Supreme Court rules on 2nd

[sailaway21]

I suppose you thought that the Supreme Court decision was the end of the matter. Well Bunky, I've got news for you! Look who DC said still can't have his pistol! And it's not like this guy is shy about spending years in court defending his 1st Amendment rights! DC doesn't have any money in their bank account near as I can tell; how can they afford to go to court again?

WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | DC Rejects Handgun Application

[zz4gta]

What a load of crap. So my .22, .25, and .45 are outlawed. Not to mention my evil "bottom loading" shotgun and rifle. Most guns load from the bottom. I guess this is their "ban on bullets" that was discused earlier in the thread.

[sailingdog]

Sway-

If all bottom loading guns are grouped with MACHINE GUNS...they've got a really loose definition of machine gun. What freaking idiots they are.

[sailaway21]

Dog,
You have to wonder at what is the motivating impulse that makes DC and areas like DC wish to win at any cost. Forget about whether or not gun control works or not. They're surely not interested in that! Personally, I think it stems from a deep down sentiment that wishes the citizenry to be indebted to their government and the government's protection. And that's always a recipe for more government.

You're right; they are freakin' idiots. But it could be worse. Extrapolate their knowledge of guns to another field and say a thankful prayer that they're not regulating auto mechanics. (g)

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by Tortuga12

And here's the question that gets to the core of the issue: Do you think the people exist to serve the government, or the government exists to serve the people?

I think this is the wrong framing of the question. You're not going to get any straight answers. Ask, rather: "Do you think every person exists to serve society, or that society exists to serve its members?" This is a better way to tell what people really think.

[primerate84]

I have to laugh when I read the anti-gun remarks like those posted by ebs00. The liberal anti-gun lobby is quick to distort facts to suit their baseless arguments. A police officer once told me that he could care less about all the gun control laws that were passed because they only apply to law-abiding citizens, and he doesn't worry about the law-abiding citizens. His position was that the reason these guys were criminals was because they had a total disregard for the law. Do you think that if a law was passed banning all guns that the criminals would say, " uh, oh, its against the law to own a gun, so I'll use a baseball bat"?

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by primerate84

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

I'm genuinely intrigued by your analogy. Perhaps you could amplify on it and thereby explain to me why I have the same visceral reaction to the hull form of the Hunter sailing boat that I do the corpulent Ms. O'Donnell. Thanking you in advance.

[ebs001]

Yuk it up primate while your fellow Americans kill each other with guns at a rate of almost 20 times that of Canada, 30 times Great Britian and on a par with such notable countries as Zimbabwa and Costa Rico. The loonies are trying to find a solution while you're laughing.
I did like your Rosie O. analogy, though.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by ebs001

Yuk it up primate while your fellow Americans kill each other with guns at a rate of almost 20 times that of Canada, 30 times Great Britian and on a par with such notable countries as Zimbabwa and Costa Rico.

The problem with your statement, ebs001, is that, last I knew, at any rate, no credible research has ever shown a causal relationship between firearms ownership by law-abiding people and crime--violent or otherwise. (N.B.: Studies by Kellerman are not regarded as credible.)

Originally Posted by ebs001

The loonies are trying to find a solution while you're laughing.

Many people are searching and researching solutions. The thing is: Loonies (your word, not mine) are fond of sound-bite, feel good "solutions" that don't actually solve anything.

Prohibition (in the U.S.) did nothing to solve alcoholism and its social side-effects. What it did accomplish was to usher-in a whole new era of violent crime and corruption. The U.S. War On (Some) Drugs: Likewise. History is rife with such examples of failed policies that were ill-thought-out and even more poorly executed.

Originally Posted by ebs001

I did like your Rosie O. analogy, though.

How can you "like" the analogy but disagree with the point it illustrates? That makes no sense.

Jim

[wind_magic]

A better analogy would be one of those people who thinks they should outlaw short sellers in the markets to keep prices stable ... which, on the surface at least, sounds so simple. Hey, we don't like it when prices go down, and .. like, prices go down when people sell, so .. let's not let people do that.