"[S]everal council members said they agreed with tougher language that requires weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home."We knew DC would play these stupid games. Here's the thing:
If government can openly defy rulings of their choosing, why shouldn't we?
It could be they won't end up liking the unintended consequences when not only has respect for the law been eroded, but also fear of it.
[Via Jeffersonian]
7 comments:
Note the fact they used the term "Immediate" instead of "Imminent" -- I suspect that was deliberate.
I don't suppose that would have helped Carolyn Warren any.
If I understand their (flawed) reasoning correctly, the whole point of the restrictions in DC (or any other gun-ban area) is to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. I fail to see how requiring "...weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked..." serves this purpose in any way. Of course, if the goal is instead to make citizens (subjects?) defensless for all practical purposes then it makes perfect sense. I'm sure if challenged on this point you'd get the same tired drivel about the safety of children in the home (but what about childless people), suicide (you don't really own your life it seems), and other nanny-state nonsense. But again, this does not serve the stated purpose that the gun control advocates use to seduce people - keeping guns out of criminal hands.
And where is the "threat of immediate harm to a person" defined? It appears to be just another vague phrase that can be manipulated to make a situation fit whatever conviction the prosecution is trying to land. I think I'll start referring to these ambiguous, imprecise phrases "legal silly putty" because they can be shaped into whatever the jurist wishes to present.
I once spent three hellish months on a work assignment in the District. I felt that I was in reasonable fear for my life the entire time. Given the most recent statistics how can they prove anyone wrong?
If government can openly defy rulings of their choosing, why shouldn't we?
Because there is no bite to the laws they choose not to follow.
Atlanta is now in its 3rd lawsuit for ignoring state laws against local gun regulations. The punishment? Nothing besides spending the taxpayers money.
You have to sue the city to get them to comply with state law.
So while the Mayor continues to be sued and use up taxpayer money by having to pay legal fees, they have to close a firestation becuase of a budget crisis.
The Attorney General of the state could put him in jail if he really wanted to..
Threat of immediate harm. Hmm.
A schizophrenic diagnosed 20 years ago shot up his neighbohood, despite not legally being able to own a gun due to mental illness. The police took his gun and put him to bed. They knew him pretty well from incidents. Couple of nights later, he did it again with a different gun. They took THAT one and made sure he was on the prohibited persons list.
A few days later, he stabbed an elderly neighbor walking her dog. She died. He explained that his disability check was late and he needed money.
He was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, despite voluntarily going off his medication many times -- his FREE medication-- and despite being in reality enough to know who was an easy target.
Self-defense in the home is nice. Self-defense on the sidewalk is better. We can't ask the lady her opinion, but we can guess.
To hell with the law, when the law kills innocents.
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Louis D. Brandeis
My thoughts
Whats good for thee, is good for me
Post a Comment