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Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

People called the idea of abolition "outdated and dangerous" prior to the civil war.

Uh, no. They did not call the idea of abolition "outdated" because it was a new concept. Ladies and Gentleman, see exhibit A, above: the feverish logic of an open or concealed carry supporter.

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

So where do you draw the line? Do we bar the first amendment because your feelings may get hurt? I hate anchor babies, does a state just decide to not give citizenship because they don't like the 14th amendment?

Feelings be damned - it's lives I'm talking about.

The fact you can't understand this says a lot about you and it's not pretty.

Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

So where do you draw the line? Do we bar the first amendment because your feelings may get hurt? I hate anchor babies, does a state just decide to not give citizenship because they don't like the 14th amendment?

States can and should be able to regulate guns in the public sphere. There is no constitutional right to carry your gun everywhere.

If I can't bring my gun into the NRA headquarters, congress, etc there is no right.

Anonymous wrote:

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Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

People called the idea of abolition "outdated and dangerous" prior to the civil war.

And are you supporting them?

There is more than ample evidence to show that gun control needs to be tighter in this country. I stand by what I said.

+1 Get rid of the guns.

Pipe dream. And unconstitutional.

Anonymous wrote:

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Anonymous wrote:Since the "constitutional right" in question is outdated and dangerous, I agree with the DC government.

People called the idea of abolition "outdated and dangerous" prior to the civil war.

And are you supporting them?

There is more than ample evidence to show that gun control needs to be tighter in this country. I stand by what I said.

+1 Get rid of the guns.

oops, meant to copy 16:23

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.

And are you supporting them?

There is more than ample evidence to show that gun control needs to be tighter in this country. I stand by what I said.

+1 Get rid of the guns.

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.

And are you supporting them?

There is more than ample evidence to show that gun control needs to be tighter in this country. I stand by what I said.

I am a DC resident and am fully in favor of any laws that curtail open or concealed carry in my city. And I will continue to vote for officials who support that.

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.

Oh well.
Nobody said life was fair.

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

DC's government, since the 1970s, has passed numerous unconstitutional laws. Courts have repeatedly slapped down these gross violations of our civil rights, and forced DC to respect the rights of its citizens.

In the latest example, DC's draconian laws on permits limiting the lawful carry of defensive arms were again found to violate our constitutionally protected rights:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E2F5AEE1CAB3A06C85258168004F3EE5/$file/16-7067.pdf

Briefly: the law was written to allow DC officials to deny virtually all requests for a permit to carry a defensive firearm in DC (just as Maryland denies almost all such requests).