http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/6732.html


Dig into the debate over gun rights that will be argued when the Supreme Court takes up the District of Columbia’s gun ban and you will find the tale of Adrian Plesha and the burglar.

It is not a stretch to say that Plesha’s story triggered the Supreme Court case.

On February 4, 1997, Plesha found a burglar in his Capitol Hill home near Union Station. According to Plesha, he heard the burglar upstairs, went out to his backyard, saw the man climbing out a window, and told him to freeze.

In Plesha’s version, the man climbed back in. Plesha went inside to get his nine-millimeter Sig Sauer semiautomatic pistol. He confronted the burglar on his porch.

“We were face to face,” Plesha told reporters. “I told him to freeze, and he reached for the gun. I fired in self-defense.”

Three times.

Gregory Nathaniel Jones told a different story. He admitted burglarizing Plesha’s rowhouse. When he heard Plesha downstairs, Jones tried to climb out the back window but saw Plesha aiming a pistol at him from the ground. He climbed back in and dropped out a front window and ran to the sidewalk.

As he fled, Jones said, Plesha shot him three times in the back. He ran another block and collapsed. He spent almost a month in the hospital.

Police investigators checked Jones’s jacket and found he was shot in the back. Adrian Plesha was arrested for carrying a pistol, which was illegal in the District. He pleaded guilty. Plesha got 18 months’ probation and 120 hours of community service. Jones got probation.

Dick Anthony Heller read about Adrian Plesha and, as Heller puts it, “went ballistic.” Plesha’s arrest on the gun charge offended Heller’s sense of justice and freedom—and, he believes, violated Plesha’s right to bear arms.

Heller, who lived on the other side of Capitol Hill, attempted to set up a defense fund for Plesha. He asked the National Rifle Association to join him in trying to overturn DC’s gun ban. The NRA declined. Heller then began looking for allies to overturn the law. In 2002 Heller helped DC native Robert Levy and his team of lawyers build a case against the DC gun ban.

To Heller, the five other DC residents who joined the case, Vice President Dick Cheney, 55 senators, 250 representatives, 31 states, and the NRA, Plesha should have been able to have a pistol because the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.

The District of Columbia, a host of medical and children’s groups, five states, and the solicitor general of the United States say that states have the right to regulate certain guns and decide who can carry them and where. They suggest that arming DC residents might increase gun violence.

Plesha’s shooting of Jones is what the DC Council was trying to stop in 1976 when it passed a stringent gun law. Responding to polls that showed three out of four residents favored a handgun ban, DC’s first elected council voted 12–1 to make it illegal for all but police officers to own handguns.

In those days, the climate in the District and on Capitol Hill trended toward controlling access to and ownership of guns. Congress had passed the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which barred felons from owning guns. DC already had been nicknamed Dodge City because of its high crime rate.

Liberal business and political titans like John Hechinger and Walter Fauntroy lobbied for a near-total gun ban. A council composed of Marion Barry, Polly Shackleton, John Wilson, and other civil-rights veterans agreed. But they had no illusions.

“What we are doing today will not take one gun out of the hands of one criminal,” Barry said.

How right he was. Despite the fact that DC is home to 40 law-enforcement agencies, the illegal gun economy operates like a daily bazaar. Criminals import guns primarily from Maryland and Virginia.

People who work in downtown DC or live west of Rock Creek Park exist in a world mostly without guns. But residents of tough neighborhoods on the city’s east side hear gunshots as often as the chirping of birds. All but a few gun murders last year took place east of Rock Creek Park.

In 2006, police recovered 2,600 guns. Since 2000, more than 1,200 people have been killed with guns; 70 were children.

It is quite possible that on the morning of March 18, when lawyers present their arguments to the justices of the Supreme Court, someone will be gunned down within ten blocks.

Bills to overturn DC’s gun ban have been introduced in Congress over the years, but none was successful. Then in 2002, Robert Levy, a District native, joined lawyers connected with the libertarian Cato Institute to launch a legal attack on the 1976 law.

Last March the US Court of Appeals ruled 2–1 for Levy and his team. The court agreed that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to have handguns in their homes. It also struck down DC’s requirement that long guns had to be disassembled or fixed with trigger locks.

“We’re not objecting to carry laws outside the home,” Levy says.

Mayor Adrian Fenty directed city lawyers to apply for Supreme Court review. The high court agreed November 20 to review the case, which sets up the first major review of the Second Amendment in 70 years. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on March 18.

SOURCE

--The U.S. Supreme Court heard the arguments today.  So far, it's looking like they'll affirm the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling, 5-4 with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy the five votes.  Thoughts?  Does the second amendment forbid Washington D.C. from banning all handguns and requiring shotguns and rifles be disassembled or have trigger locks on them?

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/18/court-leans-toward-individual-right-to-bear-arms.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s07-usju.html

Yes.  Repeal the Second Amendment.

Yes.  Repeal the Second Amendment.


Surely you are not serious?

I've said it before, in different words, but I find it curious that many Democrats are anti-gun. IMO, this is the single biggest reason why "switch-hit", "on the fence" and Independant voters go Republican. I, myself, have voted based solely on the issue of gun control before.

It's odd that the story of David Olofson has not been posted here. In a nutshell, he lent an AR-15 (a very popular semi-automatic and perfectly legal to own rifle) to a friend, and the gun "doubled", meaning it fired two rounds for a single trigger pull. By Federal law, that makes it a machine gun. Since he transferred it without a license, he has been convicted of transferring a machine gun without a license.

Story here.

Well worn semi-autos can "double", and do it fairly often. Revolvers and single shot weapons are incapable of this type malfunction.

I'm not of the Wild West mindset, but I think law abiding citizens should be able to own guns. If the criminals have them (and they do), then you should be able to have them. Police response times are at least 4 minutes: pretend for a second someone has broken into your home, and you call the police.

Now, count down from 240, really slowly. It's an eternity, a scary one at that, if you don't have a way of defending yourself. . .

Pistols and rifles are bad defense weapons IMO: shotguns are *much* better. Why? Firing a pistol or rifle under duress, perhaps in the dark, is very sketchy.  The sound of a slide (or "pump")  action shotgun chambering a shell is unmistakeable, and has the bonus of being LOUD (and the added bonus that keeping a round in the chamber is unneccesary, improving safety). Add in a laser sight or flashlight, and the average home intruder (even an armed one) is going to s*** his pants before high-tailing it out of your home.

Shotguns are also easier to aim than pistols or rifles, and shot has a lesser chance than pistol or rifle ammo of penetrating a wall and causing unintentional damages.

For those against guns, there is another pro-active alternative: fire extinguishers. Get you a 2 or 5 lb dry chemical extinguisher (10-30$) and keep it by your bed. In the event of a fire, you have more options. In the event you need to use it in self defense, discharging it in someone's eyes is a recipe for temporary blindness and shortness of breath. When the heavy steel cyclinder is empty, turn it upside down and beat your would-be assailant with it.

Ant

Great post, Red.  I totally agree.  I seriously hope the Court rules in favor of this man.

It's pretty telling that the murder capital of America doesn't allow citizens to legally have handguns.

Surely you are not serious?

I've said it before, in different words, but I find it curious that many Democrats are anti-gun. IMO, this is the single biggest reason why "switch-hit", "on the fence" and Independant voters go Republican. I, myself, have voted based solely on the issue of gun control before.

It's odd that the story of David Olofson has not been posted here. In a nutshell, he lent an AR-15 (a very popular semi-automatic and perfectly legal to own rifle) to a friend, and the gun "doubled", meaning it fired two rounds for a single trigger pull. By Federal law, that makes it a machine gun. Since he transferred it without a license, he has been convicted of transferring a machine gun without a license.

Story here.

Well worn semi-autos can "double", and do it fairly often. Revolvers and single shot weapons are incapable of this type malfunction.

I'm not of the Wild West mindset, but I think law abiding citizens should be able to own guns. If the criminals have them (and they do), then you should be able to have them. Police response times are at least 4 minutes: pretend for a second someone has broken into your home, and you call the police.

Now, count down from 240, really slowly. It's an eternity, a scary one at that, if you don't have a way of defending yourself. . .

Pistols and rifles are bad defense weapons IMO: shotguns are *much* better. Why? Firing a pistol or rifle under duress, perhaps in the dark, is very sketchy.  The sound of a slide (or "pump")  action shotgun chambering a shell is unmistakeable, and has the bonus of being LOUD (and the added bonus that keeping a round in the chamber is unneccesary, improving safety). Add in a laser sight or flashlight, and the average home intruder (even an armed one) is going to s*** his pants before high-tailing it out of your home.

Shotguns are also easier to aim than pistols or rifles, and shot has a lesser chance than pistol or rifle ammo of penetrating a wall and causing unintentional damages.

For those against guns, there is another pro-active alternative: fire extinguishers. Get you a 2 or 5 lb dry chemical extinguisher (10-30$) and keep it by your bed. In the event of a fire, you have more options. In the event you need to use it in self defense, discharging it in someone's eyes is a recipe for temporary blindness and shortness of breath. When the heavy steel cyclinder is empty, turn it upside down and beat your would-be assailant with it.

Ant


I'd have to agree as well. Handguns are illegal in Chicago, yet that hasn't stopped s**t.

Right now, I wouldn't have a gun in the house because of Jason's age and curiousity, but that doesn't mean I won't change my mind later, especially if the crime keeps getting worse around here.

as someone who lives in washington d.c. i really wish the bumpkins would mind their own business. 2nd amendment or not, this place is gonna be a hellhole if they rescind the gun ban here.

i dont understand the right. they think legal condoms encourage irresponsible sex, legal drugs encourage irresponsible drug use, but legal handguns don't encourage irresponsible handgun use? make some fudgeing sense people!

i'm sorry but this pisses me off. having some hard-right-wing country bumpkins trying to work their stupid agenda in MY city, jeopardizing my friends -- i've SO had my fill of this sheesh.

Thanks, MacPhisto and Jess.


as someone who lives in washington d.c. i really wish the bumpkins would mind their own business. 2nd amendment or not, this place is gonna be a hellhole if they rescind the gun ban here.


Why would it be more of a hellhole than it is if the gun ban is rescinded?


i dont understand the right. they think legal condoms encourage irresponsible sex, legal drugs encourage irresponsible drug use, but legal handguns don't encourage irresponsible handgun use? make some fudging sense people!


Good point. In my opinion, the right is wrong on the sex and drugs. Since handguns are illegal in DC and are still there, used in crimes, at least this statement is true: Illegal handguns encourage irresponsible handgun use. The reverse may not be true, but gun control has dismally failed in DC.


i'm sorry but this pisses me off. having some hard-right-wing country bumpkins trying to work their stupid agenda in MY city, jeopardizing my friends -- i've SO had my fill of this sheesh.


Wha??? I'm kinda shocked by your thoughts on this: criminals already have all the guns they want, yet it's a sudden and serious issue that evokes strong emotions if law abiding citizens can have them as well? I'm sorry, but I've never understood the left on this issue.

If legalized guns is not the answer to the problems in DC, then what is?

Ant

Thanks, MacPhisto and Jess.

Why would it be more of a hellhole than it is if the gun ban is rescinded?um, because more people would have guns? and every drunken sot would know where to get one? i personally would have no idea where to go to procure an illegal handgun but if someone hacked me off and i got s**tfaced and decided to go shoot his mother, the more things standing in my way of doing so, the better.

Good point. In my opinion, the right is wrong on the sex and drugs. Since handguns are illegal in DC and are still there, used in crimes, at least this statement is true: Illegal handguns encourage irresponsible handgun use. The reverse may not be true, but gun control has dismally failed in DC. i actually think there's a difference between condoms and marijuana -- condoms are useful for public health, marijuana is fun, mostly harmless and has numerous medical applications. handguns kill people. period. that's their sole use.

Wha??? I'm kinda shocked by your thoughts on this: criminals already have all the guns they want, yet it's a sudden and serious issue that evokes strong emotions if law abiding citizens can have them as well? I'm sorry, but I've never understood the left on this issue. saying "criminals have all the guns they want" is a gross generalization. career gangbangers and drug dealers do, yes, but i havent seen a guy like that in years. they mostly are at war with one another, live in particular neighborhoods and come at each other with illegal automatic weapons, as far as i understand it. and if they wanna kill you they'll get the jump on you anyway. they live violence on the street and are gonna be better at killing and maiming than you or me or any other mollycoddled message board jockey, no matter what kind of gun you have. i'm not good at killing, because i'm not interested in putting in the time and spiritual deadening it requires to learn how to be good at killing. therefore i choose not to go around armed and just have to put my trust that we live in a basically civilized and peaceful society. right now that's basically true. if every other person around me is suddenly armed with a highly lethal weapon, it will be less so.

what i'm worried about are not the professional criminals, who will probably get the better of me anyway since i'm not a trained suvivalist :D but the drunk drivers who keep a revolver in the car for "protection" and then get pissed off at someone who cuts em off and so decide to blow out their kneecaps. or the jilted lover who acts sane in a gun shop long enough to get a pistol to blow away his girlfriend and some friend of hers who it turns out she's not even sleeping with anyway. or a fired employee who decides to get back at all the people in the office who didnt do right by him. or the paranoid schizophrenic who is content with rocking and babbling to himself until he suddenly has an epiphany and realizes that he, too, can act straight long enough to pick himself up a gun and blow away the reptilians in human skin who have cunningly made themselves up to look like a second grade class on a field trip. or a cowardly sex-obsessed would-be rapist who feels too afraid to confront the woman he's obsessed with and wants to violently rape, until he gets a handgun and suddenly feels larger than life, like he can do anything?

i mean, dude, just look at the news. you cant pretend im being histrionic or that these things aren't happening. these shooting sprees that are going on every other day, you think these are career criminals who "have all the guns they want anyway"? no, these weren't criminals until they got guns. the guns made them feel emboldened to be criminals.

If legalized guns is not the answer to the problems in DC, then what is?the answer is to do something about poverty besides ignore it.

i mean, look, i understand that a lot of people feel strongly about gun and weapon ownership. that's fine, feel free to legalize RPGs and IEDs in kentucky. but washington has enough problems without a right wing that doesn't know or care anything about this city coming in and changing our laws to forward a flagrantly political agenda. those guys dont care a rat's ass for d.c., whenever we try to enact statheood legislation here it's always some fudging senator from alabama or somewhere trying to overturn it. but then suddenly they're all uptight to see people in the district get their rights? it's silly on its face. what happened to states' (or in this case, localities', since the right wing wont let DC become a state) rights?

fair disclosure, i actually live in northern virginia. it's a conservative state with concealed carry and very lenient gun ownership laws. but it's also very affluent and not highly concentrated population wise, and the district has to contend with high rates of poverty and overcrowding. tossing a bunch of legal handguns into an environment like that is likely to make it extremely volatile, but people who are pushing for this arent thinking outside their own rural mindset.

The increase in random shootings lately is very disturbing. 

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in keeping guns away from stupid mean people :(

the answer is to do something about poverty besides ignore it.

fair disclosure, i actually live in northern virginia. it's a conservative state with concealed carry and very lenient gun ownership laws. but it's also very affluent and not highly concentrated population wise, and the district has to contend with high rates of poverty and overcrowding. tossing a bunch of legal handguns into an environment like that is likely to make it extremely volatile, but people who are pushing for this arent thinking outside their own rural mindset.


Now we're getting somewhere. I would wholeheartedly agree that people need decent housing, education, food, jobs and healthcare before they need guns. Improving on those five things would do more to cut down on crime than any gun laws (pro or con) will ever do.

If DC is in fact the uniquely dynamic city you paint it to be, then I would agree that allowing guns there at this time is not a wise thing to do.

I have to pause for a moment here: I've been so used to being labeled as "Liberal" and "Demo(n)crat" over the years that it's refreshingly odd to get lumped in with the Right. I admit many of my views are left leaning, except for the issue of gun control where I'm fairly far into 'righty' territory. I share almost no other views with the party though...

Anyway, back to your post:


um, because more people would have guns? and every drunken sot would know where to get one? i personally would have no idea where to go to procure an illegal handgun but if someone hacked me off and i got s**tfaced and decided to go shoot his mother, the more things standing in my way of doing so, the better.


More guns doesn't equate to more crime. Legal access to them won't mean everyone in DC is going to run out and buy a 50 cal Desert Eagle either...


i actually think there's a difference between condoms and marijuana -- condoms are useful for public health, marijuana is fun, mostly harmless and has numerous medical applications. handguns kill people. period. that's their sole use.


Rather than trot out the "Handguns don't kill people, husbands who come home early do" reply, I'll answer with something more sincere. Handguns do kill people. It's not their sole use, but even if it were, I would have no problem dropping someone who breaks into my home while I'm there. People who do extraordinarily idiotic and violent things (like home invasions), well, I have no sympathy for them. If someone breaks into my home with at least the idea of ripping off my sh*t while I'm here, very bad things await that person. I like the police in this county, but I wouldn't trust them to save my ass in a situation like I described.

Edited to add: I'd like to note here I've fired several thousand rounds from handguns, and not one ever wound up inside another human being. I've also never had to point a gun at another person, and I'm thankful for both.


what i'm worried about are the drunk drivers who keep a revolver in the car for "protection" and then get pissed off at someone who cuts em off and so decides to shoot their kneecaps. or the jilted lover who acts sane in a gun shop long enough to get a pistol to blow away his girlfriend and some friend of hers who it turns out she's not even sleeping with anyway. or a fired employee who decides to get back at all the people in the office who didnt do right by him. or the paranoid schizophrenic who is content with rocking and babbling to himself until he suddenly has an epiphone and realizes that he, too, can act straight long enough to pick himself up a gun and blow away the reptilians in human skin who have cunningly made themselves up to look like a second grade class on a field trip. or a cowardly sex-obsessed would-be rapist who feels too afraid to confront the woman he's obsessed with and wants to violently rape, until he gets a handgun and suddenly feels larger than life, like he can do anything?


These situations are not unique to DC. In a country with 300 million people, there is always going to be a nutcase here or there who snaps. Not all of them do it with guns. Remember the guy who stole a tank? Or the Killdozer (okay, he had guns on it, but the only one he fired was the one into his own head).


i mean, dude, just look at the news. you cant pretend im being histrionic or that these things aren't happening. these shooting sprees that are going on every other day, you think these are career criminals who "have all the guns they want anyway"? no, these weren't criminals until they got guns. the guns made them feel emboldened to be criminals.


I do see the news. The shooting sprees are past the point of being ridiculous - no one wants to see that crap, especially those who own guns responsibly.

Something I almost never see on the news is when guns are used by private citizens to stop crime, even though these events FAR outweigh by numbers the shooting sprees.


i mean, look, i understand that a lot of people feel strongly about gun and weapon ownership. that's fine, feel free to legalize RPGs and IEDs in kentucky. but washington has enough problems without a right wing that doesn't know or care anything about this city coming in and changing our laws to forward a flagrantly political agenda. those guys dont care a rat's ass for d.c., whenever we try to enact statheood legislation here it's always some fudging senator from alabama or somewhere trying to overturn it. but then suddenly they're all uptight to see people in the district get their rights? it's silly on its face. what happened to states' (or in this case, localities', since the right wing wont let DC become a state) rights?


Well, they do have the machine gun shoots at Knob Creek every year...

DC does have some problems that I wasn't fully aware of: a sincere thank you for bringing up some of them here. While DC may be unique in its situation, the thing that gets gun owners in general is the reverse of the same thing that upset you: the rest of the country is not DC, and we don't want the politicians pushing on us their model of gun control. I now somewhat understand your frustration in your post above.

Let me part with this question: if the social problems of DC were fixed and it was at least on par with any other city its size, would you then consider residents being allowed to own guns? I'm not talking about RPGs, Streetsweepers or fully automatic AK-47s or even concealed carry, just the ability to own a gun.

Ant

The increase in random shootings lately is very disturbing. 

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in keeping guns away from stupid mean people :(

Like Charlton Heston?
:D

Do I really think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed?  It would take the fun out of it if I told you!

Yes.  Repeal the Second Amendment.


Huh?  I keep telling y'all, you gotta go for the low-hanging fruit.  If you wanna finish the job, the Third is the one you gotta get rid of.  The Third is fat and lazy, and nobody's picked on it in decades.  Ripe for the picking.  Going after the First only makes it use naughty words, the Second gets you shot at, and it's taken 20 years, 4-5 rulings a year, and the Fourth still ain't dead yet.  The Third is the one that's been whistling past the proverbial graveyard, and is overdue for some comeuppance!

As for the shoot, there's reasonable doubt.  In the absence of a trial, I'd suggest that if the story's as described by the shooter, it was a clean shoot.  If the story's as described the burglar, it was not a good shoot, and the shooter should have been charged with (at a minimum) assault with a deadly weapon.  The holes in the back of the jacket are circumstancial evidence for the burglar, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- he could have been turning during the 100-200 milliseconds between the shooter's brain deciding to fire and the shooter's finger actually pulling the trigger.  A tenth of a second is a long time in a gunfight.

What makes this case interesting from a constitutional law point of view is that the District of Columbia isn't a state.  It's therefore not immediately clear whether or not "the powers delegated to the States" actually apply to D.C.  A ruling that the Constitution applies more strongly in Washington, DC than it does in any of the fifty States that comprise Unistat would be a level of irony that won't be matched for centuries.

from where i'm sitting, the fourth is about dead. the fifth died way back in the 80s when they started drug testing you before you could get a job. they're after the first ("be careful what you say!") but somehow that one's still going pretty strong, americans seem not to mind if cops go through their s**t, detain "other" people indefinitely, or force them to allow their own bodies to incriminate themselves, but take away their right to bitch or go on shooting sprees, suddenly americans speak out.

i think the second amendment is way overrated. if the folks who were sticking up for it seemed to care a rat's ass for the defunct right against unlawful search and seizure and the right not to incriminate yourself, i might find their argument more convincing. as it is i dont really care about the right to bear arms -- it's not like it keeps you any safer from the government -- bt i defintiely dont think gun laws should be further liberalized. this country's violent and oppressive enough as it is.

Huh?  I keep telling y'all, you gotta go for the low-hanging fruit.  If you wanna finish the job, the Third is the one you gotta get rid of.  The Third is fat and lazy, and nobody's picked on it in decades.  Ripe for the picking.  Going after the First only makes it use naughty words, the Second gets you shot at, and it's taken 20 years, 4-5 rulings a year, and the Fourth still ain't dead yet.  The Third is the one that's been whistling past the proverbial graveyard, and is overdue for some comeuppance!

As for the shoot, there's reasonable doubt.  In the absence of a trial, I'd suggest that if the story's as described by the shooter, it was a clean shoot.  If the story's as described the burglar, it was not a good shoot, and the shooter should have been charged with (at a minimum) assault with a deadly weapon.  The holes in the back of the jacket are circumstancial evidence for the burglar, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- he could have been turning during the 100-200 milliseconds between the shooter's brain deciding to fire and the shooter's finger actually pulling the trigger.  A tenth of a second is a long time in a gunfight.

What makes this case interesting from a constitutional law point of view is that the District of Columbia isn't a state.  It's therefore not immediately clear whether or not "the powers delegated to the States" actually apply to D.C.  A ruling that the Constitution applies more strongly in Washington, DC than it does in any of the fifty States that comprise Unistat would be a level of irony that won't be matched for centuries.

If we start letting the army quarter soldiers in private domiciles the Second Amendment ain't gonna mean much anyway!
:o

as someone who lives in washington d.c. i really wish the bumpkins would mind their own business. 2nd amendment or not, this place is gonna be a hellhole if they rescind the gun ban here.

i dont understand the right. they think legal condoms encourage irresponsible sex, legal drugs encourage irresponsible drug use, but legal handguns don't encourage irresponsible handgun use? make some fudging sense people!

i'm sorry but this pisses me off. having some hard-right-wing country bumpkins trying to work their stupid agenda in MY city, jeopardizing my friends -- i've SO had my fill of this sheesh.


Um...  it isn't a hellhole already?  Could've fooled me...  I have a friend who works there, and there's a good reason he only stays on the good side of town.

More guns = more ability to protect yourself.

Um...  it isn't a hellhole already?  Could've fooled me...  I have a friend who works there, and there's a good reason he only stays on the good side of town.

More guns = more ability to protect yourself.
yeah, i just had this conversation, sorry. see above.

from where i'm sitting, the fourth is about dead. the fifth died way back in the 80s when they started drug testing you before you could get a job. they're after the first ("be careful what you say!") but somehow that one's still going pretty strong, americans seem not to mind if cops go through their s**t, detain "other" people indefinitely, or force them to allow their own bodies to incriminate themselves, but take away their right to bitch or go on shooting sprees, suddenly americans speak out.

i think the second amendment is way overrated. if the folks who were sticking up for it seemed to care a rat's ass for the defunct right against unlawful search and seizure and the right not to incriminate yourself, i might find their argument more convincing. as it is i dont really care about the right to bear arms -- it's not like it keeps you any safer from the government -- bt i defintiely dont think gun laws should be further liberalized. this country's violent and oppressive enough as it is.


You're overlooking the advantages of being armed about as much as the Right overlooks the advantages of universal healthcare and easy access to contraception.

Maybe it's just my Libertarian side coming through, but I prefer to give people more options.  I can relate with you on the weakening of various rights we have, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the Patriot Act.  As for guns, you can be sure I'd want to own a gun if I lived in the country's most murderous city.

Gun control has little effect on criminals -- it mostly just keeps law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

You're overlooking the advantages of being armed about as much as the Right overlooks the advantages of universal healthcare and easy access to contraception.

Maybe it's just my Libertarian side coming through, but I prefer to give people more options.  I can relate with you on the weakening of various rights we have, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the Patriot Act.  As for guns, you can be sure I'd want to own a gun if I lived in the country's most murderous city.

Gun control has little effect on criminals -- it mostly just keeps law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
no, we really did talk about all this already. red ant already made these points. exactly these identical points.

  As for guns, you can be sure I'd want to own a gun if I lived in the country's most murderous city.


Funny story from my parents' generation.  Dad was on the high school rifle team.  (First off, those last four words oughta tell you how long ago it was...)

Anyways, they're in the car, and it breaks down on the way to a match a couple of cities away.  They make it to an offramp that leads into the wrong side of town.  While they're still figuring out who's going to make the walk to find a pay phone, the cops show up.  Picture a veritable Buford T. Justice-lookin' guy walkin' up to a car full of clean-cut 50s/60s kids.  Conversation went something like this:

Cop: "You know you're in the wrong side of town."
Coach: "Yessir, car broke down.  We were about to try and find a pay phone or a gas station and get some help."
Cop: "What's that in the back there?  (eyeing the rifle cases)  You got any firearms?"
Coach: "Yessir.  (rhyming off the safety drill)  Hard cases, locked, with bolts removed and stored in separate case with separate lock.  Ammo stored in third case by rear seat passenger, separate lock.  I've got keys for all three cases, passengers don't..."
Cop: "What for?  Them guns ain't gonna help you all locked up like that!  None of ya are leavin' this car and walkin' anywhere, I'll call dispatch, they'll call for your tow and we can get y'all outa here safe."

The cop didn't leave until the tow truck had arrived and was hauling the team on its way outa Dodge.

Like I said, a story from my parents' generation.

no, we really did talk about all this already. red ant already made these points. exactly these identical points.


I read your post.  You have a highly unrealistic view on this issue.

I read your post.  You have a highly unrealistic view on this issue.

Well, if he's gonna play on stereotypes, he shouldn't say "Buford T. Justice" at the outset.  Then all I could think of was Jackie Gleason!
:D

Um...  it isn't a hellhole already?  Could've fooled me...   I have a friend who works there, and there's a good reason he only stays on the good side of town.

More guns = more ability to protect yourself.
ok. i didn't read this before but then i read it again and it caught me that you called the city that i've lived in for 20 years a "hellhole," like it was nothing. and the reason you did it was because you want there to be more guns here, even though i'm guessing you will never live here.

someone who doesn't live here and says, all, blase, "isn't it a hellhole already?"  like it's nothing. sorry, that pisses me the fudge off. where do YOU live, man? do you want me to start on your city? i mean, cmon man. let's play by the rules, you know? dont call my city a hellhole. make a rational argument instead. i mean seriously, if youre going to invite a bunch of handguns into MY city that are going to kill a bunch of people I know, please justify it. move here and then talk.

red ant stepped up and was reasonable. it's about state rights. if someone wants a bunch of weapons where they live, i dont care. dont force more weapons here. we dont want them. ok?

Well, if he's gonna play on stereotypes, he shouldn't say "Buford T. Justice" at the outset.  Then all I could think of was Jackie Gleason!
:D


Naw, that was me doing some translation.  Neither Buford nor Boss Hogg had been invented at the time the event took place.  Hell, I hadn't even been invented!

this subject makes me quite irritable.

this subject makes me quite irritable.

Are you exercising YOUR 2nd Amendment rights?
:o

ok. i didn't read this before but then i read it again and it caught me that you called the city that i've lived in for 20 years a "hellhole," like it was nothing. and the reason you did it was because you want there to be more guns here, even though i'm guessing you will never live here.

someone who doesn't live here and says, all, blase, "isn't it a hellhole already?"  like it's nothing. sorry, that pisses me the fudge off. where do YOU live, man? do you want me to start on your city? i mean, cmon man. let's play by the rules, you know? dont call my city a hellhole. make a rational argument instead. i mean seriously, if youre going to invite a bunch of handguns into MY city that are going to kill a bunch of people I know, please justify it. move here and then talk.

red ant stepped up and was reasonable. it's about state rights. if someone wants a bunch of weapons where they live, i dont care. dont force more weapons here. we dont want them. ok?


I live in Greensboro...  We're growing, but yeah, we're Hicksville compared to D.C.  We do have a lot less crime and murder though.

The court case is there to show that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional.  I believe in states' rights way more than most people, but I also believe in following the Constitution.  Your city simply doesn't have the right to ban handguns from the entirety of the city.  You're going to need a constitutional amendment to fix that -- or you soon will, because I'm pretty sure this man is going to win.

I live in Greensboro...  We're growing, but yeah, we're Hicksville compared to D.C.  We do have a lot less crime and murder though.

The court case is there to show that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional.  I believe in states' rights way more than most people, but I also believe in following the Constitution.  Your city simply doesn't have the right to ban handguns from the entirety of the city.  You're going to need a constitutional amendment to fix that -- or you soon will, because I'm pretty sure this man is going to win.



:-\\

There actually is a Hicksville in New York.  Named after one Valentine Hicks, which would be a good name for a band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hicksville,_New_York