Large Scale Central

Up-holding gun rights in DC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202998.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

From the author: “If strict gun control worked, then the District – which had long been home to the nation’s most restrictive gun control measures – would be the safest place in the country. But gun violence in the city was consistently among the highest in the nation throughout the 30 years that the city banned handguns. The reason is obvious: A gun control law will not dissuade violent criminals from killing or robbing with guns.”

I agree. Criminals don’t abide by the law. Wack jobs don’t either.
Ralph

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764.

Thomas Jefferson: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops” (Noah Webster, 1787)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

William Pitt: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (Nov. 18, 1783)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

St. George Tucker: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Thomas Paine: “…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.”

Deleted

TonyWalsham said:
David. Not to comment on the USA Constitution per se but it would seem to me, that if you continually quote such eminent, but old, sources for your logic, then perhaps you would agree that the firearms themselves should be limited to the types that were available when the Constitution was framed?
Hand guns have been available long before the Constitution was written. Ralph

BTW- a disclaimer hardly negates the fact that you are, indeed, commenting on US law and the US Constitution.

Deleted

The revolver was not invented until 1836, I think.
As for machine guns, I believe opinions on these differ even among gun owners.
I have no desire to own a machine gun. But if we were living in a “Mad Max” type of society, I’m sure I would have a different opinion.
Ralph

If that were true Tony, do you believe we should only be limited to the use of printing presses available when our freedom of the press was acknowledged?

Ralph Berg said:
The revolver was not invented until 1836, I think. As for machine guns, I believe opinions on these differ even among gun owners. I have no desire to own a machine gun. But if we were living in a "Mad Max" type of society, I'm sure I would have a different opinion. Ralph
Machine guns are still available for sale. No new ones are available for purchase, but those existing in the hands of private citizens prior to 1984 (?) are still bought and sold regularly. A fully automatic rifle (one pull of the trigger shoots multiple rounds of ammunition until the trigger is released or empty) is still just a tool, same as a knife or crossbow.

Deleted

And I only politely asked if the standard you advocated is only for guns or if you believe it should apply equally across the board to freedom of the press.

David Hill said:
And I only politely asked if the standard you advocated is only for guns or if you believe it should apply equally across the board to freedom of the press.
David made a valid point. We don't limit freedom of speech to the avenues that were available at the time the Constitution was written. Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
David. Not to comment on the USA Constitution per se but it would seem to me, that if you continually quote such eminent, but old, sources for your logic, then perhaps you would agree that the firearms themselves should be limited to the types that were available when the Constitution was framed?
Classic sophistry again, Tony. Congratulations.

Tell ya what. I will so limit myself when the bad guys, the police and the standing army so limits themselves. Until then, it’s not gonna happen.

Deleted

You are spinning again, Tony. You advocate for parity in previous posts, on other subjects. But with this subject it appears you chooses not to answer my question, does the same standard apply. But I am not surprised. You like to ask questions, but you never have answers when quetions are asked of you.

Deleted

Your spinning again Tony. If you don’t want to answer my question, just say so. I understand if it is a paradigm shift for you.

Deleted

TonyWalsham said:
David. Not to comment on the USA Constitution per se but it would seem to me, that if you continually quote such eminent, but old, sources for your logic, then perhaps you would agree that the firearms themselves should be limited to the types that were available when the Constitution was framed?
Here IS your comment. Didn't you say this? Or was that your altered ego.

Then I asked:

If that were true Tony, do you believe we should only be limited to the use of printing presses available when our freedom of the press was acknowledged?

I am still waiting for your reply.

Deleted

Ralph Berg said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202998.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

From the author: “If strict gun control worked, then the District – which had long been home to the nation’s most restrictive gun control measures – would be the safest place in the country. But gun violence in the city was consistently among the highest in the nation throughout the 30 years that the city banned handguns. The reason is obvious: A gun control law will not dissuade violent criminals from killing or robbing with guns.”

I agree. Criminals don’t abide by the law. Wack jobs don’t either.
Ralph


What the writer of that opinion fails to recognize/acknowledge is that DC borders Virginia which had and still does have some of the most liberal gun purchasing laws in the country. Its a joke much like we are now seeing in Mexico with the drug cartels. They are running around with US supplied AK-47s while the Mexican police are equipped with peashooters. Chalk up another ringing endorsement of the NRA, Mexican drug lords.

-Brian