Guns legal in Washington D.C. (and elsewhere)

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I haven't taken an inventory in a while, but I'm sure I fall into the 0-500 category, possibly in the low end of the 501-2000 category.

I know I'm at least in the 501-2000 category

[wmbwinn]

rasmussenreports.com
Fri Jun 27, 11:32 AM ET



On the evening the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision on the Second Amendment and gun control issues, 68% of voters said they followed news coverage of the story Somewhat or Very Closely. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 64% of all voters knew that the Court overturned the Washington, DC law banning handguns in the city limits. Only 9% of all voters mistakenly thought the Justices had ruled in favor of the city law.

Among those who knew how the Court ruled, 63% agreed with the decision and 25% disagreed. These attitudes are very similar to results found in polls conducted before the Court ruling. Prior to the ruling on gun control, public approval of the Supreme Court had declined rapidly over the past month. Just 26% of voters said the Justices were doing a good or an excellent job.

By a 58% to 8% margin, voters believe that John McCain agrees with the Court ruling. Voters are evenly divided on Barack Obama's view as 43% believe the Democrat's presumptive nominee disagreed with the ruling while 41% think he agreed.

[my words added: isn't it amazing how well he dances that half think he supports it and half think he opposes it... does anyone know what Obama does stand for????]

On Obama, there were significant partisan differences. By a 62% to 21% margin, Republicans think Obama believes the city should have had the right to ban handguns. By a 61% to 25% margin, Democrats think that Obama believes the ban should have been overturned. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.

Obama continues to enjoy a modest lead over McCain nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The survey found that older voters were more likely than younger voters to follow news of the Supreme Court ruling. Among voters under 30, just 45% followed the news somewhat or very closely. Among those over 65, 74% followed the story.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans paid attention along with 66% of Democrats. Forty percent (40%) of Republicans followed the story Very Closely. Just 28% of Democrats were that interested.

This national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 26, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20...RoSx7MLgNsnwcF

[wmbwinn]

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

4. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

5. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

7. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

8. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

9. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

10. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

11. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

12. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

13. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

14. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

16. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

18. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

19. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

20. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

21. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

22. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

23. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

24. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[chumdawg]

This looks like fun! I'll take a stab at it...

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Purely biased definition. Most unarmed men are citizens, too, and most armed men are also subjects.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Cops can bring in teams of armed men, often with more powerful weapons. As always, it depends on the situation.

3. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

Control of who, and what?

4. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

If guns are outlawed, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't use them. The same with swords.

5. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

Misspelled words may well be crimes, according to your own way of thinking, but certainly not on the same level as gunshot wounds.

6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

Nor will they ever have to. We are all "free" in a very real aspect, and there is nothing practical the government can do to change that.

7. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I think you meant: "You don't have any that you know of." Just as ignorance of the law is no defense against committing crimes, ignorance of your rights does not constitute forfeiture of said rights.

8. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

This bromide may sound good, but it doesn't work well in practice. We sacrifice personal liberties every day, such as the "liberty" to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre if that's what we think we think we are free to yell, so that all of us can sortof get along.

9. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright date being changed by the day, as our present governmental system constantly re-interprets that document according to the demands of the time.

10. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Having a hard time reconciling why it is that you can't go heeled in a courthouse or a government or a school building or a bar or an airplane or an Amtrak train, or anywhere else that you willingly lay down your weapon, and that's not an infringement according to this perspective. It's the nuance, evidently, that is misunderstood.

11. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

Conjecture, and violently argumentative.

12. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

How many non-firearm-owners killed no one yesterday? Hint: It was more.

13. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Guns don't HAVE enemies, people have enemies.

14. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

It is readily possible to know guns yet ultimately not know peace or safety. It is just as readily possible to not now guns ultimately know the same.

15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

In a firefight, true. Anywhere else, seldom.

16. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

You'll be glad you have that prayer, when you really need it.

17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Indeed. And it's often aided by the firearm.

18. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

The far and away great majority of "criminals" do not use handguns. Those who do face significant prison time for doing so. If it's safer, it's at the expense of significant loss of liberty.

19. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

Guns can aid in the causing of a crime far more readily than matches can aid in the specific crime of arson.

20. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

Is this an admission that some citizens are legitimately feared?

21. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

You have a great number of rights, which other people fought for. Your own courage or cowardice will not change this.

22. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

Laws of all kinds are in a constant state of flux. Reasonable changes are made as they are deemed fit, and there is no logical reason to exempt laws related to guns.

23. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

That is a very difficult logical leap. The mechanisms that would act up against slavery have no concern to your regulation of their behavior.

24. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Tell it to the patriots. Everything they did was "illegal."



Now, do you see how easy that was?

[jefelump]

I'll join in the fun....

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Purely biased definition. Most unarmed men are citizens, too, and most armed men are also subjects.

Depends on where you are, I suppose. The founders of our country wanted this amendment, because rulers on the other side of the ocean had disarmed their citizens to put down political oppostion. Alito mentioned that in his majority opinion.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Cops can bring in teams of armed men, often with more powerful weapons. As always, it depends on the situation.

Yep, and those same cops can arrive 5 minutes AFTER you're dead.

3. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

Control of who, and what?

Control of the gun, where you point it, when you shoot, how well you shoot... Oh, and the situation too.

4. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

If guns are outlawed, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't use them. The same with swords.

If guns are outlawed, you can't legally use them. Now if we're talking about disregarding the law, then you're right.

5. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

Misspelled words may well be crimes, according to your own way of thinking, but certainly not on the same level as gunshot wounds.

Why are gunshot wounds to be considered a crime? What about self defense, where you inflict those gunshot wounds on your attacker?

6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

Nor will they ever have to. We are all "free" in a very real aspect, and there is nothing practical the government can do to change that.

Agree, with the second amendment in place. We the people can always rise up, just as our founders did. They were militia.

7. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I think you meant: "You don't have any that you know of." Just as ignorance of the law is no defense against committing crimes, ignorance of your rights does not constitute forfeiture of said rights.

Symantics. If you don't know you have a right, what difference does it make?

8. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

This bromide may sound good, but it doesn't work well in practice. We sacrifice personal liberties every day, such as the "liberty" to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre if that's what we think we think we are free to yell, so that all of us can sortof get along.

And the liberty to murder? Obviously we need laws to ensure the public's safety.

9. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright date being changed by the day, as our present governmental system constantly re-interprets that document according to the demands of the time.

That is what I would call Activist Judges. I prefer Orginalists, who rule on the merits of what the constitution actually SAYS, and not on invented rights not granted or protected by the constitution.

10. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Having a hard time reconciling why it is that you can't go heeled in a courthouse or a government or a school building or a bar or an airplane or an Amtrak train, or anywhere else that you willingly lay down your weapon, and that's not an infringement according to this perspective. It's the nuance, evidently, that is misunderstood.

Limiting where you can carry your firearm is not an infringement. In the state of TX, you can't carry a concealed handgun without a permit. So if I carry one without a CHL, and if I get arrested, are my rights infringed? No. I still have the right to keep and bear arms. I have several in my home.

11. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

Conjecture, and violently argumentative.

Or incentive for politicians to NOT ignore the others. We have a nuclear arsenal which we have not used since WWII, simply as incentive for other countries to not f__k with us. Some countries pay closer attention to that then others. So are we "violently argumentative" by retaining our nuclear arsenal?

12. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

How many non-firearm-owners killed no one yesterday? Hint: It was more.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have.

13. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Guns don't HAVE enemies, people have enemies.

Yes, people kill people. A gun is only a method of doing so. But rust and politicians are in fact enemies of firearms, when they try to destroy or take away.

14. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

It is readily possible to know guns yet ultimately not know peace or safety. It is just as readily possible to not now guns ultimately know the same.

I suppose that depends on where you live. Some people in the middle east have been fighting all their lives. They know guns, and don't know peace. However, when you look at the USA, the founders deemed the right to keep and bear arms essential to ensuring our peace and safety.

15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

In a firefight, true. Anywhere else, seldom.

If I'm deer hunting, I shoot to kill the deer. If someone is threatening me or my family, I'm going to shoot to stay alive.

16. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

You'll be glad you have that prayer, when you really need it.

See #2 above.

17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Indeed. And it's often aided by the firearm.

It's also often aided by a knife, or by bare hands. Firearms are not only associated with assault and violence. I enjoy shooting at a range, violently destroying that poor sheet of paper.

18. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

The far and away great majority of "criminals" do not use handguns. Those who do face significant prison time for doing so. If it's safer, it's at the expense of significant loss of liberty.

You're looking at this one wrong. If I'm a criminal and I'm going to break into a house to steal someone's TV or computer, and if I know the home owner doesn't have a gun (legally forbidden), I'm not going to be concerned with being shot. Thus, my "job" is safer for me.

19. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

Guns can aid in the causing of a crime far more readily than matches can aid in the specific crime of arson.

They have to light that fire somehow.... I guess they can use a cigarette lighter. Oh, and if guns cause crime then spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

20. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

Is this an admission that some citizens are legitimately feared?

No, it means politicians like Obama who supported gun bans in Illinois prior to being a US Senator are afraid of people in general having guns.

21. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

You have a great number of rights, which other people fought for. Your own courage or cowardice will not change this.

True, and other people continue to fight for those rights today.

22. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

Laws of all kinds are in a constant state of flux. Reasonable changes are made as they are deemed fit, and there is no logical reason to exempt laws related to guns.

I have no problem with this, as long as the laws created are not contrary to the 2nd amendment. I would love to see the laws in Chicago changed to allow me to carry a concealed weapon when I move there.

23. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

That is a very difficult logical leap. The mechanisms that would act up against slavery have no concern to your regulation of their behavior.

See my response to #1. Rulers on the other side of the Atlantic removed guns to subject their citizens to their desires, thus creating "slaves" who couldn't defend themselves.

24. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Tell it to the patriots. Everything they did was "illegal."

If those same patriots were law abiding citizens up until the start of the Revolutionary War, then they would not have had those guns. Their actions became "illegal" only when they rose up against the crown. It would have been a lot harder to rise up, if they didn't already have their guns.

Yep, you're right chum. That was easy.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Yep, you're right chum. That was easy.

See what I mean? Logical fallacies, or poor reasoning in general, doesn't take any effort at all. This pretty well informs our presidential elections, too...

[ty]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y70vcs3oV14

[wmbwinn]

By now, you’ve all heard the Obama “bitter” quote: “And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” And it probably struck a nerve with you. Well, we’ve created a new yard sign that will send a message from all of you “bitter” gun owners to Obama this election season: Our “I’m a Bitter Gun Owner and I Vote!” yard sign.

http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/G...ism.aspx?ID=68

Funny stuff; I've got to get me a yard sign that says that. After the election, I can set it up at the rifle range and blast it full of holes...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ty

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y70vcs3oV14

Love it!!!!

For the record, my gun collection is not quite that big...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See what I mean? Logical fallacies, or poor reasoning in general, doesn't take any effort at all. This pretty well informs our presidential elections, too...

Ah, come on, Chum. This response is like when your high school teacher tells you to write an essay on the personality of Frankenstein, and your thesis sentence is:
"The personality of Frankenstein is bad."

You can do better than that. Pick the one liner that bothers you the most and write an essay...

[wmbwinn]

But Cox said the 5-4 decision had galvanized sportsmen and Second Amendment enthusiasts and would thrust the issue back into the political arena.“This is the first salvo in a step-by-step restoration of this right,” Cox said calling Heller “only the end of the beginning.”

And the next step in that cause could be a politically awkward one for Obama.

The NRA filed suit on Friday to overturn handgun laws in Chicago, Obama’s hometown, and three Windy City suburbs

“You put a microphone to his face and ask: ‘Do you support the Chicago gun control laws?’” said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member, envisioning how to prolong the story and make the Illinois senator squirm.

It’s a quandary that the NRA and the McCain campaign hope will haunt Obama in battleground states with a deep attachment to the hunting culture that crosses party lines.

“We’ve probably still got 800,000 going afield opening day of deer season,” said Mike Bouchard, a former Michigan state Senate leader and gun rights advocate in a state where some schools on the Upper Peninsula still close on the first day of deer season. “And we’re very suspicious of people that pretend to be supportive of Second Amendment rights and hunting.”

“We can create a wedge in unions by highlighting his anti-gun background,” Paul Erhardt, a GOP strategist who works closely with members of the gun rights community, said of Obama.

While the gun culture is typically associated with the South, it’s actually the industrial Midwest where hunting is most popular.

Pennsylvania has the most NRA members per capita of any state, and, after Texas, the next four states that sell the most hunting-related goods are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri, according to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

And while Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry could all handle a gun and had been hunting many times over the years, Obama has never hunted in his life and is the furthest thing from an outdoorsman.

Yet, as with so many issues on which Obama is vulnerable, McCain isn’t exactly a perfect alternative.

Aside from not being a hunter, he earned the enmity of some in the gun rights movement for his advocacy of campaign finance reform and background checks at gun shows.

“I don’t think they help the Republican Party at all, but I don’t think they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party’s policy making,” McCain told CNN in 2000.

Reminded of the NRA’s past clashes with McCain, Cox acknowledged the “disagreements” but quickly cited the other option.

“Our members understand how bad Barack Obama is on the Second Amendment,” Cox said, noting that McCain had signed the amicus brief in support of Heller while Obama had not.

Still, the NRA hasn’t yet endorsed McCain and hasn’t even decided if it will make an endorsement in the race.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/11452

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ah, come on, Chum. This response is like when your high school teacher tells you to write an essay on the personality of Frankenstein, and your thesis sentence is:
"The personality of Frankenstein is bad."

You can do better than that. Pick the one liner that bothers you the most and write an essay...

Wow, that's hilarious!!!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to wmbwinn again.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ah, come on, Chum. This response is like when your high school teacher tells you to write an essay on the personality of Frankenstein, and your thesis sentence is:
"The personality of Frankenstein is bad."

You can do better than that. Pick the one liner that bothers you the most and write an essay...

actually... I think Chum was SPECIFICALLY answering the original post at its EXACT SAME shallow level, to make a point.

The first list was 24 statements of "frankenstein is bad" ... which leads to the appropiate response of "yeah, so is your mother" in each case.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

actually... I think Chum was SPECIFICALLY answering the original post at its EXACT SAME shallow level, to make a point.

The first list was 24 statements of "frankenstein is bad" ... which leads to the appropiate response of "yeah, so is your mother" in each case.

anyone wanting to go beyond "Frankenstein is bad" and "yeah, so is your mother" may feel free to pick any particular one liner and start a meaningful debate. If you have the balls to do it, then do it...