Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineBarbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Gun laws in Wash. DC.
    #2907848 - 07/20/04 11:07 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

A friend just told me guns are not allowed in DC? Is this true or untrue?

on a side note, for conversations sake.

Guns: pro or con, and why.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2907973 - 07/20/04 11:47 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The D.C. gun laws prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that other arms, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. D.C. also has one of the highest crime rates in the country - the gun laws don't seem to help. Also D.C. is the headquarters for the largest crime syndicate in the country, the U.S. Government.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesynthesis
everydayjunglist

Registered: 09/30/03
Posts: 398
Loc: va
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2909233 - 07/20/04 05:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

yep. i live right outside of DC, and luckily in NoVa you can get a concealed weapons permit good for 5 years easily. i'm getting one soon, along with a smaller handgun that will be easier to conceal :thumbup: my beretta would be a little hard to conceal, thinking about getting a Keltec p32


--------------------
http://www.infowars.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 65,283
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2909329 - 07/20/04 06:24 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

well lets see, between the snipers on the roofs of the federal buildings.. the guys with turrets on the top of the white house.. the 20 something people that get shot in the ghetto by guns every.. I don't know.. two weeks.. and the multitudes of people that walk the streets "strapped".. I'd say there's a large amount of guns in washington DC, allowed or no.

They like to keep them in DC though, that's why they have a big sign when you enter virginia saying

ILLEGAL GUN??
EXILE!
5 YEARS MINIMUM VIRGINIA STATE PRISON

Though, it's easy to get a gun and a concealed weapons permit provided you aren't a felon or 'terrorist'


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesynthesis
everydayjunglist

Registered: 09/30/03
Posts: 398
Loc: va
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Shroomism]
    #2909363 - 07/20/04 06:35 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:They like to keep them in DC though, that's why they have a big sign when you enter virginia saying

ILLEGAL GUN??
EXILE!
5 YEARS MINIMUM VIRGINIA STATE PRISON

Though, it's easy to get a gun and a concealed weapons permit provided you aren't a felon or 'terrorist'




also you gotta love the signs that say "speed limit enforced by aircraft" all over 66  :tongue:



--------------------
http://www.infowars.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 65,283
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: synthesis]
    #2909539 - 07/20/04 07:51 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

:crazy: .. that's right down the street from my house


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2909615 - 07/20/04 08:19 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Most big cities have as rough as gun laws, but there are only 4 states (I believe) where you cannot get a concealed weapons permit, IL being one >:/


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMeat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck

Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2910152 - 07/20/04 10:38 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Wow, didn't know that. Doesn't D.C. have something like the second highest murder rate in the US? Seems like maybe the wrong people have the guns.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 65,283
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Meat_Log_Smurf]
    #2910169 - 07/20/04 10:41 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

nope.. DC is proudly once again the murder capitol of the nation

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: synthesis]
    #2910206 - 07/20/04 10:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

synthesis said:
thinking about getting a Keltec p32



I have a Keltec 380. Not a bad little gun as long as you don't have to shoot much further than 15 yards.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2910207 - 07/20/04 10:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Gun control takes from law abiding citizens the means of defending themselves. Criminals do not follow the law anyways and will of course acquire a firearm whether they are legal or not. Gun control is a complete and total violation of natural rights, the constitution, and logic. To advocate gun control is to advocate tyranny, simple as that in my mind.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2910296 - 07/20/04 11:10 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=35

Normally I would just print the link rather than the entire article, but Steyn has a habit of tinkering with his web pages, so that link a week from now may have different stuff on it. For example, three hours ago there was just the second essay on that link. Now there are two. Anyway, here are both in their entirety --

IN THE ABSENCE OF GUNS
Mark Steyn
The American Spectator, June 2000


CELEBRITY news from the United Kingdom:


In April, Germaine Greer, the Australian feminist and author of The Female Eunuch , was leaving her house in East Anglia, when a young woman accosted her, forced her back inside, tied her up, smashed her glasses, and then set about demolishing her ornaments with a poker.

A couple of weeks before that, the 85-year-old mother of Phil Collins, the well-known rock star, was punched in the ribs, the back, and the head on a West London street, before her companion was robbed. ?That's what you have to expect these days,? she said, philosophically.

Anthea Turner, the host of Britain?s top-rated National Lottery TV show, went to see the West End revival of Grease with a friend. They were spotted at the theatre by a young man who followed them out and, while their car was stuck in traffic, forced his way in and wrenched a diamond-encrusted Rolex off the friend?s wrist. A week before that, the 94-year-old mother of Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and other Hollywood hits, was beaten and robbed by two men who broke into her home and threatened to kill her.

Former Bond girl Britt Ekland had her jewelry torn from her arms outside a shop in Chelsea; Formula One Grand Prix racing tycoon and Tony Blair confidante Bernie Ecclestone was punched and kicked by his assailants as they stole his wife?s ring; network TV chief Michael Green was slashed in the face by thugs outside his Mayfair home; gourmet chef to the stars Anton Mosimann was punched in the head outside his house in Kensington...


Rita Simmonds isn?t a celebrity but, fortunately, she happened to be living next door to one when a gang broke into her home in upscale Cumberland Terrace, a private road near Regents Park. Tom Cruise heard her screams and bounded to the rescue, chasing off the attackers for 300 yards, though failing to prevent them from reaching their getaway car and escaping with two jewelry items worth around $140,000.

It?s just as well Tom failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form. The most they?ll tolerate is ?proportionate response? - and, as these thugs had been beating up a defenceless woman and posed no threat to Tom Cruise, the Metropolitan Police would have regarded Tom's actions as highly objectionable. ?Proportionate response? from the beleaguered British property owner?s point of view, is a bit like a courtly duel where the rules are set by one side: ?Ah,? says the victim of a late-night break-in, ?I see you have brought a blunt instrument. Forgive me for unsheathing my bread knife. My mistake, old boy. Would you mind giving me a sporting chance to retrieve my cricket bat from under the bed before clubbing me to a pulp, there's a good chap??

No wonder, even as they?re being pounded senseless, many British crime victims are worrying about potential liability. A few months ago, Shirley Best, owner of the Rolander Fashion boutique whose clients include the daughter of the Princess Royal, was ironing some garments when two youths broke in. They pressed the hot iron into her side and stole her watch, leaving her badly burnt. ?I was frightened to defend myself,? said Miss Best. ?I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.?


And who can blame her? Shortly before the attack, she?d been reading about Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer whose home had been broken into and who had responded by shooting and killing the teenage burglar. He was charged with murder. In April, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment - for defending himself against a career criminal in an area where the police are far away and reluctant to have their sleep disturbed. In the British Commonwealth, the approach to policing is summed up by the motto of Her Majesty?s most glamorous constabulary: The Mounties always get their man - ie, leave it to us. But these days in the British police, when they can?t get their man, they?ll get you instead: Frankly, that?s a lot easier, as poor Mr Martin discovered.


Norfolk is a remote rural corner of England. It ought to be as peaceful and crime-free as my remote rural corner of New England. But it isn't. Old impressions die hard: Americans still think of Britain as a low-crime country. Conversely, the British think of America as a high-crime country. But neither impression is true. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60% higher than that in the United States. True, in America you?re more likely to be shot to death. On the other hand, in England you?re more likely to be strangled to death. But in both cases, the statistical likelihood of being murdered at all is remote, especially if you steer clear of the drug trade. When it comes to anything else, though - burglary, auto theft, armed robbery, violent assault, rape - the crime rate reaches deep into British society in ways most Americans would find virtually inconceivable.


I cite those celebrity assaults not because celebrities are more prone to wind up as crime victims than anyone else, but only because the measure of a civilized society is how easily you can insulate yourself from its snarling underclass. In America, if you can make it out of some of the loonier cities, it?s a piece of cake, relatively speaking. In Britain, if even a rock star or TV supremo can?t insulate himself, nobody can. In any society, criminals prey on the weak and vulnerable. It?s the peculiar genius of government policy to have ensured that in British society everyone is weak and vulnerable - from Norfolk farmers to Tom Cruise?s neighbor.


And that?s where America is headed if those million marching moms make any headway in Washington: Less guns = more crime. And more vulnerability. And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped. I like hunting, but if that were the only thing at stake with guns, I guess I could learn to live without it. But I?m opposed to gun control because I don't see why my neighbors in New Hampshire should have to live the way, say, my sister-in-law does - in a comfortable manor house in a prosperous part of rural England, lying awake at night listening to yobbo gangs drive up, park their vans, and test her doors and windows before figuring out that the little old lady down the lane?s a softer touch.


Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control ? ?sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.? And what?s the result? Even when you factor in America?s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the US, on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the US fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office?s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between UK and US property crime: In America, just over 10% of all burglaries are ?hot burglaries? - committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it?s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it?s easier to break in while you?re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second Congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain?s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 TV is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen?s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.


Now I?m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn't mean much to me. I think it?s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the US, power resides with ?we, the people? and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a North Country Yankee it?s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him - indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a free-born citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne?er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you're on the scene and Constable Plod isn?t: He?s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.


These days it?s standard to bemoan the ?dependency culture? of state welfare, but Britain?s law-and-order ?dependency culture? is even more enfeebling. What was it the police and courts resented about that Norfolk farmer? That he ?took the law into his own hands?? But in a responsible participatory democracy, the law ought to be in our hands. The problem with Britain is that the police force is now one of the most notable surviving examples of a pre-Thatcher, bloated, incompetent, unproductive, over-paid, closed-shop state monopoly. They?re about as open to constructive suggestions as the country?s Communist mineworkers? union was 20 years ago, and the control-freak tendencies of all British political parties ensure that the country?s bloated, expensive county and multi-county forces are inviolable.


The Conservatives? big mistake between 1979 and 1997 was an almost willfully obtuse failure to understand that giving citizens more personal responsibility isn?t something that extends just to their income and consumer choices; it also applies to their communities and their policing arrangements. If you have one without the other, you end up with modern Britain: a materially prosperous society in which the sense of frustration and impotence is palpable, and you're forced to live with a level of endless property crime most Americans would regard as unacceptable.


We know Bill Clinton?s latest favorite statistic - that 12 ?kids? a day die from gun violence - is bunk: Five-sixths of those 11.569 grade-school moppets are aged between 15 and 19, and many of them have had the misfortune to become involved in gangs, convenience-store hold-ups, and drug deals, which, alas, have a tendency to go awry. If more crack deals passed off peacefully, that ?child? death rate could be reduced by three-quarters. But away from those dark fringes of society, Americans live lives blessedly untouched by most forms of crime - at least when compared with supposedly more civilized countries like Britain. That?s something those million marching moms should consider, if only because in a gun-free America women - and the elderly and gays and all manner of other fashionable victim groups - will be bearing the brunt of a much higher proportion of violent crime than they do today. Ask Phil Collins or Ridley Scott or Germaine Greer.


***************************************************************

THE JOYS OF GUN-FREE BRITAIN
Mark Steyn
from The Sunday Telegraph, ?January 1st 2003


You?d think if ?gun control? was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you?ve got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.


But apparently not. Since the government?s ?total ban? five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham?s New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we?ll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world?s 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognizing the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire ? draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.


What happened at that party in Aston? I don?t mean ?what happened?? in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: ?There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident.? You can?t put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Superintendent Shaw went on: ?We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it?s almost unprecedented in Birmingham.? He didn?t quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no-one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.


I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Superintendent Shaw has ?never had to deal with anything like this? is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs.? And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who?s to say you can?t murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of 1,000 pounds for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media?s moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you?ll still have to live there.


When Dunblane occurred, all of us ? even, if they?re honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation ? understood it was a freak event: A nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it?s a glimpse of the day after tomorrow ? not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa. After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it?s your fault. We couldn?t do anything about him, so we?ll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn?t have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It?s your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven?t had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.


The gangs on Birmingham?s streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the government doesn?t, that the Blairite ?total? ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you?re doing your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it?s always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should ?walk on by? if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with start-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.


I see I haven?t yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more ?black-on-black? violence. The reason I haven?t mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What?s new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from ? wait for it ? Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the ?root causes? of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It?s easier, like Mr Blair, just to go ?total?: blame everyone, ban everything.


This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling For Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire full-length documentary investigating the ?culture? of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13% of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.


But, as I said, it?s hardly worth mentioning in relation in Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we?re all armed to the hilt and any Burger Bar Boy who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose picks-up are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn?t exist: that?s why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem; in modern Britain, all neighbourhoods are, so to speak, black neighbourhoods.


Meanwhile, America?s traditionally high and England and Wales? traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I?ll bet that in the next two years London?s murder rate overtakes it.

***********************************************************************





pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Phred]
    #2910575 - 07/21/04 12:16 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I'm glad I'm not a woman in europe. When I was visiting there 3 people tried to rob me. Two pickpockets and one mugger. Thankfully I was much bigger than any of them.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 11 days
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Barbi]
    #2910686 - 07/21/04 12:49 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Here is an alternate world to think about.

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw Georgia enacted a controversial gun law. Every head of household was mandated to own a gun.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.


You can click the link on the gun ordinace page and view the crime statistics.

What happened from 1982 on is that crime in Kennesaw went rocketing down to record low levels. Though the population has increased since, crime still is at low. The law sparked a lot of controversy back in the day, and it was fought hard by the ACLU. If you tried to take their guns away now, you would have a civil revolt on your hands. Those people love the safety and security that gun ownership has provided them.

We need more guns, and we need them in the hands of fine and decent people. The media has an intense bias against guns, and the media won't tell you about Kennesaw Georgia.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2910726 - 07/21/04 01:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I don't agree with any law mandating gun ownership, but it is a great proof of concept.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 11 days
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: z@z.com]
    #2910839 - 07/21/04 01:40 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I really should have posted the whole ordinace. You can opt out if you are a conscientious objector. I do think it is a very interesting case study.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2911263 - 07/21/04 05:22 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The Germanville Halloween Shooting (1996 Georgia, I believe)

The companion of a Japanese teen-ager shot to death by a homeowner said his friend skipped toward his killer, even though a monstrous handgun was pointed at his chest.

Webb Hay, 17, of Germanville, said his friend, Yoshi, took a bullet in the chest and fell on his back, while the gunman, Rod Peas, lowered the pistol, stepped back into the house and shut the door.

"I heard the door open. We saw a man with a gun. It was sorta weird," Hay said. "The man put both hands on the gun and held them out. He (Yoshi) was shot."

Hay told his story to the grand jury during its first day of hearing testimony in the Germanville Halloween Shooting by Rod Peas, a 31 year old butcher of a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student.

Yoshi was killed by a single bullet after he went to the wrong house looking for a Halloween party last October. Peas' attorney, C.L. Unser, said the unarmed youth was killed because Peas mistook him for a thug and Yoshi did not understand English well enough to know he was in danger.


"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peas said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

Yeah, Mr. Peas, you fucking trigger-happy red neck. It was Halloween and kids are known to come to your door. A slightly built, unarmed and unthreatening teenager "made' you do it.

Peas of course, did no time, no probation and even got his gun back. Well, he did apologize (ahhh, how tender!)

Guns for paranoiacs is what America is all about.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Phred]
    #2911291 - 07/21/04 06:00 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

It'll get worse in the UK before it gets better.

Damn UK libbies have blinders on.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Gun laws in Wash. DC. [Re: Swami]
    #2911295 - 07/21/04 06:07 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peas said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."



Thanks (possibly) to bilingual retardation.


Quote:

Yeah, Mr. Peas, you fucking trigger-happy red neck.



Prove he's a redneck.


Quote:

It was Halloween and kids are known to come to your door. A slightly built, unarmed and unthreatening teenager "made' you do it.



Crime stops on Halloween? You were there and can testify to all the events?


Quote:

Peas of course, did no time, no probation and even got his gun back.



So, things went as they should have.


Quote:

Guns for paranoiacs is what America is all about.


What a warm and touching condescending touch, with more than a hint of generalization thrown in.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Idiotic Gun Laws
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
The14thWarrior 5,554 94 10/13/05 04:12 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Gun Laws
( 1 2 all )
daimyo 1,722 23 03/14/06 02:29 PM
by Phred
* Virginia Gun laws... Mykro_Guy 417 4 10/04/04 09:15 PM
by Anonymous
* New Gun Law Gives Floridians License to Kill at their Discretion
( 1 2 all )
Ped 1,408 23 12/11/05 10:31 PM
by elaspeinreason
* Canadian Gun Law Question MagicalMystery 673 10 10/03/05 08:46 PM
by psilonaut
* I want to buy a gun
( 1 2 3 4 all )
trent 4,051 62 09/12/07 07:24 PM
by Ziggen
* A cause for concern, My essay on guns.
punkhardcore92
1,072 14 03/18/08 05:24 PM
by punkhardcore92
* 40 Reasons For Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 4,444 31 10/08/13 04:05 AM
by Therian

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
2,055 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.064 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 19 queries.