Monday, January 21, 2008

Let the District Have Its Gun Law

No.

UPDATE: Sebastian makes an analogy.
Posted by David Codrea at 1/21/2008 01:13:00 PM

6 comments:

me said...

In the District -- where handgun violence is particularly acute -- our elected mayor and council struck this balance by prohibiting handguns in the home but permitting rifles and shotguns. Congress could have overturned this decision, but it did not.

So it's either because the law is total crap...or because people just leave their guns chained to the mailbox?

With prohibitions total failure we (CONgress) did something. They removed the failed policy, but we're to believe that leaving it in place in this case is the correct answer.

Why is it we always need to give failed policy more time or pass more that will have no effect on the symptoms of the disease? Our representatives have no desire to address the root of the problem.

1/21/2008 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. - Cessare Beccaria

1/21/2008 2:17 PM
closed said...

They would have to secede from the United States first.

Then they can have their law.

1/21/2008 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...

"But the Supreme Court should not defer to the plaintiffs and use the Second Amendment as a vehicle for federal courts to micromanage gun laws in this country."

I have to agree with them here: micromanagement is NOT what should occur here and there is no need "defer" to the plaintiffs. This calls for a little macromanagement: ...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. A little more than the plaintiffs are asking for but I don't think they'll complain.

1/21/2008 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...

If you think they are going to stop, you're a fool.

If you think some of us are going to roll over and play dead, you're a fool.

I trust you understand the end of this.

1/21/2008 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...

"I trust you understand the end of this."

For many of us and many of them, and more than just a few of the fools, I'm sure this is where it will end. Seems that the only thing really in question is the ratio, and the total, of each.

1/22/2008 12:14 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)