The DC Gun Ban - The fight still continues on...
 

What kind of idiot would want to follow these regs? A revolver is the only gun that seems to qualify. I see a big fight looming. One that could trash any gun control measure from here on out since these guns do not follow what SCOTUS said is OK. A Semi-Auto .45 for instance is still banned here.

Notice that the physically disabled are discriminated against. Not mental here - physically. Terrible!

-S

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9030/dc1de0.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5516/dc2hz5.jpg

wow that does suck.

Well the second amendment ruling only said that right to own handguns was ok, it did not specify semi autos :(

Pretty tricky these DC legislators :down:

BUT it did! A semi auto handgun follows under the ruling as a 'normal' gun. This will be another fight in the courts guaranteed!

-S

I hope so. Seems a bit odd to allow revolvers and disallow semi autos unless they are concerned with mag capacity :hmm:

Clearly they are making it as difficult to follow the new rules. They can't prohibit you from owning a handgun any more, but that does not mean they have to make it easy for you.

This really bytes.

I glad that, finally, the residents of DC are citizens and not subjects.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

No, it says "the right to keep and bear arms". Doesn't say what kind. At the time every citizen had the latest and greatest, right up to and including cannons. The people were expected to be the army, and they were expected to be better armed than anyone else.:sunny:

"Registering your firearm in District of Columbia - for your safety"


:damn: Wow...just wow....:damn::rotfl:

Here's the solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJ...eature=related

:rotfl: He rocks. I miss those shows.;)

wow...they even have the balls to lie to the public by saying that "firearms are the leading cause of death among children..." (It's in the "safety" notice on the RH side). Any CDC statistic will immediatly disprove that statement. And even then, I wouldn't register my gun anyway ('course I don't live in the District of Communism so it's not like it matters anyway).

Well I guess an idiot who wants a gun. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Who LEGALLY wants a gun you mean...

Yeah exactly...

Sure. We believe you....(NOT!)

-S

You don't have to believe me, everyone who wants can get a gun (apart from the physically disabled, which I have a hard time understanding either, especially compared to the fact that if you weren't in mental treatment for the last 5 years you can get one).
A gun that was designed to kill, what does it matter if you can't have a semi-auto? A revolver or pump-action shotgun, will kill a possible threat to you just as good... It isn't specified which arms you have the right to bear in the constitution, so I guess you'll have to live with that. Or move out of DC if you live there.

In that other thread you made about a ban on MG's, what do you need an MG for? I know it's fun shooting one, heck I did some shooting when I served my time in the army, but what's the point in possesing one, is this some kind of potence prothesis?

The best answer to your question sits with another question - Why not?

Are you too immature to handle one? Do you think all your neighbors are out to kill you if they get one? Level with me here - why not? Its a valid question.

-S

I sure am mature enough to handle an MG, but I don't see the point in owning one. Why should I think my neighbours are out to kill me if they all had an MG? I'd think they are paranoid, but that's about it, maybe if one of them was mentally unstable or hot-tempered I'd be worried. Really what kind of perceivable threat to your life justify the use of an MG unless war is happening at your doorstep or you've got hordes of criminals running into your house, I don't see how the same job can't be done with a revolver or shotgun. I don't think a thief who wants to break in will expect you to have an MG, even if the legislation would allow for it, so you can't say it's a deterent, unless your standing infront of your house the whole day with the MG for everyone to see... Even if he knows you got one, he will simply wait till you're not at home, or break into another house where the owner isn't at home, if he's smart enough.

The military rifle is a right. You are the first generation in history that didn't grow up with military rifle or sword, and I don't understand 'why' you think that your fellow neighbor should not have one? Its unfathomable. If you don't want one, fine! you don't have to have one. Kind of like weird backwards thinking started to take over the world in the late 20th Century.

-S

Have you ever looked at my location? I'm not living in the USA, so I'm not denying my neighbours anything. I could own a gun, I'm perfectly fine with the fact that, maybe some of my neighbours really have one, I don't need one, I don't get one, if I'd need a weapon, it would have (as in required by the law) to be either for sports shooting, hunting and/or self defense, and it's kinda hard to argue that you need a military full auto rifle for that.

I'm certainly not in the first generation that grew up without the military rifle (which I didn't, as I've stated before, possibly in the other thread, damn cross posting). And just like you can't fathom being denied the right to own one, I can as easily fathom just this, because for as long as I can remember it has been this way here, and it wasn't for the worse it was that way.

Weird backwards thinking, you tell me, I mean you still make it seem like you're living in 1791 when the Bill of rights was amended to your constitution (which still doesn't say which arms citizens are allowed to bear, as long as they are allowed to bear any arms, I don't think a ban on certain guns is unconstitutional)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, it was never that way here where I live, and I guess to me this whole gun craziness in the US of A will always remain a mystery to me. I'll gladly read your reply, but I won't post here, since your stance on this is clear and won't change no matter what I say.

Using that argument, you make a case for no guns at all. Military rifles simply shoot more bullets, and there are many sporting competitions based on them in the USA. It is a sport over here as it has been with military rifles since the inception of this country.

Probably yes - I also agree to disagree.

Of course, maybe this is the first 'American' generation to grow up without rifle or sword, but you might be on gen 2 or 3.

-S