The House of Representatives will not grow by 1, at least not any time soon. The bill to give DC 1 vote in the house has been pulled. Republicans wanted the ban on carrying a gun in DC repealed. The Democrats refused and the bill was pulled.
So that is what it has come down to? I guess taxation without representation is alive and well. And I suppose the concept of states rights doesn’t matter in this case since DC is not a state and it can’t vote to make itself a state because it has no voting rights in Congress. Stop! My head hurts. Guns are more important than the right to vote?
Moon said; ” So that is what it has come down to? I guess taxation without representation is alive and well. And I suppose the concept of states rights doesn’t matter in this case since DC is not a state and it can’t vote to make itself a state because it has no voting rights in Congress. Stop! My head hurts. Guns are more important than the right to vote?”
Here’s what I think and I think Moon knows it too — this issue is about respect for the Constitution. The power players in the District are afraid of and apparantly cannot get a motion/bill through the Congress – much less sent out for ratification by the states (who then get an equal vote) to amend the Constitution to allow the District to be considered a State. Politics? And why did the founders set out the District with no vote in the Congress in the first place? Hmm, my guess is that the founders were not concerned about a vote for more entitlements, but were very concerned by the inherent conflict of interest in votting for a bigger, more intrusive and powerfrul federal government. Gun rights – another issue of respect for the Constitution, where the District continues to thumb its nose at the Constitution and the recent Sureme Courts rulings regarding guns in the District. BTW, representative government does exist for the District. The District does – unconstitutionally – have a vote in the House today – in Committee, treated with deference and seniority.
No, the real issue here, and I am not seeing it explained is what happened to the deal that Sen. Hatch had agreed to. Somebody altered the deal and made the new House district in Utah (1) temporary and (2) an at large seat vice setting out in a congressional district. Hatch is thanking his lucky stars on that since Utah will get that seat anyway and would have been hung by utahns (??) for the deal – so who changed the deal on the Democratic side and let him out of it.
The best part is that it was Norton’s decision. At least that was reported.
What the gun folks are doing really is pitting people who are gun moderates, many who are gun owners against absolutism. They are taking people who normally support gun rights and pushing them over into the with those who want to ban all guns.
That really is too bad. There are an awful lot of us gun moderates out there. Citing the Constitution doesn’t do much good when some of the Justices interpret the 2nd amendment somewhat differently.
I have all the respect in the world for the Constitution. I just don’t interpret it as an absolutist or someone living at the turn in the 18th century.
DC residents were robbed at gunpoint.
I’m a gun owner ( have fired one only once in my life). My husband is a vet who was an MP or whatever they’re called in the Air Force. We have never been NRA members and have never take our guns out of the house except to be cleaned. All this gun rights hoopla seems to be driven by scared little men (and a few women). Obama has relaxed some gun laws. Why are these people so nutso about the gun rights issue now. Hmmm. It (this opposition) seems to be driven by something other than logic…
I think it’s actually high brow comedy.
You have a backroom deal to provide a vote for Utah and a vote for DC to provide balance. Dems already figured that Utah would be getting an extra vote because of the new Census so from there perspective they are just giving Utah the vote early. Utah gets more representation NOW but in reality could just wait 1 more year and get it for the next 10 years anyways. So, as everyday passed the ‘need’ to have it now slowly diminished.
Add in the Mayor of DC who said he wanted the deal made even if the gun laws were weakened because he believed that once they got representation they could just nix that part of the deal anyways and restore those gun-safety laws.
Then the DC Council got a whif of this and started coming out against the idea because the gun safety laws are there baby and they don’t want anyone touching them.
So, in good ol’ DC fashion they squabbled amongst themselves, couldn’t come up with a consensus and the window for them to get this signed has passed. It’ll probably be 10-20 years before the window opens up again – at least to do it the backdoor route.
They could always petition the States to be included as a State and get ‘equal representation’. I of course would urge Virginia to vote no as the District should remain a federal enclave and not a state. We haven’t changed that since the founding of the Republic and I see no reason to change it.
In the words of the DC Government – the price was too high. So, the DC government made a concious decision that the ‘cost’ of representation (the legislation) was too high for them to pay. Sounds like a done deal to me – they don’t want it that badly.
I do find it ironic that one councilmember said that he changed his mind because of the mass shooting in DC a week or two back and that he couldn’t look those people in the eye if he voted to have the gun laws struck down – how did those gun laws protect those people that died? …they didn’t.
If DC really wants the right to vote they need to man up and try to push the case to become a State. Do it the right way.
I have never even heard Obama mention gun laws. Why all the hysteria that started the day of the election? It served to drive the cost of ammunition sky-high according to my sources.
I would think that the thing to do would be to try not to make moderates think that the people who live and breath 2nd amendment rights are freaks of nature.
I talked to 5 people yesterday, all who heretofore have supported gun rights, and they were all rolling their eyes. Most of them were gun owners themselves.
I liken the process to the pro choice people all saying they support all third trimester abortions because it was their right to have them. Doing that would just peel away all your moderate support. All that would be left would be extremists with their right to do it.
Marinm, I’d like to know the logic of why anyone would want to deny citizens of the US the right to be represented in Congress. Why couldn’t all federal buildings remain as a federal enclave just as many sites within cities remain county enclaves (PWC property within the City of Manssas, for ex.)
I would think if the matter were put to a vote nationally that most people would favor DC having a voting representative – unless the fear mongers rachet up their rhetoric. I suspect that if DC were a lily-white Republican enclave the opposition would disappear.
I see no reason to tie its representation to Utah’s, the gun issue, or anything else other than mere justice. It is a much, much more residential area than it was two hundred years ago – not merely an enclave of federal buildings. [Ed. note: type fixed]
Federal^
I agree, M-h, the gunrights group made a further faux pas by staging their rally on the day they did. I remember the Oklahoma City bombing just as I do the assasssination of JFK and the events of 9/11. I remember exactly where I was when those events occured – they are that important. So as I looked at the news covering the armed guys in the Virginia park and remember sitting in my opthamologist’s office and watching the events in Oklahoma on tv, my first thought was “those sick f#cks”. I don’t buy the connection to the Revolution. If indeed that was their reason for chosing that date, I’ve got to say that it rivals the use of teabags as an unthought-out stupid move.
If DC was a Republican stronghold filled with die-hard conservatives and not RINOs, I’d still not want them to vote as they’re not a State. Further, if they tried to push for statehood I’d still urge our Senators to kill it because DC should always be a federal enclave and not a State. Giving them the power of a State means that instead of each state being peers that one State would in-effect be above all peers.
Our Constitution has been clear on this since inception – only States can vote in Congress. That PR or DC have shadow representatives to me is also an afront to States Rights.
I agree with you that Utah, the gun issue or anything else is even spoke about in the same breath as voting rights are for DC. The legislation as put forward is uncosntitutional. The amendment to the legislation mearly gave those that would’ve voted on it cover to say ‘we support you’ but can’t vote for the legislation because of x/y/z factor. It gave Congress the ability to back out and not be on record as passing another unconstituional law at a time when only 20% of people believe the govt is doing a good job.
If DC wants to be a state they can try to get recognition by the state legislatures. They got 16 of them to agree last time. Maybe they could get more. I’m happy to say Virginia stayed strong and held the line. 😉
On a purely emotional line; no bang bang, no vote. 🙂 Like with felony voting rights in Virginia.. You can’t push the right to vote without coupling it with the right to have a gun.
I think I saw an editorial like that recently in the News and Messanger. 😉
Total agreement, Censored. It’s one thing to have liberals (shrieking the word) criticizing but you and I are both gun owners. You grew up in a law enforcement household, didn’t you? My mother would have rivaled Annie Oakley as a good shot. The only time I wasn’t in a home with a gun was when I was at college.
I think the 2nders have just taken it too far. I might even sympathize more if someone were advocating rounding up all the guns and taking them away. I have not heard anyone suggest that.
I don’t want to live in the wild west.
M-h, yes, my dad was a federal agent and I used to go with him when he practiced. I couldn’t stand the noise and he probably took me so that I would realize that guns weren’t toys. He was also a firearms instructor at Quantico and a SWAT team member. He was a good shot.
I don’t know any of his law enforcement friends who like to brandish guns.
Republicans – even Rinos – respect the Constitution more than this. There is a way to do it fully open and transparant. This is all work – around. I wish Htch had not been sullied by his involvement in the “Deal.”
@Censored bybvbl
We celebrated the 2nd Amendment on the anniversary of one of the most important days in American history, The Battle of Concord and Lexington, without which, the 4th of July would be just another day. Its not our fault that many Americans forget or ignore history. I refuse to apologize for honoring that day, just because a nut blew up a building. That day is the first day that free men took up arms to defend their rights and liberty.
Moon, I thought I had posted the first comment earlier. I thought I saw it there this morning. Can you check this out?
@Moon-howler
Diane Feinstien: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”
Just because they are quiet now, does not mean that they’ve gone away. Or that we’ve forgotten it. The Democrats know that gun control, at the moment, is a losing battle. The rally was more a celebration of the 2nd Amendment than a protest against existing bills.
But those bills have been written and are still there.
…that the English attempted to control our arms and that we used that as a rallying cry to form militia and eventually beat back our cousins across the ocean. Makes me almost tear up.
As an a-political American I never cared for guns – even disliked them for a spell – but when my own government looked at creating laws that would have police officers looking into my immigration status (and that of my family) my first thought was – I need a gun and I need one NOW.
Sometimes in life we need a good kick in the butt to understand how things effect us. 🙂
From a practical perspective, it’s very simple. All federal buildings in the current district would be considered “DC” and the remainder of the city would revert back to being part of Maryland as it originally was. There is precendent for this as the Virginia counties that were originally part of the district (hence the goofy half-square shape now) were reverted back to Virginia many years ago. Very simple very easy, except that the power brokers in the district that are clamoring for this aren’t as concerned with the people’s representation as they are being able to pick off a sweet House or Senate gig for themselves. If they were to become part of Maryland, the people would have their “vote” but there’s a possibility that Ms. Norton wouldnt get the congressional seat and they would never have a Senator that would come with statehood. Its just more political motivated self interest at work disguised as concern for “the people”.
Congressional representation for D.C. is a constitutional issue. If you want to change that, then work to have the Constitution amended. I do not like these backroom deals by politicians of any stripe to get around constitutional dictates. You do that enough, and soon the Constitution won’t be worth the parchment it is written on. Since representation for D.C is a constitutional issue, you must let every state and its people have a crack at saying “yea” or “nay” on an amendment to our basic guiding document. No inside deals in Washington involving quid pro quos. When you opine that most Americans would support this issue of congressional representation for D.C., you might well prove to be correct. So then, dare to give your claim the ultimate test by asking them — as prescribed by the Constitution.
Censored and Moon, you are right about not hearing Obama talk specifically about the possibility of confiscating private weapons. However, the recently announced U.S. decision to work with the UN on a resolution which does address globally the private small arms issue is coming mighty close to that. The 2nd Amendment people are not blind and deaf to the implications of that decision.
But, what you see now is also, in my opinion. a matter of context rather than specificity. There is is a basic and growing distrust because of the gradual accruing of more and more power to the Federal government in which the Constitution appears to be perceived as only a troublesome roadblock on the way to contemporary political/social goals. To be entirely fair, this started long before the advent of the Obama administration; but Obama seems to have put the whole thing into high gear, evidenced especially by a quantum increase in Federal influence and even control over the private economy. While some of this was brought on by malfeasance in the private sector itself, the appearances now are that the Federal train has started to pick up speed; and no one is sure where or even if it will ever stop. Obama is taking the Feds to places that most of us never saw or even imagined could happen under previous administrations, Republican or Democrat. This has made the 2nd Amendment people very, very nervous. They don’t know what to expect next from this guy, and they are worried that their worst fears could suddenly be visited upon them. They are, therefore, on a pre-emptive mission. Like it or not, that happens when people get very nervous about their constitutional rights.
Cargo, I pulled one of your comments out of moderation. It had the 3 links in it. It wasn’t in this one. Are you missing another one?
Diane Feinstein isn’t Obama. She is also who found Harvy Milk dead, of a gunshot wound. She was on the SF city council at the time. I think people who have had those kinds of experiences look at things a little differently. She is only 1 person and she has felt that way long before Obama was a household name.
Wolverine, I agree that representation for DC residents should be pursued through a constitutional amendment. However, I can hear the ginned up excuses that a certain party will use to see that the amendment fails rather than addressing it as a simple representation right. It’ll be party politics as usual.
As for guns – what’s the fascination with them? Do you skeet shoot, compete in tournaments, collect certain arms for their value or rarity? (I can understand collecting. Some day I’ll be featured on “Hoarders” for my stash of plastic jewelry.) One of my guns was bought with home protection in mind and the other is something my father won in a raffle decades ago. I only feel the urge to run out and buy more when the gun rights types start demonstrating and acting as though they’re going to overthrow the legitimately elected government . Then I think “tit for tat” – I’d better get mine to defend myself from the nuts.
Well said Wolverine. One problem with the idea of shrinking the district is that MD has stated that it does not want DC. Personally, I don’t blame them…..
This is a paraphrased repeat of my earlier comment, in case its gone forever.
The 2nd Amendment is more important in this case as it is a duly recognized right by the Constitution. So why are the residents’ right to keep and bear arms being violated?
Their right to vote is based on earlier legislation. I think that it can be resolved without DC becoming a state.
One bill that I like is this one: From Wikipedia:
the “District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004” (H.R. 3709), which would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of congressional representation. Maryland’s congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District.[55] Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authority to pass such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.[9] However, the proposed legislation never made it out of committee.[55]
I wonder why it didn’t make it out of committee? Someone not get enough power or money?
Or we can just relieve the residents of DC of all federal tax liabilities. No federal taxes. Make it similar to all other federal territories.
M-h, you’ll be busy all day if you have to correct my typos but I should have added an “l” to Wolverine’s name. It’s time I bought a new keyboard. DH says he can’t read the letters on mine – they’re just about worn off.
@Censored bybvbl
Outstanding! And you should definitely continue to have that right to buy arms and to bear them to defend against us ravening hordes of 2nd Amendment supporters! We fully support that.
The big deal is that many in government would like nothing better than to confiscate all firearms. DC restricted their citizens rights for years, until the Heller case partially restored them. That is what the amendment to the voting act was about. It was a test to see if the DC powers that be were serious about wanting to vote. I mean, they said that disenfranchisement is this horrible thing. And removing the restrictions adds to the general liberty of DC. Why does Congress value control and restrictions over the the freedom of the vote?
@Moon-howler
I saw the one with three links. It was in another thread. Said awaiting moderation. In this one, I thought I saw it up this morning as #1. Now its gone. Its ok. I paraphrased what I said. You guys just lose the inspired prose that spouted from my fevered before coffee brain.
Thanks.
I havent taken anything down. I am missing one of my own comments…I could have sworn I had put it up. I also spent the morning on the phone with verizon. I don’t think my techican difficulties should have anything to do with that because the webhosting is not here. I will look for missing comments.
Ok, I can’;t find mine or yours. I guess no one gets our pearls of wisdom. I do apologize, I don’t have an answer other than it must have been my technical problems.
Be assured, I did not take it down nor did Elena.
I know this isn’t really related to the topic at hand but you have to tip your hats to the cops in this story. http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-grandma-gun,0,4831376.story That she was able to scare away a male intruder much junior to her is awesome but that the cops came, arrested him and then reloaded her gun for her.. My eyes just got misty. 🙂
Censored — Like you, your husband, Moon, and others, I personally have no fascination with guns whatsoever. I know well how to use them, but I am not a collector. The same goes for Mrs. W, who has been known to make me look like one of the Three Stooges on a firing range. I think that attitude often comes when someone actually has had to carry weapons in situations where they could mean saving your own life at any minute. Not always, perhaps, but for me that is definitely the case. For the same reasons I hold my nose tightly when I see things like those Hutarees or whatever cavorting around the woods in camo gear playing at soldier. My first reaction is always: Grow up and join the National Guard. Further reaction comes when I find out what they are really up to.
That said, I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership. I know some who are truly gun lovers and who have some magnificent collections. However, the bulk of 2nd Amendment supporters known by or to me are largely gun enthusiasts because they believe that the police cannot and never will be everywhere in a society which has become rather dangerous in some ways. Their primary concern is in protecting themselves, their families, and their homes. Moreover, they are aware of the kind of hardware a criminal might carry and they are not about to get outgunned in extremis. (The cops often have had that same concern for themselves.) So long as they are solid, sensible, mature people, I have no problem with that. As the primary Neighborhood Watch in my community, I know full well the immediate availability limitations on our law enforcement officers. Under such circumstances, I definitely do not agree with a disarming of the populace. As for the collectors and the uber-enthusiasts — so long as they obey the current gun laws and act sensibly, it all comes with the 2nd Amendment territory and any common sense ancillary laws enacted honestly and carefully by our representative government.
Quite frankly, I have lived and worked in places where private ownership of guns was banned. I had them, as did my colleagues. I found out for sure certain about that old adage which says that, where guns are banned, only the criminals will have them. I am telling you that criminals getting guns is a prime example of supply and demand meeting up whether you like it or not.
Wolverine,
Well said. I too own firearms (for hunting) and am by no means a “gun nut” but wholeheartedly support gun rights. What gets lost in all of the rhetoric in this country is common sense. Common sense gun laws (or gun control whatever term you prefer) is one thing, because the question could be asked, “why do we not want Iran to have nuclear missles? nuclear missles dont kill people, people kill people” and the answer is that not every person in the country is wired right to walk around with an assault rifle and not every nation is wired right to have nuclear weapons. It all comes down to the insideous “slippery slope” concept that is espoused on both the left and the right about many subjects. We cant have common sense gun control laws because “it will eventually lead an all out ban.” We cant have common sense abortion laws and outlaw abhorrent late terms because “it will eventually lead to an all out ban.” The only loser in this game is common sense and the American people….
Tom,
You hit the nail on the head. Who decides what is common sense? You? Me? Ted Nugent? Paul Helmke? Dianne Feinstein? The way to not worry about that slope is to not get on it in the first place. Who decides what is an appropriate weapon? A great portion of the fight for 2nd Amendment rights is to determine who decides is an appropriate gun owner. Fortunately, those on the side of greater freedom seem to be winning that fight.
Tom, I think I agree with you.
Here is the problem though: People like me support gun rights up to a point. I also don’t mind some curtailments. I don’t mind 12 handguns a year. I don’t mind laws about kids, not bringing guns on school property unless you are law enforcement, and all the things that appear to be common sense to me.
The people who refuse to make concessions are pushing people like me into a leftist camp on guns that I wouldn’t ordinarily be in.
I also have a serious problem with the concept that we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Bolderdash. The crimials are one thing. The mentally ill or those who snap are another story. And everyone will tell you they aren’t crazy. For that reason, I don’t want to be having coffee at my favorite spot and have to be sitting next to weapons. In fact, I will get up and walk out.
I thought Starbucks did the right thing. I feel certain that Starbucks was targetted because they are viewed as a leftist company. I guess they got the last laugh.
Starbucks got the last laugh by posting a 8x increase in profit even with boycotts being called by anti-gunners? Yup, makes me happy. 🙂
Especially since I carry to the 234 Starbucks all the time and I suck down Chai teas like a madman for them supporting my 2A rights. I figure it’s my patriotic duty to help a company that helps me.
Criminals and crazys will always have access to guns; always.
If you went to the one on Liberia you wouldn’t even have to go in.
Starbucks is doing well.
I need *some* excercise…!! Drinking all those chai’s is not helping my girlish figure.
bwaaaahahahahahah.