They did it...DC AW ban

[gamer_jim]

One of my new favorite sayings when I get in discussions with people about guns, so-called "assault weapons," and whether or not they should be banned, goes something like this:

Them: "Why would you even need an assault weapon?"
Me: "It has nothing to do with 'needing' anything - it's a freedom thing. You wouldn't understand."

I got into it with a liberal a few weeks ago.

kool-aid-drinking-liberal: People in urban areas shouldn't have semi-automatic assault rifles. (her exact words)

me: why should someone in a city have less a means to defend themselves than someone in the country?

liberal: I don't think they are defending themselves with those types of guns.


I didn't have time to go into it at the time but what are some of the other reasonable response to the liberal and still maintain friendship?

What I could think about now is Katrina and LA riots. Also, the whole definition of what a "semi-automatic" rifle is and how it's not different than a hunting rifle.

I think what the liberal was saying was that she honestly believed that urban people really don't need those types of guns and that they posed a threat to her since she also lived in a city. Which brings up another interesting point, if she had the ability (and everyone else) to legally carry concealed then this would be a moot point.

So what would be the quickest and best way to reason with this type of liberal? (without insulting them)

 

[BenL]

My San Fran mother-in-law: "I think all ammunition should have a high tax on it".

Me:"Some people think supposebly is a word."

It took her 15 minutes of head-scratching to get it.

 

[trickg]

So what would be the quickest and best way to reason with this type of liberal? (without insulting them)

'Reason' has nothing to do with it - that type of liberal isn't really capable of common sense or reason, so no matter how valid and logical your reasoning might be, theirs is a stance formed out of ignorance, fear and emotion, and they'll close their minds to it.

 

[novus collectus]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12167

I wonder what will happen to the ban?

Wow, I just remembered something and realized, the House last year passed by a large margin the bill to end the DC gun laws altogether, didn't it? Maybe there is still a majority and maybe they will vote for this as well.
Damn, this seems more likely now.

 

[novus collectus]

Thursday, Sept 18, 2008

The District of Columbia can’t limit the guns its residents buy and own, including semiautomatic weapons, the House voted Wednesday.

Legislation pushed by Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, was adopted 266-152 with 85 Democrats joining 181 Republicans in voting “yes.”

The bill, which the Senate is not likely to act on this year, would repeal the D.C.’s semiautomatic handgun ban and overturn a city law requiring that firearms kept in the home be locked and inoperable. It would allow residents to buy guns from licensed dealers in Maryland and Virginia and repeal some registration requirements.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/house-votes-to-end-dc-gun-ban.html

So, if the DC House representation voting bill gets to the House with the amendment the Senate passed, then there seems to be nothing to stop the end to DC gun registration and bans because it will likely have enough democrat votes in the House to support the ammendment.
In order for Eleanor Holmes Norton to be able to get her vote to count, she has to make a deal with the devil and end gun registration in DC.

 

[Jimbob2.0]

It is ridiculous what DC will do. I believe they deserve a seat in the senate, all US citizens do but they shouldnt get one if they flagrantly defy the second ammendment and keep fighting legitimate rulings by the surpreme court.

 

[K-Romulus]

Update: 15 Modern Firearms registered in DC

My new term is "modern firearms." I kicked around the idea of using the term "progressive firearms," but think "modern" evokes the right concept.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ts-15-semiautomatics-in-dc-for-3-years/print/

Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Loophole lets 15 semiautomatics in D.C. for 3 years
Gary Emerling (Contact)

For the next three years, as many as 15 D.C. residents will enjoy a right denied their neighbors - the right to own recently banned semiautomatic weapons.

A discrepancy between D.C. laws approved last year enabled the residents to register semiautomatic firearms now listed as illegal in the nation's capital. D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said roughly 15 weapons registered in the city "sit in this zone of uncertainty."

The city's statutes now state residents must register their guns every three years.

Mr. Nickles said those who have the semiautomatics will be prohibited from renewing their registrations, meaning the weapons would no longer be legal in the District. (...)

George Lyon - an initial plaintiff on the city's gun-ban case decided by the high court - said he registered a semiautomatic rifle in late October.

"My understanding is under the new legislation, they would not register that weapon," he said.

D.C. officials still must decide when they will notify residents of that decision, Mr. Nickles said.

"The question is when we tell them that and whether we decide to do something before the end of the three years," he said. "But you know, we have to be fair about this." (...)

Gillian St. Lawrence, another initial plaintiff in the gun-ban case, said she purchased an AR-15 rifle in December, days before the latest law's passage.

Miss St. Lawrence said she intends to use the gun largely as "a hobby," but was told she will have to move the weapon out of the city when it's time to renew her registration.

"They said that I'm fine for now, but I won't be able to re-register it in three years," she said. "I don't know what's going to happen at that point, or if I'm going to have to go store it in my sister's house."

The owner of Atlantic Guns is quoted in the story as saying at least ten others bought Modern Firearms, but couldn't register them in time.

And

St. Lawrence is hot.

 

[Numidian]

Them: "Why would you even need an assault weapon?"
Me: "It has nothing to do with 'needing' anything - it's a freedom thing. You wouldn't understand."

I have a girl from my class who's from NY and she's very liberal. I was talking about a new gun I'd just got and she started asking me how many guns I actually had and why I had them.

I explained to her that the primary reason for the weapons I own, is an extreme distrust of government and everything it stands for. And the secondary reason is they're really fun to shoot

Once I get a decent rifle down here, I'm taking her and her girlfriend shooting

 

[Bootknife]

I never knew a liberal to allow the truth to get in their way as they make their hair brained arguments to take away your rights!Look what is happening to our Country today!

 

[novus collectus]

I never knew a liberal to allow the truth to get in their way as they make their hair brained arguments to take away your rights!Look what is happening to our Country today!

Just so you know, I am a liberal.

 

[trickg]

Just so you know, I am a liberal.

But as a gun owner, you have big conservative tendencies running through your bloodstream...which is red by the way.

 

[novus collectus]

But as a gun owner, you have big conservative tendencies running through your bloodstream...which is red by the way.

I defend the RKBA from a liberal standpoint.

 

[trickg]

I defend the RKBA from a liberal standpoint.

I'm going to remember and use that!

It does bring up a great point though - why is it that when the amendments in the bill of rights are considered that most of the liberals want to interpret them as loosely as possible, but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are ultra stingy in how they believe it should be interpreted?

 

[MDFF2008]

It does bring up a great point though - why is it that when the amendments in the bill of rights are considered that most of the liberals want to interpret them as loosely as possible, but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are ultra stingy in how they believe it should be interpreted?

Same reason that very conservative people are ultra stingy about some amendments and loose on others; it suites their purpose

 

[nighthawk2099]

Word I heard on WTOP last night is that Fenty is willing to take whatever he can get to allow DC voting rights, even if that means death to the gun ban. Hoyer's staff are saying that he may allow the bill to be voted on if he can get the Pro Gun rider watered down a little.

Who Knows.... should be interesting to see.

 

[novus collectus]

Word I heard on WTOP last night is that Fenty is willing to take whatever he can get to allow DC voting rights, even if that means death to the gun ban. Hoyer's staff are saying that he may allow the bill to be voted on if he can get the Pro Gun rider watered down a little.

Who Knows.... should be interesting to see.

WOW!

 

[sernv99]

Fenty is not as hostile to allowing the pro-gun rider onto the DC voting ammendment because he thinks DC can overturn the gun legislation later on.

 

[novus collectus]

Fenty is not as hostile to allowing the pro-gun rider onto the DC voting ammendment because he thinks DC can overturn the gun legislation later on.

Welcome to the board.

Thing is though it would be a huge gamble for him to take.

 

[Absolut_Nick]

Just so you know, I am a liberal.

That makes two of us.

 

[3rdRcn]

Just so you know, I am a liberaltarian.

Fixed that for ya Novus.