Comments on: After Gun Ban Ruling, D.C. Seeks New Rules
As Residents Head To Gun Shops, Officials Scramble To Draft New Regulations
Add a Comment See all 72 Comments
- Why are they having to wait for new regulations to be drafted? You have the right to have arms PERIOD! No regulations. You have the right to own them. There is no "regulations" in the constitution. Stop trying to put the breaks on our rights as citizens. Start worrying about getting the crooks off the streets and stop worrying about if I want to own a gun to protect myself or go hunting. I''m sure that when someone attacks you or breaks in your house they don''t have a gun lock on the gun or have it disassembled until they attack you.
- Reply to this comment
- Have you ever noticed that Liberals live in a rose colored world? "firearms are only one type of armament, baseball bats, clubs, tazers, poison, even swords, knives and sharp sticks." I do not think our forefathers meant to arm a militia with "poison and tazers. To qoute a truly great mans "you will take my gun out of my cold dead fingers". As for having locks on home defense guns: Are you gonna call "TIME" if someone breaks in so you can find the key then take the lock off? Instead of gun bans - how about gun classes? My kids and grandkids have never "played" with any of our firearms. They have been taught about firearm safety all their lives.
- Reply to this comment
- The right to own guns is the only thing that prevents a corrupt government from victimizing the people it is sworn to serve.
Posted by S_Temper at 04:24 AM : Jul 06, 2008
While I''m all for citizens owning guns and therefore protecting themselves and their homes, but to believe it will keep our corrupt government from victiming us is simply wishful thinking.
Or haven''t you been paying attention to the news for the last 8 yrs?
Bush sponsered $5.00 a gallon gas - I''d call that victimizing us.
Bush sponsored illegal wiretaps - I''d have to call that victimizing us too.
Bush sponsored war for oil profits via 962 lies - I''m sorry but all the dead soldiers probably feel victimized as well.
Us owning guns didnt stop any of that. - Reply to this comment
- Gun control means hitting your target. So when you kill the SOB that is trying to break into your home, that will end the need for a trial. We know that the liberals will want to hug a thug and love and care for them so that they will change their ways. All the while costing the taxpayers millions of dollars to carry out their hug a thug program.
- Reply to this comment
- Please re-interpret my second amendment rights while I reload.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by magoo2u1
No one seems to realize that the language of the Constitution is literal and deliberate, it mentions "arms", firearms are only one type of armament, baseball bats, clubs, tazers, poison, even swords, knives and sharp sticks.
A not unreasonable interpretation could be to limit what types of arms are permitted, without prohibiting arms in general, and the prohibition of vertain types of firearms would not violate the constitution in any way. - Reply to this comment
- "IS THIS THE PLAN FOR AMERICA THAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA?
Consider these CHANGES/DIRECTIONS and think again, please." Posted by JTait2
Sounds good to me, now only of even half of them were true... - Reply to this comment
- "How long will it take for the people to understand that the Constitution does not give the Government any authority at all to even so much as mention gun control, the founders couldn''''t have been clearer"
So , you really think just anyone that understands English can simply read a document written in english and understand it? You have to have someone interpret it. The statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" needs to be interpreted. It could mean almost anything but does not clearly state the citizens can keep and carry "arms". If only the constitutional meaning could be clearly understood by reading. - Reply to this comment
- How long will it take for the people to understand that the Constitution does not give the Government any authority at all to even so much as mention gun control, the founders couldn''t have been clearer.
- Reply to this comment
- Truth be told, the Supreme Court Ruling didn''t really resolve anything but preventing local jurisdictions from blanket refusal of handgun ownership and extreme ules to store them in unusable form.
The SUpreme COurt did insinuate that certain "infringement" of rights may be quite legal.
The Courts ruling did not make owning a gun any easier; it did not make brandishing a gun by anyone at anytime and in any contex constitutional in any way. - Reply to this comment
- How about steal one like everybody else.
Posted by SistaTee at 11:56 PM : Jul 05, 2008
+ report abuse
***************************
not everybody in DC that wants a handgun are criminals..OF COURSE THAT IS HOW A LIBERAL SEES THINGS.. - Reply to this comment
- So now guns are legal in D.C., but there''s no way to get a gun in D.C? How about steal one like everybody else.
- Reply to this comment
