Yet another DC law found to violate our constitutionally protected rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually a brilliant argument. It fits perfectly.

It's a law, desired by one group of people, to be imposed on other people (that thru don't like, mind you) which has a profound impact on their personal safety.

I totally get it. I'm so stealing this.

This is a better argument - don't move into DC. How about that? Stay in VA or WVA or whereever the hell you are let us make our own laws.

One might take a state's rights position on gun control, except if he lives in DC. DC is not a state. DC laws are federal laws. If the second amendment binds any jurisdiction at all, it must bind DC.

By the way, the amendment is very clear that the people have the right both to keep (own) and to bear (carry) arms. Since Heller, the country has been put on notice that the second amendment cannot be ignored. Open or concealed carry will available throughout the country soon.

If you don't like it, PP, move to Europe. If you want to stay in the US, then start advocating for the repeal of the second amendment, but please stop electing officials to the DC city council who wantonly attack the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

Please stop electing officials who attack your rights? Your rights are not absolute. Just like you vote for who you want, we can vote for who we want.

You keep saying "rights are not absolute".

Do you think bans (which are absolutely absolute) are ok?

If so, why?

They aren't "banned" anymore. You can have a gun, you just can't carry it around with you. See how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

The Supreme Court says otherwise. The DC government is a joke.

CORRECTAMUNDO.


However, I am a fan of mandatory background checks.

I find the 1st Anendment right to free speech outdated and dangerous.

No one asked you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually a brilliant argument. It fits perfectly.

It's a law, desired by one group of people, to be imposed on other people (that thru don't like, mind you) which has a profound impact on their personal safety.

I totally get it. I'm so stealing this.

This is a better argument - don't move into DC. How about that? Stay in VA or WVA or whereever the hell you are let us make our own laws.

One might take a state's rights position on gun control, except if he lives in DC. DC is not a state. DC laws are federal laws. If the second amendment binds any jurisdiction at all, it must bind DC.

By the way, the amendment is very clear that the people have the right both to keep (own) and to bear (carry) arms. Since Heller, the country has been put on notice that the second amendment cannot be ignored. Open or concealed carry will available throughout the country soon.

If you don't like it, PP, move to Europe. If you want to stay in the US, then start advocating for the repeal of the second amendment, but please stop electing officials to the DC city council who wantonly attack the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

Please stop electing officials who attack your rights? Your rights are not absolute. Just like you vote for who you want, we can vote for who we want.

You keep saying "rights are not absolute".

Do you think bans (which are absolutely absolute) are ok?

If so, why?

They aren't "banned" anymore. You can have a gun, you just can't carry it around with you. See how that works.

Except they are *indeed* banned from being carried. See how that works?

And that violates the little part about "bearing" arms, per our Constitution.

So no rights are absolute, but a ban is absolutely absolute. And now we're back where we started - with you advocating people's rights be violated.

There is no way out of this for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

People called the idea of abolition "outdated and dangerous" prior to the civil war.

citation needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

People called the idea of abolition "outdated and dangerous" prior to the civil war.

citation needed

"citation needed" = "I'm caught without a retort because everyone knows the previous post is correct, but I still want to post something in opposition and seem witty".