Comments on: Parker to the court: The pants shitting hysterics

By: old guy

old guy — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:16:39 +0000

“Da Mayor” says that even with D.C.’s large number of homicides, people’s
lives have been saved because of their gun control. HUH???
The VPC says more people will die if the “law????” is overturned.
Do we care if the trogs are killed???? I certainly don’t. To me it means that the good people will continue to live.
OBTW, D.C. has 348 unsolved homicides on the books and thats just the last 4 1/2 years worth.

By: Cactus Jack

Cactus Jack — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:57:47 +0000

“yeah, and notice they mention suicides only and not homicides”

That’s because if the violence policy center mentioned homocides it would shoot down their argument that DC is safer with guns being banned. It would also show that DC is one of the 5 most violent cities in the country. (and would show that gun control dont work)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

By: Gringo_Malo

Gringo_Malo — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0000

Just to be an asshole, I’ll point out that there have been a whole bunch of decisions from federal appeals courts against individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Many are listed in the government’s brief in the Emerson case. Oddly, while the 5th Circuit affirmed that the 2nd guarantees an individual right, they didn’t strike down the unconstitutional law under which Emerson was indicted. The federal judiciary has mostly been in the VPC/Brady camp.

Please note that I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, and that the judges who have ruled otherwise should be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:35:31 +0000

I think we’re seeing what happens when you take an irrational position (anti-freedom). People start using rational arguments against you, and you’re forced into more and more irrationality. Their last-ditch option is always brute force. Keep an eye on them.

By: Magus

Magus — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:10:02 +0000

…but even Clarence Darrow wouldn�t take this case to a court where it not only probably won�t win, but threatens to impose bad law on the rest of the country…

What a wonderful and logical position those anti’s have…

DC’s case won’t win in a court [because it's unconstitutional] so striking down an unconstitutional law threatens to impose bad law on the rest of the country.

Now don’t that just beat watching cats have sex… Constitutional = bad, unConstitutional = good.

And what “sovereignty of the District”…

Article 1, section 8

The Congress shall have Power…
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…

Oh yeah…Constitutional = bad, unConstitutional = good.

By: Thirdpower

Thirdpower — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:44 +0000

“Right of the People”? Apparently the BC convieniently forgot that part:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L5QvYliZCq8&mode=related&search=

By: Ron W

Ron W — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:24:49 +0000

“Judicial activism”?? Finally it was an instance of the judges being “bound the law” as is demanded by the wording of the Constitution (Article VI, sections 1-3) and ruling in favor of “the right of the people” in the 2nd Amendment.

By: #9

#9 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:48:14 +0000

�The Appeals Court decision striking down the District of Columbia handgun law was a highly questionable example of judicial activism.

Wow. That is amazing. I wonder what else they think is judicial activism?

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:24:22 +0000

yeah, and notice they mention suicides only and not homicides.

By: thirdpower

thirdpower — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:12:42 +0000

Oh, that’s precious. It ranks “51st” if you compare a medium sized city to the other fifty states.

The VPC should start selling tops. They’re experts at spinning things.