Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
So yes, you see it as a compromise, albeit one where your side gave more. You must admit, though, that there will now be guns in the hands of civilians in DC. Can't you see that is something you wanted? Yes, yes, the rest of it pisses you off to no end, but isn't that fact alone at least a small victory for what I see as your side?
|
In theory, yes.
There are two gun stores in DC and both sell to law enforcement only. The DC police force strongly supported the gun ban. It is reasonable to believe that if either store were to begin selling handguns to civilians, it would jeopardize their dealing with the police (biggest/only customer.) DC can still regulate the opening of gun stores through licensing and zoning. Given their intent to start enforcing other gun control laws now that the handgun ban and long arm disassembly laws are gone, it is reasonable to believe that they will make it near impossible or impossible to open a new gun store in the District.
I will make a very generous estimate that it will be no less than two years before the first handgun is legally purchased in Washington DC.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
is it reasonable to think that the gov would use nukes, RPG's, and tanks against citizens on their own soil? This effectively shuts down any future machine gun ownership because they are not 'in common use' by the people anymore. Military weaponry of all sorts is effectively prohibited and that wasn't the intent of the founders.
|
The Miller case ruled that NFA taxes on a sawed-off shotgun are reasonable because SBS' are not used by any organized militia. By the Miller test, any gun that is in common use by any military is theoretically open to private ownership. Combine that with Heller and a strict constructionist would have no choice but to reopen the registry to Title II select fire guns and machine guns in common military use.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ASU2003
So, who knows if this ban had any effect on crime? Or did it have any effect on non-drug related crime I should say.
|
In 1976, the homicide rate was 26.8 per 100,000. The gun ban was passed in early February 1977 and through 2005, the murder rate never dropped below that number, and frequently exceeded it by significant amounts. I'm not going to get into formal statistical analyses, and a single law cannot be found responsible for a widespread statistic of a scope greater that could be affected by the law, but at no point was there a reduction of the annual murder rate after the ban was passed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I don't know much about San Jose except for a bit about hockey. I'm intrigued. I'm sure that's an interesting murder rate compared to your national average. What would be the attributing factors? You have a lot of Canadians living there or something?
|
People are too busy enjoying their "medical" marijuana
(PLEASE NOTICE THE WINKING SMILEY!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocon1
Do you really think Bush could get people to obey the orders of pacifying an american town or city in this day and age?
|
The last time members of the military were polled, 75% said that they would not fire on American citizens on American soil as a police action and 50% said that they would refuse any order to fire on Americans on American soil for any reason. I forget how the second question was worded, exactly, but it seemed to imply that if the country had gotten to the point that violent revolution appealed to enough people that they actually did it, half of the military would side with the revolution.