[$tinkle]

dcist

Court Calls District Gun Laws Unconstitutional

The District's restrictive gun laws have long been hated by Second Amendment activists everywhere, who have tried pretty much everything, including near-annual congressional legislation, to overturn them. Today might be their day, though -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has found that the District's gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

In a decision published today, the court wrote that the District's restrictions on gun ownership, which date back to 1976, unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to bear arms. The court's opinion, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman, argued that gun ownership is an individual right and that the city's restrictions -- which include a ban on handgun purchases or ownership (though guns bought before 1976 are exempt) and mandate that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled -- violate the spirit of the Second Amendment. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by six District residents in February 2003, four of which expressed a desire to own handguns for self-defense, one of which owned a shotgun but wanted to keep it assembled and loaded and one who is a special police officer and wants to keep a gun at home. None of the residents expressed a desire to carry the gun outside their homes, nor did they seek to challenge the right of the city to mandate firearm registration.

 

[DRB]

dcist

Court Calls District Gun Laws Unconstitutional

The District's restrictive gun laws have long been hated by Second Amendment activists everywhere, who have tried pretty much everything, including near-annual congressional legislation, to overturn them. Today might be their day, though -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has found that the District's gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

In a decision published today, the court wrote that the District's restrictions on gun ownership, which date back to 1976, unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to bear arms. The court's opinion, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman, argued that gun ownership is an individual right and that the city's restrictions -- which include a ban on handgun purchases or ownership (though guns bought before 1976 are exempt) and mandate that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled -- violate the spirit of the Second Amendment. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by six District residents in February 2003, four of which expressed a desire to own handguns for self-defense, one of which owned a shotgun but wanted to keep it assembled and loaded and one who is a special police officer and wants to keep a gun at home. None of the residents expressed a desire to carry the gun outside their homes, nor did they seek to challenge the right of the city to mandate firearm registration.

Since when are the people in the District subject to the constitution?

 

[$tinkle]

Since when are the people in the District subject to the constitution?

do you know something i don't?

 

[DRB]

do you know something i don't?

How much congressional representation do the people of DC have? Oh that's right none.

 

[$tinkle]

puerto rico, american somoa, and the v.i.'s all have miss america entries, so that holds just as much drag.

 

[peter6061]

Does the 'unconstitutional' law actually keep anyone in DC from carrying and USING guns on a regular basis?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Does the 'unconstitutional' law actually keep anyone in DC from carrying and USING guns on a regular basis?

Being the murder capital of the U.S. for several years running back in the 90's....I'd have to say "no."

 

[Transcend]

"Violates the spirit of the second ammendment"? Is this judge high, or did she simply sleep through history class?

"The Spirit" of the second ammendment is that citizens own guns to rise up against the state if it is too restrictive. It isn't that every redneck should own a gun to plink cans with and to fire through the walls and kill the neighbours with when drunk.

Having a gun disassembled is perfect. Redneck owns gun, literal reading of the constitution satisfied. Redneck cannot accidentally blow away baby in next room while high on meth and PBR, baby's mommas satisfied. He can still rise up against the state when his hangover wears off. Spirit of the constitution satisfied.

 

[llkoolkeg]

"Violates the spirit of the second ammendment"? Is this judge high, or did she simply sleep through history class?

If he was and did, he was obviously not the only one.

"The Spirit" of the second ammendment is that citizens own guns to rise up against the state if it is too restrictive. It isn't that every redneck should own a gun to plink cans with and to fire through the walls and kill the neighbours with when drunk.

The spirit of the 2nd amendment is that citizens' right to keep and bear arms not be infinged upon; the right to throw off a repressive government was but one aspect to consider. This may come as a great shock to you but gun owners aren't all rednecks, plinkers, drinkers or killers of neighbors and their unarmed sheetrock.

Having a gun disassembled is perfect. Redneck owns gun, literal reading of the constitution satisfied. Redneck cannot accidentally blow away baby in next room while high on meth and PBR, baby's mommas satisfied. He can still rise up against the state when his hangover wears off. Spirit of the constitution satisfied.

Having a gun disassembled makes it about as useful as a Swiffer for self-defense...probably even less so when you give up the extra foot of reach. You can't even threaten an intruder with it sans ammunition because it obviously poses no threat in parts. The redneck thing again? Blow away baby high on meth and PBR?!? Are you now losing all control of your mental faculties or has my recent scarcity merely emboldened your rhetoric?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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.

Which part of that means that any old Joe has the right to keep and bear arms? Is it the part where it specifically calls for that person to be part of a militia?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Which part of that means that any old Joe has the right to keep and bear arms? Is it the part where it specifically calls for that person to be part of a militia?

We have had this very same debate here countless times but obviously, I am not the only one here with somewhat compromised memory. Regardless, consider your cheap bait taken.

Those not familiar with written material besides comic books would likely assume that the phrase "well-regulated militia" had something to do with restrictive law enactment. I guarantee that's how Charles Shroomer, Henry Taxman and Cryin' Feinstein read it. A well-regulated militia, however, refers to a well-trained and martially disciplined one made up of citizens. As we now have a professional volunteer "militia" and citizen ones have been disbanded and marginalized into being viewed only as fringe loonies, domestic terrorists and white supremacists, colonial militias have faded into history along with the Kentucky Rifle as a battlefield implement. Regardless, we still have the necessary "well regulated militia" to maintain the "security of [our] free state" over the witless protests of a vocal pussified portion of our populace.

So- do you suggest that because the first part of the compound sentance exists as mandated, the second part now for some reason becomes invalid?!? I feel like I'm talking with 6-year olds sometimes. The right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED*. It is really pointless for me to attempt to persuade the unhearing and uneducable, so I can only hope that some who read my words have enough cognitive capacity to follow along.

Lazy, societal leaches have created an elite position for themselves whereby they govern as "professional" politicians instead of otherwise productive citizens being elected to serve then returning to lives as regular citizens. If you wish to go quietly into their good night, be my guest. I take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family, though, and will not abdicate it to those vile swine who think themselves our masters and our betters. Go ahead and sit complacently in your "safe" little pad rolling your eyes at private gun ownership and chances are you will never be called upon to defend your life or that of those you love. God save anyone that marries you or bears your children, though, if the improbably should happen. I just know that I'd not be able to live with myself if, when the chips were down, I proved too weak to the task and had to watch the life drain from the eyes of one I loved. Perhaps, though, you view the lives of those around you with somewhat less reverence than I do and feel that it is not YOUR responsibility to keep them safe. Good luck with that.

*as in broken, destroyed or violated, for those not following along in their Weekly Readers.

 

[manimal]

all i'll point out is this. DC has a "no handguns" law and what is their crimerate? compare that to communities that are "pro gun." you tell me if outlawing handguns does a dam thing for the community.

i wouldn't be surprised that if a dem is elected in '08 they'll try for a national gun registry ( <-- completely unconstitutional). if that EVER passes, you'll see what the militia is for.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

We have had this very same debate here countless times but obviously, I am not the only one here with somewhat compromised memory. Regardless, consider your cheap bait taken.

Cheap bait? Quoting the Constitution is somehow cheap now?

Those not familiar with written material besides comic books would likely assume that the phrase "well-regulated militia" had something to do with restrictive law enactment. I guarantee that's how Charles Shroomer, Henry Taxman and Cryin' Feinstein read it. A well-regulated militia, however, refers to a well-trained and martially disciplined one made up of citizens. As we now have a professional volunteer "militia" and citizen ones have been disbanded and marginalized into being viewed only as fringe loonies, domestic terrorists and white supremacists, colonial militias have faded into history along with the Kentucky Rifle as a battlefield implement. Regardless, we still have the necessary "well regulated militia" to maintain the "security of [our] free state" over the witless protests of a vocal pussified portion of our populace.

Nice ad hominem.

So- do you suggest that because the first part of the compound sentance exists as mandated, the second part now for some reason becomes invalid?!? I feel like I'm talking with 6-year olds sometimes. The right OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED*. It is really pointless for me to attempt to persuade the unhearing and uneducable, so I can only hope that some who read my words have enough cognitive capacity to follow along.

So, you will ignore the sentence as written and I have a problem? A militia exists, so that means that somehow that whole entire sentiment is invalid and you can do whatever else you want? That you can pick and choose which parts of Amendments you feel are worth keeping and which you don't like? And, you have the gall to throw in personal attacks in the process?

Lazy, societal leaches have created an elite position for themselves whereby they govern as "professional" politicians instead of otherwise productive citizens being elected to serve then returning to lives as regular citizens. If you wish to go quietly into their good night, be my guest. I take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family, though, and will not abdicate it to those vile swine who think themselves our masters and our betters. Go ahead and sit complacently in your "safe" little pad rolling your eyes at private gun ownership and chances are you will never be called upon to defend your life or that of those you love. God save anyone that marries you or bears your children, though, if the improbably should happen. I just know that I'd not be able to live with myself if, when the chips were down, I proved too weak to the task and had to watch the life drain from the eyes of one I loved. Perhaps, though, you view the lives of those around you with somewhat less reverence than I do and feel that it is not YOUR responsibility to keep them safe. Good luck with that.

When all you can muster is emotional outbursts, I don't think you have wherewithall to defend your position. That I pointed out what the Constitution says does not give you license to make all manner of conjecture about me and my loved ones.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

all i'll point out is this. DC has a "no handguns" law and what is their crimerate? compare that to communities that are "pro gun." you tell me if outlawing handguns does a dam thing for the community.

I don't think that you can make such a simplistic case out of this. DC might be gun free, but the surrounding communities certainly are not. If one wants a gun, one merely has to go a couple miles to get to a place where they are available. There are other factors to consider too.

i wouldn't be surprised that if a dem is elected in '08 they'll try for a national gun registry ( <-- completely unconstitutional). if that EVER passes, you'll see what the militia is for.

I doubt that people will rise up against the government if they start a gun registry. I am, however, curious as to why it would be unconstitutional. Don't we already have registries for cars?

 

[MudGrrl]

I take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family, though, and will not abdicate it to those vile swine who think themselves our masters and our betters. Go ahead and sit complacently in your "safe" little pad rolling your eyes at private gun ownership and chances are you will never be called upon to defend your life or that of those you love. God save anyone that marries you or bears your children, though, if the improbably should happen. I just know that I'd not be able to live with myself if, when the chips were down, I proved too weak to the task and had to watch the life drain from the eyes of one I loved. Perhaps, though, you view the lives of those around you with somewhat less reverence than I do and feel that it is not YOUR responsibility to keep them safe. Good luck with that.

As OMGF's gf, I take offense at the fact that you somehow think I am a little sissy baby who needs to be protected from the big bad guys. I'm always hidin' under my covers fearin' the black guy on crack is going to come through the window, rape me, kick the dogs, and steal our cookies.

Also....with your logic (boy scout...be prepared!)

Do you open carry (I know you can in VA).
Will you be able to defend you poor helpless family at the mall?
What do you do when your children go on field trips? Give them a 9 and tell them that hijackers might take over the bus?

You're living in a fearful state. Have fun with that gun under your pillow.

For more fun NRA material, including the dangers of the "Illegal Alien Gangs" and the Terrorist Animal Rights Activists, go here:
NRA Graphic Novel

 

[Changleen]

In my opinion there is something very wrong with people who will fight so hard to keep the right have objects designed to kill people freely available to the public. It's just bloody stupid.

 

[BurlyShirley]

In my opinion there is something very wrong with people who will fight so hard to keep the right have objects designed to kill people freely available to the public. It's just bloody stupid.

In my opinion there is something very wrong with people who will so easily give governments full control of their very lives. I know that me and my neighbors cant stop the US Army from declaring martial law and taking over my neighborhood, but if the government became corrupt enough, the democracy fell and the military tried to take over, Id like for the people to have a fighting chance. Where would your heroes, the Iraqi "insurgents" be without weaponry?
Im not saying this as a militia gun freak or as a conspiracy theorist like yourself, but just as someone who doesnt want to render full control. I dont even like guns that much, but I like that I could get one if I needed one. I like that if my family were starving, I could go shoot a deer and feed them. Im not afraid of "blacks" like most of the gun nuts and dont own a gun for self defense. I have a couple hunting rifles and a shotgun..mostly hand-me-downs from gramps and Id really like to keep them.

 

[Changleen]

I honestly don't think giving up handguns is akin to giving the government full control of your life. Stuff like not protesting warrantless wiretapping is far more important in that regard.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I honestly don't think giving up handguns is akin to giving the government full control of your life. Stuff like not protesting warrantless wiretapping is far more important in that regard.

Why is it you think that if "handguns" are taken away, anything will be solved? The criminals will just use rifles. The problem in the US isnt the guns, its the people who improperly employ them, it's the culture that prompts them to do so, and its the society that keeps them in a situation in which they feel they must have them.
Protesting in the US has reached a critical mass of pointlessness and we all know that, protesting with votes and getting rid of the apathy will be the only actions to bring about results. It may just have to get worse for people to wake up a bit.

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

Great for Washington D.C.......!
I love guns.
I'm not a liberal.

 

[manimal]

I don't think that you can make such a simplistic case out of this. DC might be gun free, but the surrounding communities certainly are not. If one wants a gun, one merely has to go a couple miles to get to a place where they are available. There are other factors to consider too.

why not? it is simple. outlawing guns does NOTHING to keep the numbers down, you just proved it yourself. so why keep them from the responsible citizens if the ones who would get them illegally have them regardless?

I doubt that people will rise up against the government if they start a gun registry.

you're not from the south are you?
the WHOLE point of the militia aspect is to keep the government in check. if the government has nothing to fear from it's subjects then who is stopping it from over-stepping it's bounds. it's kind of like our monetary system and fort knox. it's supposed to be based on the amount of gold we have just like the government is only granted power because we, the people, give it to them. if the feds are the only ones who have firepower, then what means do we have of keeping them in check? diplomacy?
remember, politicians love unarmed peasants, ie: hitler's germany. ( <---, required a nationwide weapons registry, and look how well that went )

 

[Changleen]

Why is it you think that if "handguns" are taken away, anything will be solved? The criminals will just use rifles.

I'm not so sure. Some would, but It's a lot harder to to walk down the street and hold up a 7/11 with a rifle than a handgun.

The problem in the US isnt the guns, its the people who improperly employ them, it's the culture that prompts them to do so, and its the society that keeps them in a situation in which they feel they must have them.

Largely agreed. I could buy a handgun here in NZ with little trouble (legally) but I don't and nor does hardly anyone. Pretty much only farmers and nutcases have guns here. But doesn't it just make a lot of sense to try and remove the object that allows people to take life so easily?

Protesting in the US has reached a critical mass of pointlessness and we all know that, protesting with votes and getting rid of the apathy will be the only actions to bring about results. It may just have to get worse for people to wake up a bit.

Also probably sadly true.

 

[Changleen]

the WHOLE point of the militia aspect is to keep the government in check. if the government has nothing to fear from it's subjects then who is stopping it from over-stepping it's bounds.

You government is overstepping it's bounds right now. This argument is weak IMO, the feds already have so much more and better guns than the public that frankly they obviously don't fear the public in any way whatsoever.

 

[Toshi]

You government is overstepping it's bounds right now. This argument is weak IMO, the feds already have so much more and better guns than the public that frankly they obviously don't fear the public in any way whatsoever.

a militia overturning an entrenched regime with nukes... yeah, i don't see that one happening any time soon.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

why not? it is simple. outlawing guns does NOTHING to keep the numbers down, you just proved it yourself. so why keep them from the responsible citizens if the ones who would get them illegally have them regardless?

What I'm saying is that the statistic wasn't very good, because guns were outlawed, but still freely available. I think we also need to consider aspects like the demographics of the area. In an urban area I would expect there to be more crime period, whether there are gun laws or not. Put gun laws into affect in a more affluent/country club type area and you won't see crime go up.

Further, there are countries with more stringent gun laws that have lower crime rates than ours.

you're not from the south are you?

Actually, no.

the WHOLE point of the militia aspect is to keep the government in check. if the government has nothing to fear from it's subjects then who is stopping it from over-stepping it's bounds. it's kind of like our monetary system and fort knox. it's supposed to be based on the amount of gold we have just like the government is only granted power because we, the people, give it to them. if the feds are the only ones who have firepower, then what means do we have of keeping them in check? diplomacy?
remember, politicians love unarmed peasants, ie: hitler's germany. ( <---, required a nationwide weapons registry, and look how well that went )

What is Bubba gonna do with a deer hunting rifle against a tank?

Also, I think the whole point of the militia was common defense. In that time, normal citizens were needed to fight against the English, etc. and it was necessary for people to know how to shoot for that and other reasons (hunting for food for instance.) Putting a gun into the hands of someone who can't use it isn't going to keep the government in check, and if tanks are rolling through town your handgun is useless anyway.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You government is overstepping it's bounds right now. This argument is weak IMO, the feds already have so much more and better guns than the public that frankly they obviously don't fear the public in any way whatsoever.

Right. Why aren't we rising up with our guns to protest our actions in Iraq? W is sending our young adults over there to die for some pointless BS and we are letting it happen. W is wiretapping us without our consent. W is jailing people without cause, indefinitely, with no charges brought against them, etc. W is stepping all over our Constitution. Why aren't we using our handguns to take back our country?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Actually, no.

What is Bubba gonna do with a deer hunting rifle against a tank?

Also, I think the whole point of the militia was common defense. In that time, normal citizens were needed to fight against the English, etc. and it was necessary for people to know how to shoot for that and other reasons (hunting for food for instance.) Putting a gun into the hands of someone who can't use it isn't going to keep the government in check, and if tanks are rolling through town your handgun is useless anyway.

Tell all this to the iraqi "insurgents" they'll laugh in your face. They dont have anti tank weapons or anything like that, but they're still doing a fair job of keeping the military occupied, wouldnt you say?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Tell all this to the iraqi "insurgents" they'll laugh in your face. They dont have anti tank weapons or anything like that, but they're still doing a fair job of keeping the military occupied, wouldnt you say?

With their handguns? OK. Whatever.

 

[BurlyShirley]

With their handguns? OK. Whatever.

Well, you said "hunting rifle" and "handguns" in that last post, so I guess, with their guns, just as the Iraqis have their guns, Id say something similar could and would happen, yes. Whatever.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, you said "hunting rifle" and "handguns" in that last post, so I guess, with their guns, just as the Iraqis have their guns, Id say something similar could and would happen, yes. Whatever.

Actually, it's more IEDs and homemade bombs in trucks. Plus, they have quite a few machine-gun type weapons. Plus, there's our own weapons or Russian weapons that are a lot closer to on par with what our soldiers have than what the average citizen of this country has. So, no, it's not just their hunting rifles and handguns, it's all those other things. So again, whatever.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Actually, it's more IEDs and homemade bombs in trucks. Plus, they have quite a few machine-gun type weapons. Plus, there's our own weapons or Russian weapons that are a lot closer to on par with what our soldiers have than what the average citizen of this country has. So, no, it's not just their hunting rifles and handguns, it's all those other things. So again, whatever.

Ok so semi-automatic hunting rifles, .243's, etc. etc. arent comparable to an SKS or an AK? Funny cause its almost exactly the same as an M16. Americans arent capable of improvised explosive devices? Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? So yes, just basic hunting rifles and handguns, plus IEDs made here would be, in fact, exactly the same. Good try, yet again. Whatever.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Ok so semi-automatic hunting rifles, .243's, etc. etc. arent comparable to an SKS or an AK?

And how many people have those?

Americans arent capable of improvised explosive devices? Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

Who said they weren't. Seriously, work on that reading comprehension thing.

So yes, just basic hunting rifles and handguns, plus IEDs made here would be, in fact, exactly the same. Good try, yet again. Whatever.

Once again, work on the reading comprehension.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And how many people have those?

Do you actually not know anything about guns? I mean its not bad if you dont, but really semi-automatics are not rare in any way. I have a semi-auto .22. Most of them come that way now. The days of the bolt action went bye bye long ago. Most handguns in general are semi autos now. So to answer your question, probably most gun owners own a semi automatic of some kind.
And as for being up to par with what the military uses, Id take my 30.06 over an m16 any day of the week and its not a semi automatic, so really it isnt even that much of an issue. What Im getting at is that what Americans have would indeed be enough or rather is the same as what the insurgents have, minus some old, bareley functional RPGs and mortars.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Do you actually not know anything about guns? I mean its not bad if you dont, but really semi-automatics are not rare in any way. I have a semi-auto .22. Most of them come that way now. The days of the bolt action went bye bye long ago. Most handguns in general are semi autos now. So to answer your question, probably most gun owners own a semi automatic of some kind.

Semi auto won't do anything against a tank. Do you really think you can overthrow the govt. with semi-auto pistols?

And as for being up to par with what the military uses, Id take my 30.06 over an m16 any day of the week and its not a semi automatic, so really it isnt even that much of an issue. What Im getting at is that what Americans have would indeed be enough or rather is the same as what the insurgents have, minus some old, bareley functional RPGs and mortars.

We have as much because we could fashion bombs, not because we have handguns. That's the point. No one could put a stop to the govt overstepping its power with handguns. One would have to use explosive devices in an IED style. What is your handgun going to do to a tank or an attack helicopter?

Also, I doubt your bravado about your 30.06 would hold when faced with a tank, or a hmmwv equiped with a .50 caliber.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Semi auto won't do anything against a tank. Do you really think you can overthrow the govt. with semi-auto pistols?

We have as much because we could fashion bombs, not because we have handguns. That's the point. No one could put a stop to the govt overstepping its power with handguns. One would have to use explosive devices in an IED style. What is your handgun going to do to a tank or an attack helicopter?

Also, I doubt your bravado about your 30.06 would hold when faced with a tank, or a hmmwv equiped with a .50 caliber.

Well, its not "bravado" to prefer one weapon over another. And I never said either of them would be particularly effective against tanks. Only that given the guns americans currently have, faced against the US military, we'd be in the same boat as the iraqi insurgents. For one who keeps harping on "reading comprehension" you sure have missed the hell out of the point for about the last three or four posts now. Go skim again, see what happens.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, its not "bravado" to prefer one weapon over another. And I never said either of them would be particularly effective against tanks. For one who keeps harping on "reading comprehension" you sure have missed the hell out of the point for about the last three or for posts now. Go skim again, see what happens.

Well, that happens when I make a point and you completely miss it. I'm still talking about the original point. Maybe if you actually understood my original point you might understand why I'm talking about tanks. I don't know why I bother with you.

Edit: And, you are going to fight a revolutionary war against the US govt and expect that tanks won't be involved? Are you on crack?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well, that happens when I make a point and you completely miss it. I'm still talking about the original point. Maybe if you actually understood my original point you might understand why I'm talking about tanks. I don't know why I bother with you.

Edit: And, you are going to fight a revolutionary war against the US govt and expect that tanks won't be involved? Are you on crack?

Jesus man, all Im saying is that with the guns that most Americans have, we'd be able to put up a fight similar to what the Iraqi insurgents have. Yes, that'd be with the use of IEDs and all that too, but without handguns and hunting rifles, we'd have no chance at all. Hence, Im against outlawing them.
I never said there wouldnt be tanks....I dont know where you got that from.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Jesus man, all Im saying is that with the guns that most Americans have, we'd be able to put up a fight similar to what the Iraqi insurgents have. Yes, that'd be with the use of IEDs and all that too, but without handguns and hunting rifles, we'd have no chance at all. Hence, Im against outlawing them.

You also have to consider the landscape advantages that Iraqis have and the language barriers as well as the cultural differences. Plus, they do have better weaponry there and their populace is much more likely to know how to use a weapon. The populace of this country wouldn't have much of a chance against the military, and putting tighter controls on handguns or banning them outright wouldn't make any difference on that.

So, we will have to disagree on how effective handguns would be in that battle, especially since it won't happen any time soon. It still doesn't alter the text of the Second Amendment, nor does it mean that communities that outlaw guns are any less safe than other communities. There are still extra factors that need to be taken into consideration.\

Edit: Also, it still doesn't answer the question of the original intent of the militia phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Was it so that we could overthrow the govt or so that we could provide for the common defense?

 

[BurlyShirley]

You also have to consider the landscape advantages that Iraqis have and the language barriers as well as the cultural differences. Plus, they do have better weaponry there and their populace is much more likely to know how to use a weapon. The populace of this country wouldn't have much of a chance against the military, and putting tighter controls on handguns or banning them outright wouldn't make any difference on that.

So, we will have to disagree on how effective handguns would be in that battle, especially since it won't happen any time soon. It still doesn't alter the text of the Second Amendment, nor does it mean that communities that outlaw guns are any less safe than other communities. There are still extra factors that need to be taken into consideration.

Ok, for the record here, Im not saying that handguns would be particularly effective in battle as compared to rifles. I think you're confusing 30.06 which is a hunting rifle (mine is not semi auto) with a handgun. I should have maybe been more clear with that.
Im saying that handguns and rifles, which is in reply to your post about "what's billy bob gunna do" or whatever, would be necessary in putting up a resistance to the govt. much like the Iraqis have done. That's all. Im not debating the merits of one vs. another. Im just saying that what Americans have vs. what iraqis have is also not that dissimilar.
Also, I wouldnt agree that their populace is necessarily better with weaponry in general. At least where i live, most people know how to shoot.......and then there's the urban poor and all their guns as well.
As for landscape....meh, we have cities, mountains, etc, etc too..much more land as well. However, you are right about the language, culture and all that...
Do you understand what Im saying?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Edit: Also, it still doesn't answer the question of the original intent of the militia phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Was it so that we could overthrow the govt or so that we could provide for the common defense?

Well at the time the 2nd ammendment was written, there were what, 13 colonies, all with different currency, etc. etc. They were more like 13 little different countries, each with their own laws. There wasnt this large federal oversight like today, so I wouldnt necessarily say that each state had a militia for use by the federal government as it is used today. In theory, it could even be used to defend one state or colony from another in that time, or from the federal government itself. Granted it was probably regulated by the state or colony, but using today's standards to judge that kind of law just isnt going to get us anywhere.