Is it fair to say Doug Duncan doesn't like drinking since he continues to do nothing to stop the County from selling liqour? Or, Doug Duncan agrees with property tax increases since he didn't side with the referendum last time? Doug Duncan likes high gas taxes since he didn't try to lower them at all?

Yah, if that's the Duncan campaigns logic than perhaps I'm mistaken and they are dead in the water. Anyone can say anything about any candidate with their logic pattern.

Since the so-called "assault weapons" ban was nothing more than a ban on cosmetic features of a gun, it's ludicrous that anyone would be faulted for failing to support it. It is the supreme example of legislation by emotion: "these guns look scary, let's ban them."

First, Duncan tried 30 second ads on his web site; then, Duncan could only afford to do 15 second ads on TV; next, Duncan will be running 2 second ads because that will be the only amount of TV time that the Duncan campaign will be able to afford.

I'm telling you, these ads are going to have his campaign contributors running for the doors.

Look, I've reviewed the messages of readers on all of these stories regarding Duncan and I must say, the sentiment is overwhelmingly going against Duncan.

My question is this:

Who are these message posters?

In my case, I can tell you that I have no affiliation whatsoever with the O'Malley campaign.

I know the Duncan campaign likes to say that anyone who criticizes Duncan on these boards must be an employee of O'Malley -- if that's the case, are the one or two pro-Duncan posters on these boards employees of the Duncan campaign?

Also, if Duncan has so much support in Montgomery County, how can it be that he takes such a miserable drubbing on these boards?

I'm starting to really believe that Duncan's support is vastly overstated in Montgomery County -- why else wouldn't any of his supporter rally to his side when he take his daily pounding on the Maryland Moment web site.

Actually, Duncan did try to get rid of the county's liquor sales system in favor of a more privatized one, but eventually abandoned that effort. Whoever replaces him should look at getting rid of this ridiculous bit of socialism that serves no good contemporary purpose.

And I don't know exactly how much support Duncan has in Montgomery, but lately I've seen as many "O'Malley/Brown" stickers and signs around the county as Duncan ones. There's plenty about his Montgomery record to criticize. As it stands, I don't think he'll get the one-sided vote here he needs to win without making some sort of major breakthrough elsewhere in the state, though indications are he's making some impact elsewhere and so could end up seriously competitive.

I believe those advocating a ban on assault weapons should take a page from the Republican book of simplification. And I say this because I believe, as we saw last week in Virginia, these weapons serve no purpose but for the commission of crimes.

Assault weapons are for killing people, and only people.

Most - if not all - major police associations and departments are against the sale of assualt weapons.

Assault weapons are used, again as we saw last week when an 18 year old unloaded 70 rounds into several police officers, for committing crime.

To be against the assault weapons ban, is to be pro-crime and anti-life.

Therefore, anyone against a ban on assault weapons that are only used to kill cops, kids in schools, and innocent people, are pro-crime and anti-life.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.

And for those who do advocate permitting people to own assault weapons - where do you draw the line? Why can't I buy a serious machine gun? Why not something larger like a rocket launcher?

I mean, I would only be using it for self-defense. No really, I mean it.

Corbett you really ought to read your constitution. You know, like the second amendment. No really, I mean it.

The second amendment doesn't protect the rights of sportsmen and hunters. It's purpose is to allow people to not become dependent on a police state (and to discourage tyranny).

Then, again, let me ask - why not the rocket launcher? What makes that fundamentally different than the assault weapon?

corbett, the facts do not back up your assertion. For one, I'd like you to actually define what an "assault weapon" is and how that differs from a regular semi-automatic rifle. Let me save you some time: the only difference between the two is that the "assault weapon" looks like a military gun. There is no difference between them and a regular semi-automatic rifle except in how they look.

"Assault weapons" are not used for "killing people, and only people." Many "assault weapons" are used for hunting and target shooting. They are only used in 1 to 2% of all crimes, and the federal assault weapons ban had no effect whatsoever on crime.

Being against an "assault weapons" ban does not make one pro-crime or anti-life. These guns are the same as any other gun, except they look scary. Just because you don't like how a gun looks does not mean it should be banned.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The second amendment states that people are free to own guns for the purpose of defending their state and forming a militia. Can you tell me what people buy assault weapons, or any gun for that matter, to form a militia and protect their state?

corbett, if you really want to strictly interpret the 2nd amendment, you could even argue that it intends for the citizens to be able to own the current infantry weapons of the times.

It is definitely about ensuring that the government never has the ultimate, unstoppable power of force against the people without the people having a balancing force to prevent governmental abuses and totalitarian tendencies.

Besides, the whole concept of eliminating legal, responsible firearm ownership is crazy. Any rational person would realize immediately that the more law abiding, concerned and rational people walking around armed, the less crime will occur. It happens every time guns are banned in a town, violent crimes increase. The criminals now know they can attack with impunity because the government has disarmed all their potential victims. And inversely, in towns where they pass laws requiring all adult males to carry or own a weapon, crime immediately goes down sharply. Again, criminals now know there's a very high probability that their victim will be armed now. Simple logic.

It's silly to disarm the people who choose to own weapons to protect themselves. It never prevents the criminals from arming themselves, it only forces people to rely on a police state that cannot be everywhere at all times. It's crazy. Just crazy.

No,the Second Amendment says that the right "of the people" to own guns shouldn't be infringed. Sure, it mentions the militia, but the right is not dependent on the formation of a militia. Furthermore, in those days pretty much every man was part of the militia. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to own guns just like the Fourth guarantees the right "of the people" to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

corbett, if you really want to strictly interpret the 2nd amendment, you could even argue that it intends for the citizens to be able to own the current infantry weapons of the times.

It is definitely about ensuring that the government never has the ultimate, unstoppable power of force against the people without the people having a balancing force to prevent governmental abuses and totalitarian tendencies.

Besides, the whole concept of eliminating legal, responsible firearm ownership is crazy. Any rational person would realize immediately that the more law abiding, concerned and rational people walking around armed, the less crime will occur. It happens every time guns are banned in a town, violent crimes increase. The criminals now know they can attack with impunity because the government has disarmed all their potential victims. And inversely, in towns where they pass laws requiring all adult males to carry or own a weapon, crime immediately goes down sharply. Again, criminals now know there's a very high probability that their victim will be armed now. Simple logic.

It's silly to disarm the people who choose to own weapons to protect themselves. It never prevents the criminals from arming themselves, it only forces people to rely on a police state that cannot be everywhere at all times. It's crazy. Just crazy.

Yes, it's a 'Well organized militia' not individuals.
And because people can use an assault rifle for hunting doesn't make it a hunting rifle.
And if you really want to use guns to stop tyrannical governments, assault rifles aren't a good choice. Sniper rifles are.

Plain and simple, there is no need for guns designed for the express and sole purpose of killing multiple people at one time. They're not called 'assualt' rifles so you can assault deer. They're designed for the military. What this boils down to is not wanting to give up the gun because it's cool. Having shot an ar-15, and SKS, a FAL 223 and a semi-auto Tommy gun, I can tell you they are wicked cool, and yes, even on the gun range, you feel like a bad motha f**** when you shoot them. Can I do without them, can the US? Of course we can. Pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are enough, plain and simple. We don't need anymore.

Andrew,

I would direct to United States Code Title 10 Section 34 that explicitly defines the "militia" as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Basically what this means is YOU AND I are members of the militia.

And by the way, the weapon the shooter in Fairfax used is no different than any semi-automatic hunting rifle except for its "scary" appearance. People like these types of guns because they are reliable and simple to maintain. I own several. Not one has ever jumped out and committed a crime on its own. The intent lies with the user, not with weapon. Weapons can be used for good or evil depending on the whims of the user but they themselves have no will.

And I hate to break it to you, it is called a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Needs". It is not about hunting or target shooting. It is the right of a citizen to exercise it in a law-abiding manner without the need for justification. I don't care if you like it or not. Because your "right" to impose your view of what a Right means ends at the end of your nose. You can choose to exercise a Right or not but you don't have the right to dictate to others how they should exercise those same rights as long as the Constitution stands as-is.

Corbett is Duncan's only supporter in Montgomery County. He has to provide the noise the others will never make.

Correction, the militia definition is United States Code Title 10 Section 311.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html

nobody is talking about taking away the right to bear arms, that's pat NRA fearmongering. It's about drawing the line at certain types.

Besides, we all know the threat of a tyrranical government is no longer found behind the barrel of a gun but in unauthorized wiretaps and presidential exemptions and phone data collection and that cannot be stopped with an ak47.

Will, an "assault weapon" is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle except in how it looks. It is not designed any differently, is not any more powerful, and is not manufactured with the intent to kill people. These are not military weapons. They simply look like military weapons.

And, actually, they are called "assault rifles" not because they "assault" humans, as you imply. The term "assault rifle" is not a technical term. It's a term made up by gun control proponents to label a class of firearms that resemble military guns. It's not a real classification for any gun.

Yeah, I agree. Disarming the law abiding citizen because you are afraid of criminals is actually a self defeating solution. All you are doing is making it clear that any upstanding citizen is absolutely and positively at the mercy of the criminal element, who obviously aren't going to run to turn in their weapons like all the good little law abiding worker-bees will.

Just imagine if the frightened little city dwellers have their way and succeed in ultimately banning all legal, civilian gun ownership. What is going to happen to ranchers and wildlife researchers and travel guides and all the other people that currently use weapons to protect themselves against wild animals, snakes, outlaws, etc? These people will be left defenseless.

Rationally, those that commit crimes using firearms, or even anyone convicted of violent crime should not be allowed to own a firearm of any type. But to just say "oh yeah, this guy used a gun to kill someone, go round up everyone's gun now" is irrational, and doesn't solve the problem. It's a knee-jerk reaction by people who were obviously traumatized to a point where they cannot think rationally anymore. fear, in other words. It's a result of fear.

Will, you are right that it's about drawing certain lines. But is it really wise to draw the line to ban a gun simply because it looks like a military gun, although it is the same in every other way as a gun that isn't banned?

Oh please, now we're splitting semantic hairs, there's a huge difference between the design of a Mac 10 and a ruger mini14, and I'm aware that in the hands of a well trained person the ruger is more dangerous, but it's the mac-10 that gets used on people, and how you can say it wasn't designed with the intent to kill people astounds me. I suppose it's meant for skeet. There is plan and simply no need for a gun that has the capacity to shoot 30 shoot, be reloaded with ease and can be hidden under a jacket. THat shouldn't be a right. Should you have the right to a grenade launcher? It shoots a projectile and would arguably protect you better against the military. No? Okay, so you admit there is a line where rights end, now we're just arguing on where it should be drawn.

I was more for the brady ban on 30 shot clips than banning the gun.

I get your point on looks, too, the problem is, we don't have the ability to take it on a gun by gun basis because the NRA prevents any kind of reasonable discussion on the matter.

I mean, should most lawsuits be dropped against gun manufacturers, yes, absolutely, but to say you cannot sue them at all? That's a really dangerous precedent to set.

Well, this is really not about Duncan anymore ist it? :-) Have your say, I'll not respond to them, give you the last word and all that and leave it at that.

The Mac-10 is a semi-automatic handgun that is the same as any other semi-automatic handgun. It simply looks scary. It is rarely used in crimes. Any handgun can be hidden under a jacket. Your rationale for disliking the Mac-10 boils down to how it looks. Just because you don't like the look of a gun is no reason to ban it.

Every gun is designed to kill. A bolt-action .308 is designed to kill as much as an SKS. The SKS gets banned, however, because it resembles a military weapon. The .308 is legal because it does not.

yeah, the same logic, the logic of "that guy shot 70 rounds at cops, so assualt rifles should be illegale" should be consistently applied, at least. We should insist that these people maintain the same logic when say, some angry person uses his car to ram through a crowd, killing several people. Or when someone uses a baseball bat to bash in the head of some poor unwitting victim. Or when a computer is used to commit a crime. We should just always eliminate the tool used, whether we have to ban baseball leagues, and personal, private unregistered computer ownership, or if everyone would have to now use public transportation, we have to always keep in mind that someone used a baseball bat to kill someone, so there's no more baseball, and someone committed a crime using a car, so now we walk everywhere, and some guy ripped off a bank using his pc, so we'll just have to go back to watching TV I guess.

makes sense. Let's just be consistent. Ban anything that is used in a crime. No exceptions!

So, what you're telling me, MK, is that hunters take their AK-47 out to blow thru a few dozen rounds to take out a deer? When this deer came thru my backyard last year, I seriously was wishing I had an AK-47 to saw the thing in half for trampling on my petunas!

While I'm sure most gun owners are responsible, law abiding individuals, this kind of weapon is used only to kill people. It was designed for that purpose and it does it well. How many robberies involve enough intruders that someone says "Sh!t, my half dozen handguns just aren't enough, I wish I had a bazooka to blow these guys away."

I can't argue that the assault weapons ban wasn't poorly written and enacted - that is true. A DOJ study on the effectiveness of the ban bares this out:

The ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines..."

According to the ATF, these weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one....Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."

And let's define a crime, since apparently these weapons were/are used in 1% to 2% of crimes, according to MK. Let's look at the crimes they were used in:

In July 1984, James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others in a CA McDonald's using an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun.

In January 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in CA, using a semiautomatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle.

In September 1989, Joseph Wesbecker killed 7 people and wounded 13 others at his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky.

In July 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at a San Francisco law offices.

This is very simple - without these kinds of weapons, the impact of the crimes committed would have been dramatically less. The law was easily undercut by the gun industry, making knockoffs of the banned guns easily available. But the underlying rationale behind the law was spot on.

Will, there is no need to take it on a gun by gun basis. Gun bans do not solve any problems. Look at DC. It certainly isn't a safer city since it banned all guns.

On lawsuits -- why should a person be able to sue a gun manufacturer because of how a third-party misuses a gun? It makes no sense to allow these frivolous lawsuits that are designed solely to enact gun control through the courts because the legislatures are not doing it.

The ATF already covers grenade launchers under the ilk of "destructive devices". Yes, civilians CAN own them. However, the paperwork, costs and storage requirements (not to mention waiving 4th Amendment rights) are so onerous that most people don't have the means or will to own them.

And let's talk about that Mac-10 hidden in a jacket. I don't care how many rounds it holds, if it is carried in a law-abiding manner, so be it. If the person, however, lacks a carry permit or is in anyway prohibted from doing so, what does the type of gun matter? If they are going to commit a criminal act by actually using the Mac-10, what does a misdemeanor charge for unlicensed carry going to do, scare them into compliance? Criminals don't obey the law by definition.

As to your Mini-14 example, guess what, many places classify it as an "assault weapon". It can accept high capacity magazines too. Just as effective as an AR-15 but just lacks the pistol grip and has a pretty stock instead. Big deal.

This isn't about use against the government (that is a very serious thing to even contemplate, let alone do).

Guns are made for many purposes and unfortunately, one of those purposes is killing people. You can go out and shoot people on the street or you can shoot someone shooting people on the street. One is a bad use, the other is good. If the use is bad, the tool itself has little impact. One can do the same job as a Mac-10 (which is a poor example of a pistol) as they can with conventional handgun. You think a 30 round mag makes a difference? Not at all to a determined criminal.

corbett, I know hunters that use an AK-47 or a similar rifle for hunting. If you miss a deer, you have another round ready to go. I know plenty of others who use them for target shooting. If people want to own them for these purposes, then there is no rationale for taking them away. You are simply wrong that these guns are designed solely to kill people. Again, these guns are no different at all from other semi-automatic rifles. The only difference is in cosmetic features, such as a pistol grip or a bayonet lug. The reason the gun ban was so easily evaded was because gun manufacturers know this and simply manufactured the same guns without these cosmetic features. Of course, the gun control people talked about how they were "undercutting" the ban, but they were simply following the law. The law only banned cosmetic features of guns, so the manufacturers stopped making these cosmetic features.

Your examples are intersting but pointless. If the guns did not have the cosmetic features that define an "assault weapon," and were still semi-automatic, then they would have done the same thing. The cosmetic features that define an assault weapon have nothing to do with their lethality.

Steve -

For the record, I am NOT a Duncan supporter. Just because we share an opinion on this issue doesn't mean he's my guy. Nice try though.

"This isn't about use against the government (that is a very serious thing to even contemplate, let alone do). "

Sure, but the potential, it's existence, as a possibility, has a "balance of power" affect.

Without it, the government can trample everyone's rights without any fear of repurcussions.

It should always and only be the final, last resort. But it should always be available as that last resort, or there is nothing to stop a government from overstepping it's authority. (after all, if the government reaches a point where it requires violence to stop it, it has already reached a point of desperation)

I certainly wouldn't want to be the one advocating the actual use of force against the government. That sounds a bit dangerous.

Eugene,

I fully agree with you. The Founders understood that issue very well since they had just fought a war for those very reasons and wanted to make sure that future generations would not be denied the need to do so again should circumstances require. Hence the 2nd Amendment. It is the final, last resort clause of the People and one, like nuclear weapons, you hope you never need to use.

Follow your own rule and read the second amendment. There is no unqualified right to bear arms. There is supreme court precedent on this that supports my interpretation.

Moreover, even if the right were there (it is not) the government could still restrict that right with a compelling reason (known as strict scrutiny).

So, all you fear mongering, gun crazies, go somewhere else. I don't know how you can even be against the assault rifle ban with a straight face.

Actually, the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment was the late 1930's. It ruled that the feds could ban a sawed-off shotgun because it was not a military-style weapon, and therefore of little use to militias. By Supreme Court precedent, then, it seems that "assault rifles" are the type of guns that have the most protection.

As far as not knowing how we "can even be against the assault rifle ban with a straigh face," please tell us why these guns should be banned. The burden of proof is on those who wish to ban these legal weapons. Why should their cosmetic features make them verboten?

"Follow your own rule and read the second amendment. There is no unqualified right to bear arms. There is supreme court precedent on this that supports my interpretation.

Moreover, even if the right were there (it is not) the government could still restrict that right with a compelling reason (known as strict scrutiny).

So, all you fear mongering, gun crazies, go somewhere else. I don't know how you can even be against the assault rifle ban with a straight face"

I have read the 2nd Amendment and what the Founding Fathers intended for it. I have also read the United State Code. Your interpretation of the Constitution is not borne out by case law and opinions issued by Department of Justice that hold the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right guaranteed to the People. The only reason the Rights are defined is to ensure they would NOT be taken away or regulated by the government. The fact that they are is a discussion elsewhere.

If you can demonstrate an "assault weapon" ban would have a noticeable impact on crime, I would support it. But the 10 year ban didn't have any statistically measurable impact on crime and was allowed to sunset as written. As it should have.

Assault RIFLES are already regulated and have been for 72 years under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Those are true assault rifles. True machineguns.

And finally, which part of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd don't people understand. Sounds very, very clear to me.

I see that the N.R.A. nuts are out in force today. Speaking of today, would anyone please tell me just how many crimes were actually averted by "law-abiding" private citizens with weapons permits (now there is an oxymoron for you) within the past 24 hours?

And here's another fallacy: Can anyone actually point to any case law that says that gun control is unconstitutional?

But please: Do not let the facts intrude into your paranoid fantasy world. God forbid should you actually have to deal with the real world of inner-city violence. It is so much easier to foam at the mouth about non-existant communists/left wingers that are just over the hill about to launch their coup d'etat against your beloved fascist President.

Nat, since it's very hard to get a concealed weapons permit here in Maryland, I'd venture that very few crimes were prevented because of them.

Case law on gun control is pretty limited. The courts have not settled the debate one way or another. It's mainly left up to legislatures, and that's what we are talking about here.

As far as inner city violence, gun control does absolutely nothing to stop this. I lived in a bad area of DC for six years. All the District's gun ban did was prevent me from having a weapon at my disposal in case of a home invasion. It certainly didn't stopt the thugs from getting a gun. There is absolutely no proof that gun control works. It is an emotional reaction to crime that simply deprives law-abiding citizens of the means to defend themselves. Criminals ignore the law and get guns anyway. We should not be at their mercy.

"I see that the N.R.A. nuts are out in force today. Speaking of today, would anyone please tell me just how many crimes were actually averted by "law-abiding" private citizens with weapons permits (now there is an oxymoron for you) within the past 24 hours?"

Since criminals don't call the police after having a weapon pulled on them in a CCW-friendly state, it makes measuring this somewhat difficult wouldn't you say?

However, measuring trends on certain types of crime in places where liberal CCW is passed does indicate criminals do get the message and opt for crimes where they are less likely to encounter an armed citizen. Violent crime rates and crime against persons do drop in such areas as criminal go look for easier prey elsewhere. The most gun control is where you tend to find the most crime.

Ask yourself what might have happened in Chantilly had that gunman encountered an armed citizen in his carjacking prior to the shooting? A tragedy might have been avoided. We'll never know.

Dim, I wasn't aware it was in good taste to label your political opponents as gay. I hope you realize that in this day and age, calling someone a homosexual isn't really an insult. Furthermore, it's a pretty weak way of debating. If you can't find a way to justify your opinion other than questioning the sexuality of your opponents, then perhaps you should reconsider your political views.

"To be against the assault weapons ban, is to be pro-crime and anti-life."

If you say so.
So if I am pro freedom, pro-democracy, pro-Constitution, pro Bill of Rights, pro your ability to spend your money to buy what you wish to buy, legally, I also am pro-crime and anti-life because of the crimes and loss of life that will result from living in a freedom-loving Constitution-abiding capitalist democratic system that caters to your materialistic needs?

When are you going to be pro-logic and anti knee-jerk reactionism and whitewashing?

"There is plan and simply no need for a gun that has the capacity to shoot 30 shoot, be reloaded with ease and can be hidden under a jacket."

of course there is.
when you need a gun that can shoot 30 rounds, be reloaded with ease and is small, portable, light and easy to carry concealed.

You act as if that is a bad thing. Perhaps you'd rather that we arm ourselves with muskets?

I love it!

here we are fighting a fight that's been fought in all 50 states for 200 years.

yet somehow 32 other states have passed constitutional amendments in support of concealed carry, and the assault-rifle ban was killed by Congress in the last term.

But let's argue it yet again!
:)

I love it!

here we are fighting a fight that's been fought in all 50 states for 200 years.

yet somehow 32 other states have passed constitutional amendments in support of concealed carry, and the assault-rifle ban was killed by Congress in the last term.

But let's argue it yet again!
:)

I love it!

here we are fighting a fight that's been fought in all 50 states for 200 years.

yet somehow 32 other states have passed constitutional amendments in support of concealed carry, and the assault-rifle ban was killed by Congress in the last term.

But let's argue it yet again!
:)

Dim's comment has been removed...a little too graphic.

A great debate otherwise. Carry on!

[sorry, that was the result of a script error. ]

Matt--

"Ask yourself what might have happened in Chantilly had that gunman encountered an armed citizen in his carjacking prior to the shooting? A tragedy might have been avoided. We'll never know."

Hmmmmm, if memory serves, he DID run into a number of armed (and even better yet -- TRAINED in weapons' usage!) people..... you may have had some run-ins with these types of people yourself. They're called POLICE OFFICERS; and if cops around THEIR OWN STATION FOR CHRIST'S SAKE couldn't immediately shoot down a mentally ill teenager then what chance would a poorly trained civilian have against someone who was mentally ready with the trigger? Oh, wait a minute, we DO know what would happen because the Rockville Police have a report on it: The teen in question broke out of a poorly run psychiatric facility, carjacked a guy, gave him an opportunity to remove his valuables, and then turned himself in to Virginia authorities the next day. What did the Virginia authorities then do? Instead of putting him in a PROPERLY RUN psychiatric ward, they released him! (Don't get me started on this Nation's non-existant mental health infrastructure.) The Virginia authorities all but gave him a license to kill (although just what the family thought they were doing with guns in the house is beyond me).

"I see that the N.R.A. nuts are out in force today."

...so are the anti-gun nuts...

"Speaking of today, would anyone please tell me just how many crimes were actually averted by "law-abiding" private citizens with weapons permits (now there is an oxymoron for you) within the past 24 hours?"

I'd guess roughly twice as many as the crimes in progress that were halted by unarmed private citizens who happened on them, either through personal interaction or by calling 911.

and, really, it's only an "oxymoron" in Maryland and DC, if anywhere. In VA it's not a problem for law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed-carry permits, not just a "weapons permit". You didn't know that?

Another funny thing. It seems to be a trend, lately, for kids to get ak-47s, because they are so popular based on the news in Iraq, I guess, and perhaps video games. But it's a trend that isn't going to be stopped by banning guns, or even by banning assault guns.

If that was the case, wouldn't there be a lot less violent/gun crime in areas that have gun bans, than there is in areas that allow for the sale and posession of guns, including assault weapons?

Aside from the point that 30 round clips are illegal in MD anyway, I'm pretty sure.

Or do you think that a law banning violence and/or guns, is actually going to stop people from engaging in violence or buying and carrying guns?

I'm just kinda wondering. It does seem that you think that more laws will solve the problem. After all, more laws does make it easier to arrest people, and to strip away gun-ownership rights from citizens who otherwise would be law-abiding. What level of gun restriction would it take to make DC a safe place to live, instead of as I read the other day, a young man being held up at gunpoint in his own house and his car stolen after he was forced to teach the thieves to drive a stick, so they could steal it?

I mean, if DC wasn't the murder capital of the US, for quite some time, and even still has an outrageously high homicide rate (with the overflow spilling over to PG county), as a result of the strict handgun laws in the District, you might have a point. Instead, it seems to be the other way around. Why is this?

Or would the District be even more dangerous if it did not have handgun and assault-weapon restrictions? Like Virginia, for example?

After all, that one ak-47 attack does count against Virginia. The fact that the kid had several weapons on him, equal strikes, yes?

So does that one ak-47 attack mean that Va is a lot less safe than DC with its total gun ban but its 2,000+ murders a year?

It should also be pointed out that the individual who shot up the police station in Virginia was banned from posessing a firearm. Of course, he disregarded that ban and used a gun anyway. Criminals will not obey gun control laws. The Fairfax shooting is a perfect example of this.

...o.k. maybe it's just 200+, I'm not sure it's two THOUSAND homicides per year in a city with a dwindling population.

Still. Barely 500,000 people live in DC vs untold millions in Northern VA, even. I don't see anyone saying that VA has a major gun problem and the District doesn't, in fact, quite the reverse.

here are some fun facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010101049.html

"Across the [DC] region, there were 466 homicides in 2005, compared with 420 in 2004 -- a rise of about 11 percent. About half of those slayings have been solved."

how many in Fairfax?

Oh my God, it increased from 11 to 24.

"In addition to having the highest number of killings, the District also tallied the highest homicide rate in the region: 35 per 100,000 residents. Across the country, cities similar to the District -- with populations of 500,000 to 1 million -- had an average homicide rate of 13.5 per 100,000 in 2004.

Prince George's, with a population of 850,000, had a rate of 20 per 100,000, and Fairfax had a rate of 2 per 100,000.

D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Prince George's Police Chief Melvin C. High expressed frustration with the homicide numbers. "

Maybe...a tighter gun ban would solve the problem, hm?

More police, possibly?

Both?

More cops, less guns on the streets?

But...there aren't any guns on the streets in DC because there's a total handgun ban! The law says, "thou shalt not bring a handgun into the District of Columbia, not to mention carry it on or about your person or in your car, and in any case, thou shalt not use it in the commission of a crime, much less to assault or kill someone else!!!!"

.

So why does it still happen? In abundance?

Maybe the law is not written in plain English?

he also illegally transported loaded firearms across state lines, inside a stolen vehicle, no less, not to mention having used on in the commission of a felony before the attack (the police officer shot was responding to the carjacking).

It was even a crime for him to posess a firearm, or ammunition, as a result of being treated for mental health problems.

It is not just that criminals do not obey the law ;) it is that criminals are unconcerned with the law, except when it comes to determining their sentence, if and when they are caught, convicted and sentenced for breaking it.

Gun laws do little other than give the government opportunities to take guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding people. If they're not law-abiding in the first place, if they have no intention of abiding by the law, the laws do a whole lot of hurt and very little good.

Virginians were, really, just lucky that this kid decided to take on a police station, and not a school or a church, or some other meeting place. A soccer field after school. It could have been a real disaster, if he had wanted to kill a lot of people, instead of just making an insane charge at authority.

The possibilities were endless. And we are still going through the aftermath of the sniper events from a few years ago.

Where, again, the sniper was banned, by federal law, from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

The problem is not that we do not have enough laws, we have plenty of laws. The problem is that laws do not enforce themselves. People have to enforce them. And people have to defend themselves, when the law is not being enforced. Otherwise they just die, like sheep.

"Your examples are intersting but pointless. If the guns did not have the cosmetic features that define an "assault weapon," and were still semi-automatic, then they would have done the same thing. The cosmetic features that define an assault weapon have nothing to do with their lethality."

...yet, in their desire for such "purely-cosmetic features", gun advocates bolster the case of the anti-gun nuts who say that they should be denied such weapons, prima facie.

I want to know why someone wants a pistol grip on a rifle. If their argument bolsters the argument that I wish to make, I am glad to hear it :)

What assault-weapon owners have to be careful of, is lending credence to the arguments of anti-gun activists, with their zealotry for guns. That, however, does not mean that they are inherently unsafe, or a risk to society. They can show the same zealotry for the law, that they show for guns.

On the other hand zealous anti-gun nuts are clearly a threat to personal freedom, and I am sure they can always find an argument to justify any new law they wish to see on the books. Whether that argument makes sense or not, is a completely different issue.

Duncans' argument is that assault weapons are bad, basically, and that Erlich is trying to have it both ways on the issue. He might actually be trying to have it both ways. That doesn't make Duncan a good replacement for Erlich. And if he's got to attack Erlich on assault weapons, is that a sign that his bag of tricks is just-about empty?

the issue here isn't whether or not the assault weapons ban is good or bad it is Duncan's assertion that Ehrlich "wants more assault weapons on the street." Does that really pass the smell test with ANYONE? Even if you're not an Ehrlich fan, do you really truly belive he wants more assault weapons on the street? It's just silly.

"The teen in question broke out of a poorly run psychiatric facility, carjacked a guy, gave him an opportunity to remove his valuables, and then turned himself in to Virginia authorities the next day. What did the Virginia authorities then do? Instead of putting him in a PROPERLY RUN psychiatric ward, they released him! (Don't get me started on this Nation's non-existant mental health infrastructure.) The Virginia authorities all but gave him a license to kill"

Too bad Nat's "fantasy" version of reality posted here is NOT the same as actual reality:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/05/10/GR2006051000179.html

As the linked summary shows, it is Montgomery County and MD that dropped the ball by letting a mentally disturbed violent carjacker, who also shot his dog just a short time before going to the psych facility, out on $30k bail . . .

As far as legal firearms owners using their firearms in self-defense, there are several websites that track these events, I trust readers here are Google-literate.

"Plain and simple, there is no need for guns designed for the express and sole purpose of killing multiple people at one time."

...that's your belief, and as a US citizen, I'm proud to say that you have the right to believe it.

You're sort of missing the fact that it's not all that much of a given, that each round in that illegal 30 round clip you presume that it has, will actually kill a different person.

But that's a side point.

The main point is that AK-47s are not popular weapons because they were designed to kill multiple people. They *can* be used to kill multiple people, of course, but the main reason is that they are relatively cheap, highly-reliable, and very powerful weapons for self-defense (in fact our own troops in Iraq like the AK very much). But, like anything else that is good for their intended use, they can be misused.

You can be killed with a Bic pen, which clearly wasn't what it was designed for (and I don't mean by the President using it to write an order to have you remaindered to some Eastern Europe prison)...what are you going to do, outlaw them?

Will the complete absence of Bic pens make the world a dramatically safer place? Or would killers find something other than Bic pens to kill with?

If there were no assault weapons, some other form of weapon would take its place. And then, the need for an Ak-47, or something like it, would be even more apparent.

We have things for good reasons, usually. Not bad reasons. Most of us do not make a life of crime, and in so doing, support an entire industry or line of manufacture.

Which, really, says a lot about the efficacy of the law, when we can't even stop Afghanistan from making the poppy the national cash crop, and fueling international terrorism on the side.

...if I was a soldier in combat, and I wanted to kill a lot of people, I'd much prefer to have a radio and a good pair of binoculars, than an AK-47.

assault weapons are for a mode of combat that I do not recommend, and plan never to engage in, myself. But if I ever needed one, I'd damm sure want to have one around, and I'd be slightly unconcerned with a law that pretends to keep me from having one.

So I find myself somewhere in the middle, on the topic. I have no real need for one, true, but if I ever thought I did, I'd want to be able to buy one. And the point is not to wait until you need it, to get one. Or, for you to tell me "I don't need one", therefore, I can't ever get one.

Cause, frankly, you don't know crap, and I could care less about what you think.

Ksingh--

Kudos to you for pointing out my error in regarding to whom the teen in question was released to. As far as Google literacy is concerned, do you have any queries to recommend?

One deficiency I've noticed in this (and, I believe, other Washington Post blogs) is the lack of links to fill out a story. By way of example, in this story, there should have been a link to the Ehrlich letter (which, if not publicly available, you should have uploaded to a website that you control) and, if possible, a link to the Duncan ad.

corbett,

By only citing 4 instances from 1984 to 1993 doesn't support your opinion, it actually goes against it. You want to prevent millions of law abiding gun owners from owning an assualt weapon because of these very few cases?

I love it when people turn this into a why not the rocket launcher. Why don't we ban pencils too?

Anyway, when did Duncan try to get the liqour system back into private hands? I've complained to him about it twice as a resident never got a reply to that extent. He must have incomptent county staff.

He tried to privatize the liquor system about 10 years ago. Not sure why he abandoned the effort, but I think someone else should pick up where he left off. I read in the Post Extra about restaurants cited and fined for not buying wine/liquor from the county, and I think where are we? Cuba? China? Simply ridiculous.

However, I've read that in earlier decades, county liquor laws were considerably more stringent; they've been loosened over the last 20/30 years or so, with more outlets added and more liberal licensing, but I can't see any good argument for the current system as anything other than a way to further feed the already overly greedy county government.

I think future county executives and councils should find ways to slim the county government down a bit, and look to more reliance on private enterprise and the county's booming economy rather than government taxing, spending, and control. It's worth noting that Duncan's tax and budget proposals last year sparked controversy because of anger over rising property taxes. It's no mean feat to spark complaints about too much taxing and spending in a liberal-leaning county like Montgomery, but Duncan and the county council did that. That carries ominous implications of what might happen if he becomes governor and the state legislature goes along; the tax revolt could get ugly.

"...if I was a soldier in combat, and I wanted to kill a lot of people, I'd much prefer to have a radio and a good pair of binoculars, than an AK-47.

assault weapons are for a mode of combat that I do not recommend, and plan never to engage in, myself. But if I ever needed one, I'd damm sure want to have one around, and I'd be slightly unconcerned with a law that pretends to keep me from having one.

So I find myself somewhere in the middle, on the topic. I have no real need for one, true, but if I ever thought I did, I'd want to be able to buy one. And the point is not to wait until you need it, to get one. Or, for you to tell me "I don't need one", therefore, I can't ever get one.

Cause, frankly, you don't know crap, and I could care less about what you think. "

Yeah, but most of the people that think anyone who legally owns a gun is an oxymoron, or are otherwise living in abject fear of guns owned by rational people are so disconnected from their own basic survival that they risk death anytime the ATM or point of sale system fails to work. These are modern idiots. They couldn't fend for themselves, all they know is money pays for their survival needs, and anyone who has the capacity to take their survival into their own hands must be suspicious.

I don't own a gun. I'm not particularly comfortable around guns, I understand that if not handled properly they can cause serious injury and even death. But I also am even more uncomfortable with a government that wants to disarm it's people, and I despise people whose mental capacity is so diminished that they choose to demonize and fear a tool because they cannot understand human nature and can't comprehend that the worst of man does not reflect all of man.

To possess a gun legally, you need to be licensed by your state. To possess an automatic weapon, you need to be licensed by the ATF.

Any additional law restricting guns merely complicates legal gun ownership. I can't even dream up the logical leap to come to the conclusion that taking the town doctor's rifle away from him will stop the riff-raff of the town from committing crimes. If anything, it merely exposes the doctor to even further risk, not less.

Actually, you don't need to be licensed to own a gun. Certain people are prohibited from owning a gun, and if they attempt to buy a gun they will be denied. In some states (such as Maryland), the sale of certain guns is recorded with the state police. A license, however, is not needed to simply own a gun.

fine, but you do have to pass a background check. If that's good enough for "national security", that's good enough for me.

"I see that the N.R.A. nuts are out in force today. Speaking of today, would anyone please tell me just how many crimes were actually averted by "law-abiding" private citizens with weapons permits (now there is an oxymoron for you) within the past 24 hours?"

Can you tell me how many crimes were commited against legally armed citizens? Do you know the statistic on how many armed citizens have been killed, raped or robbed, versus unarmed citizens?

"And here's another fallacy: Can anyone actually point to any case law that says that gun control is unconstitutional?"

Case law? Don't need it. It's codified very succinctly and undisputably in the U.S. Constitution. Cannot be infringed. It's all there, you just have to be able to read, and have the motivation to do so.

Comprehension is simple, the 2nd amendment isn't written in some foreign language. It's quite easy to read.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems to me, it says it quite clearly, the right, of the people, to keep, and also to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Not much room for interpretation there -- keep, and bear, arms. the people. Shall not be infringed. It's a right, and it SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

Any restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep, and to bear arms, is an INFRINGEMENT upon those rights, regardless of "society's best interest" or any other liberalization of that phrase or concept.

The second amendment added to the US constitution, the overriding document of the law of the land, says that the right to keep, and also to bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be limited, or restricted, or imposed upon, sacrificed, surrendered, anything. IT is a RIGHT, and that should be the end of discussion in a rational and reasonable world that respects the rule of law. (unfortunately, neither condition exists in enough quantity so it isn't the end of discussion)

Eugene,

I fully agree with you. The Founders understood that issue very well since they had just fought a war for those very reasons and wanted to make sure that future generations would not be denied the need to do so again should circumstances require. Hence the 2nd Amendment. It is the final, last resort clause of the People and one, like nuclear weapons, you hope you never need to use.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2006 02:35 PM

Exactly. It's existence, the government's knowledge of that "threat" helps to curb the most violent abuses against the people.

It doesn't have to lead to violence, as long as the capacity is there, as an option.

Once that option is gone, there is nothing left for the people to defend themselves against those abuses, and therefore, nothing left to check totalitarianism.

One of the gun nuts earlier claimed that there is no case law on the 2nd amendment.

Au contraire, buddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_court_cases

As I stated above, case law on the Second Amendment is scarce and contradictory. The wikipedia article did not contradict that assertion at all.

Also, if you read the article, you'll see that the tide of scholarly opinion recently is that the words "of the people" mean exactly that -- the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. It's that simple.

whether case law exists or not is irrelevant. Read the amendment, there doesn't appear to be too much wiggle room for case law to interpret this amendment.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I can't squeeze any interpretation in there that would justify any restriction on gun ownership in any form or fashion.

sorry. I just can't.

damn crazy constitution nuts!

It was written by a bunch of rebellious, angry slave owners. Screw 'em!

This is America, the empire. Constitutions and Empires don't mix well. It's time we lose that damn piece of paper.

Wow, cons-titution, do you work for the administration? Just a piece of paper??! Get real! It is the reason this nation is as great as it is. It is the reason this nation didn't fall under fascist or totalitarian rule in the past, like prior to WWII, or in the 1950's, or even in the 1960's. It's going to keep us from becoming a dictatorship now. IT's not just a damn piece of paper, it is the reason this nation exists and continues to exist!

JERK!

"An armed society is a polite society."

'Nuff said.