• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Another Victory!!

medusacoils

medusacoils

Mr. Enigma!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fairfax, Va. - The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
Click to expand...

Got this in my email from the NRA!

Wayne
 
NFS07 said:
:D *pets the 23 weapons* If ANYONE ever told me to hand any of them over... they would be leaving with some lead in them.
Click to expand...

That's what I always say! If your coming to get them, make sure your wearing double Kevlar!! LOL!

The words of the late Charlton Heston "Cold Dead Fingers!!"

Wayne
 
DC v. Heller was a great victory. Let's hope we can keep that going for the rest of the country!

p.s. I hear Heller is filing another suit against DC because DC Police denied his pistol permit after he went through the trouble of setting the legal precedent in court!
 
BobbyHill said:
DC v. Heller was a great victory. Let's hope we can keep that going for the rest of the country!

p.s. I hear Heller is filing another suit against DC because DC Police denied his pistol permit after he went through the trouble of setting the legal precedent in court!
Click to expand...

Unless he has been convicted of a violent crime or a Felony, I wonder what basis they used to deny his permit? I think it's ridiculous that people in that district have to jump through such hoops! Hopefully, with the ratifying of this amendment, the district will be forced to ease up on it's restrictions and regulations!

Wayne
 
I hate to sound like a nutjob here, but corrupt police who believe citizens should be disarmed clearly don't have their heads on straight. So in their mind-set, why should they be expected to provide justification?
 
Since I live 20 miles from DC, I can give you some idea as to why its so hard. The amount of "gangs" there is crazy. You have kids who come from broken families that just dont know what to do with themselves. You have schools that cant hold all of the kids so some leave to find "other" things to do. The crime rate in DC is crazy. It's a wonder people ever want to go there... I know I don't!
 
Sounds like the perfect place to have a gun, with so many bad apples who have no regard for other people or things.
 
NFS07 said:
Since I live 20 miles from DC, I can give you some idea as to why its so hard. The amount of "gangs" there is crazy. You have kids who come from broken families that just dont know what to do with themselves. You have schools that cant hold all of the kids so some leave to find "other" things to do. The crime rate in DC is crazy. It's a wonder people ever want to go there... I know I don't!
Click to expand...

So disarming the normal citizenry is the answer to gangs and crime? Sounds like more of a reason to let, law abiding citizens keep firearms for personal protection. Police can't be everywhere!

I remember a country song sung by Willie Nelson and Toby Keith called "Beer for my Horses"! Sorta makes sense!!

Wayne
 
The victory is just only because it lacks respect for the second amendment by banning the possession of all functional firearms by all people within the District of Columbia.
However, I still believe that there should be regulations in place to prevent dangerous persons from purchasing, trading or possessing firearms and ammunitions. I also believe the laws should be consistant with all fifty states to prevent people who would otherwise be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms from crossing state lines to make such a purchase in states with weak guns laws i.e. Georgia.
I respect what your second amendment says about an individuals right to bear arms, but at the same time, I believe certain firearms should not be out on the open market due to the fact the original intent of these certain firearms by the manufacturer was for military use.
For many years I owned firearms and was an avid hunter. I personally just can't see what good an AK 47 or Tek 9 is for hunting.
 
Comox, many FEDERAL laws are in place already that prevents certain dangerous individuals from owning/purchasing firearms or ammunition. The problem is that the vast majority of criminals/gang members do not get firearms through legal channels. Therefore gun control simply does not affect them.

Beyond that, legitimate reasons to own a firearm do not stop at target shooting and hunting. Personal protection and self preservation are a right, and a good firearm helps level the playing field if you are well practiced and responsible.
 
Unfortunately Bobby, background checks for the most part are left up to each individual state. Criminal elements take advantage of that fact. As far as owning a firearm for personal protection, I really don't think there are enough available statistics to support owning a gun deters you from becoming a victim of violence. I just think that the should be laws requiring ANYONE wishing to possess a firearm to take a gun safety course that would include some range time. Afterall, owning a firearm certainly does not make you an instant marksman, nor does it mean you will know how to use it should the need arise. All fifty states require anyone wishing to drive a car to be licenced, and licencing includes a period of time for a person to learn by way of a learners permit.
I don't deny anyones right to bear arms, except for people with a criminal past or mental defection that would consider them a risk to own a firearm.
 
ComoxCorn said:
Unfortunately Bobby, background checks for the most part are left up to each individual state. Criminal elements take advantage of that fact.
...
I don't deny anyones right to bear arms, except for people with a criminal past or mental defection that would consider them a risk to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

There is a federal background check that must take place if a firearm is purchased from a dealer. Their information is run through a federal database to prevent people with felonies or violent misdemeanors to obtain a firearm, as well as people who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the state. However, it's true that in many states private sales and gun shows bypass this measure.

ComoxCorn said:
As far as owning a firearm for personal protection, I really don't think there are enough available statistics to support owning a gun deters you from becoming a victim of violence.
...owning a firearm certainly does not make you an instant marksman, nor does it mean you will know how to use it should the need arise.
Click to expand...

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey of 2000 (released by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms): 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented EVERY DAY in the US just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun actually fired.

ComoxCorn said:
I just think that the should be laws requiring ANYONE wishing to possess a firearm to take a gun safety course that would include some range time. All fifty states require anyone wishing to drive a car to be licenced, and licencing includes a period of time for a person to learn by way of a learners permit.
Approximately 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person. Note that all police officers undergo weapons training that supposedly makes it "safer" for them to carry to firearm. About 2% of civilian shootings kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are LESS THAN 1 IN 26,000.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
According to Statistics Canada, the stereotype rings true: Canadians are far less likely to be killed with a gun than their American counterparts.

In a study released Tuesday called Deaths Involving Firearms, the agency says that in 2000, the rate of Canadian homicides involving firearms was just 0.5 out of every 100,000 people. The rate in America was almost eight times higher, or 3.8 per 100,000.

This is part of the following atricle: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119965250902_5/?hub=

We have much stricter gun laws, and they seem to work.
You might want to read this article and click on many of the links provided.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/americas-gun-laws-how-did_b_165825.html
 
ComoxCorn said:
In a study released Tuesday called Deaths Involving Firearms, the agency says that in 2000, the rate of Canadian homicides involving firearms was just 0.5 out of every 100,000 people. The rate in America was almost eight times higher, or 3.8 per 100,000.
Click to expand...

The population in Canada is about 33 million, with the population of the USA being about 305 million. Going with the rate quoted above and adjusting the rate to fit the US population, there is a theoretical 5 per 100,000 death-with-firearms rate.

On another note, Canada has approximately the same size as the US with about 1/10th of the population. Due to human nature this would yield less conflict because of less over-crowding.

There are approximately 1 million handguns in Canada, with approximately 77 million in the US. Any time you have fewer guns, there are going to be fewer related results of ANY sort. Imagine 10 cars on any given road compared to 770 on the same road. How do you think this will effect accident rates?
 
I am sorry, but stricter gun laws only restrict people who are willing to follow the laws. So making more, or new laws will not be as effective as you summarize. The only situation you are creating is a defenseless population who will be at the mercy of these lawless predators!

Wayne
 
BobbyHill said:
The population in Canada is about 33 million, with the population of the USA being about 305 million. Going with the rate quoted above and adjusting the rate to fit the US population, there is a theoretical 5 per 100,000 death-with-firearms rate.
The rate is already adjusted. The rate is based on per 100,000

On another note, Canada has approximately the same size as the US with about 1/10th of the population. Due to human nature this would yield less conflict because of less over-crowding.
I agree with that statement. But making guns available as easily as they are inevitably puts a lot of guns in the wrong hands.

There are approximately 1 million handguns in Canada, with approximately 77 million in the US. Any time you have fewer guns, there are going to be fewer related results of ANY sort. Imagine 10 cars on any given road compared to 770 on the same road. How do you think this will effect accident rates?
Click to expand...
Our laws make it illegal to have a loaded handgun in your home. A handgun must be under lock and key. There are no easy answers to responsible gun laws, i concede that point, because the hardest thing to consider is how to have responsible gun laws and keep everyone happy. For those who have firearms as a hobby, whether for hunting, target, skeets, self protection, it still boils down to many states having very inept laws to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands.If you read that link, which is very current, the statistics and a state by state report card is there. This is a very reliable source.

I fully agree with the victory regarding the DC case, Fundementally it is wrong, because it punishes the responsible. I guess I see our laws here in Canada as basically none offensive. If you wish to purchase a firearm, it's simple. You have to have a Firearms Aquisition Certificate which involves a criminal and mental health background check (federally issued) and take a certified firearms safety course. Any firearm purchased is required to be registered. All military firearms are to be rendered inoperable. IMO, I say take the assault weapons and handguns off the streets....but...that's just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top