Comments on: Handgun Hubris!

By: Wendy Weinbaum

Wendy Weinbaum — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:05:41 +0000

As a Jewess in the US, I ask: WHAT is Hussein Obama HIDING? Doesn’t matter! TOO LATE NOW! There are now some constitutional/legislative “theologians” who say that even IF the DemocRAT votes COULD be found to impeach him, that Obama is legally UNIMPEACHABLE, if in fact he is not a natural-born American. They say that, because then he would never have been eligible to hold the office in the first place, and so is NOT the President, and thus CANNOT be impeached! The Articles simply would NOT APPLY to him, any more than they would to you or me. Meanwhile, he occupies the White House, sitting around smoking cigars, drinking Crown Royal, and flitting about on Air Force One. If true, HOW would he be removed from the White House? Perhaps via an ordinary EVICTION process? Don’t let the media bury this story!

By: curtis41

curtis41 — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:34:25 +0000

No matter what the 2nd amendments says, apparently D.C. either never read it, or does not understand it at all. Nor have they learned much from 31 years of denying District citizens the right to defend themselves in their own homes. I look forward to D.C. people being able to effectively defend themselves for the first time in far too long. After misrepresenting its case to the Supreme Court, the Court has the opportunity to more precisely define the 2nd and right a terrible wrong. There is no case, fire, flood, hurricane and so forth that ever justify removing firearms from law-abiding people, ever. How can anyone with a brain between their ears justify disarming its people? Even Ghandi regretted the same and said so.

By: dwlawson

dwlawson — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:28:28 +0000

Fenty has to appeal it if the assumption that his constituency supports the ban (which I doubt.) I assume he wants to be re-elected. If he caves in he loses. If he appeals and loses...at least he tried.

Bad law on the rest of the country? A great portion of the country is already alot freer than DC and Chicago. The states with liberal gun laws will remain free regardless of the decision. The states like IL, WI, NY, CA are the ones that may ultimately pay the price of a Parker win in SCOTUS. I, for one, am looking for that day.

For the gun rights crowd, its a push if Parker loses and a win if Parker wins.

By: Wendy Weinbaum

Wendy Weinbaum — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:04:37 +0000

I don't see how a REAL man can fail to support the right to keep and bear arms. Let's all put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!

By: lynn

lynn — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:11:19 +0000

Jim, You wouldn't even know what the word "typical" means. And your jokes are not funny. IDIOT

By: arthur

arthur — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:58:55 +0000

DC is the poster child for proof that gun control does not work. Except of course, do disarm the law abiding citizens as a means of subjugation.

And it is also the poster child for the generalization that liberals only care about the rights of government not the rights of individuals.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:20:30 +0000

Poor Lynn. New here, and missed the running joke entirely. Typical.

By: R.J.

R.J. — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:50:48 +0000

"...impose bad law..."

So, the Bill of Rights is bad law, eh? Well, at least we know where you stand, you socialist cretin!

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:31:03 +0000

From the perspective of those who care more about reducing occupational hazards for burglars than about giving any real effect to the Bill of Rights, I suppose this appeal does indeed threaten to impose "bad" law on the rest of the country, or at least on the handful of cties that take their gun control to the same extreme that DC does. But I can hardly fault Fenty for appealing the decision. He's the mayor of DC, not the mayor of the national gun control movement. Why on earth would he want to sacrifice his own precious gun ban just so Chicago can keep theirs?

By: lincmercguy

lincmercguy — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:29:58 +0000

"...to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school..."

I don't think this is a newsflash, but Washington DC is not a sovereign nation. The laws governing the city must comply with the US Constitution, there is just no state constitution to adhere to in this case. The Constitution is in place, not only to specify what the federal government has the power to do, but also to state what rights the federal, state, and local laws cannot infringe upon.

Many will say that the correct ruling in this case will allow people to keep nuclear arms and such, but that's not the case. The lower court ruling only states that the handgun ban and safe storage laws violate the 2nd Amendment. It's a start at least.

My prediction is that the Supreme Court will not hear the case.

By: lynn

lynn — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:32:59 +0000

Newsflash Jim: No one gives a rats arse what you have to say you freedom hating anti-american POS wackbag!!!!

By: SayUncle » Parker to the court: The pants shitting hysterics

SayUncle » Parker to the court: The pants shitting hysterics — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:17:19 +0000

[...] Mike DeBonis: Have you been reading the papers, your honor? You don’t have to be Linda Greenhouse to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school students to spout vaguely drug-related nonsense. [...]

By: Frank Silbermann

Frank Silbermann — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:10:48 +0000

If you want state and local governments to be allowed to infringe Constitutional Rights, the country shouldn't have ratified the 14th Amendment. What, you think the Constitution is only to protect rights that _you_ like?

By: John Thayer

John Thayer — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:45:25 +0000

Mayor Fenty:
Just what part of "... shall not be infringed." can't you understand?

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:08:00 +0000

Newsflash Rees: No one care WHAT you think, you nutcase.