They Just Don't Get It

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Seacowboys, Jul 6, 2008.


  1. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Jesse Jackson + Chicago Mayor Are Stymied By High Court's Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban: Afghanis Get It, Too Bad Anti-Gun Elitists Don’t

    NRA To Target Chicago + Neighboring Suburban Hand Gun Bans, After Supreme Court Ruling[SIZE=-0] [/SIZE]

    Commentary by Bill Zettler *

    According to the Associated Press, June 27, 2008, "The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior U.N. official said Sunday."

    We have all seen pictures on TV of Afghan citizens walking the streets with AK-47's draped over their shoulders. And who can forget the Afghan weddings where hundreds of shots are fired in the air to celebrate the event. Every Afghan male who can afford a gun has one and, more often than not, they are assault rifles like the AK-47.

    To the average Afghani, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the right to bear arms in your own home for self-defense must seem like a no-brainer. In fact, the Afghan people must be shaking their heads, trying to figure out why it is an issue at all. Only a decadent society, on its way to oblivion, would deny its people the right to self-defense.

    Which brings me to the breathless quote from the AP above. Seven hundred deaths in a nation of 33 million people fighting a murderous clique like the Taliban is truly astounding--because the number of deaths are so low. For example, there were more than 700 violent deaths (homicides) in Chicago, L.A. and New York combined in the first six months of 2008. At the same time, Afghanistan's population is two to three times more than that of Chicago, L.A. and New York in total. And, of course, all three cities have strict gun control laws. That means U.S. citizens without the right to bear arms in defense of their families and property are more at risk of violent death than Afghan citizens in the middle of a war zone. Gang-bangers, murderers and thieves constitute the American Taliban and their reign of terror continues in the inner-cities--aided and abetted by liberal gun control policies.

    As for Chicago's Mayor Daley, he did not take kindly to the High Court’s decision which struck down one of the strongest hand gun bans in the U.S. in Washington, D.C. Daley's response was, "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" To answer your question, Mr. Mayor, no, not everyone. Just those non-felon citizens who want to have one. Let parents decide whether a gun in the home is more dangerous to their children than the guns in the hands of the criminals roaming the streets of Chicago. I know it goes against your Democratic Party belief which asserts elitists, like you, know better than the citizen-electorate as to what is best for their families. We have the Bill of Rights to counter the rule of the few and the elite.

    As for Reverend Jesse Jackson, he is going to lead a protest against gun shops in Chicago. This is certainly a safe option, since there are no gun shops in Chicago and little likelihood there will be any in the foreseeable future. A more meaningless gesture would be hard to imagine. Jackson is also going to lead a prayer vigil against a suburban Lake County business, DS Arms, to protest gun manufacturing. This despite the fact that DS Arms' customers are mainly police and military personnel and there is no record of any of their guns ever being used in a crime.

    Facts show Reverend Jackson’s constituents in Chicago's inner-city would be safer in Afghanistan than their own neighborhoods. This despite the fact there are violent insurgents, including Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, present in virtually every Afghani neighborhood, city or province. Yet there are gun shops in virtually every Afghan market place. I am surprised Jackson does not protest in front of the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. to complain about all the guns in Afghani civilian hands. That would make as much sense as what he is planning to do in Chicago--in front of gun shops that do not exist.

    All this is more evidence that Jesse Jackson has become a caricature of an out of touch liberal elite. Only a complicit media could keep this man in the news.

    The right to defend one's self and property is basic and so obvious the Constitution's Framers did not even address the issue in the U.S. Constitution. Afghans understand this implicitly; too bad Daley and Jackson don’t.

    * Bill Zettler recently was a guest on Champion News Talk Radio, discussing Illinois teacher salaries and pensions. Champion News Radio has a one hour show which can be heard on AM560 WIND in Chicago and is be posted in podcast form on The Champion News website[SIZE=-0].

    [/SIZE]
     
  2. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    [applaud]
     
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Daley - Jackson The axis of evil for sheeple.
     
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Therewas a good "30days "on last nighttheytooka liberal boston anti-gun activist and sent her to live with a "gun rich" ohio
    family, first time she shot a trap gun( any gun) she broke down in tears( because any time she hears a gunshot she equates it with people dying...) .
     
  5. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

    It maybe us that doesn't get it?

    People are in a position to do something about open political oppression, sheeple on the other hand just stand around and chew the grass.

    I either need to go get [boozingbuddies]or need a good [beat], because my attitude sucks as of late.

    Tony
     
  6. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down

    Monday, July 07, 2008
    By Greg Simmons
    [​IMG] <script language="javascript"> function farkItButton(h, u, s) { if (!IsDef(h)) { if (IsDef(window.fark_headline)) { h = window.fark_headline; } else { h = ''; } } u = unescape(location.href); var img = 'FarkItButton2_16x16.gif'; imgw = 16; imgh = 16; document.write('[​IMG]'); } function IsDef(variable) { return (!(!( variable||false ))) } function GetThis(T, C, U, L) { var targetUrl = 'http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?' + 't=' + encodeURIComponent(T) + '&c=' + encodeURIComponent(C) + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(U) + '&l=' + L; window.open(targetUrl); } </script>

    • Share:
      • [​IMG]
      • [​IMG]
      • [​IMG]
      • [​IMG]
      • <script type="text/javascript">farkItButton('D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down','','16x16');</script>[​IMG]

    [​IMG] AP

    A Smith & Wesson Model 642 .38-caliber revolver, top, and a Glock 31 .357-caliber semiautomatic pistol.

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's repeal of the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., may be a boon for a segment of the firearms industry whose last major windfall might have been in the heyday of the Dirty Harry movies: those who make and sell revolvers.
    The court ruled that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other Washington officials want to keep in place a prohibition on semiautomatic handguns — those in which a bullet clip is inserted into the gun's grip.
    Such a ban would continue to outlaw 9-mm and other popular pistols that are legal in most other places around the United States. And it would make the classic six-shooter the only legal handgun in the District.
    For revolver manufacturers, a ban on semiautomatics in Washington could be good for business.
    "If there's a total ban on all semiautomatic handguns, oh, absolutely," said Paul Pluff, spokesman for Smith & Wesson, the nation's top revolver manufacturer. Smith & Wesson sold 185,000 revolvers in 2006, 48 percent of all revolvers made that year in the United States, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms statistics released in January.
    Pluff recalled the last time revolver sales went through the roof — back in the 1970s.
    <!-- QUIGO --> <!-- QUIGO --> <script type="text/javascript"> /*<![CDATA[*/ var adsonar_placementId="1307847",adsonar_pid="144757",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=190;adsonar_zh=200,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com"; qas_writeAd(); /*]]>*/ </script><iframe name="adsonar_serve536854" id="adsonar_serve536854" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://ads.adsonar.com/adserving/getAdsFox.jsp?placementId=1307847&pid=144757&ps=-1&zw=190&zh=200&url=http%3A//www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C377203%2C00.html&v=5" frameborder="0" height="200" scrolling="no" width="190"></iframe>
    "Clint Eastwood — for several years — he was salesman of the year," Pluff said of the actor who portrayed vigilante cop Harry Callahan. In the Dirty Harry films, Eastwood's character brandished a Magnum .44-caliber Model 29 Smith & Wesson.
    The District of Columbia is currently in the midst of two parallel efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling. The mayor's administration is revising its rules on dealing with registration and ownership of handguns, and separately, the D.C. Council is working on changing the city's laws.
    D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, who sponsored a bill last week to address the court's decision, told FOXNews.com he's willing to consider the fate of semiautomatic handguns, but he doesn't think it needs to be addressed immediately. His bill would not change the semiautomatic weapons law.
    He said the first thing the council will need to do is address the court's ruling that D.C.'s law must include a self-defense provision.
    "I think we should look at the definition of semiautomatics in relation to what's prohibited, but I'm seeing a short-term and a long-term approach. .... And in the short term, I don't think we need to address it," Mendelson said.
    At the moment, neither the mayor's nor the council's efforts appear aimed at changing the city's ban on semiautomatic guns.
    "Under District law that the Supreme Court did not disturb, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally may not be registered. Revolvers in the home will be legal and, as before, residents remain free to register most shotguns and rifles," reads the city's Web site.
    "Automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal in the District of Columbia with this ruling," Fenty said at a news conference following the court's ruling.
    In 1976, Washington, D.C., outlawed handguns altogether. And although the city allowed residents to own other firearms like rifles and shotguns, it was illegal from that point on to keep them loaded, even inside the home.
    The only handguns that remained legal following the ban were revolvers owned by residents and business owners before the ban was instituted — and those, too, had to be kept unloaded. According to city records taken in the months after the 1976 ban, some 42,000 handguns were legally registered at the time, but none of the records remain on how many were residents, business owners, or police officers, who also had to register their guns.
    According to ATF, 73 percent — or more than 1 million guns sold in the U.S. in 2006 — were semiautomatic pistols. National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons said if city officials try to keep semiautomatics outlawed, they can expect to hear from her organization.
    "The NRA is going to ensure that D.C. actually complies with its own laws and with the Supreme Court's decisions," she said.
    According to Parsons, D.C. code already has an allowance for some semiautomatic handguns — pistols with a magazine holding fewer than 12 live rounds were grandfathered under the now-overturned 1976 ban.
    "They are falsely claiming that all semiautomatic handguns are banned," Parsons said. She said the NRA will wait until the city sets its new rules to decide how to respond.
    The District interprets its prohibition to encompass all semiautomatic handguns. Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who represented D.C. residents seeking gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, said one line of D.C. code basically renders semiautomatic handguns as a machine gun, which would still be illegal.
    Current city law defines a "machine gun" to mean "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: a) Automatically, more than one shot by a single function of the trigger; b) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading."
    Gura said the Heller decision does not protect "dangerous or unusual weapons" — like fully automatic, military style machine guns — but it does protect weapons "in common use" or those people would use for "lawful purposes." Semiautomatics, which police departments have made their weapon of choice, would fall under that category, Gura said.
    "It's unfortunate that, you know, they seem to think that a ban on semiautomatic firearms is constitutional. It's not," Gura said. "Semiautomatics are garden variety. It's a normal, non-exotic, typical technology. It does not let you spray bullets. ... People here 'automatic,' and they think, 'Oh, it's Rambo.' It's not."
    Mendelson said he does have a limit to what he thinks is safe.
    "I think an individual possessing a handgun that can fire 18 rounds — that is loaded and can fire 18 rounds semiautomatically — is a problem for public safety in the District," Mendelson said. "I don't know what the correct number is, but something less (than 18 shots)."
    Peter Nickles, interim attorney general for the city, said it remains to be seen whether the city will include any updates on semiautomatics as part of its rules changes. Currently, the city is trying to balance a number of issues, including meeting the court's ruling and avoiding further legal challenges.
    Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.
    "From an accuracy standpoint, from a reliability standpoint, revolvers are still very popular," Pluff said.
    He said the chief priority in his mind for a self-defense weapon is "to take myself away from danger. ... For most people, most confrontations, it's not going to be a high volume of rounds being shot."
    But, Pluff said, when it comes to safety inside the home — a major question in the minds of policymakers — semiautomatics and revolvers are no different.
    "Any gun is safe if properly stored and properly handled. ... Whether it's a semiautomatic or a revolver, it's a mechanical device. If you put that gun on a table and nobody touches it and nobody misuses it, that gun will never go off," Pluff said. "Any gun can be safe or unsafe depending on the person's consciousness to safety."
    <!-- QUIGO --> <!-- QUIGO -->
     
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Hmph. How is an auto loading pistol not a handgun? (And I"m not sure Pluff is doing the cause any favors.)

    'Bout time the term "automatic" was purged and more correct terms be used, methinks. Maybe even do away with "auto loading" and use the terms "revolver" and "pistol" as a distinction as some already do.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7