people, good and bad, from owning guns legally, all that's left are the REALLY bad people who manage to get their hands on a weapon illegally and the police. The police aren't able to protect everybody or to respond instantly if you manage to call 911 if a violent crime is happening to you or nearby (say you see somebody getting robbed at gunpoint down the street). I'd like to be able to protect myself, or at the very least have a whole bunch of law-abiding citizens who are armed with guns in my area simply to act as a deterrent.

When we bar law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on the guns, criminals know that areas where these gun laws are in place are more or less "safe" for them to carry out riskier crimes (such as home-invasions or daylight store robberies). As long as they can hide their identity and run like fuck, they could probably get away with some money and evade the police for a good while. On the other hand, if you had a town with mandatory concealed carry (and this was quite public information), you'd find that most criminals would stay the hell away from there. I'm not advocating mandatory conceal and carry, but I am simply trying to say that invoking handgun sales restrictions against law-abiding gun owners would be less effective than more expensive and more involved action by the police to keep tabs on repeat criminals, to make more undercover efforts to track illegal handgun sales and trafficking, and to require all owners of a handgun or other concealable firearm (I.E. not a long gun of any sort) to actually lock up their weapons in a safe that is physically bolted into a wall or into the floor of their house. You need to make sure criminals can't break into a house and steal a gun (mandate better gun storage), that they can't buy a gun on the streets (improve border and coastal security and use undercover policework to reveal shady gun dealers or criminal gun distribution operations), and that if a repeat-offender is going back to their old ways again that you are able to pick them up before they're able to commit the crime again (this would be some borderline Orwellian sort of monitoring, but I will just up front say that once you've classified yourself as a repeat offender of violent crimes that I don't think your personal freedoms and privacy are as relevant as they were before you went and committed your crimes).

That's just my opinion on it. Saying that they should ban guns to reduce crime simply doesn't focus on why crimes are occurring or what it has meant in the past (and currently means) when politicians end up implementing gun bans or stronger gun control. It completely ignores that these gun bans act as an overreaching panacea that ends up taking away gun ownership rights for law-abiding rednecks like me and fails to stop the trafficking of firearms to criminal elements of society.

7/18/2008 12:33:31 AM

...maybe this is just me, but I doubt it.

Am I the only one who isn't surprised that the biggest 'fraidy cat when it comes to guns and gun ownership happens to be the seat of the Federal Government?

Think about it.

Two-in-three people around you disapprove of how you're doing your job. Some of them strongly.

Wouldn't you be inclined to pressure local legislators to protect you (and the Big Boys) by turning a blind eye toward your neighborhood's Constitutionally protected gun rights?

Some blame the crybaby "liberal" culture in D.C., I blame something deeper. The surrounding legislators fear of assassination attempts; even if purely on a hunch.

Do examples exist of federal seats of power in other countries where gun ownership and possession by citizens is permitted?

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 2:05 AM. Reason : ?]

7/18/2008 2:05:11 AM

Things I have learned in this thread:

1) DC has one of the nation's top homicide rates
2) There has been a ban on hand guns for 32 years
3)

7/18/2008 8:23:11 AM

Quote :

"You're working on the assumption that harsh restrictions would affect criminals. That's more than likely incorrect."

I'm not working off that assumption, but there are politicians, and other citizens of DC, who do assume that, and don't realize that criminals will get these weapons one way or another.

To be perfectly honest, the lift on the gun ban probably won't affect things one way or another. There won't be this huge surge in violence, because like aaronburro said, criminals won't be going through the background check. And from what I've seen of where the violence is occurring, everyday citizens having guns won't deter these guys. It's usually drive-bys or late night "random" shootings that happen around here.

So Joe Schmoe who has the gun legally in his house at 2am when he's fast asleep, isn't really a deterrent to the guy doing a random drive-by.

Granted, it might've helped on the one that I saw two weeks ago at 7 in the evening. Broad daylight these guys drive up, shoot this guy, and speed off. It was surreal.

7/18/2008 9:06:03 AM

What undermined the DC handgun ban, and all other firearms restrictions in the District of Columbia, is that its immediate neighbors, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, have much looser gun laws and thus, firearms, particularly those slated for illegal activities, easily flow in and out of the district. The ban had always been more symbolic than a practical deterrent for criminal activity.

7/18/2008 10:14:01 AM

what the demographics of dc...like 50% african american or something?

7/18/2008 10:24:45 AM

^^How far is enough to protect one little district? Each state bordering it, or all states within a 200 mile radius?

BTW, how is the national ban on illegal drugs working to keep drugs out of DC?

7/18/2008 12:04:54 PM

I'm not advocating DC-style tight gun restrictions, but from a purely policy execution perspective, simply banning it within the District without coordinating with the surrounding counties damns the effort from the get-go. Without all the giant "Welcome to..." signs, you probably wouldn't even realize when you move from Virginia to DC to Maryland. At very least, you'd need to capture the general metropolitan area to even hope to have some kind of chance. Still, my own personal perspective is that any sort of gun ban is a failed exercise in the United States because of the overly abundant supply already circulating within the population.

I don't feel like getting into a debate on it, but drug and gun control policy are two different animals with two different set of rules, assumptions, and suppliers. You can't make an apples-to-apples comparison.

7/18/2008 12:24:59 PM

Quote :

"the gun was a bottom-loading weapon"

what a bunch of morons

7/18/2008 12:46:37 PM

On the bright side, they're implicitly allowing belt-fed weapons.

7/18/2008 12:56:53 PM

1,100 rounds of belt fed ammunition != 11 round "bottom loading" magazine!

7/18/2008 1:02:59 PM

Quote :

"come live in my neighborhood and tell me that you don't want some type of restriction for gun ownership"

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the criminals committing these crimes locked up rather than setting them loose and then trying to find new ways to make it illegal for them to purchase a gun they can't legally own anyway?

7/18/2008 1:11:48 PM