By Just Nasty and Mean

June 23, 2008 8:02 AM | Link to this

Look, all you gun hating lefties…. The constitution of these United States gives me the right to bear arms and to protect myself and my possessions from the oppression of government and the likes of Shirley Franklin and her ilk, who think she has a right to decide how my assets should be distributed according to HER priorities.

The constitution also gives me the right to defend myself from predators who threaten me and my family. Maybe if Shirley Franklin did a better job of defending the populace of her constituents, so many people wouldn’t feel compelled to get a concealed weapon.

Until I feel safe from my government, and until the predators are controlled—Shirley Franklin needs to shut her face and do her job.

By rfthigpeniii

June 23, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Hopefully the Court will get this right. Everyone has the right to protect themselves.

By Dave O'Dea

June 23, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Yeah, following the Constitution can often be real “inconveneint”; what a sad argument by the mayor

By David O'Dea

June 23, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this

Yeah, following the Constitution can often be really “inconvenient”, what a sad argument by the mayor.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

Gun violence is not a national crisis any way you slice it. Violent crime is the lowest it has been in decades. There was a slight uptick in 2005 and 2006 but it’s back on the downward trend.

Murders in DC rose year after year from 1976 (when they enacted their ban) until the 90’s just like in the rest of the country and dropped off at the same time. The ban didn’t work at all and it still isn’t working.

340,000 people have dies from 1976-2005. That sounds like a lot but that’s 29 years or almost three decades. More people died of cancer last year alone. 50% more people died of heart disease last year alone or around 550,000 people. More people die from smoking related illnesses every year.. hell more people die in cars every year, do we say we have a national car crisis? or a national donut crisis? A national cigarette crisis? Maybe we should work on these crisis some more because last I checked guns didn’t even make the top ten for deaths.

If you believe that DC’s handgun ban is anything more than a power trip by their city government you’re insane or incapable of rational thought. Also, please explain to me why violent crime (or crime in general) is less in Virginia than in DC when Virginia is relatively (very) lax on guns..

Chicago has a handgun ban but last year 23 school children were killed with guns. School children in Chicago somehow still manage to lay hands on weapons. More guns don’t equal less crime? Tell that to the Chicago PD. Remember after they had 36 shootings in one weekend (in a city with no guns?) they deployed the SWAT with M4 assault rifles into the south side. Evidently to the cops, more guns DOES equal less crime.

Don’t try using the UK either, they actually have a gun crisis. Everyone brings up their ban and fewer homicides as proof the system works. They fail to realize that even when they had guns they had fewer murders. Since they took up serious bans gun crime has risen in double-digit percentages in those years and their knife crime is through the roof. The last DoJ statistics comparing UK to US crime rates showed that homicides were the only crime the US had more of than the UK and our crime rates for rapes, robberies and car thefts were falling as the UK’s were rising.. so that doesn’t work either. The government’s solution in the UK? Tougher gun laws.. how do you get much tougher than a mandatory 5 year sentence for mere possession? make it 10 years? 20?

What about other bans we’ve tried. Prohibition.. the war on drugs.. hell we couldn’t even stop abortions from happening. Bans don’t work.

My favorite part of this year in Atlanta was our mayor talking about how Georgians don’t need expanded carry rights and in fact shouldn’t be allowed to carry at all, this lady is going to tell us what we need?

Then a week later she was talking about cutting police services due to the mis-management of the budget.. I’m not sure she’s really a trust worthy individual.

Then you can make the constitutional argument.. “But it says for the militia” you’ll say.. But it also says the THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.. the people aren’t the state they’re the people. The bill of rights doesn’t give powers to the government, that’s why we have the 10th amendment. Then I can also say what I’ve said before, “Read up on the militia act of 1903” I’ll say.. “You’ll see that all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia” I’ll say..

What do you want?

By Copyleft

June 23, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

And that militia will be “well regulated.” Just like the Constitution says.

The gun-fondlers can whine about it, but there’s a reason the NRA always targets Congress, and not the courts. They haven’t got a legal leg to stand on.

By ron

June 23, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

As a law abiding citizen,I find that I have to spend my time and money defending my right to own firearms.I get tired of saying that law abiding citizens are not the problem,that criminals are.The city mayors that are so distraught about the coming Supreme Court ruling are distraught for the wrong reasons.For some reason,known only to them,they equate the removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens as a necessary step in fighting crime.I fail to make the connection.

The rapper T.I. is a prime example.He has a deferred one year sentence for posessing firearms as a felon.If that’s the best that society can do with a law that’s supposed to have teeth,It makes me wonder just who these Mayors are really after and for what reason.

By zeke

June 23, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

So what good does a gun ban do? NOTHING! The only thing accomplished by a gun ban is to prevent citizens from protecting themselves, their familiea and property! With total gun bans in D.C., NY, and others, murders still occur at a high rate! Gun bans only prevent honest citizens from protectiong themselves! The criminals still get their weapons by stealing them, from the so called black market and from other criminals! The honest citizen will not do that and are therefore left to the fact that criminals have no mercy! That police can and will not be able to protect them. That the radical liberal courts only protect the criminals! HOPEFULLY THE SUPREMES WILL SEE THE REALITY AND THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMMENDMENT FROM OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND THROW OUT ALL FRIVILOUS BANS AND LAWSUITS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Read the Federalist Papers and other documents relevent to our Constitution and you will see that the second ammendment is to enable the citizens to challege any attempt by the government to become all powerful and tyrantical by having an armed citizery to prevent that!!

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Copyleft: “Well regulated” didn’t mean what it does now. The idea of government regulation as we know it didn’t really exist.

“Well regulated” meant in proper working order, ship shape, ready for action.

Also, the militia in its day relied heavily on men bringing their own arms to conflict. The “militia” as you know it today (guard and reserve) didn’t exist until 1903 and then most of us (males 17-45) are still in the “unorganized militia” so your argument is fallacious and moot besides because there are two statements in the amendment.

The interesting thing about the use of the word “state” isn’t a statement on our state, the federal government, but “a free state” meaning any state that should be free. It’s a bit of advice on maintaining a free state, not an edict that the militia should be under direct government control.

The use of the word the PEOPLE and the 10th amendment pretty much make it obvious that the government has no right to infringe on the right to bear arms at all because it’s not a power expressly granted by the constitution (remember: “security of a free state”, not “this free state”) and thus it falls to the states or the people to enact laws or maintain those rights. That’s what the bill of rights is for. It’s for the people, not the government. The federal government technically, literally, has no business messing with anything in the bill of rights, not the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, the fourth.. the fifth.. any of them.

At the most the states might have an argument for regulating so DC might.. might have a case because of the 10th amendment (even though they aren’t a state) except that the second amendment explicitly names the right to bear arms as something for the people.

I guess the short end of my argument is that you’re missing the forest for the trees or your read poorly.

By Willie

June 23, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Copyleft: To be a militia you must own your own gun….or did you change another line in the constituion or read something thats not there.

By Williw

June 23, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

By Just Nasty and Mean June 23, 2008 8:02 AM | Hey this says it all…great comment..

By Willie

June 23, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Lets be like Europe….they are perfect…we are horrible vile disgusting mean people….we should strive to be like Europe. BullShirt Please get your tickets to Europe and live in that perfect world. I will stay behind and be free as I can keep it from those socialist progressive liberals…

By Eliminate the protective services of politicians

June 23, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

I’ve noticed that politicians, who usually have armed bodyguards, are quite vocal about how everybody else should not have a right to defend themselves. Take away their armed possies and see how they feel when they are sitting ducks for the criminals like they want us to be.

By James

June 23, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

The Supreme Court will make an “originalist” interpretation on this one and all the liberals will froth at the mouth just like conservatives get upset when they make an “activist” decision. The bottom line is that the Constitution is a “contract” with the American people. It says what it says and means what it means just like any other written contract. If you don’t like an “originalist” interpretation there is a way to change it - it’s called an “amendment”. Oh, by the way - Free men do not ask permission to bear arms !

By AH

June 23, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Please Shirley please just be quite for the next 18 months just fade into history and stop embarrassing Atlanta.

As to the DC ruling, I hate to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion but I agree with the current DC law. Remember Washington D.C. is a federal district that is the key difference between a ban there and a ban here in Atlanta. If Atlanta was ever to try and enact a ban like D.C’s I would be in the streets fighting the to the end. But if you live in D.C. you have to accept that you are living out side of the 50 states in a federal district where they can enact special laws that usually can’t be enacted in other states.

By T

June 23, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

It’s cr#$ like this that causes investigations on people whom are trying to protect themselves and their property.

By J.D.

June 23, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Whoever believes gun bans work also believe all the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.

The expression “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is not a theory folks. It has already been proven within other countries and cities who think they have the answer.

I’ll continue to maintain my carry permit and defend my right to defend myself and loved ones. Hopefully the time will never come when I have to exercise that defensive stance with dealy force… but I will if necessary.

And there’ll probably be a gun-banner crouched behind me.

By Redneck

June 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Shirley is worried that the SCOTUS will side with the lower courts and this restrictive gun law will be declared unconstitutional and thrown ut.

Shirley is afraid this will open the spigot and other city enacted restrictive gun laws will be taken to court. Shirley, welcome to the real world. The energy companies have been fighting lawsuits brought by environmental kook organizations for the past 40 years. About time you socialist get a taste of your own medicine!!!

By J.D.

June 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Whoever believes gun bans work also believes all of the stories in Penthouse Forum are true.

The expression “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is not a theory folks. It has already been proven within other countries and cities who think they have the answer.

I’ll continue to maintain my carry permit and defend my right to protect myself and loved ones. Hopefully the time will never come when I have to backup that defensive stance with deadly force… but I will if necessary.

And there’ll probably be a gun-banner crouched behind me.

By Redneck

June 23, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

AH, I hate to throw a monkey wrench into your theory but it is a fact that one doesn’t lose his constitutional right just because you live in a federal district.

By Opus X

June 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

If its got Shirley upset, it must be good for Freedom/Liberty.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

I thought Shirley couldn’t make guns laws more stringent than the state anyway thanks to anti-pre-emption (that’s a mouth full) laws.

By Vic Semprini

June 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Mayor Franklin illustrates the fundamental problem: delusional ideologues who think that gun control laws can curb urban violence. They don’t. They increase violence because all they do is create defenseless victims. It should be obvious that criminals are not inclined to obey gun laws any more than they are any other kind of law, especially if a weapon serves as a tool of their trade.

The BEST thing that can happen here is for the court to uphold the lower court ruling, strike down hand gun bans that demonstrably don’t work, and force urban bureaucrats to re-think their foolish, delusional ideas about what can be done to reduce urban crime. The problem is cultural.

By Ray

June 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

“Interpreting” the Constitution and Bill of Rights is something liberal pukes came up with to “change” the meanings of those great documents. This country is FREE because these are the greatest documents for freedom ever written. Our form of government is nearly perfect, its the execution of it by politicians that is flawed. Freedom to keep and bear arms is one of the most sacred of those freedoms. Now, if we could just get liberal politicians to understand that, the Supreme Court would not have to waste its time telling those liberals what the Bill of Rights says. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!! Pretty simple, Shirley. What’s to interpret??

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

I’m going to sound contradictory here, but I think that striking down all gun legislation is a mistake too. The background checks (as often as they seem to fail) is a great control tool, the best we have in fact. I want to see more regulations like that and less of this garbage about banning guns outright.

By James

June 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Hey, AH, DC may be able to do special laws because things that say states do not apply to them, and they don’t have a State constitution, but they can not disregard the federal constitution. If they could there’d be no free speech, they could be searched without reason, women’s suffrage could be ended, and they wouldn’t have to pay income tax (16th Amendment) I know someone will talk about how no one has to pay income tax, and I know you’re right, just making a point.

By Ray

June 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Oh, by Shirley’s reasoning we should blame speeding on the car and not the driver. Typical liberal thinking… that something, not someone (in this case the criminal) is to blame for criminal behavior. I guess its guns that suggest drive by shootings, robberies or other violent crimes. I must own some real dumb guns because they have never even spoken one single word to me. I’m hurt!!

By LOLO

June 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Bravo Jimbo the first. Well stated. Further, I am sick of people here comparing our system to Britain as the standard bearer for all things right with government-from guns to health care. There was a reason we fought the Revolution against the King, so we could do our own thing our way.

By West Cobb Dad

June 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

I still get irritated from Shirley’s comment months ago. ‘The only guns that should be allowed in Atlanta are those carried by police and those breaking the law’. Hmmm…police are not with me 24/7 (unlike Shirley’s bodygaurds). So, if I was a criminal, I would love to “work” in a city knowing not one “client” has a weapon to thwart me. They would not be able to say no to my persuasive points (9mm).

By Dan wild

June 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Greetings !

In the Second Amendment isn’t it true that the phrase “free state” refers to a “1. the condition of a person or thing as with respect to circumstances or attributes.” and not to be construed as a “10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government.”?

Dan Wild Las Vegas, Nevada

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

• Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

By Pat

June 23, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

I guess the left has it right: its absurd to think someone would need a gun, the home-owner should have tied himself up to make it easier for the thief. The worst part of the Union City story is that the DA is apparantly thinking of pressing charges agains tthe home-owner. If that happens, I’d support the home owner shooting the DA.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

I see some guy up there (AH) believes the rights of citizens of the District of Columbia are not covered under the US Constitution because they reside outside the 50 states. If that is so, as a DC resident for 51 years, I want every penny I paid to the US Treasury returned to me pronto. Otherwise, I am being unjustly taxed without representation in Congress.

A ruling against DC should provide more ammo for my no tax argument. I will gladly exchange my 2nd Amendment rights to keep the 30k + I give the US government every year.

By rightytighty

June 23, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Shirley can’t even balance a city budget after 7 yrs of historical economic expansion! So whooooo in their right mind is expecting her to protect them from criminals with guns!?

By johng1

June 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Latest wire: Ruling will not happen before Wednesday.

By Mr. 2nd Amendment

June 23, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Read about the Battle of Athens, TN in 1946. A group of GIs, tired of a corrupt local government and getting no help from state or Federal authorities, overthrew the local McMinn County government by force of arms. For those who are for state-control (read: government control) of everything in our lives, this will scare the daylights out of you. However, I believe it speaks to exactly what the Founding Fathers who insisted on the 2nd Amendment were thinking. After all, the Founding Fathers and a minority of colonists had just overthrown the “lawful” government of the colonies.

By Gun Owner

June 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

What needs to happen is the penality for using a gun in a crime must be so harsh that criminals won’t do it. Make the the penality for using a gun in a crime, whether is is discharged or not, a fixed 25 years with no parole. As long as the court system allows criminals to plead guilty to one charge and have the others dismissed to make the trial go quicker this will continue to happen. Criminals need to suffer becasue of their actions, not responsible gun owners. Laws are made and followed by reasonable people. Criminals are not reasonable people.

By TPM

June 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

I travel often for work and when I am out of town my wife has a right to protect herself. Home invasions happen in Metro Atlanta.

By ron

June 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Dan Wild,As much as I like your interpetation of free state,I find the word, state capitalized in the Second Amendment,leading me to believe the founders were talking about the actual State,as in Georgia.There is ,unfortunately,an argument afoot that the States themselves may impose bans,that the constitution only applies to Federal.We await the decision from thE case in D.C. I’m sure this will not be all defining.

By Fix-It

June 23, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Washington DC is proof that if you disarm honest citizens then the criminals have free reign. The proof is the Washington DC was the most violent place in America. Wake up lefties guns are here to stay.

By AH

June 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry guys the federal district of Columbia/Washington D.C. was intended to be a place outside of all the states so that the Federal government could have absolute sway there. In Federalist #43-James Madison argues for the need to have a place distinct from any other state so that they could govern free from interference. This was in response to a near riot in Philadelphia when the congress use to meet there.

In the District of Columbia the Congress has absolute authority, since this was given in the Constitution it should trump any interpretation of the 2nd amendment. BUT only in DC. If you choose to live in DC you have to play by congress’s rules. If they say no guns then no guns. If they say you have to pay income taxes there they you do. If they made you exempt from income taxes then they could do that it is within Congress’s power in DC. (of course they would never give up money=power.)

Read Section 8 Clause 17.

By AH

June 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

ps. We all know that if you allow private gun ownership that it contributes to a lowering of crime. That is not why they want to stop gun ownership it is a control issue. So you can stop making the safety argument it isn’t even in question is should merely be an issue of how much control the government should have over free men. In a civilization you choose to cede certain freedoms and liberties to the government. In return the government has to give you just services to compensate you. Are we ceding our right to protect ourselves to the government?? No and that needs to be reflected in any decision given by the Supreme Court, but will it?

By Copyleft

June 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

“Interpreting” the Constitution and Bill of Rights is something liberal pukes came up with to “change” the meanings of those great documents.

That’s some serious ignorance, Ray. Interpreting the Constitution is the whole purpose of one-third of our government: the judiciary. Always has been. Just ask “liberals” like John Jay, the first Chief Justice.

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it un-American—it just makes you uneducated.

By donniemacUNC1

June 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

Come on Ms. Franklin, as long as you and your city council don’t impose unconstitutional firearm restrictions in ATL like what happened in DC, then your attorneys won’t have to worry about excessive lawsuits.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

That is ludicrous AH. That would mean DC residents are not citizens of the US under the Constitution. We would therefore also not be protected with free speech etc. This court should set everyone straight on that concept. And we will get representation soon. This case will help springboard that case. That is, if they want to keep their money.

By Is this thing on?

June 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Shirley Franklin has armed bodyguards to protect her and her family paid for by the taxpayers, but she does not want you and I to own a gun to do the same.

Please,… get a clue people.

By rightytighty

June 23, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

“Mayors brace for D.C. gun ruling” ???

TCome on now…, we all know that it’s only the liberal mayors that are bracing for the D.C. gun ruling. Most American mayors don’t support handgun bans which is why most American cities don’t have handgun bans. Of course, you won’t read that in the liberal AJC editorials.

By DDS

June 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Must be Silly Season. Nothing in the DC vs Heller case would have any impact on effective crime control. It may have some impact on politicians who get re-elected promising things they can’t or won’t deliver.

Done properly, crime control is both more expensive and harder to do than gun control. As long as people can be fooled into thinking that the second can ever be a substitute for the first and into voting for the politicians who propose “solutions” that have never made the crime decrease anywhere, we will be reading the rediculous opinions of people like the Atlanta mayor in the press.

By Leon

June 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

As has been aptly said before: “Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.”

By AH

June 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

BINGO your half right johng1.

You would be a US citizen just like being born on a military base outside of the US. That doesn’t negate your US citizenship and neither does being born in DC negate your citizenship.

But if the US congress wanted to impose regulations on people in DC that typically can’t be done in any other state then they could. The original intent of the district was to be a place where the government would be located and it wouldn’t have a lot of citizens living in it. But everyone flocked there throughout the past century and cause the lines of federal district and a regular state to blur.

If on a military base in Germany they wanted to ban all guns at private residents they could. If they wanted to eliminate any magazines and publications from being printed and sold they could. DC is the same just located here in the continental US.

Nothing forces you to live in the roughly 10X10 mile District of Columbia. I guarantee you that if you move 5 miles you won’t have this problem.

By Jeff

June 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing how you lefties can find abortion in the 1st amendment but can’t find the right to own a gun in the second.

I guess the 2nd amendment doesn’t have the same ability to be “a living breathing thing that can adjust to the times” the same way the 1st does.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

AH:

A lot of people have been taking your advice. A lot of flak thrown up about the rising murders in DC (until the 90’s) was that the population was increasing so it was only to be expected. The truth of the matter is that the population of DC itself has been shrinking for at least the last 20 years. DC and the surrounding supporting area (if I recall correctly) is roughly the size of the metro Atlanta area (from a population standpoint).

By NotCopyLeft

June 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

The 2nd amendment is there for personal protection and for throwing Government out that has run a muck. Copyleft Shirley is on the toilet and you need to bring her some paper.

By EJ

June 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Are these best qualified local officials the same ones that control public education, local roads, and balance budgets? If so Shirley, the results already speak for themselves.

An individual will know better than local officials whether or not a weapon is needed for protection.

By AH

June 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Well don’t move out of Atlanta. Hell if you own a registered hand gun please move into Atlanta. We need more people here with guns. DC is just a special case.

By kaisnut

June 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

What I really wish to happen in this world, Is everyone who is for gun laws in general, Is to be held up at gunpoint. Or raped at gunpoint, or to have a gun in your face with someone holding it that you believe there going to kill you!!! THEN MAYBE YOU’LL SEE that then only people that gun laws hurt are really law abiding people. It is my right as a AMERICAN to own all 40 guns, that I own!! Quit telling me whats right/wrong in my house. I sure as HELL dont tell you what to do. so stop doing it to me!!! And remember join the NRA!

By kaisnut

June 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

What I really wish to happen in this world, Is everyone who is for gun laws in general, Is to be held up at gunpoint. Or raped at gunpoint, or to have a gun in your face with someone holding it that you believe there going to kill you!!! THEN MAYBE YOU’LL SEE that then only people that gun laws hurt are really law abiding people. It is my right as a AMERICAN to own all 40 guns, that I own!! Quit telling me whats right/wrong in my house. I sure as HELL dont tell you what to do. so stop doing it to me!!! And remember join the NRA!

By Jeff

June 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

If Mayor Shirley’s police were capable of protecting us, that guy that shot the intruder the other day wouldn’t have needed a gun.

The reason we call the police when there is a problem is: (tada) THEY HAVE GUNS TO STOP PEOPLE!

The police aren’t capable of preventing a crime. They are only capable of reacting to it and finding the perp.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Kaisnut, saying want someone to commit violence against them all doesn’t exactly help your case and unfortunately, your case is my case.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

AH, your statements, “nothing forces you to live in the roughly 10X10 mile District of Columbia. I guarantee you that if you move 5 miles you won’t have this problem” is insulting. My family has been in the District for generations. Starting with two of my great grandfathers on my mother’s side who fought in the Civil War to others who fought in other wars up to WWII and Vietnam. The District has well over 500,000 residents. It has been a home to many since well before the writing of the Constitution.

Your examples also are not relevant. An army base? Well, let’s discuss Puerto Rico and Guam. No representation, federal income tax!

lol, have you ever been here? This is the capital of the country, not some army base. I think you will be surprised by the decision by Scalia, which will uphold the lower court’s ruling, which is along the lines of my first post regarding our inherent protection under the United States Constitution.

I’ve already got my eyes on some shiney new guns and rifles. ha ha

By johng1

June 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

AH, your statements, “nothing forces you to live in the roughly 10X10 mile District of Columbia. I guarantee you that if you move 5 miles you won’t have this problem” are insulting. My family has been in the District for generations. Starting with two of my great grandfathers on my mother’s side who fought in the Civil War to others who fought in other wars up to WWII and Vietnam. The District has well over 500,000 residents. It has been a home to many since well before the writing of the Constitution.

Your examples also are not relevant. An army base? Well, let’s discuss Puerto Rico and Guam. No representation, federal income tax!

lol, have you ever been here? This is the capital of the country, not some army base. I think you will be surprised by the decision by Scalia, which will uphold the lower court’s ruling, which is along the lines of my first post regarding our inherent protection under the United States Constitution.

I’ve already got my eyes on some shiney new guns and rifles. ha ha

By authorboy

June 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

If each state TRULY had a “well-regulated militia” of citizen soldiers, a lot of this government foolishness wouldn’t exist. The Founders intended that state militias of armed citizens were supposed to be the “club in the closet” that kept government at all levels….but especially the Federal Governemnt…in check. The governments were supposed to be scared of the citizens, not the other way around. This very idea that the government passes laws that its own Federal courts tell you are legal is idiocy. In the beginning, the state legislatures decided the constitutionality of Federal laws.

Sadly, there are very few states that have citizen militias, so statism runs rampant. God help the USA.

By AH

June 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

I’ve had family here in the US since before it was even the US, but that doesn’t mean that I am tied down to any specific piece of dirt. I accept that there were a few specific rules put in place by the Constitution and everything else is my right guaranteed by God and the nature of man.

And yes PR and Guam have the same issues as DC and military bases (army or otherwise). If you check it out I think we have 7 or so territorial districts. They all have various taxation and property rights tweaks.

PS. Also PR does not pay income tax, just payroll taxes i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Guam is similar but a little different but they also don’t pay income taxes just some other taxes.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

So your are for my not having to pay over 30 grand every year to the government, like the US territories?

I was born here. Now you are telling me to move. Why? That argument holds no water at all. It is usually proffered by those who have some chip on their shoulder about DC. This is my home, as well as it is home to well over 500,000 other people! More than two other states, I believe.

By AH

June 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

If you choose to live there then you have to live with the rules in place. That includes Congress’s absolute over site of the district. If you don’t want to pay the 30k move otherwise you are just going to have to live with it. Simple as that. It is not taxation without representation it is taxation with 535 people representing you but not by your annual consent. You consent to their representation when live in the district as provided for in the US Constitution. If you were born in DC then you were born under those rules, life isn’t always fair but it always has rules. Quite frankly I’m a Fair Tax supporter but until we get to that we all have to suffer under the current regulations.

As to having a problem with DC?? It’s one of the best cities in the country, everyone should be required to visit before they can ever graduate High School.

By JMullen

June 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

The article stated: “…Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin worries that cities may be hampered in their crime-fighting efforts if the justices strike down the D.C. gun control laws.”

What exactly will striking down gun control hamper in the way of fighting crime when there is not one single independent academic study showing any gun control law as having a positive impact at reducing crime?

The only thing that will be lost is the smoke screen that liberals hide behind while they pretend that they are “doing something” about crime when all they are doing is ignoring the Constitution and destroying this nation rights, freedoms, and liberty. For once these liberals might actually have to really do something, like get criminals off the streets.

By jimbo THE FIRST

June 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Someone should ask her if cutting police services will hamper crime fighting efforts.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Listen bub, why are you against providing taxpaying US citizens representation? Huh? Why do YOU oppose it, other than “it is the rules you were born into …” It will not stand because it is indefensible. Either they stop taxing our incomes, something begun in the 20th century, or you must give us representation. Don’t give me that line about Congress representing me. Baloney!

The “moving” argument is simply BS.

By Christian

June 23, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

The DC gun ban has clearly not reduced crime in the DC area and has has restricted law abiding people from defending themselfs. If you are hanging you hat on a gun ban to reduce crime remember this: the criminals don’t care about the law!

By johng1

June 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

What is interesting with your line of reasoning is that terrorists would have equal or possibly more rights than I, based on a recent SC decision. It is either the whole enchilada or nothing.

If the SC rules against the District of Columbia (and they very, very likely will), it recognizes the District citizens as having rights and protections provided by the Constitution. It opens the door. In the coming years, I will be working to pull the door off the hinges and make all US citizens equal.

By DK

June 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Amazing Logic Shirley,

I hope the Supreme Court doesn’t label my plans unconstitutional because I’m trying to protect the public (paraphrased). I guess that Bull Connor could have used that argument too, but flaunting the constitution to achieve one’s political agenda is more dangerous (IMHO) than that any wrong targeted by such malfeasance. That said, those who want to protect the 2nd amendment with such zeal need to recognize what a scourge guns have become in our society. One has a much better chance of seeing that gun that they own for “protection” being used against them, or their family, than they do of seeing it used it to protect their life and/or property. Also, I read some comments ridiculing Europe’s gun laws, but murders there are so much lower by percentage of population that “societal differences” cannot explain the difference. I do hope that the Supreme Court will open up the door for allowing some reasonable restrictions to be placed on gun ownership. I don’t want to see lawful citizens lose their right to own guns, but one must recognize that wars are not fought, and armies are not raised, like they were in 1787. While guns certainly have some use in self-defense from the criminal element, the idea that a rag-tag group of citizens, armed with small arms, would have any effect stopping the U.S. military is laughable. Until the Supreme Court allows us to keep and bear nukes, one might as well forget the “protect ourselves from the government” nonsense.

By johng1

June 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

DK: “While guns certainly have some use in self-defense from the criminal element, the idea that a rag-tag group of citizens, armed with small arms, would have any effect stopping the U.S. military is laughable.”

I suggest you study the War in Iraq 2003-2008.