Washington Post Article

This is a discussion on Washington Post Article within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Washington Post Article

  1. #1
    Member Array H. Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Rio Grande Valley, Texas
    Posts
    73

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array darkvibe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    517
    finally someone with some common sense...

    Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns.
    i think i'll add that to my signature line.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Gunnutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,508
    That is a fantastic article and yes it is nice too see some common sense writing for a change. Sadly his will be the voice crying in the wilderness.
    We will be much better off when we learn to deal with things as they really are, instead of how we wish them to be!

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,072
    It's a pity that the "representatives" "we" send on our behalf do not know how to read--but only listen to staffers and idiot anti-American, anti-freedom lobbyists

  6. #5
    Member Array Biloxi Bersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Biloxi Mississippi
    Posts
    399
    OMG! From the Washington Post?

    Satan just showed up at Sears looking for a sweater, gloves and jacket.

  7. #6
    Member Array Biloxi Bersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Biloxi Mississippi
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    It's a pity that the "representatives" "we" send on our behalf do not know how to read--but only listen to staffers and idiot anti-American, anti-freedom lobbyists
    No, most of the politicians we elect listen to a much larger group than staffers and idiot. They cower under the threat of the vocal minority and they melt under the fear of losing their office. That's why they wait until the last possible moment (right before the vote) to make a decision.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Weeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Biloxi Bersa View Post
    OMG! From the Washington Post?

    Satan just showed up at Sears looking for a sweater, gloves and jacket.

    Heh heh heh...Too funny, but TRUE!


    .

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,072
    The author was one of the lawyers for the plantiff...hence, the common sense.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array MNBurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    The author was one of the lawyers for the plantiff...hence, the common sense.
    Wow a lawyer who has common sense... I don't think they aways go together but in this case it does!
    MNBurl

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton.

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. Anti-gun regulations don't address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- such as illegitimacy, unemployment, dysfunctional schools, and drug and alcohol abuse. The cures are complex and protracted. But that doesn't mean we have to become passive prey for criminal predators. Americans who want to defend themselves by possessing suitable firearms should be able to do so.
    Can I get a Hell Yeah. I wonder what shock waves this is sending through the anti community.


    The Brady Bunch should not object "IF" they are truly for "SENSIBLE" gun laws. It will be interesting what they have to say publicly about this.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Can I get a Hell Yeah.
    Hell Yeah!!

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Hell Yeah +1
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Okay.

    I had to go look and see what the Brady Bunch had to say about this. is my next comment.

    Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

    “The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

    “This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”
    Then they have this as kind of a sig line.

    As the nation's largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organizations leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities.

    Where is that dictionary, someone see if their picture is next to the word hypocrite, or I guess might fit better.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    I'm so looking forward to what they have to say when the crime rates start to drop, and we see a couple of justified uses of handguns to protect families that otherwise would have been helpless to protect themselves.

    edit to add:

    This could have a profound effect on the elections in 08, IMHO, if it works out, and enough good comes from it, hopefully we can see a ripple effect across the nation. Fingers Crossed. The timing couldn't have been better. IMO
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    The writer, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.
    Not sure how he snuck this one past the Washington Post editors, but I'm glad he did. Maybe it will open a mind or two of those who believe it "because it was in paper".
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. An interesting (and surprising) article from the Washington Post
    By BenGoodLuck in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 8th, 2011, 07:53 PM
  2. Bullets are speeding faster out of gun shops in U.S. - Washington Post
    By louie19 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2009, 02:04 PM
  3. Washington Post Editorial--Found at NRA-ILA
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 24th, 2008, 04:34 PM
  4. My Comment to the Washington Post Editorial Judging Guns
    By GHFLRLTD in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 21st, 2008, 10:03 PM

Search tags for this page

articles from the washington post on crime in washington dc from 2005 until 2009

,

washington post wp dyn article 15 832 2005 feb 10 html

Click on a term to search for related topics.