Washington Mayor Disappointed With Gun Ruling

Let him be disappointed. The Supreme Court made the right ruling in this case, and frankly..... I believe the mayor of Washington, D.C. should be taken out and publicly FLOGGED for even bothering to bring his case to court and wasting all that money.

Christopher wrote:

Let him be disappointed. The Supreme Court made the right ruling in this case, and frankly..... I believe the mayor of Washington, D.C. should be taken out and publicly FLOGGED for even bothering to bring his case to court and wasting all that money.

Pooor F'ing ahole of a leftist politician. Too bad SORE loser and liar.

The stalinist pr*ck should be disappointed. DC exceeds most other cities in criminal behavior. Let's hope the local yeomanry arm-to-the-teeth, train and look after their own.

I wish them well.

"Pooor F'ing ahole of a leftist politician. Too bad SORE loser and liar."

"The stalinist pr*ck should be disappointed. DC exceeds most other cities in criminal behavior. Let's hope the local yeomanry arm-to-the-teeth, train and look after their own"

Standing ovation for both you guys!

The mayor of Washington is one of those politicians who like to see in the news tat another family been victimized by gang related shoot out.He need to get those gang bangers in Washington, New York & Chicago of the street.The politicians in Washington knew that they cannot control crime because it to expensive & it is not their priority.So it is easy for them to point a finger to the gun & not to the one who has the intent to commit crime.Since the US government could not stop a terrorist to posses weapon.Then what make anyone think by banning a gun will stop the gang bangers?The answer is NO.

The solution to gun violent is first education. Second I will put an under cover cop inside community who populated by gang members.Arrest all gang members & rehabilitate anyone under 18 years old (send the kids to boot camp).The rest of career gang members I will put them inside wire fence & heavy guarded camp in the middle of dessert.Let them work their differences away from civilization.But some people from Washington this idea is unorthodox. So they rather watch an innocent citizen & children caught in the middle of violent crime in their community.

Let him be disapointed,

take away his body guards at tax payer expense, the metal detectors at the doors to his offices, and any special permits he had to possess and lets see how he feels,

Feel sorry for the citizenry of D/C who for the last 30 years have bowed to any notion that anyone did not have undeniable rights of self defense.
They have lived the nightmare of the highest murder rate in this country due to the failed social experiment and unconstitutional regulation.

Thank You S/C for finally taking a stand.

Right ON RJW!

noshellswill wrote:

The stalinist pr*ck should be disappointed. DC exceeds most other cities in criminal behavior. Let's hope the local yeomanry arm-to-the-teeth, train and look after their own.
I wish them well.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.â€Â8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

Christopher wrote:

Let him be disappointed. The Supreme Court made the right ruling in this case, and frankly..... I believe the mayor of Washington, D.C. should be taken out and publicly FLOGGED for even bothering to bring his case to court and wasting all that money.

It is certainly debatable whether the Supreme Court's ruling is consistent with the founders intent or not. The Miller case in 1939 found "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia." and found that there was no individual right to keep an bear arms. The decision overturns that position. Times have changed.

What is certain is that more people will die as a result of this decision. There will be more guns in circulation, so there will be more in the hands of criminals, but some crimes will be deterred by the fear or actuality of armed citizens. There may be a few more guns deaths from crime or perhaps a few less. It will be interesting to see.

What we do know is that there will be more accidental gun deaths (disproportionately affecting children), more domestic disputes will end in shooting, and there will be more successful attempts at suicide.

I don't have an opinion on constitutionality. I read the majority and minority opinions and they are both well reasoned as one might expect from smart people. If the majority wish to affirm individual ownership that's OK with me, but I really hope that the justices reached this conclusion with full awareness of the people they are killing. Clearly they believe that their interpretation of the Second Amendment is worth a few innocent deaths. I would like them to have looked into their souls and said, specifically I believe that an individual right to own handguns (DC residents could already own long runs) is worth XXX innocent deaths.

I think it would be very interesting to hear from people on this thread how many extra deaths the DC decision is worth to them. Is it OK if deaths increasing 10 a year?, 100?,

sesostrus wrote:

<quoted text>
It is certainly debatable whether the Supreme Court's ruling is consistent with the founders intent or not. The Miller case in 1939 found "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia." and found that there was no individual right to keep an bear arms. The decision overturns that position. Times have changed.
<clip>
I think it would be very interesting to hear from people on this thread how many extra deaths the DC decision is worth to them. Is it OK if deaths increasing 10 a year?, 100?,

Let's hope 1000 gang_bangers and 1000 HOOD_lems are shot down this year by a newly armed and freedom loving DC_yeomanry. A yeomanry that chose to risk their lives in self_defense rather than be "victims".

Let's hope 2000 bangers and 2000 more HOODs are shot down next year by this thoroughly aroused DC_yeomany. Fewer citizens are killed because more are armed and trained, and many thugs become fearful ... and of-course many more thugs have been shot dead by a humiliated police force.

The year after that ...
Now, what is it you do not understand?

noshellswill wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's hope 1000 gang_bangers and 1000 HOOD_lems are shot down this year by a newly armed and freedom loving DC_yeomanry. A yeomanry that chose to risk their lives in self_defense rather than be "victims".
Let's hope 2000 bangers and 2000 more HOODs are shot down next year by this thoroughly aroused DC_yeomany. Fewer citizens are killed because more are armed and trained, and many thugs become fearful ... and of-course many more thugs have been shot dead by a humiliated police force.
The year after that ...
Now, what is it you do not understand?

Your's is an unreaslist fantasy. Get real.

Legal private handgun ownership has a small impact on gun violence committed in the course of crimes other than domestic violence (per the Department of Justice), but does increase the rate of fatal domestic violence, accidental deaths from guns (again, disproportionately children), and suicides. The gang bangers are doing a pretty good job of shooting each other with illegal weapons.

I have no real opinion on the constitutionality of guns and I could certainly understand their appeal if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood. But I believe it is important for people to understand the full consequences of their decision. The Supreme Court's decision will certainly result in the death of more innocents. If society (and you) feel that the right to bear arms is worth the price, then so be it, but it cowardly to pretend the opposite.

Whenever we make a policy decision we balance competing factors. When we set the speed limit at 65 rather than 55 we are trading lives for convenience. THATS OK. It is similarly OK say that the benefits of private handgun ownership are worth a few lives. People just shouldn't pretend that they aren't trading in lives. The hard data are there. More guns in urban areas translates to more deaths, mostly in the three categories I listed above -- accidents, domestic violence, and suicide.

sesostrus wrote:

<quoted text>
Your's is an unreaslist fantasy. Get real.
Legal private handgun ownership has a small impact on gun violence committed in the course of crimes other than domestic violence (per the Department of Justice), but does increase the rate of fatal domestic violence, accidental deaths from guns (again, disproportionately children), and suicides. The gang bangers are doing a pretty good job of shooting each other with illegal weapons.
<clip>

You wanted an OUTCOME ... as a free citizen I gave you an usefull outcome. Many violent criminals shot-down in the act by citizens determined to live without fear. The result requires technique, not fantasy.

But you don't like that result. You want passive victimhood for citizens. Why is that? Are you a simpering, guilt_ridden bleeding_heart? Rawlsian, perhaps ... Are criminals your alter_ego or emotional support? Do you enjoy being a victim incapable of defending himself?
Or are you just a political Stalinist who wills all social power to the state? It's rational that statism, but obscene to me.
Rather I'd say, a citizen dies with honor when he/she dies killing their attacker.

I would say its simple,any non felon,non politician CAN HAVE A GUN!!!!
F .U. MAYOR BALDY.

Christopher wrote:

Let him be disappointed. The Supreme Court made the right ruling in this case, and frankly..... I believe the mayor of Washington, D.C. should be taken out and publicly FLOGGED for even bothering to bring his case to court and wasting all that money.

i'D ALSO HAVE TO SAY ,,HE IS RIGHT,,,&HE CAN GO FORM HIS OWN COUNTRY JUST LIKE HE WANTS ,,ON MARS,,,OF COURSE W/O ANY CONSTITUTION ,,HE 'S GONNA BE A SLAVE THERE!!

Perhaps the citizens should consider a lawsuit for their constitutional rights beinf violated

first off the mayor of DC didnt bring the suit..it was a gun owner who was probably funded by the NRA that brought it.

Secondly isnt it funny that we always hear the right wing screaming about states' rights and getting the government out of our lives and also about courts making laws from the bench--well here all 3 of those things were thrown out the window..... the people of DC had their rights trampled on by the government who is using a court to now create a new law that overrides what DC had decided was best for itself. If a community decides it doesnt want smoking or guns or cocaine on its streets why and how can that community be overruled even by the Supreme Court?Especially since the only good excuse the Court could come up with is "Americans have the right to own guns for hunting"---DC got a big wildlife population does it?

And lastly statistics overwhelmingly prove over and over ,time and again ,that a gun in the home is MUCH more likely to be used AGAINST the homeowner by a criminal or be accidently discharged in the home causing death or injury than it is to fend off a robber.

So this court has said that our homes can be taken away and sold for commercial profit and now it is eroding the laws that communities have enacted.This Supreme Court is just one more lasting reminder we will have of of the small little man now in the White House.

sesostrus:

I can see that you are a well educated person. Yet why do you see a direct correlation between this ruling and additional deaths? Even with the handgun ban in place, handgun violence was out of control. Criminals never obeyed the ban and simply got their weapons on the black market or wherever they could. If there will be any increase in deaths, it will be of the criminals getting shot by homeowners defending themselves. For me, each of those deaths is invaluable. For every 1 criminal killed, there is a much larger number of citizens saved from either death or some other form of crime.

Further, if you look at the old militia act of 1792, it basically said that every adult male was considered to be part of the militia. In other words, if a town was attacked, every adult male was expected to defend the town as part of the militia. Here is a quick link to a wikipedia article that explains this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#United_S...

Now if a court later in the 20th century said militia is exclusive to national guard, etc and there is no individual right, I would take a look at the definition of militia in the late 1700's and give it much more creedance than the definition by a court in the 1900's in regards to the framers intent.

Regardless though, I do appreciate your well thought out post that put forward a legitimate point. I know some people see every life, even that of criminals as priceless, and abhor death in all forms. I don't. I believe in an eye for an eye. So I agree to disagree.

mr mojo risin wrote:

first off the mayor of DC didnt bring the suit..it was a gun owner who was probably funded by the NRA that brought it.
Secondly isnt it funny that we always hear the right wing screaming about states' rights and getting the government out of our lives and also about courts making laws from the bench--well here all 3 of those things were thrown out the window..... the people of DC had their rights trampled on by the government who is using a court to now create a new law that overrides what DC had decided was best for itself. If a community decides it doesnt want smoking or guns or cocaine on its streets why and how can that community be overruled even by the Supreme Court?Especially since the only good excuse the Court could come up with is "Americans have the right to own guns for hunting"---DC got a big wildlife population does it?
And lastly statistics overwhelmingly prove over and over ,time and again ,that a gun in the home is MUCH more likely to be used AGAINST the homeowner by a criminal or be accidently discharged in the home causing death or injury than it is to fend off a robber.
So this court has said that our homes can be taken away and sold for commercial profit and now it is eroding the laws that communities have enacted.This Supreme Court is just one more lasting reminder we will have of of the small little man now in the White House.

The cowards who will lay themselves down to be slaughtered or get shot in their yellow streaks while they run away by thugs and gangsters always take a cowards stance.
Those who wish to remain free will always be armed.
3 million people used a firearm last year to defend themselves with. I applaud each and every one of them.
You need to read Justice Scalia's paper. It does not say what you say it does. Please get your facts straight before making a moron out of yourself.
I did not need people who wear black robes and sit behind walnut benches to tell me what I have known since birth. That any person has the right to defend their life. The right is not granted by people. It is granted by God. I will abide with his rules as he makes no mistakes. Courts do.
Too many men and women have taken an oath to defend our Constitution and then perished doing so, that we could be free. That is the same Constitution that you are trying ruin. Not because you don't believe in it, but because you are scared of boogeymen, and are trying to "save" yourself. Become a MAN. Learn about weapons. Use them as a law abiding citizen to defend yourself.
Stop trying to be a servant and become a free man.

Edd wrote:

sesostrus:
I can see that you are a well educated person. Yet why do you....

Thanks for the intelligent conversation. Its nice to read a response free of invective, but I was amused by the fellow who suggested I was "simpering". He doesn't know me.

In fact, I believe in hard reason, and think any advocate of a policy (like liberalization of gun laws) who can't accept the downside is either intellectual dishonest or a sissy.

I appreciate that you honestly challenged my conclusion that greater gun ownership will result in more deaths. Its not my conclusion (I am not an expert in this area), but the consensus in the 3 studies I read, and seems consistent data from the CDC. A gun owner is 54 time more likely to shot himself than an intruder and five times more likely to shoot his wife.

The best source of data on gun violence is The Centers for Disease Control. In 2005, they report only 330 criminals were killed in self protection. Some unknown number of lives are also saved by deterring crime, though my impression is that many criminals are not very good at weighing consequences, particularly teens and men in the early twenties when the risk assessment centers of the brains have not matured. That said, deterrence would reduce the roughly 11,000 non-domestic homicides to some extent (2005 CDC data).

On the other side of the ledger is a likely increase in domestic violence (currently 1600 deaths per year), accidents (100 deaths per year) and suicide (17,000 deaths per year). Overall, the preponderance of expert opinion, supported by the data, is that easier access to guns, and particularly handguns, will result in more deaths.

Every day we make decisions that put a value on life. We could eat better, exercise more, drive slower, and have annual physicals, but we don’t. This is not irrational. People have always balanced risk and satisfaction. The same sorts of decisions are made in making laws. We shape our environmental laws to strike a balance between cost and health and welfare. We accept that people will still die due to air pollution (64,000 annually from particulates alone in the US) to limit the burden on industry and the drag on the economy. I worked for about a decade on environmental laws, and learned to accept this tradeoff. Good policy decisions (on guns, air pollution, health spending, speed limits, national defense and just about everything else) leave some bodies in the street. Not a nice thought, but that’s the way it is.

On the subject of more liberal access to guns, there are certainly benefits. Some people will feel safer, a few will actually use a gun in self defense or to deter a crime, others will enjoy shooting as a sport, and others will take pleasure the machinery of the gun, appreciating the precision engineering. I personally love shotguns and have two. In this case as in everything in life, there in another side, and the data show that greater access to guns will result in more innocent deaths.

I hope that I have made it clear that I am OK with this kind of tradeoff. I just hope that the decision makers and the advocates on both sides are realistic – that gun opponents understand that personal guns have value in some circumstances and provide pleasure and entertainment to many people, and that gun advocates understand that more guns does mean more deaths.