I don't think the DC laws hold on fed property. It's a jurisdictional conflict. Off the fed footprint, sure.
Political privilege in gun banning Washington DC. Congress gets away with it.
- Thread starter gopguy
- Start date
- Status
HSO, That is correct,and as I said in my article certain people, including Federal agents who are licensed to carry and the military are exempt. Members of Congress may be able to have guns in the Congressional office buildings but you can't get to those Federal buildings without using DC streets. There have been members of Congress who have asked for the city to allow them to keep guns in their homes in DC and they have been told no. So for a member of Congress to get from his or her home in the district, Virginia or Maryland to the capitol armed is a crime at this time. A felony was committed in the process of that gun getting to the US Capitol building in this case. As I have said before I don't agree with Washington DC's gun ban, however it is still the law. Senators and Representatives do not have a license to break the law. I hope the Parker decision stands, however in the mean time the law should be enforced for the power elites the way it would be enforced against any one of us.
It's a plausible reading, but there are other plausible readings. For example, maybe he did not consider the single mom because it wasn't in question - maybe he merely wanted to talk about his own personal reasons for carrying.
As long as there is a reasonable and charitable interpretation of his statements, they can't be used as solid evidence of negative character, because they don't lead necessarily to that conclusion.
All This is not to say he isn't elitist, or degenerate in some other way, politicians being what they are... just that that hasn't yet been demonstrated (although his lack of supporting statements for his aide in the Washington Post story is suspicious).
Royh, You are being overly generous to him. For him to say "my situation" clearly means he thinks his situation is special. What else could it mean? Of course he did not think of the single mom....he is not thinking of anyone but protecting himself in this. There are tens of thousands of single moms, dads, elderly, law abiding citizens etc... who need to be able to protect themselves in that town. I lived in the DC metro area in the 80s. I know what that city is like. I have heard the man is pro gun yet he voted for a bill to help silence groups like the NRA. What pro-gun legislation is he working on or has he introduced?
Webb, has not just sprung on the political scene. He has been around for decades. He was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy,back when I was in DC. He is a novelist, he has a track record of this sort of behavior. Do some research on him, you will find he is not behaving out of character here. Heck just look to what his fellow Democrats were saying about him during the primaries.
As far as his friend Phillip Thompson. His behavior has been deplorable. The poor guy has already spent a night in jail because he was carrying the Senator's gun. The thanks he gets from Webb? The Senator distancing himself from Thompson...Leaving him hanging out to dry. No legal assistance... I have seen nothing to admire in the man in this fiasco.
Webb, has not just sprung on the political scene. He has been around for decades. He was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy,back when I was in DC. He is a novelist, he has a track record of this sort of behavior. Do some research on him, you will find he is not behaving out of character here. Heck just look to what his fellow Democrats were saying about him during the primaries.
As far as his friend Phillip Thompson. His behavior has been deplorable. The poor guy has already spent a night in jail because he was carrying the Senator's gun. The thanks he gets from Webb? The Senator distancing himself from Thompson...Leaving him hanging out to dry. No legal assistance... I have seen nothing to admire in the man in this fiasco.
sterling180
Member
What types of guns,are outlawed in Washington DC?I've heard that handguns were banned there in 1977,is that true?
Jeff Timm
Member
Webb is just another Democrat lying traitor. His only "Support" of the 2nd amendment is a lie to attract votes from stupid people.
If Webb was a real man he would have immediately submitted a bill to repeal all the DC illegal restrictions on self defense after his election. Anything else is just Democrat lies as always.
Geoff
Who knows who the enemy is.
If Webb was a real man he would have immediately submitted a bill to repeal all the DC illegal restrictions on self defense after his election. Anything else is just Democrat lies as always.
Geoff
Who knows who the enemy is.
I judge politicians rather simply.
I give a crap about what they say in their campaign. I only care about what they do. In specific, voting and what causes they champion.
Webb isn't a Pro 2A congressman. If he were, he would be right beside his aid, saying "He did nothing wrong. The 'law' is what is wrong".
I give a crap about what they say in their campaign. I only care about what they do. In specific, voting and what causes they champion.
Webb isn't a Pro 2A congressman. If he were, he would be right beside his aid, saying "He did nothing wrong. The 'law' is what is wrong".
I'm not giving him anything - I'm merely withholding judgment until there is more to decide on.
(He said "for me personally and for a lot of people in the situation that I am in".)
It could mean that he was asked about his situation and hence answered about his situation. It could mean that he considers his situation more dangerous than average, but not necessarily more than every other non-connected person in the city. It specifically could have been meant not as a subtle implication that he is entitled by virtue of being a senator. Notice, you are assuming something that he didn't explicitly say, as he never mentioned what he is entitled to (and I would like to note that he is entitled to the rights protected by the 2A) nor did he say what anyone else is entitled. He just said it was important.
Maybe he didn't think it would help silence groups like the NRA? I hear a lot of people don't understand the problems with campaign finance law. Or maybe he doesn't care for the 1A, or think it applies to speech when money is involved. Sure, that's bad, but what does that have to do with this?
Do you require all pro-gun politicians to introduce pro-gun legislation within months of their incumbency?
My point was that his behavior in this instance does not yet prove or show that he is elitist. If you are aware of other evidence, then of course that may help make the point, but you haven't brought it out, neither here nor in the article. I certainly don't have any love for politicians (of either party), so this doesn't bother me. I just want to be fair. They'll damn themselves eventually - no need for me to exert myself.
Yeah, that is suspicious - we'll see in the next few days how he acts.
This, on top of the previous comment, shows me he was inferring HE has a bit more to worry about then us normal folks down here; he was REAL close to saying something really worthy, but sort of key-holed it to be only elitist members of the govt that deserve special attention.
The law is uncontitutional, and should be gone. Hopefully this incident will work out that way - Webb should work harder, and comment in such a way, to protect the Rights of ALL of us.
The point is - HE DOESN'T - he is no more subject to being a victim then any other of we the people - probably less so in fact. (not that is really matters but I wonder how many govt officials died on 9/11 vs civilians?)
If he said:
and this:
He would have got it right - instead he narrowed his defense, and the Right, down to HIM, and so screwed the rest of us.
If he said:
and this:
He would have got it right - instead he narrowed his defense, and the Right, down to HIM, and so screwed the rest of us.
ThatIsAFact
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 44
transportation of firearms thru D.C. is legal under 18 U.S.C. 926A
It is possible that some few members of Congress are qualified under a provision of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (18 USC 926C), due to previous status as law enforcement officers. (There was a time when some lawmakers were made deputy marshals, but I think that was discontinued years ago on separation-of-powers grounds.) For most members of Congress, however, it is true that they have no exemption to carry a loaded firearm from Virginia or Maryland to the Capitol. However, since these lawmakers have a legal right under federal law to possess firearms in their Capitol offices, it follows that they also may transport unloaded firearms, properly enclosed, from Virginia or Maryland to the Capitol, under 18 U.S.C. 926A. The same law (926A) gives the rest of us the right to transport an unloaded firearm, properly enclosed, when traveling THROUGH D.C., on the way from one gun-legal destination to another (for example, from Virginia to Maryland).
The entire law reads as follows:
Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
At first blush this law might seem to not cover D.C., since D.C. is not a "state." However, D.C. is defined as a state for purposes of 926A. That's because Title 18, Chapter 44, contains a definitions section that applies to all of Chapter 44, and the definitions section includes Section 921(a)(2): "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."
It is possible that some few members of Congress are qualified under a provision of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (18 USC 926C), due to previous status as law enforcement officers. (There was a time when some lawmakers were made deputy marshals, but I think that was discontinued years ago on separation-of-powers grounds.) For most members of Congress, however, it is true that they have no exemption to carry a loaded firearm from Virginia or Maryland to the Capitol. However, since these lawmakers have a legal right under federal law to possess firearms in their Capitol offices, it follows that they also may transport unloaded firearms, properly enclosed, from Virginia or Maryland to the Capitol, under 18 U.S.C. 926A. The same law (926A) gives the rest of us the right to transport an unloaded firearm, properly enclosed, when traveling THROUGH D.C., on the way from one gun-legal destination to another (for example, from Virginia to Maryland).
The entire law reads as follows:
Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
At first blush this law might seem to not cover D.C., since D.C. is not a "state." However, D.C. is defined as a state for purposes of 926A. That's because Title 18, Chapter 44, contains a definitions section that applies to all of Chapter 44, and the definitions section includes Section 921(a)(2): "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)."
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Tecumseh:
Nope. I'm not capable of arguing that. My family would think I had become a simpleton if I did, and my wife would ship me off to a nursing home.
But I am capable of arguing that a group of people who want to hurt someone who is on their side, even a little, convince rational people that it's dangerous to be on their side even a little. That argument makes sense to me.
I could even make this argument, which appeals much more to my sense of the absurd:
Jim Webb has been a Senator for a whole three months. But that lying Democrat has not yet sent me an M1 Abrams MBT or even introduced a bill that will get me one. He has not yet cuffed Harry Reid's ears or pummeled him to the ground. Webb obviously not a true supporter of the Second Amendment. Off with his head. And then let's grab his gun and his concealed weapons permit. A Senator who has those can't possibly be a real Second Amendment supporter. We deserve Senators who won't own guns and don't have concealed weapons permits. They're our real friends.
Ramjet has a couple of interesting points too. I was fascinated by his revelation that Rudy Giulani and Mike Bloomberg (we're all so close that we use each others' nicknames) brandished their concealed weapons. I missed seeing that on the news. As for what Jim Webb did to advocate the Second Amendment, I guess he hasn't done anything except to advocate it in the newspaper interview I read, which isn't real advocating because he did it, and to own and have a gun and a concealed weapons permit, which isn't real either because he had them.
I have to admit that Ramjet could be right in saying that there is no evidence that "he violated any law in the recent incident and he certainly hasn't admitted to violating any law. Even if he admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in DC, that law wasn't struck down by the DC appeals court." That's why nothing happened. Those darned newspapers can't be trusted. Next thing is that someone will say that Sarge doesn't really beat up Beetle Bailey and it's all a fake.
Those arguments I like. If I'm going to be nutso, I want to be real nutso.
gopguy has a good point: "We should ask him to support national reciprocity ..." Let's do that after we finish beating him up and trying to get him disciplined by the Senate, or maybe even (whooha!) impeached. Maybe gopguy wouldn't mind asking him? I'd do it but I'm very sensitive and I can't take it when people laugh in my face.
Nope. I'm not capable of arguing that. My family would think I had become a simpleton if I did, and my wife would ship me off to a nursing home.
But I am capable of arguing that a group of people who want to hurt someone who is on their side, even a little, convince rational people that it's dangerous to be on their side even a little. That argument makes sense to me.
I could even make this argument, which appeals much more to my sense of the absurd:
Jim Webb has been a Senator for a whole three months. But that lying Democrat has not yet sent me an M1 Abrams MBT or even introduced a bill that will get me one. He has not yet cuffed Harry Reid's ears or pummeled him to the ground. Webb obviously not a true supporter of the Second Amendment. Off with his head. And then let's grab his gun and his concealed weapons permit. A Senator who has those can't possibly be a real Second Amendment supporter. We deserve Senators who won't own guns and don't have concealed weapons permits. They're our real friends.
Ramjet has a couple of interesting points too. I was fascinated by his revelation that Rudy Giulani and Mike Bloomberg (we're all so close that we use each others' nicknames) brandished their concealed weapons. I missed seeing that on the news. As for what Jim Webb did to advocate the Second Amendment, I guess he hasn't done anything except to advocate it in the newspaper interview I read, which isn't real advocating because he did it, and to own and have a gun and a concealed weapons permit, which isn't real either because he had them.
I have to admit that Ramjet could be right in saying that there is no evidence that "he violated any law in the recent incident and he certainly hasn't admitted to violating any law. Even if he admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in DC, that law wasn't struck down by the DC appeals court." That's why nothing happened. Those darned newspapers can't be trusted. Next thing is that someone will say that Sarge doesn't really beat up Beetle Bailey and it's all a fake.
Those arguments I like. If I'm going to be nutso, I want to be real nutso.
gopguy has a good point: "We should ask him to support national reciprocity ..." Let's do that after we finish beating him up and trying to get him disciplined by the Senate, or maybe even (whooha!) impeached. Maybe gopguy wouldn't mind asking him? I'd do it but I'm very sensitive and I can't take it when people laugh in my face.
1. I don't know whether you have a reading comprehension problem or are deliberately misquoting people, but I didn't say most of the things you attribute to me. Read it again.Robert Hairless said:
2. People will take your comments more seriously if you don't characterize anyone who disagrees with you as crazy.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Ramjet, I read pretty good. You just don't write as good as I read.
Here's what you wrote:
Your first point has Rudy and Mike doing what you say Jim Webb did: brandish his CCW during the campaign and claim he's a 2A supporter. I gather that you don't think you said that. You did. I didn't even mention that, so far as I know, Jim Webb didn't brandish his gun during his campaign. But I have the advantage over you: I know what "brandish" means. I also know that Webb was not carrying that gun, and that he said he rarely carried a concealed weapon, so it wasn't his "CCW." I didn't point out those things, and some others, because I am a nice person even though you don't think so, and because there is so much wrong with what you've written that it would take more time than I want to spend to correct you.
Your second point, though, is pure fun.
It begins with the rhetorical question "What law did he violate?" in the first sentence.
The second sentence denies that Webb violated any law. So what's the fuss about, Ramjet? If no law was violated, there should have been no fuss at all. If you're poking at my statement that Webb violated the DC law, that's not a bad point but it's not a good one either, because people here are accusing Webb of passing the can to his aide. It also wouldn't be a good point because Webb as the gun owner gave the bag containing his gun to his aide with the knowledge that the aide would carry it on D.C. territory where it was illegal to do so.
The third sentence is the rib tickler: "Even if he admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in DC, that law wasn't struck down by the DC appeals court." I love it so much that I would consider proposing to it if I weren't already married. You actually argue that he didn't violate any law because the D.C. law that prohibited what he did (by causing his aide to do it on his behalf) was still in effect.
I'll be happy to read what you wrote yet another time if you want. I enjoyed reading it. I hope you enjoyed writing it at least as much.
As for your comment that "People will take your comments more seriously if you don't characterize anyone who disagrees with you as crazy," I don't characterize everyone who disagrees with me as crazy. (That's what you meant, I think, although that's not what you wrote.) Read another thread--that one attacking the NRA for being an enemy of gun owners--and you will see that I disagree with Bartholomew Roberts but I don't characterize him as crazy. I think, and I wrote, that he has a reasonable position and explains it reasonably. Compare and contrast what he wrote with what you wrote. Most of us can understand Roberts. You understand you. Your friends and sympathizers might claim to understand you but they don't: nobody can make much sense out of your second point. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed reading what you wrote more than I enjoyed what he wrote. His writing appealed to my mind. Yours appealed to my sense of humor.
My point was, and still is, that gun owners who try to destroy their friends and allies are crazy. When you finish knocking off those friends and allies who don't completely agree with you, what you will have left are enemies who entirely disagree with you. Sane people try to attract--and hold--as many allies as possible in a fight because they don't want to lose the fight. You guys go after everyone who disagrees with you about anything at all, and you won't let up. That, forgive me for saying so, is flat out crazy. You don't win fights that way, and thinking that you do makes you even more crazy. If the word "crazy" offends you, feel free to substitute a more pleasing term for mentally challenged.
Here you have a Democratic Senator who actually has a concealed weapons permit, owns at least one handgun, shoots it, and has just caused a fuss because of it. But he publicly defends his right to have it on Second Amendment grounds. Jim Webb is no Giulani or Bloomberg: it's not real good thinking to make that comparison. Webb didn't just get his gun and permit. Webb is on the list of concealed weapons permit holders outed by Christian Trejbal. Webb is obviously real.
Anyone in his right mind would want as many Democractic Senators and Representatives as possible who own guns and have concealed weapons permits. But not you guys.
Perhaps instead of attacking me for pointing out the obvious, or trying to pick apart or challenge my phrasing or facts, you might want to examine the possibility that the behavior I've noted is indeed self-destructive and more than a little looney. I would take your comments more seriously if you did.
Here's what you wrote:
Your first point has Rudy and Mike doing what you say Jim Webb did: brandish his CCW during the campaign and claim he's a 2A supporter. I gather that you don't think you said that. You did. I didn't even mention that, so far as I know, Jim Webb didn't brandish his gun during his campaign. But I have the advantage over you: I know what "brandish" means. I also know that Webb was not carrying that gun, and that he said he rarely carried a concealed weapon, so it wasn't his "CCW." I didn't point out those things, and some others, because I am a nice person even though you don't think so, and because there is so much wrong with what you've written that it would take more time than I want to spend to correct you.
Your second point, though, is pure fun.
It begins with the rhetorical question "What law did he violate?" in the first sentence.
The second sentence denies that Webb violated any law. So what's the fuss about, Ramjet? If no law was violated, there should have been no fuss at all. If you're poking at my statement that Webb violated the DC law, that's not a bad point but it's not a good one either, because people here are accusing Webb of passing the can to his aide. It also wouldn't be a good point because Webb as the gun owner gave the bag containing his gun to his aide with the knowledge that the aide would carry it on D.C. territory where it was illegal to do so.
The third sentence is the rib tickler: "Even if he admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in DC, that law wasn't struck down by the DC appeals court." I love it so much that I would consider proposing to it if I weren't already married. You actually argue that he didn't violate any law because the D.C. law that prohibited what he did (by causing his aide to do it on his behalf) was still in effect.
I'll be happy to read what you wrote yet another time if you want. I enjoyed reading it. I hope you enjoyed writing it at least as much.
As for your comment that "People will take your comments more seriously if you don't characterize anyone who disagrees with you as crazy," I don't characterize everyone who disagrees with me as crazy. (That's what you meant, I think, although that's not what you wrote.) Read another thread--that one attacking the NRA for being an enemy of gun owners--and you will see that I disagree with Bartholomew Roberts but I don't characterize him as crazy. I think, and I wrote, that he has a reasonable position and explains it reasonably. Compare and contrast what he wrote with what you wrote. Most of us can understand Roberts. You understand you. Your friends and sympathizers might claim to understand you but they don't: nobody can make much sense out of your second point. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed reading what you wrote more than I enjoyed what he wrote. His writing appealed to my mind. Yours appealed to my sense of humor.
My point was, and still is, that gun owners who try to destroy their friends and allies are crazy. When you finish knocking off those friends and allies who don't completely agree with you, what you will have left are enemies who entirely disagree with you. Sane people try to attract--and hold--as many allies as possible in a fight because they don't want to lose the fight. You guys go after everyone who disagrees with you about anything at all, and you won't let up. That, forgive me for saying so, is flat out crazy. You don't win fights that way, and thinking that you do makes you even more crazy. If the word "crazy" offends you, feel free to substitute a more pleasing term for mentally challenged.
Here you have a Democratic Senator who actually has a concealed weapons permit, owns at least one handgun, shoots it, and has just caused a fuss because of it. But he publicly defends his right to have it on Second Amendment grounds. Jim Webb is no Giulani or Bloomberg: it's not real good thinking to make that comparison. Webb didn't just get his gun and permit. Webb is on the list of concealed weapons permit holders outed by Christian Trejbal. Webb is obviously real.
Anyone in his right mind would want as many Democractic Senators and Representatives as possible who own guns and have concealed weapons permits. But not you guys.
Perhaps instead of attacking me for pointing out the obvious, or trying to pick apart or challenge my phrasing or facts, you might want to examine the possibility that the behavior I've noted is indeed self-destructive and more than a little looney. I would take your comments more seriously if you did.
chieftain
Member
This is all Rhetoric.
If Web is Pro 2nd Amendment he will vote that way.
If he isn't he will not.
It will not make any difference what you or I say about him.
IF any of these people will change their position because someone didn't talk nice to them or about them, I don't want them. They will change again, when the wind blows the other way.
Granted Webb has switched sides at least once before.
The fear that one must talk nice to every one is just PC BS. If a gun owner bad mouthed you about your position on the 2nd Amendment, would you change your position?
I would not.
Go figure.
Fred
If Web is Pro 2nd Amendment he will vote that way.
If he isn't he will not.
It will not make any difference what you or I say about him.
IF any of these people will change their position because someone didn't talk nice to them or about them, I don't want them. They will change again, when the wind blows the other way.
Granted Webb has switched sides at least once before.
The fear that one must talk nice to every one is just PC BS. If a gun owner bad mouthed you about your position on the 2nd Amendment, would you change your position?
I would not.
Go figure.
Fred
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
gopguy:
Nah, go ahead. Explain it to me again if you like. My mission in life is to help people be happy.
I like it when you tell me that you don't approve of Jim Webb because he shifted blame to his aide. It's fun to read stuff like that. GOP guys don't behave the same way. They all be pure at heart, virtuous in soul, and spiritually healthy. Throw in thrifty, reverent, and faithful and they'll all be off to Scout Camp.
Bottom line. You are attacking someone on your side as a gun owner. If you are attacking Webb because he is a Democrat and you are a GOPguy, that makes sense to me. But you say that your attack is not partisan. Because you're a lovable person I believe you that you're not a Republican something-or-other bashing a Democratic Senator for purely political reasons. No need to protest! You said it and I believe you.
So you're attacking Webb because, as a devotee of the Second Amendment and things that go "Boom," you think it's unfair that he might not get burned really badly for having a gun in a city in which the gun law prohibiting what he did has been declared unconstitutional in Parker v. D.C. You don't attack the law, you attack the Senator from the other party who is being fussed at because the law was broken. You be upholding the Second Amendment.
And that makes sense to you.
chieftain, thank you for your incisive analysis of the politics of the Second Amendment. You have an understanding of how politics works and the issues in the Congress. It's all rhetoric and BS, and everybody is talking about Jim Webb's feelings.
Nah, go ahead. Explain it to me again if you like. My mission in life is to help people be happy.
I like it when you tell me that you don't approve of Jim Webb because he shifted blame to his aide. It's fun to read stuff like that. GOP guys don't behave the same way. They all be pure at heart, virtuous in soul, and spiritually healthy. Throw in thrifty, reverent, and faithful and they'll all be off to Scout Camp.
Bottom line. You are attacking someone on your side as a gun owner. If you are attacking Webb because he is a Democrat and you are a GOPguy, that makes sense to me. But you say that your attack is not partisan. Because you're a lovable person I believe you that you're not a Republican something-or-other bashing a Democratic Senator for purely political reasons. No need to protest! You said it and I believe you.
So you're attacking Webb because, as a devotee of the Second Amendment and things that go "Boom," you think it's unfair that he might not get burned really badly for having a gun in a city in which the gun law prohibiting what he did has been declared unconstitutional in Parker v. D.C. You don't attack the law, you attack the Senator from the other party who is being fussed at because the law was broken. You be upholding the Second Amendment.
And that makes sense to you.
chieftain, thank you for your incisive analysis of the politics of the Second Amendment. You have an understanding of how politics works and the issues in the Congress. It's all rhetoric and BS, and everybody is talking about Jim Webb's feelings.
Well, this is clearly a waste of time but to get the record clear, let me break down for you what I said:
Let's break down the first sentence: It asks what Webb has done to advocate the 2A besides 2 things:
1. Brandish his CCW during the campaign. -- Now you may read "CCW" as "gun" but everyone I know reads CCW as shorthand for "permit to carry a concealed weapon." (Did you read the last sentence to be "Dianne Feinstein is a gun holder and a gun owner, too"?)
2. Claim he's a 2A supporter, which is something that many politicians, like Giuliani and Bloomberg do.
See, not complicated, but you probably knew that anyway.
As to the second point, I don't think I could make it much clearer. You said:
I think the overall point you're trying to make in that thicket of sarcasm, sneering, and tortured logic is that 2A supporters shouldn't drive away politicians who support their positions. I agree, but it's a pretty obvious point. The question, of course, is not whether we should shun those who support us (who, exactly, is arguing that?) but whether Jim Webb is truly a 2A advocate or one who gives it lip service. Most of the posters here are skeptical (that's not the same as crazy), but, as Chieftain points out, time will tell.
Let's break down the first sentence: It asks what Webb has done to advocate the 2A besides 2 things:
1. Brandish his CCW during the campaign. -- Now you may read "CCW" as "gun" but everyone I know reads CCW as shorthand for "permit to carry a concealed weapon." (Did you read the last sentence to be "Dianne Feinstein is a gun holder and a gun owner, too"?)
2. Claim he's a 2A supporter, which is something that many politicians, like Giuliani and Bloomberg do.
See, not complicated, but you probably knew that anyway.
As to the second point, I don't think I could make it much clearer. You said:
And I said there's no evidence that he violated a law, and in any case, only parts of the DC law were declared unconstitutional in Parker, those parts having to do with keeping handguns in the home and having functional long arms, neither of which applies in Webb's case. If you have evidence that Jim Webb violated a law, by all means share it with us and with the prosecutors in DC. All I've seen so far is that evidence that his staffer broke the law.
I think the overall point you're trying to make in that thicket of sarcasm, sneering, and tortured logic is that 2A supporters shouldn't drive away politicians who support their positions. I agree, but it's a pretty obvious point. The question, of course, is not whether we should shun those who support us (who, exactly, is arguing that?) but whether Jim Webb is truly a 2A advocate or one who gives it lip service. Most of the posters here are skeptical (that's not the same as crazy), but, as Chieftain points out, time will tell.
Robert, you keep telling us Webb is a devotee of the Second Amendment. So tell me what has he done for it? Other than than say he is pro gun, what has he done?
You said
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3616
Knucklehead 2 pointed out
Your snarky response was
The man supported weakening the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment foundation and your quip is that " He doesn't meet all our tests". He was actively hurting pro second amendment groups and that is your answer? Really, get real here. The man is all blather. He is doing harm to the RKBA thus far.
Partisan politics. Yup I am guilty. But I don't tolerate anti gun Republicans either.
My former Senator Mike DeWine said he was pro second amendment too. He used it in his campaign literature last time around and he voted for all sorts of gun control ever time it came up. He used to be a friend, but when he turned on this issue, after saying he was progun I was done with him. As a Republican I worked hard against him and I even wrote a letter used by his challenger Colonel John Mitchell that was sent to the 88 Chairman of the various GOP county organizations in '06.
I admit I am a Republican but I given great grief over the years to Republican Senators that are anti gun. I know not all Republicans are pro gun. DeWine, Snowe,Chaffee, McCain, Collins, Hagel. All Republicans you could count on voting anti gun most of the time... DeWine and Chafee are now gone,and I will tell you as a Buckeye from Ohio I did my best to defeat DeWine in the primaries last year. If it were not for his anti gun stance he probably would have won his Senate Seat. I also have no use of Rudy G and McCain, and will not support them if they get the nomination of my party. I say that as a member of my county GOP Central Committee!
My point is the law should be applied evenly to all of us. I have said it before and I will apparently have to say it until I am blue in the face. The Parker decision is great, as someone who lived and suffered the ridiculous restrictions of the gun ban in Washington I am delighted we got the ruling. But it is not in effect. A felony was committed, and I am pointing out the hypocrisy of how this case and previous situations involving Kennedy and Rockefeller is being handled.
You seem to be making the case laws can be violated if someone is "supposedly" a political ally(a case you have yet to make), and the high and mighty can violate the law. I am sorry but that reminds me too much of the liberals taking the position of ignore the perjury and just say Clinton was impeached for sex so breaking the law was OK. If we take the position that the laws apply only to certain people and not all, then the social fabric unravels. If you can't understand that I am wasting my breath.
Note to Royh, you are right I put the quote mark too soon in "his situation" I meant to just quote the word "situation." Probably did that more than once as I type too fast sometimes.
Other than he supports having his own CCW license make your case for that.
You said
Actually I articulated that in this article which was also posted here recently.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3616
Knucklehead 2 pointed out
Your snarky response was
The man supported weakening the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment foundation and your quip is that " He doesn't meet all our tests". He was actively hurting pro second amendment groups and that is your answer? Really, get real here. The man is all blather. He is doing harm to the RKBA thus far.
Partisan politics. Yup I am guilty. But I don't tolerate anti gun Republicans either.
My former Senator Mike DeWine said he was pro second amendment too. He used it in his campaign literature last time around and he voted for all sorts of gun control ever time it came up. He used to be a friend, but when he turned on this issue, after saying he was progun I was done with him. As a Republican I worked hard against him and I even wrote a letter used by his challenger Colonel John Mitchell that was sent to the 88 Chairman of the various GOP county organizations in '06.
I admit I am a Republican but I given great grief over the years to Republican Senators that are anti gun. I know not all Republicans are pro gun. DeWine, Snowe,Chaffee, McCain, Collins, Hagel. All Republicans you could count on voting anti gun most of the time... DeWine and Chafee are now gone,and I will tell you as a Buckeye from Ohio I did my best to defeat DeWine in the primaries last year. If it were not for his anti gun stance he probably would have won his Senate Seat. I also have no use of Rudy G and McCain, and will not support them if they get the nomination of my party. I say that as a member of my county GOP Central Committee!
My point is the law should be applied evenly to all of us. I have said it before and I will apparently have to say it until I am blue in the face. The Parker decision is great, as someone who lived and suffered the ridiculous restrictions of the gun ban in Washington I am delighted we got the ruling. But it is not in effect. A felony was committed, and I am pointing out the hypocrisy of how this case and previous situations involving Kennedy and Rockefeller is being handled.
You seem to be making the case laws can be violated if someone is "supposedly" a political ally(a case you have yet to make), and the high and mighty can violate the law. I am sorry but that reminds me too much of the liberals taking the position of ignore the perjury and just say Clinton was impeached for sex so breaking the law was OK. If we take the position that the laws apply only to certain people and not all, then the social fabric unravels. If you can't understand that I am wasting my breath.
Note to Royh, you are right I put the quote mark too soon in "his situation" I meant to just quote the word "situation." Probably did that more than once as I type too fast sometimes.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Ramjet, you're correct, I do read "CCW" as "gun." One reason why I read it that way is becaue "CCW" is an abbreviation for "Concealed Carry Weapon." Other people read and use "CCW" the same way, including people in this forum, because that's what the abbreviation abbreviates, as for example in the message Used LE trade in or new clone 1911 for CCW? and other messages from people who know what they're talking about.
The abbreviation for "permit to carry a concealed weapon" is "CWP," which stands for "Concealed Weapons Permit" and, in some states, "Concealable Weapons Permit." There are other states in which the permit has other names (for example, "Concealed Handgun License") and therefore has the appropriate other abbreviation (for example, "CHL").
Some people do talk about a "CCW license" or "CCW permit." Their meaning is clear: they're talking about the license or permit to carry a concealed or concealable weapon. Despite what you and everyone else you know think, they are not talking about the license or permit to carry their license or permit.
And when lawmakers (and others who understand the language) talk about "brandishing" it's the weapon--not the permit--they are talking about.
That's what it means in Virginia too. Your profile indicates that you live in Northern Virginia. Here are the only two provisions of the Code of Virginia that use the word "brandishing": 18.2-282 and . Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty and § 18.2-282.1. Brandishing a machete or other bladed weapon with intent to intimidate; penalty. Your own state's code of laws does not use the term to mean what you and everyone you know think it means. Virginia law does not even mention "brandishing a permit," probably because the concept is so absurd that it wouldn't occur to even a legislator.
I have no way to know whether you're ignorant or are playing silly buggers. Either way, what you say has much passion but no basis in reality. The best face to put on your statements is that you don't know what you're talking about and don't even care that you don't.
I do agree with you, though, that it's pointless to waste more time with this nonsense. Our reasons for coming to that conclusion are different. Stay safe and be careful not to brandish your permit in front of a law enforcement officer. He might draw his permit and subdue you, or whatever you and everyone you know thinks might happen.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
gopguy, I like the word "snarky." It's a good word.
There's a communications problem here, perhaps because you don't trust me when I say that I understand your points. Really and truly I do.
The problem is that I do understand what you're saying. What you are saying is destructive and self-destructive.
Your argument is directed at Jim Webb. You want him held accountable for violating the D.C. law and you want everyone who violates it held equally accountable--no more, no less. Got it.
What you don't get is that your argument validates that law and your obvious passion strengthens its validity.
It's increasingly evident that you believe that Jim Webb has transgressed some rules you have for how best to support the Second Amendment. I understand that many people think as you do. It's obvious that there are a lot of you around.
If you had even an inkling of how to support the Second Amendment in the real world you would be arguing that the Webb incident is graphic demonstration of how bad laws trap good people. Sane people who really support the Second Amendment try to overturn laws such as that in D.C. instead of insisting that they be enforced to everyone's disadvantage. The healthy amongst us don't want the D.C. law and others like it enforced, equally or unequally. We want the D.C. law and others like it gone from the face of the Earth.
Your drive to do a hatchet job on Webb has clouded your reason. You're nuts and, frankly, I think you're also dangerous. You're articulate enough to be quoted as evidence that even gun owners want gun control laws like that in D.C.
I also understand that you know you're right and will never stop doing whatever it is you think you're doing. I've tried my best to explain that what you're doing is both unhealthy and counterproductive.
I recognize that I haven't changed your mind in any way. I don't think that anyone can change your mind but I know I can't. I'm too snarky, sarcastic, and whatever else you decide is a good reason to block what I've said. You will follow the dictates of your blood lust. I do believe that you'll be as hard on Republicans as you are on Democrats who don't do right as you think right should be done. You think that it's good to do so.
You're just another obstacle to be overcome by people who understand the bigger issues and want the Second Amendment interpreted to give everyone--even Jim Webb--the right to keep and bear arms. I think it's a right that even people I don't like should have. I'll even fight for you to have that right. It's a right. It should not be infringed by unconstitutional laws such as the one in D.C. for the violation of which you want Webb punished and humiliated.
Maybe other people who read this thread will understand what I've tried to explain in response to your "principles," and maybe at least some of them will agree that what you're doing is harmful. Or maybe not. That's the way life happens sometimes. It's a reason why we all need to be especially carefully around irrational people who have guns.
There's a communications problem here, perhaps because you don't trust me when I say that I understand your points. Really and truly I do.
The problem is that I do understand what you're saying. What you are saying is destructive and self-destructive.
Your argument is directed at Jim Webb. You want him held accountable for violating the D.C. law and you want everyone who violates it held equally accountable--no more, no less. Got it.
What you don't get is that your argument validates that law and your obvious passion strengthens its validity.
It's increasingly evident that you believe that Jim Webb has transgressed some rules you have for how best to support the Second Amendment. I understand that many people think as you do. It's obvious that there are a lot of you around.
If you had even an inkling of how to support the Second Amendment in the real world you would be arguing that the Webb incident is graphic demonstration of how bad laws trap good people. Sane people who really support the Second Amendment try to overturn laws such as that in D.C. instead of insisting that they be enforced to everyone's disadvantage. The healthy amongst us don't want the D.C. law and others like it enforced, equally or unequally. We want the D.C. law and others like it gone from the face of the Earth.
Your drive to do a hatchet job on Webb has clouded your reason. You're nuts and, frankly, I think you're also dangerous. You're articulate enough to be quoted as evidence that even gun owners want gun control laws like that in D.C.
I also understand that you know you're right and will never stop doing whatever it is you think you're doing. I've tried my best to explain that what you're doing is both unhealthy and counterproductive.
I recognize that I haven't changed your mind in any way. I don't think that anyone can change your mind but I know I can't. I'm too snarky, sarcastic, and whatever else you decide is a good reason to block what I've said. You will follow the dictates of your blood lust. I do believe that you'll be as hard on Republicans as you are on Democrats who don't do right as you think right should be done. You think that it's good to do so.
You're just another obstacle to be overcome by people who understand the bigger issues and want the Second Amendment interpreted to give everyone--even Jim Webb--the right to keep and bear arms. I think it's a right that even people I don't like should have. I'll even fight for you to have that right. It's a right. It should not be infringed by unconstitutional laws such as the one in D.C. for the violation of which you want Webb punished and humiliated.
Maybe other people who read this thread will understand what I've tried to explain in response to your "principles," and maybe at least some of them will agree that what you're doing is harmful. Or maybe not. That's the way life happens sometimes. It's a reason why we all need to be especially carefully around irrational people who have guns.
Beagle-zebub
Member
I'm going with Robert Hairless on this one. As for going to the ends of the Earth in order to get his aide off the hook, you'd all be screaming "privilege!" if he did that.
Jeff Timm
Member
Beagle-zebub commented, "I'm going with Robert Hairless on this one. As for going to the ends of the Earth in order to get his aide off the hook, you'd all be screaming "privilege!" if he did that."
Heck, I just want him to do the JOB he was sent to WDC to do. One of the responsibilities of Congress is to control Washington, DC as part of the separation of powers. Too long Congress has been ignoring its duty.
One proposal, one vote, the gun laws of DC are gone, hopefully retro to the moment the Federal Appeals Court ruled.
Aid off hook. Senator off hook. Apologies all around and slavery finally ends in WDC.
Geoff
Who looks at the simple direct solution, which is highly unlikly while our Congresscretins ignore their duty.
Heck, I just want him to do the JOB he was sent to WDC to do. One of the responsibilities of Congress is to control Washington, DC as part of the separation of powers. Too long Congress has been ignoring its duty.
One proposal, one vote, the gun laws of DC are gone, hopefully retro to the moment the Federal Appeals Court ruled.
Aid off hook. Senator off hook. Apologies all around and slavery finally ends in WDC.
Geoff
Who looks at the simple direct solution, which is highly unlikly while our Congresscretins ignore their duty.
- Status
