7.17.2007

This Ought to Be Fun

Oh boy! Mayor Fenty is taking the US Court of Appeals ruling that the DC handgun ban is unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court! If the Court grants a writ of certiorari, and I think the four liberal justices will, it will be the first Second Amendment case to be heard buy the Court in almost 70 years. If no writ is granted, then we get our guns.

Even if the case does go to the Court, I think it'll be a toss-up. This is exactly the sort of thing where Justice Kennedy will be the pivotal swing vote. I bet they decide to uphold the Appeals Court's decision. And that would be the right decision.

The DC handgun ban is an absolute joke. Councilmembers and the Mayor speak of it reverently. This law, after all, has saved countless lives. Right?

The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack in Congress and in the courts.

Well, 1977 was the year of the Great District Crime Drop. Wait. It wasn't? Murder rates increased between 1976 and 1977? Except for a one year blip in 1985, DC murder rates have never decreased back to 1976 levels when handguns were legal. Between 1976 and 2007, DC became the "Murder Capital of the World" before seeing the murder rates cut drastically. Gun bans had nothing to do with the increase or the decrease. It's a fantasy that councilmembers tell themselves to appease the District's liberal anti-gun population.

Well, fuck the anti-gun population. I much prefer the integrity of the Constitution. Civil liberties are far too important to legislate away. If people want handguns for protection, godspeed to them. Any honest interpreter of the Second Amendment should agree with me.

71 comments:

  1. hey rusty, why don't you just go ahead and join LNS already?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm already a member?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    I'm a left-leaning gun-hating liberal, and although I live in MD, I see no reason why DC should be singled out for not being allowed to have guns. Yeah, I'll never own a gun in my lifetime, but if I have the option to legally own one, then DC residents should have the option to legally own one. They shouldn't be treated differently from the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Rusty, you are so simple. And it's pretty obvious that you've never taken a Constitutional law class in your life. Go back to hating metro, the one thing you do have experience with (oh and fending off LNS chicks).

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Rusty - you are officially now a cunty-bollocks of the highest order.

    Fuck off back to the Cape you redneck-in-disguise.

    I hope if the gun ban is overruled someone gets a handgun and kneecaps you IRA style.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This argument should be settled by an good old fashion duel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    making things illegal means people will never use them, or break the laws. i mean, who does drugs anymore?

    it's quite obvious that human behavior does not hinge on what is or is not made available to us. many people choose to seek out what is unavailable to them.

    besides, isn't it pretty obvious that most of the folks who commit crimes don't give a shit about obtaining a handgun illegally? so a handgun ban really is nothing more than an attempt to make us feel more secure, all while ignoring the real issues: poverty, crime and a giant turd of a school system.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Whatever happened to those Rusty is a Douche comments? I miss those :(

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rusty is a douche.

    ReplyDelete
  10. b.u.l.l.e.t.s. --> summer, spring, winter & fallJuly 17, 2007

    1991. What a year that was. I remember it like it was just yesterday. The riots. The crime. All you gentrified white recent arrivals will never know what it was like to live in the real DC. Where just looking at somebody wrong could have gotten you shot. Even our professional basketball team carried their own weapons and no I am not talking about their former name either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. learn2shootJuly 17, 2007

    DC has created a scenario where people are forced to be victims and are OK with it. What about Alan Senitt? You think he was ok with his role?

    The police cannot protect you because they simply cannot be in all places at all times (Warren vs. DC)

    DC has taken away the right of the people to defened themselves with an effective tool. What other option is there than to be a victim? Well you can move to VA... but that should not be the only option.

    I get people from DC come and take my pistol courses who are excited about this development. They want to be ready when the laws FINALLY allow them an effective means to self defense. Anybody who wants to own a gun should be allowed, without an insurmountable permitting process.

    www.discovershooting.net

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bullets,

    It's interesting that you write about "The Real DC" as a violent and crime riddled city, where one could get shot at any given time for no good reason. Not only that, you seem to be reminiscing about these as better times for the city.

    Is there any particular reason you feel this way? Do you feel a sense of identity with the 1991 DC versus today's city? Do you find it aggrivating that white people are living in luxury high rise condos next to Ben's Chili Bowl?

    The "Real DC" is now one that is in step with economic development, crime reduction, and job opportunities. You know, the reasons that transplants are actually moving to DC.

    1991 is long gone. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Why does everyone hate you?!? I think you are friggin hysterically funny and I admire your disregard for everyone else’s feelings.. keep doing what you do!

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    someone said:
    "The "Real DC" is now one that is in step with economic development, crime reduction, and job opportunities. You know, the reasons that transplants are actually moving to DC."

    Sounds like you're pretty removed from what happens in the real world. A good portion of DC and its residents are still in dire straits. You and your career cronies are not the only people in this city. Seriously, just fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    I bet Rusty would piss his pants if some 13 year old hood put a gun in his face and demanded his wallet. Rusty loves guns, well what about one in your face white boy?

    ReplyDelete
  16. am i missing the irony or do i agree with rusty (or for that matter james) for the first time ever?

    no flag burning amendments, no gay marraige amendments, no abrogations of free speech, no stupid gun laws.

    RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ken ShepherdJuly 17, 2007

    I'm with you, man. And for all the morons calling you a redneck and throwing out other invective, there are lots of liberals who are pro-2nd Amendment, both from a political stance and a constitutional rights stance.

    Here's a site I check periodically:

    progunprogressive.com

    There's also guntards.net and guntotingliberal.com.

    Here's an article about Laurence Tribe, a huge lefty con-law expert seeing the 2A as protecting an individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117011910589

    I myself am a conservative, but the right to defend oneself from criminal aggression and illegitimate use of governmental force (the prime reason behind the 2A) is a natural and a constitutional right.

    ReplyDelete
  18. itisccMmmmmm…I will agree with Rusty on this one. Growing up in Texas, I had guns shoved in my face since I was a kid. I personally don’t care much for them unless I’m visiting home, drinking beer and shooting the cans on my grandmother’s farm – a safe place to do so. But this assumption that legal handguns would throw DC back into the riotous past is just silly. Hey, all of the street thugs can have guns so WTF does it matter if some RESPONSIBLE people have them too? Go look the number of gun deaths from Arlington and Fairfax counties for last year, where properly registered handguns are widely owned – likely more than the number of illegal handguns in DC proper (a guess, BTW). Now compare that to DC number of handgun deaths in the same time frame. That should show you that the real problem is NOT the ability to legally purchase, register and responsibly use a handgun. The problem is illegal handguns available on the street and societal/economic issues with the downtrodden in the cesspool we call DC.

    So before you sit here and piss and moan about your aching pussy over guns, why don’t you ask your self what the real issues are and what, if anything, you are doing to correct it – besides bitching.

    ReplyDelete
  19. READ THE CONSTITUTION YOU HALF WITS!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey anonymous,

    I'm still here! Hi!

    Feel free to email me at rustysadouche@gmail.com.

    Maybe we can meet up and discuss feminine hygiene and our hateful friend Rusty.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    the second amendment, if interpreted "honestly", says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

    MILITIA. A well-regulated militia. Definition: "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency."

    Militia doesn't mean every single person born in this country. A militia was considered, when they were writing that nice old piece of paper that you so obviously have never read, a citizen army meant to fend of enemies...like the British.

    We are no longer fending off an organized enemy. That amendment is pretty much invalid nowadays, for it is referencing a group that no longer exists. That nonexistent group has the right to bear arms, but we need a new amendment for the present.

    Also, Rusty: just because the murder rate went up after 1976 doesn't mean the handgun ban necessarily failed. It means that other methods of murder went up. Take a statistics course and use some logic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hmmmm....are well armed street gangs a "militia"? I would think so. Just a thought to ponder. The interpretation of the Constitution can go both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  23. One of the most interesting legal arguments (which probably won't be made) is the argument that because Congress has the constitutional power to pretty much do whatever the hell they want to DC and its residents (like make them pay income tax when they don't have representation), and because Congress has to approve all DC legislation, Congress was not acting unconstitutionally when it approved the District's handgun ban.

    Of course, this would be an absolutely horrific precedent, since it would basically make it constitutional for Congress to suspend the Bill of Rights in DC...so forget I said anything...

    Personally, I live in DC, I don't want a gun, I'd prefer my neighbors not have guns, but I've taken Con law classes, and I practice law, and damn, man, the whole "militia clause" argument is a big-assed stretch by gun control advocates. Seriously, the part before the comma ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") is just an explanation for what comes after, which is the part that actually creates the right to keep and bear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "the right of the states" or "the right of the people of the several states," it says "the right of the people." Yeah, I see where the court was coming from 70 years ago, but I don't buy it (much as I would like to).

    ReplyDelete
  24. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Sounds like you're pretty removed from what happens in the real world. A good portion of DC and its residents are still in dire straits. You and your career cronies are not the only people in this city. Seriously, just fuck off.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    pwned!

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Banning handguns is not effective in preventing thugs from getting access to them. Its greatest advantage is that when thugs do have them, you can arrest them on the spot and confiscate their weapons and send them to jail. Therefore, you can have one of two scenarios here. One where thugs have handguns legally and you have to wait for them to commit crimes with those guns before you arrest them, OR thugs have guns illegally and you can arrest them for mere possession, hopefully preventing crime by arresting gun criminals before they commit other crimes (we can assume it would be the same pool of people either way). In both scenarios, the criminal will have a gun, but in the second scenario you can arrest them more easily and have a record on them, which is better than nothing. And if you're being truly honest, you would also admit that your possession of a gun in the event of a crime hurts your chances of survival more than it helps. Numerous studies have shown this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    1991 could easily happen again because the economic gap between the rich and the poor is 100x worse now as opposed to back then.

    So 1991 could easily happen again but this time the end results would be much much worse. 1991 would seem like disneyland.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Banning handguns is not effective in preventing thugs from getting access to them. Its greatest advantage is that when thugs do have them, you can arrest them on the spot and confiscate their weapons and send them to jail."

    This is a bullshit argument because you cannot just search anyone without just cause. And these thugs don't go around waving these guns to everyone. Rather, they impulsively pull them out, use them and the damage is done. So your theory that this ban reduces incidents with guns is severely flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Also, most "thugs" would have prior criminal records thus banning them from legally obtaining one (if DC followed other state's protocol). This would be the case more times than not.

    ReplyDelete
  29. pg county saltine allianceJuly 17, 2007

    Not all the thugs are your stereotypical colored people either. Take a look at this saltine. Back in the day, saltines were responsible for lots of robberies, shootings and murders in DC.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJu_UswXWtw

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yertle de TurtleJuly 17, 2007

    Rusty IS a douche. A quick survey of his blog reveals the following:

    - he plays "Guitar Hero" in public
    - he goes to Adams Morgan wearing a sweater vest and khakis
    - he likes Smashing Pumpkins
    - he reads the Gawker website "Jezebel"
    - he's a virgin
    - he complains about the Metro more than an old Jewish lady
    - he constantly refers to himself as a contrarian when in fact all of his opinions are painfully conventional and inoffensive. (Ooh, he's pro-"To Kill a Mockingbird"! What a maverick!)

    All facts and all straight from the horse's mouth. My friends, I think we can all agree that THAT is truly a portrait of a douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Look at all them crackers runnin' for cover!

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    Look at the baby in the stroller crashing head-on into that cement barrier!

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    Classic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yertle de TurtleJuly 17, 2007

    Oh, forgot one:

    - he's religious (Episcopalian)

    Whew, what a douche! As the list grows, I will revise and repost. This is fun!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not AfraidJuly 17, 2007

    The whole point of the second ammendment was to let the people bear arms to protect themsleves from a tyrant goverment. Now, we know that is useless now, as a couple of handguns would take the people nowhere against the goverment and actually thinking that there will be a people led uprising as in latin america is completely out of the question.

    As far as protecting yourselves from "thugs" what's the point? I live on one of those "luxury high rises" next to Ben's and I do not feel threatened at all. Most gun violence in DC is thugh against thug and gang against gang. Yes there was that one incident of the georgetown man...but c'mon, we've all seen the news.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Rusty is a virgin? Where can I verify that?

    ReplyDelete
  35. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Yeah the baby in the stroller. That was Rusty when he was 2 years old and he was visiting Washington with his parents.

    ReplyDelete
  36. hahahahahahahahahahahahaJuly 17, 2007

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  37. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Who was the guy shooting at?

    ReplyDelete
  38. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    "I live on one of those "luxury high rises" next to Ben's"

    Just stop right there.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yoitle de ToitleJuly 17, 2007

    A lot of people bandy about a lot of unsupported "Rusty is a douche!" statements, but I went out and got scientific proof. I mean, that shit is incontrovertible.

    Also, another example of Rusty's "contrarian" opinions:

    - he says the Beatles were really good.

    Going out on quite a limb there!

    ReplyDelete
  40. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Rusty was the baby in the stroller?

    ReplyDelete
  41. But without guns, how will I defend myself from the hippies? Honestly, the gun laws of both Maryland and DC are a joke. In both Baltimore and DC, strict gun laws have done nothing to curb violent crime. Period. End of discussion. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some assault rifles to clean. Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  42. PG County Saltine Alliance: I never said "thugs" couldn't be White...or Hispanic....or whatever. Did I? I don’t think so! But while we’re on it…I am tired of black people playing the race card for every damn thing. It's not 1960, get over it....nothing holds you back but yourself.

    Now would you care to comment on any of the real CONSTITIUTIONAL issues at hand or shall we turn this into a fucking Oprah episode.

    The people on this blog, no Rusty or the blog itself, are fucking lame! Childish, immature, infantile.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I blame LNS for leading DC Dude to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  44. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    rusty's a virgin.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hey DC Lady: Go eat the corn out of you own shit. --Not that this has anything to do with handguns or the Constitution...I just felt the need to defend myself.

    ReplyDelete
  46. DC Dude: But what if she hasn't eaten any corn? Did you prepare a contingency plan? Well?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I mean, how did you find it, then? Be honest. Here. I'll go first. I heard about it because my friends were outraged about something on it (don't even really remember what it was) and linked me to it. I thought he was funny, so I returned.

    People who bitch about "the race card" and say nothing has been holding black people back since 1960 are either crazy, racist, or ignorant. Sounds LNS-y to me.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Also, I am all out of corn in my poops. You'll have to choose something else to double-dog-dare me to eat.

    ReplyDelete
  49. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    KILL EM' ALL

    LET GOD SORT EM' OUT

    ReplyDelete
  50. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    Somebody please call an ambulance for the baby in the stroller.

    ReplyDelete
  51. world bankerJuly 17, 2007

    Nothing wrong with being a virgin. I was a virgin for the longest time until I finally decided to pay some random girl I met at a bar and finally get the damn thing over with and out of the way.

    I'm glad I did too.

    :O

    ReplyDelete
  52. AnonymousJuly 17, 2007

    rusty
    I would like to tell you a sad incident that happened in 1973 when it was legal to have a hand gun in D.C. A 15 year old classmate of mine had an argument with her mother as we all do at one time or another. The argument escated to the point where the young girl slapped her mother and ran outof the house. As she ran down the steps, her mother shot her in the back of the head. She died later that night. I can't help but wonder if hand guns were illegal back then would this girl be celebrating her 49th birthday. Just stating another side of the hand gun debate.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I mean, according to that logic, if fights between mothers and daughters were also outlawed, it could have been prevented.

    Your story is tragic, but it was not caused by lax gun laws. It was caused by a woman who was unstable enough to shoot her own child after an argument.

    Awful shit happens. All the time. We haven't outlawed all the things that are related to said awful shits because part of the reason we like life enough to be pissed when people get shot is that we also have rights.

    I am by no stretch of the imagination pro-gun. I am pro-upholding the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Rusty,
    Here's a sad incident that happened in 1973, when hand guns were legal. A 15 year old girl named Yalanda Markley had a argument with her mother. The argument escalated to the point where Yalanda slapped her mother. Afterwards she ran out of the house. Her mother ran out of the house after her, carrying a gun and shot her daughter in the back of the head. Yalanda did not survive. I can't help but wonder if hand guns had been illegal back then, would Yalanda be alive today. Just another side of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  55. OOps My comment was published both under Reggie girl and anonymous. My mistake. I'm new at this.

    Terri good point. As you can see I am against guns, but I am also pro-constitution. As i said ths just another side of the argument.

    I guess deranged people have constitutional rights also. That is until they are declared crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    Nothing wrong with being a virgin. I was a virgin for the longest time until I finally decided to pay some random girl I met at a bar and finally get the damn thing over with and out of the way.

    I'm glad I did too.

    :O


    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  57. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    DONT GET MAD

    NUKE THE BASTARDS

    ReplyDelete
  58. Wikipedia has a very balanced view of the opposing viewpoints.

    It's strange. I would think all the wayyyy left DC Liberals who have been bitching about Big Brother and our Tyrannical Government for the past six years would eventually stop complaining and prepare themselves for the possibility that they will need to take up arms to protect themselves and our future from what they claim is a totalitarian Government.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Guard or Reserves. Those are state organizations. A state organization is not going to protect you from a corrupt or fascistic state.

    You people deserve the Government you get.

    ReplyDelete
  59. bitter boomerJuly 18, 2007

    You stupid generation y fuckers always looking to the internet and wikipedia to back your lame ass beliefs.

    Take your i-pod and stick it up your ass.

    Tell all your myspace friends to go and fuck themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  60. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    Take your views on guns to Philly. They are no allow to enforce strong gun laws by their state government. The end results? Ten times the gun related violents a city seven times its size.

    ReplyDelete
  61. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    You stupid generation y fuckers always looking to the internet and wikipedia to back your lame ass beliefs.

    Take your i-pod and stick it up your ass.

    Tell all your myspace friends to go and fuck themselves!


    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  62. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    Take your views on guns to Philly. They are no allow to enforce strong gun laws by their state government. The end results? Ten times the gun related violents a city seven times its size.

    First off, would someone be so kind as to translate the above into comprehensible English? I was able to determine that the author was throwing out stats on gun violence with respect to Philadelphia. Facts / sources please?

    ReplyDelete
  63. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    All I have to say is that when they take away the gun ban we should get states rights too. You can't argue that we don't have the right to vote because we aren't counted as a state and then stick up for gun rights which were also granted only to "the states".
    Also, if there is a drop in crime I would like to see the stats for accidental shootings in comparison to the crime drop for the first few years. Better to be shot by a scared neighbor or to have your kid kill themselves than to be killed by someone who got their gun illegally.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "You stupid generation y fuckers always looking to the internet and wikipedia to back your lame ass beliefs."

    I have to assume that was directed to me, since I linked to the wikipedia article about the second amendment.

    I cited it as an interesting article on the foundation of each side of the debate, and used no information from it to "back" my "lame-ass" beliefs.

    I doubt you're actually a boomer, but if so, then you're a part of the generation of people who sat by while this system oscillated so wildly out of control - - and you have no credibility to launch angry complaints. If not, then you're a liar masquerading as someone else, and you have no credibility to say a damned thing.

    ReplyDelete
  65. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    "Even if the case does go to the Court, I think it'll be a toss-up. This is exactly the sort of thing where Justice Kennedy will be the pivotal swing vote. I bet they decide to uphold the Appeals Court's decision. And that would be the right decision."

    Hey, fucktard, Justice Kennedy is *always* the swing vote.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I like how I suck and am totally worthless because I didn't happen to live in the District in 1991. Yeah I'm real sorry about that, but I was 10 years old and living in Hagerstown, MD.

    Congratulations on surviving the sky-high crime rate, though!

    ReplyDelete
  67. AnonymousJuly 18, 2007

    What really scares me is that if the gun ban is lifted, a lot of angry bloggers on this blogspot will be allowed to own a handgun.

    To those of you who truly hate D.C., as a native Washingtonian, I hope you only hate the government and not the people.

    ReplyDelete
  68. AnonymousJuly 19, 2007

    Clearly if the murder rate has gone up since handguns have been banned, then adding more handguns to this murderous population is bound to make the murder rate drop, right? That's just sound science.

    That's why God said in the ten commandments: "Congress shalt make no law that foresaketh the right of His people to wieldeth the arms of fire"

    ReplyDelete
  69. However you feel about guns personally, look at how the constitution is interpreted nationally. Chicago is the only other city with gun laws as strict as DC. So that means that 49 other states interpret article II as applying to the individual and not solely a militia.

    I don't understand why people are surprised that this ban could finally collapse when it's been flying in the face of what, for all intensive purposes is a national standard when it comes to gun laws.

    I will own a gun here when the ban falls, just as I owned a gun before I came here. It won't leave the house (and it probably shouldn't), but you better believe it will be accessible (and no I don't have kids).

    ReplyDelete
  70. AnonymousJuly 19, 2007

    And I remember when DC and Chicago competed for the country's highest murder rate a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  71. AnonymousJuly 21, 2007

    Is giving people the ability to keep a registered handgun in their own homes really so bad? I'm no NRAer, but forbidding people from simply owning a handgun (not for carrying or using it) is what supposedly passes for liberalism now? These aren't Republican-issued assault rifles we're talking about here people!

    ReplyDelete