House debating to remove the DC gun ban!

[FatSlob]

GO HOUSE! Repeal the DC bans! Live stream at cspan.com

Some dumbass just said that they were going to have .50 Cal semiautomatic assault sniper rifles. He said that the laws have prevented terrorists from bringing guns into DC! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[MrBenchley]

1. Our "pro gun democrats" cheerleading for Republicans AGAIN

[Romulus]

5. "Republicans" like:

John Dingell (MI)
Joe Baca (CA)
Rick Boucher (VA)

And these are just three of the 230 cosponsors I could spot at first glance . . . . how many more Democrats are co-sponsors?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03193:@@@P

[MrBenchley]

10. Damn few....Souder and the GOP are spearheading

this idiotic bill...

Tell us, rom, who is opposing it?

[FatSlob]

14. 44 Dems Co-sponsor.

According to Rep. Mike Ross (D) Arkansas

[FatSlob]

19. Wait, that must be a lie.

Democrats would NEVER support gun owners <sarcasm off>

[UpsideDownFlag]

20. for further sarcasm, check this out:

pro gun dems would never pimp for repubs.

(sarcasm)

[FatSlob]

26. Pimp for?

How mature...you are starting to sound like another person around here. I'm sorry that you are so upset that a bill promoting Freedom was passed by the House. In the future, I'll try not to upset you by pointing out votes against Authoritarianism.

[Goldmund]

2. Awesome!

They will also start sellin' squirrel burgers at McDonald's I hear!

[Romulus]

3. broken clock right twice a day (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

11. Well, that sums up our "pro gun democrats"

sitting around with broken clocks, pimping for the GOP...

[Romulus]

12. LOL, you crack me up, Benchy! (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

15. It shows....

[demnan]

4. This is wrong

The citizens of D.C. should be able to vote on this issue, but D.C. residents are colonists, not citizens of this country!

Washington, D.C. - Taxation without Representation!

</soapbox>

[FatSlob]

6. DC's gun ban has been a failure.

They typically lead the country in gun violence. Repeal the ban and restore freedom.

[UpsideDownFlag]

7. yay republicans. you show those damn liberal dems who's boss.

nt

[MrBenchley]

8. What makes those ignorant non-whites in DC

think they have a right to decide what they want about the sacred gun?

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. lol.

[MrBenchley]

13. Of course there's no bigotry involved (snicker)

it's all a matter of freedom...why should thugs and loonies be inconvenienced by a handful of so-called elected officials and the tyranny of the majority in DC?

[-..__...]

22. Another shining example of gun control hypocrisy...

for the haves and have nots.

Apparently gun-control only applies to the poor and less privileged blacks?


http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/554/Carl_Rowan_was_an_inspiring_communicator

"Carl Rowan was an inspiring communicator".

8< -------- Snip.

" Rowan advocated gun control and was arrested for using an unregistered gun to wound an intruder in his back yard; he argued that he had the right to use any means needed to protect himself and his family. He was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1995, and won the NAACP’s Spingarn Award in 1988. Once called “America’s most visible Black journalist,” Carl Rowan died on September 23rd 2000 in Washington
D.C."

.

[FatSlob]

16. Who is Rep Lynn Woolsey?

How ignorant can somebody be?! Cop killer bullets? I'm shocked at her ignorance. She could barely talk when she was up there. I feel sorry for her. She should never have gotten up to speak on an issue she was so unfamiliar with.

[Romulus]

17. she was flustered with time running out

I'd giver her a pass for that.

If what she said was true, then she would have a point. Other people had better points concerning their opposition to the bill.

I wish someone would have asked why this vote was happening when time could be better spent on an investigation into BushCo's ANG records . . .

[FatSlob]

18. I don't think Congress would investigate the

shrubbery's ANG records, anymore than they would investigate Senator Kerry's war record. It is outside their scope. I'm thrilled that they are working on restoring freedom to DC residents. DCers will still have to find an FFL in DC, which will be hard.

Perhaps she was flustered, I wish I could go back and watch again.

[Romulus]

25. thanks for the CSPAN heads, up, BTW

I listened online . . . didn't know the debate was today.

I think that Woolsey was flustered because EHN turned over the last minute of speech time to her, and maybe she didn't expect it? :shrug:

It was painful hearing Woolsey talk about "people's assault weapons of choice to defend themselves nightmare, with cop killer bullets because your enemy has body armor, armor piercing handguns." :hangover:

But that line was about tied with EHN's statement about "semiautomatic .50cal armor piercing sniper rifle out in the open in one hand, armor piercing high explosive incendiary bullets in the other, all on the Metro, going to an informal target shoot, and the police won't be able to do anything about it." :hangover:

[Romulus]

35. text of her comments (from Thomas.gov) FYI

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, imagine living in a world where you believe owning weapons is the only way to feel safe, so you decide semiautomatic weapons which are made easily available to you are the weapon of your choice. But then you decide to buy handguns so you can keep that gun concealed on your body when you go to the store, or on your pillow at night, because you believe that the enemy could be lurking anywhere. You figure while you are beefing up your home artillery, you should also pick up some cop-killer bullets because you never know when your enemy might have a bullet-proof vest on.

I do not know about you folks, but this is my idea of a nightmare: a world made less safe, not safer, by this legislation.

This bill not only ignores D.C. voters' choice to ban assault weapons, it also makes certain that the city council cannot enact any further gun-owning restrictions.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I would just like to give the Members a sense of what this bill would do. If it passes, it would allow someone to carry a 50-caliber sniper rifle in one hand, armor-piercing ammunition, and incendiary combination ammunition in the other, and go into our Metro, so long as he, and let me read this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as long as he was on his way to an informal target practice or a dog obedience training class.

Mr. Speaker, this is sheer lunacy. Save yourself from embarrassment. Save our children. Save our Nation. Save this Congress from looking like idiots and fools in the middle of an orange alert by bringing more guns into the Nation's capital. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3193.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[slackmaster]

21. I'm sure glad I don't live in DC

n/t

[Dolomite]

23. BREAKING!! House Repeals it!

198-22 (R)
52-148 (D)
1 (I) (nay)

Don't worry criminals - the Senate still has to vote for this horrible encroachment on your freedoms.

[-..__...]

24. The best part of H 3193

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

PASSED!!!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast:

[FatSlob]

27. Brady must be having a conniption fit. eom

[Fescue4u]

28. Not to be a party pooper

But isnt this only a symbolic vote since the Companion Senate Bill has been withdrawn?

Even if so, I think its step in the right direction.

[UNIXcock]

29. This is NOT a partisan issue !!!

It's about a responsible, law abiding citizen's right to defend his home and family

[-..__...]

30. Yeah, I hear ya.

There's only two days left in this legislative session. HR 3193 now goes to the Senate for consideration where it's almost guaranteed that an AWB amendment will be proposed; the only purpose being to kill the House bill.

Even if it is killed (or dies on the floor), the passage of HR 3193 in the House still represents a great step forward for the RKBA.

[MrSandman]

51. Kind of shows where S 1431 stands in the house...n/t

[GOPFighter]

31. I've lived in the DC area for almost 30 years...

...and this vote makes me sick. The fact that some DUers support it makes me angry.

No. 1, people who live no where near our city and know nothing about our city have the gall to tell the residents of our city they are too stupid to make their own laws. The vast majority of DC residents support these gun laws.

If this is such a good thing why doesn't the Republican Party propose legislation striking down ALL the gun laws all over the whole frickin' country? Because it would be the end of the Republican Party! Urban and suburban voters, and even some rural voters, would turn on the GOP faster than a mongoose on a snake. It's OK to strike down the laws of a poor, largely minority city because there will be no repercussions from it. It's a safe way to demonize Democrats for the upcoming elections.

Do you think it's a good idea that thugs will be able to carry loaded semiautomatic weapons on the street with impunity? Do you know anything about the culture of violence in poor areas of DC? Do you know the police took almost 1,400 guns off the streets so far this year because there are (or were) laws against them which allowed the police to confiscate them?

Of course, wouldn't it be nice if the well regulated militia of citizen gun owners around the country would come help protect the poor, mnay who can't afford a gun, from the soon to be unregulated criminals and drug dealers. I'll bet none of the loudmouth gun zealots have the guts to do that.

:grr:

[Romulus]

32. the rest of DC's laws would remain

including the ones that criminalize having a loaded firearm in public, even "on the street" . . .

And DC isn't a state, it's a territory, just like American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or even Yosemite National Park. Like it or not, the DC City Council is on par with the Yosemite ranger when it comes to the authority to make the rules for the area.

[slackmaster]

33. A couple of brief comments

Do you think it's a good idea that thugs will be able to carry loaded semiautomatic weapons on the street with impunity?

AFAIK the laws prohibiting people from carrying loaded weapons, either open or concealed, without a permit will remain in effect. The people you really need to worry about - the ones who carry in spite of the law and have criminal intent - will neither behave any differently nor increase in number.

Do you know anything about the culture of violence in poor areas of DC?

Yes, and I know that despite strict gun control DC is still one of the most violent places in the US. It's time to try something new.

Do you know the police took almost 1,400 guns off the streets so far this year because there are (or were) laws against them which allowed the police to confiscate them?

If the ban is repealed the DC police will still be able to confiscate guns from people who are prohibited from having them: Convicted felons, drug addicts, people who are under restraining orders for domestic violence, people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, people who are in the country illegally, people who have been discharged dishonorably from the military, people under age 18, etc.

[skippythwndrdog]

34. What he said!

Well done, slack.:toast:

[NorthernSpy]

42. as the last several decades have shown us...

... our government positively adores crime. Crime -- like its cousins War and Terror -- is a convincing justification for the further growth and empowerment of the state at the expense of the citizens. That's why they've rammed the so-called War on Drugs down our throats: to make sure that we have absolutely as much crime as possible.

Our government has NO interest in putting any significant dent in the crime rate, and plenty of interest in making sure that crime remains a major aspect of life in our society. If our overseers promote gun control, then you may be sure that they do so secure in the knowledge that such measures will not harm the health of crime.

Think about it. If the govt. really wanted to end the violence that plagues Washington DC, then why haven't they ended the War on Drugs -- that notorious melange of horribly expensive government programs that are known to boost crime rates? Why prefer to strip ordinary DCeans of their ability to protect themselves against the violent criminals they rightly fear?

The cause of all this mess is not nearly so much "the culture of violence in poor areas of DC" that you like to focus on as it is the culture of violence that holds sway in the rich, powerful, policy-setting areas of DC.

Me, I think that until the state stops waging war on them, there is little hope for those poor people. No matter what they do, they will continue to live in danger and misery, because they inhabit a hostile no-man's land in the shadow of a government-created black market. That is THE basic economic reality that sets the parameters of their lives. Gun control will not change that. Depriving these people of arms has amounted only to abandoning them to the day-to-day consequences of their dangerous, state-ordained hell.


Mary

[BigDaddyCaine]

64. If only the democrats....or republicans

would run somebody with your ideas...we might see some peace in the war on drugs, guns, and poor. As it is now you have to vote green and toss your vote away if youre going to vote for a policy on crime that makes sense. Greens and libertarians are the only ones who will stand up for what is right when it comes to the war on drugs.

[Wickerman]

36. Election year manipulation

Personally, I think DC should live under the same laws as everyone else.

However, this is shameful and I am disappointed to see so many people missing the what is really happening here. The Senate has no intention to pick it up this term. Without their approval the bill is symbolic.

Why would the House do this? Perhaps to force votes that will make some Dems in hotly contested battles more vulnerable. Nothing to ignite your base like a hot button issue like this being applied right before a nationwide election.

And that's the problem. Dems overwhelming support some levels of gun control. It creates a real dilemma for Dem pols in tight races. Satisfy your area party constituency on an issue that shouldn't be on a Federal agenda anyway, or, piss off your competition?

Its this kind of meaningless crap legislation that the RW is burying us with and I am saddened that folks are jumping for joy over this perversion of democracy.

Lunabush dons his flame retardant suit and, since we are in the gungeon, his bullet proof vest.

[Romulus]

37. agree and disagree

While I am pretty sure there is some political hooey behind this bill, many of the 52 Democratic pro-voters really support this bill and are not under threat of being voted out.

And even if they were under threat, then they should be like ENH and speak out & vote for what they BELIEVE is the right thing, not what they think will get them votes. (But that's a criticism of most politicians). Sure, we mostly support gun control, but the main battle is over where to draw the line (as we see here in our DU microcosm).

Too bad many Republicans don't follow the same "vote what you really believe" thinking, or else a lot of abominations that the GOP comes up with would never see the light of day (like the "partial birth abortion ban," or the "save marriage amendment").:eyes:

[TX-RAT]

38. I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

(Dems in hotly contested battles more vulnerable)

[Township75]

39. There is more to consider.

The Senate has no intention to pick it up this term. Without their approval the bill is symbolic.
Absolutely. This bill was brought up just as a political tool. Now, why did they pick a gun issue for a political tool to beat Dems as opposed to another issue? Something that should be considered by the anti gunners is that Repubs thought they could beat Dems with this issue as opposed to a different issue.

Why would the House do this? Perhaps to force votes that will make some Dems in hotly contested battles more vulnerable. Nothing to ignite your base like a hot button issue like this being applied right before a nationwide election.

And that's the problem. Dems overwhelming support some levels of gun control. It creates a real dilemma for Dem pols in tight races. Satisfy your area party constituency on an issue that shouldn't be on a Federal agenda anyway, or, piss off your competition?

I disagree. It's not about your competition as they were going to be voting against you anyway. It is about igniting swing voters, those who typically don't vote in an election, and maybe to get some to cross party lines in states that are predominately Dem such as WV, PA, and MI (I think even FL has more registered Dems than Repubs). Again, ask yourself why this issue as opposed to some others. I think it is because the repubs know gun control (with some exceptions) is a losing issue and doesn't represent the majority of voters' opinions.

I am happy this passed and wish the senate would pick-it-up soon too. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. I also would have been happier if this issue were voted on last year or 2 years ago, but I will take it now rather than never.

Its this kind of meaningless crap legislation that the RW is burying us with and I am saddened that folks are jumping for joy over this perversion of democracy.

Yeah, the RW may be able to bury some Dems with this legislation, but if they do, it is because the Dem didn't realize his/her constituents don't support gun bans.

It also isn't a perversion of democracy as I see it. Rights that were taken away were almost restored today. That is good. I live in a very conservative area, and the idea that books, music, or other media could be banned because the majority of residents don't want them isn't something I would celebrate; I doubt you would either. Just because one scenario is books and the other is guns doesn't change the principal behind the analogy very much.

[Wickerman]

40. I'm not going to go back and forth on this, I've stated my case

but it was a perversion, in my mind, because the House has no business legislating DC. You want the people of DC to have rights? Go with what everyone always says about gun control - let them have local control.

Again, and this is where I have my largest issue with the RKBA crowd - guns aren't everything. This is a perfect example - we have an entire class of people (DC citizens) who are denied basic and fundamental rights of all shades, not only guns and folks forget the mantra of local control.

This of course, is not the only wedge issue the Rethugs have used this year, just one in a string, hence my statement that this is the type of crap they have tried to bury us with.

[Fescue4u]

41. Sounds like good case for the Dems

to get out of the gun control business.

I'll ignore for a moment the fact that quite a number of freedom loving Democrats also signed onto this bill.


Gun Control is a losing issue. It accomplishes nothing positive and much negative, including the loss of critical votes.

[FatSlob]

43. moon shrub

Personally, I think DC should live under the same laws as everyone else.

However, this is shameful and I am disappointed to see so many people missing the what is really happening here. The Senate has no intention to pick it up this term. Without their approval the bill is symbolic.

Yes, I would agree that it is symbolic. However, I wish it were not. I still see it as a good sign.

Why would the House do this? Perhaps to force votes that will make some Dems in hotly contested battles more vulnerable. Nothing to ignite your base like a hot button issue like this being applied right before a nationwide election.

And that's the problem. Dems overwhelming support some levels of gun control. It creates a real dilemma for Dem pols in tight races. Satisfy your area party constituency on an issue that shouldn't be on a Federal agenda anyway, or, piss off your competition?

Now that I think about it, it is obviously political. The R's used this as a vehicle to point out the D's weakness where guns are concerned. Like it or not, our party gets creamed on gun-control. I don't blame the R's for using this as a wedge issue, it is good politics. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of Democrats lose their seats because of their votes on this. I just don't get it. Why do we constantly harp on gun-control? Gun control is both an authoritarian and a losing issue for us. We likely got burned again on this one.

Its this kind of meaningless crap legislation that the RW is burying us with and I am saddened that folks are jumping for joy over this perversion of democracy.

Meaningless crap? No, we've been hurt on it. The Republicans are smart politicians and strategists. I jump for joy at the potential that DC will once again become free. I am saddened that the Senate won't pick it up. I am saddened that we will likely be hurt by this.

Lunabush dons his flame retardant suit and, since we are in the gungeon, his bullet proof vest.

Nomex and Kevlar...what a cute outfit.

[Wickerman]

44. Well, we can disagree all day long about what is smart politics

and how much impact gun control has the ranks of the Dem party. We can wax philosophical on the gun control = authoritarian issue.

Whatever is said, this is sucky government - we sure have a lot of it, but this kind of political ploying and symbolic nonsense is why nothing of value has gotten done in Washington in the last several years.

[FatSlob]

45. We agree more than you think we do.

[Wickerman]

46. Do not

[FatSlob]

53. Do so.

[Redneck Socialist]

48. C'mon man...

What'cha doin' interjecting some common sense and rationality into this discussion? I thought we had succeeded in stamping those things out of the gungeon long ago. :P

[Wickerman]

50. Sorry

I have this nasty habit of stating the obvious. Its kind of embarrassing. :eyes:

[Lefty48197]

47. Pro gun right wingers are now flip flopping again

Remember, it was Tom DeLay who said that the only reason the House wasn't going to vote on extending the assault weapons ban, was that the Senate had already refused to take up the topic, so it was therefore wasteful for the House to "bother" with the topic.
Of course now that the Senate has refused to take up the topic of gun laws in D.C., the House somehow feels it's suddenly OK to vote on things that the Senate is not going to address.

[Fescue4u]

49. Thats a good point.

Its definitely a flipflop.

I suspect the real reason for the non vote and this vote is that the house repubs are simply progun. With the awb, they didnt want to throw away a bunch of house seats over an ineffective law, and in the case of the DC gun ban, it was an opportunity to pick up some votes.

In other words politics.

But regardless of stripe, I have to say that I am pleased the AWB is gone, and that SOMEBODY is trying to restore to residents of DC, their civil rights.

[p0sitivevibez]

52. SICK

Has anyone here every lived in D.C.? I have, for almost my whole life. THE LAST THING D.C. needs is more freakin hadnguns, and guns for that matter. I think between crack cocaine, guns and Marion Barry, my hometown has to be one of the worst cities in the world. I love it, but GOD it is a f*cked up place.

Oh yeah F**K you Jack Johnson if anyone knows who that is (not the singer either).

[FatSlob]

54. So you prefer that the criminals run rampant?

[SBWCP]

55. Guns...

Kill. End of argument.

[SBWCP]

56. Seriously, guns kill.

[SBWCP]

57. You can't buy an automatic car!

[SBWCP]

58. Where's the fully auto spoons???

[SBWCP]

59. A gun is meant to kill, PERIOD!

[JeebusB]

63. Really??? Guess my guns are just really lazy

Haven't killed anyone yet. And it isn't like I haven't shot them enough.


:P

[brothermak]

60. yup

People kill. End of Argument. Want to get rid of people too?

[Jack_DeLeon]

61. people = the root of all evil...

lets ban them. :P

[brothermak]

62. hmmm

I thought money was the root of all evil. Hmmm, but then people created money.

So which should we ban first? People or Money?
-BM

Edited because i wrote "money is the root of all people" lol. That might not be too far off in some cases......sheesh, i need coffee.