D.C. Expands List Of Allowed Guns To Avert Lawsuit

[TPaine7]

Source: Washington Post

D.C. Expands List Of Allowed Guns To Avert Lawsuit

By Tim Craig

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 20, 2009

The D.C. government released emergency regulations yesterday that greatly expand the models of handguns that District residents can own, a shift designed to stave off another lawsuit over its compliance with the Second Amendment.

…

Tracey Hanson, who lives in the city's Bloomingdale neighborhood, was one the plaintiffs. Yesterday, she said the new regulations mean she can apply to register a Springfield XD45 semiautomatic weapon that had been banned under the previous regulations.

…

It's the second time in less than a year that city leaders have had to back away from some of the restrictions they put into place immediately after the Heller decision. Initially, the council permitted residents to register only revolvers, not semiautomatic pistols. But the ban on semiautomatics was lifted in September because of pressure from Congress and gun rights groups.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061901822.html?sid=ST2009061901861

---

Hopefully the District will soon be forced to fully submit to the Constitution--it's people will enjoy the right to keep and bear arms.

[DainBramaged]

1. Yup keep forcing those guns everywhere even when people don't want them.

[paulsby]

3. the constitution trumps the will of the people

especially the local people. got a problem with that? amend it

also, nobody is forcing a gun on anybody. but the 2nd amendment, like others, is a restriction on govt. power. this is about empowering citizens to be able to CHOOSE (choice, it's what's for dinner) to have guns or not.

feel free not to if you don't want one

[harmonicon]

4. "arms" or "any and all arms"?

Should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads and cruise missiles with which to deliver them? That is where this logic leads.

[paulsby]

6. no it doesn't

if you actually study history. arms, as referenced in the 2nd refer to weapons in COMMON use by infantry soldiers etc. and that can be carried on one's person and that can be specifically targeted towards individuals (vs. infrastructure).

semi-autos CLEARLY qualify.

a large part of the reason why full autos do NOT is that they are more geared towards laying down suppressive fire, and covering larger areas with INDISCRIMINATE fire.

[Thor_MN]

15. Interesting. Semi automatic weapons did not exist when the constitution and bill of rights were

written.

I'd have to say that CLEARLY that muskets and muzzleloaders qualify. Beyond that, you are into interpretation.

I'm not heavily on one side or the other of gun arguements. I own several weapons, all purchased before any sort of registration or background checks were required. So I own guns, but don't feel the need to go toting them around in populated areas.

[benEzra]

16. And the First Amendment CLEARLY protects only quill pens,parchment, and hand cranked presses.

Right?

[Thor_MN]

80. In regards to the press, yes.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Lot of others stuff going on there, so the 1st does not only cover the few things you chose to try to make a point. But in terms of the press, the only things that are expressly covered are what was in existence at the time. That is not to say that anything modern is not covered, but once you are past late 1700's technology, you are into interpretation of intent. That requires the branches of government to decide what the founders meant, not a bunch of people tossing electrons back and forth through the internet.

My point in response to the post previous to mine that semi-automatic weapons did not exist at the time that the Bill of Rights was written, so stating that semi-autos CLEARLY qualified is a ridiculous statement. In order to say that modern weapons are covered under the 2nd ammendment, one has to interpret the intent of the authors. End of point. I personally believe that modern weapons are covered, but what you and I think doesn't matter a hole hell of a lot, especially if the government decides otherwise.

[24601]

84. And the courts have is ALL wrong about the press - it was really

referring to a small laundry business run by Mr. Lee, an imigrant from Asia who had been harassed by some overzealous cops who got too much starch in their shirts. The whole passage in the amendment was meant to protect Mr. Lee and other small laundry owner-operators.

Please help spread the word, this mis-interpratation has gone on FAR too long.

[Deadric Damodred]

124. Unless you feel that your opinion overrides the Supreme Court...

...you're wrong. Unless you somehow feel that you're opinion has more quality to it than the opinion of the Supreme Court, then you're wrong and semi-autos do CLEARLY qualify as part of the individual right to own firearms. The Supreme Court said, in their Heller brief, that you can not limit the 2nd Amendment, or any Amendment for that matter, to what was availible at the time. They also said that commonly owned weapons are protected. Semi-automatic handguns are commonly owned. Unless you can show us why your opinion should outweigh the judgement of the Supreme Court, you're wrong, you lose; we win.

[gorfle]

148. Yes, and that intent is clear.

In order to say that modern weapons are covered under the 2nd ammendment, one has to interpret the intent of the authors. End of point.

The intent of the authors was to have a citizenry armed with contemporary military-grade small arms such that the citizenry could either replace or at least counter federal infantry forces armed with similar small arms.

[paulsby]

21. the need canard

i was waiting for that one

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Who said anything about toting guns around populated areas?

[Thor_MN]

81. That would be me. I said I didn't feel a need to do it.

If you have a problem with that, you have way too little to worry about, and way too much time on your hands.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. So your comment had nothing to do with the OP or the District?

I don't carry a gun either and don't care if you do or don't, provided that if you do you are legally allowed to do so.

David

[24601]

83. If nobody is there it's unpopulated - if 1 person is there, by definition

it's populated, even if only sparsely.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. If you could qoute where the OP mentioned concealed carry?

[Lagomorph]

79. On the other hand...

grenade launchers, cannons and multi-barreled firearms did exist.

[X_Digger]

115. Actually semi-automatic rifles _did_ exist..

Lewis and Clark carried one in 1803

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

"It fired a .51 caliber ball at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. Contemporary regulations of 1788 required each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, to be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 20 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes."

[rrneck]

118. don't feel the need to go toting them around in populated areas

Me neither. But then again I live near (can't afford to live in it) a nice little bucolic low crime hamlet were a lot of people don't even feel the need to lock their doors at night. Lucky me. A lot of other people, not so much.

[Trajan]

121. "If you actually study history" ....

Lovely little backhanded slap : Abusive Ad Hominem ....

If you 'studied history', you would know that 'infantry' consists of 'well regulated' ranks of soldiers ....

Your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's .... Excepting, of course, the fact that you understand history better than anyone else ...

[Deadric Damodred]

125. I love it when the grabbers use the nuke canard.

You compare handguns to nukes? You know damn well that if your side actually banned everything but bolt-action rifles and double barrel shotguns, that it wouldn't be long before you'd be saying "you mean you want to own a bolt-action rifle.........well gosh, maybe you should own nukes as well". You all just like to compare whatever it is you don't like with nukes in order to somehow show that what you don't like is just as bad as a nuke. Sorry charlie, it's not working.

[Euromutt]

134. When you find someone able to carry a tank or a cruise missile, get back to me

This logic only leads as far as man-portable weapons. If you have a right to keep and bear arms, you don't have a right to arms that are too large and/or heavy for you to bear. That eliminates most light crew-served weapons right there (for example, a typical light mortar team is three guys; one to carry the tube, another the base plate, a third the bipod, plus enough ammo to make it worth hauling the thing around in the first place).

[imdjh]

156. That's what Ben Franklin said. nt

[DainBramaged]

87. Keep pushing those guns into every corner of the Country

make sure that Citizens even if they don't want them can sure get them to satisfy the paranoia the rest of you feel.

[X_Digger]

89. "pushing" a choice?

Somehow that doesn't make sense..

The idea is to make sure that if someone wants to be able to protect themselves with a firearm, they have that option.

Your statement makes about as much sense as the right wing nutbags saying 'forcing women to have abortions'.

[DainBramaged]

90. Like the Fundies who 'make' their message available

The gun lobby makes "their" religion available.

Give me a fucking break. You gun jobs just want to arm everyone as if it's a personal religion and you won't be happy until guns can be carried into church or hospital to protect you from the boogie man YOU created.

[X_Digger]

95. Available != 'forcing'

I dont want to arm anyone- however, if someone wishes to arm themselves, I'd like them to have the choice.

Choices, it's what's for dinner.

[DainBramaged]

97. Guns, the drug of the Reich-wing and the food of the paranoid

Most of you in this thread seem to spend ALL of your time in the guns forum. Isn't it obvious? Oh wait, the last person to realize they are addicted is the addict.

preach to your choir, I don't care about your paranoia.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. That's why you incessantly post in the gun forum. MMMMkay.

[Threedifferentones]

112. You are protected by guns, whether you own one or not

You are also threatened by guns, whether you own one or not.

I fail to see how the desire to have the ability to defend one's self is "paranoid," I guess you never lock the doors?

[Redneck Socialist]

117. Guns can be carried in churches and hospitals...

at least in my state. Somehow we've managed to avoid a rash of church and hospital shoot outs.

Perhaps permitting duly license individuals to choose to carry a gun for self defense has no deleterious effect on public safety.

[Callisto32]

144. And you just keep on saying that the people in those corners that want them can't have them.

What is the difference:

Your way involves initiating force upon others when you tell them they can't own something that they may want and if they try to get it you will punish them. Allowing people the personal choice of whether or not to arm themselves, in contrast, does not involve force.

[votingupstart]

149. i would exercise your personal right and don't have one

but what make you better than the man standing next to you who has the right to have one

right to have = choice to have -- if you don't want one - don't get one

[-..__...]

14. It's not their buisness...

or right to make that decision.

[hack89]

26. Civil rights shouldn't be at the whim of the majority. nt

[DainBramaged]

92. We should have the right to keep guns out of our communities

but the religion of the gun trumps the will of the people.

[X_Digger]

96. Should you have the right to keep 'those people' out of your communities too?

Rights exist outside of your wishes to the contrary. If you really want the ability to make those choices, repeal some amendments to the constitution.

[DainBramaged]

98. Go preach to someone who cares

Over and X'd.

[X_Digger]

100. Park the waahmbulance somewhere else. n/t

[hack89]

109. Should we have the right to keep gay marriage out of our communities?

or do you believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights confers universal rights that can't be taken away by a simple majority vote?

An al carte Constitution is what Bush believed in - it is not a progressive value.

[Statistical]

140. Or what about...

blacks?
scary books?
jews?
people who are religious (or the "right" religion)?

funny that for some people the idea of infrining on ANY civil right except the second sounds like freeper talk.

Somehow it is ok to infringe on the second though. Not like it is a "real" constitutional amendment.

[rrneck]

119. You have the right to

keep criminals out. How's that working out for you?

[Callisto32]

145. I totally agree you should be allowed to kep guns out of "your" community.

now you just have to buy a large plot of land and make that a restrictive covenant on all of the deeds that you make when you parcel it out.

[votingupstart]

150. you can keep what ever you want

out of your "community" as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to have said item - be it a firearm /gay marriage / a printing press / etc.

- what makes it "your" community? what if someone else lives there too? are you the dictator of "your community" did you win a lifetime election as community leader?

i think you screen name is very apt....

[sl8]

75. Like Roe forced those abortions ...

everywhere even when people don't want them?

[DainBramaged]

86. Why would you associate abortions and gun laws??????

[hack89]

132. They both involve constitutionally protected civil rights. nt

[Euromutt]

133. Because restrictions on both are based on same bullshit justifications?

Let's face it, the claim that "this is contrary to the values of our community, and therefore we should be able to ban it" is used as an excuse to ban damn near anything someone finds objectionable. Claiming to represent the community is a sticky business, because the vices that people will own up to are usually far less than those they actually indulge in, especially in the face of condemnation of that vice by (supposedly) a large segment of the community.

The thing is that, in practice, if whatever it is you want to bar from your community actually were contrary to the values of your community, you wouldn't have to bar it, because nobody would want it. But if it's there, that's because there's a demand for it, and if there's a demand for it, maybe that's because what you'd like to think your community's values are, aren't.

To compare, if you disapprove of abortion, or pornography, you'd probably want to see any PP clinics or adult movie stores banned from your community. The thing is that if there weren't a demand for the products and services such establishments provide, they'd go out of business in short order. The very fact that they aren't is an indication that a sufficiently large segment of your community wants those products and services that you cannot credibly claim that the values such places transgress against aren't actually your community's, they're just your own.

[devastated1981]

78. Are you crazy? If you don't want the gun then don't buy one.

It's really that simple. Stop acting like people are being *forced*.

[24601]

82. Yup, yup - she wants to apply because she DOESN"T want it? n/t

[Euromutt]

130. Who's forcing whom?

I don't believe anyone is being forced to keep a firearm in their home if they don't want to. The only people this rule change affects are ones who want (i.e not "don't want") to keep a firearm in their homes, and as a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I'm much inclined to say that what you do in your own home isn't subject to the will of a majority of the electorate.

[imdjh]

155. That's what Carl Rowen said. nt

[Junkdrawer]

2. Any Gun...Anywhere...by Anyone...

Gotta love the NRA.... :eyes:

[-..__...]

24. Yeah, the nerve of them...

defending a Constitutional right.

[DainBramaged]

91. The religion of the gun

Oh heavenly barrel, protect us with your brass missiles, keep the boogie mans from taking our freedoms to pull the trigger, no questions asked, in defense of our precious gun collections, and lead us not into unloading, but happily ever after keeping that gun so everyone can see how big our faith in you is.

[benEzra]

139. Want to provide a cite for that?

Any gun? No, just non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber (plus shotguns) meeting the barrel length and overall length requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Anywhere? Nope.

By anyone? No, just mentally competent adults with clean records who aren't subject to restraining orders.



I know it's more satisfying to construct an idealogically pure strawman to hate on, but focusing on reality would make your side of the argument both more coherent and more relevant.

[wordpix]

5. 2nd amendment provides for the MILITIA to keep and bear arms

Are these plaintiffs part of the militia? NO!

Read the history of the 2nd amendment. A sample here:

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

English history and common law

The concept of a universal militia originated in England.<4><5><6> The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty<7><8><9><10> dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.<11>

In response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.<12>

[paulsby]

7. no, it doesn't

let me give you another example of a prefatory clause, similar to the 2nd.

from rhode island's 1842 constitution
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty "

the "liberty of the press", much like a "well regulated militia" is a prefatory clause.

by your logic, the rhode island framers would then only say the right of the PRESS exists to publish sentiments. read it again, it clearly establishes (recongizes) the right of the PEOPLE (any person) to publish sentiments.

refer to prof. volokh's "commonplace second amendment" for more examples

it does not say "provided a person is in the militia, he has the right to keep and bear arms"

THAT would be a qualifier.

nor does it state

"The right of states to maintain militias, shall not be infringed."

it says the right of the PEOPLE, which means... wait for it... PEOPLE... just like in any other amendment.

[boilinmad]

8. Blah, blah, blah.....

.....guns fucking suck.

[paulsby]

9. which, even if true

is totally irrelevant to the issue that the people (not militias) have the right to keep and bear them.

nice cogent legal argument though.

[wordpix]

10. keep spouting those NRA arguments, everyone has the right to own auto weapons & use

them anytime they want. You can be insane, a criminal, everyone has the right to bear arms. :sarcasm::crazy:

[paulsby]

11. it's a constitutional law argument

and one supported with examples (rhode island constitution) and references... try prof. volokh's "commonplace second amendment"

also, spare me the strawmen. i never said EVERYONE, i said "the people". convicted felons can't vote is not a violation of the constitution, for example.

2nd amendment rights are civil rights just like any other amendment references.

would you say "keep spouting those ACLU arguments..."?

you have supplied no examples, no constitutional law references. your dislike of guns is groovy, but totally irrelevant to RKBA, which is a constitutional issue.

[Paladin]

18. Yeah, Like Eugene Volokh's An Even-Handed Source

He's one of this country's leading Gun Whores, constantly trotted out by gun militants in an attempt to give their movement some legal polish. But hey, when Fat Tony Scalia comes through for you like he did with the Heller decision (Well regulated militia? Never heard of it!), you've got all the ConLaw muscle you need......

[paulsby]

20. ad hominem is not argument

provide actual SUPPORT for your position.

you haven't.

just attacked arguments via ad hominem and other logical fallacies

[Paladin]

71. You're Trying To Set Up A Right-wing Ideologue.......

....with a long history of gun militancy support, as some sort of reliable source of evenhanded Constitutional interpretation. You deserved to be called on it, and I did so. Don't like it? Shoot me.......

[paulsby]

76. prof. volokh is not

a "right wing ideologue". he is a well respected constitutional law expert and a professor at UCLA. he has been cited in court decisions and is widely respected amongst legal scholars as to his knowledge, specifically regarding the 2nd amendment.

he has been outspokne in regards to excesses of the "war on drugs' for instance, which is actually an example of how both the left AND the rightwings have suppressed our civil rights.

he is a strongly pro-civil rights advocate, and is definitely more libertarian, than either left or right wing, recognizing that both "wings" tend to suppress civil rights.

regardless, you have yet to address his and others' ARGUMENTS, merely using ad hominem.

the idea that the 2nd amendment protects a right of a militia is thoroughly debunked. i gave other examples of prefatory clauses, and historical references.

even frigging larry tribe, who is a well respected LEFT WING legal scholar at harvard says it's an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not a collective right.

so, if you don't like volokh's analysis, because you attack people based on their (alleged) politics and not the content of their character and the strength of their arguments, then feel free to side with larry tribe.

it's an individual right. that's de jure and de facto reality.

[Paladin]

111. I Stand By My Comments. (n/t)

[paulsby]

129. translation: ad hominems are all ya got nt

[benEzra]

17. Ummm, the NRA supports the existing tight controls on automatic weapons...

which are as tightly controlled in this country as howitzers, tanks, and bombs.

Perhaps it's more emotionally satisfying to make stuff up, but the gun debate today is about the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to be able to own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns and a few over-.50 hunting rifles. Not automatic weapons.

[DainBramaged]

88. The NRA supports getting guns everywhere, who are you kidding

And they are anti-Democrat and Anti-Obama. Anyone who thinks that standing with the NRA to protect "their" rights is simply a stooge of the gun lobby.

Guns are the drug of choice of the Right wing and their Democratic stooges. And don't give me that crap about American jobs. I'd rather save ONE person from death by a firearm than defend a job that made the gun that killed that person.

[X_Digger]

93. They're anti- asinine additional restrictions.

In the past 35 years, that's put them at odds with the democratic party platform. They're more than happy to endorse democratic candidates who support the second amendment.

In case you really didn't know..

-1932-1933 NRA helps draft state regulation of automatic weapons
-1934 NRA testifies before congress about the need to regulate automatic weapons and the result is the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act)
-1968 NRA supports the GCA (Gun Control Act) that establishes the 'prohibited persons' concept (felons, mentally incompetents can't purchase firearms, sets up federal licensing, requires guns to have serial numbers for tracing)
-1986 NRA supports expansion of 'prohibited persons' list, making sure new guns are not 'readily convertible' to full auto
-1994 NRA supports instant background check to make sure folks aren't on 'prohibited persons list'

[DainBramaged]

94. Guns, the legal drug of the paranoid

go preach to someone who cares.

[X_Digger]

99. So, you admit you're full of crap?

Or were you expecting to seagull into this thread, crap on a bunch of posts, then fly away without having to actually back up your drivel?

[votingupstart]

152. good thing about facts - no preaching involved

look them up sometime - in between you pre-arranged rhetoric posting - you could actually learn something

i am happy to discuss things in a civilized manner - but when you have a temper tantrum and refuse to intellectually discuss ideas and concepts - i have no problem responding in kind.

[Caliman73]

153. You have every right to go away when ever you want...

If you don't want to see the arguments why do you stick around? Are we FORCING you? :rofl: You read like the little child who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts, "LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

[benEzra]

143. The "stooges" are the Third Way types who keep propping up the Rovian "Dems hate guns" meme

by spouting venom against responsible gun owners, and by agitating for asinine restrictions on popular lawfully-owned guns.

Thankfully, those stooges are no longer in control of the party's legislative agenda.

[Tim01]

25. You are very uneducated.

Not the NRA or anybody I know agrees with what you just said. Not anybody. Let alone gun owners or 2nd amendment supporters.

[wordpix]

27. well WHY, then, does NRA support NO checks at gun shows?

Wide open for anyone to buy there.

[Pavulon]

29. Wide open in any private sale, including my livingroom

you guys need to move on to a real issue not. This one is dead. You might as well be arguing against brown v board of ed.

[Recursion]

31. You don't know much about this subject

I'm amazed the extent to which people in my party are willing to spout off absolute false BS when guns are involved.

Please, tell me: how are gun sale laws different at gun shows as opposed to anywhere else in the country? You don't know the answer to that (the answer is, "not different at all") but you still feel entitled to an opinion on this.

[wordpix]

34. here is your proof

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

snip
The gun show loophole

The gun show loophole is a term created by those opposed to private commerce in firearms to describe the sale of firearms between private individuals at a gun show in states where such sales are legal.<9> United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform background checks prior to transferring a firearm. Individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence are under no such requirement.

That private sellers at gun shows are not required to perform background checks is perceived, by some, to be a loophole in the law. Federal law, though, does not address private, intrastate sales at all, regardless of whether they occur at gun shows.

As of 2009, 11 states require background checks on private sales at gun shows, or require that all sales be performed through a licensed dealer, who would be required to do a background check. There are 39 states that do not restrict private, intrastate sales.<10>.

[Recursion]

37. Did you read your own link? it agrees with me

Federal law, though, does not address private, intrastate sales at all, regardless of whether they occur at gun shows.

Understand now?

[Tim01]

38. Do you really understand what you post?

A private individual can sell a gun to another private individual anywhere in the entire state at anytime. A garage sale, the news paper the parking lot of Walmart, anywhere at all in the entire state that guns are not prohibited. Totally legal.

But you think it is somehow different if it is at a place called a gun show. And you think that it would be something positive if a law was passes that the only place in the state you can't do this is at the gun show.

It isn't even a valid idea. It's just silly. Being believed by people who don't know what is going on.

"I'd like to buy that gun from you." " Ok, lets walk outside to the sidewalk and I'll sell it to you there so we aren't breaking any federal laws."

This is what you are so upset about?

I'll let this one go if you say that closing the "gunshow loophole", stopping private sales at the gun show is exactly what you want fixed. Illegal in the building, but legal on the sidewalk. That is the gun show loophole.

[slackmaster]

42. Private sellers of used guns are subject to the same laws and regulations everywhere

It says so in your own link. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. So you know that the NRA supported NICS checks at gun shows and you were just being dishonest?

[slackmaster]

41. As far as I know the NRA is perfectly OK with the Brady background check system

They helped figure out how to make it work.

There are background checks at gun shows, BTW.

[wordpix]

45. NO background checks on private sales or priv. sales at gun shows except in 11 states

[hack89]

52. So what is your solution? nt

[wordpix]

64. what's YOURS?

[hack89]

73. I don't see a problem that needs solving, nt

[slackmaster]

110. Private, non-commercial, intrastate sales of used tools are not subject to federal control

The Constitution leaves that particular power to the states. Any justification for federal regulation of private sales, e.g. those that happen to take place at gun shows, would require some kind of twisted invocation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. That has already been stretched beyond recognition since Wickard v. Filburn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. There are federally mandated NICS checks conducted by all gun dealers at gun shows.

[Callisto32]

146. HMM see, cuz the last gun I bought at a show I bought from a dealer,

I went through a NICS check. When I bought one from a private person, there was none. Had these things happened in opposite places, it would have been the same.

[wordpix]

28. why don't YOU educate YOURSELF about the NRA's campaign donations

to the Congressional whores who take their $ ????

Just one article of the MANY documenting the whoremasters who pimp Congress, ca. 1999, and it hasn't gotten any better:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/22/national/main44724.shtml

In Gun Lobby's Pocket
NRA Campaign Contributions Can Predict Votes

(AP) Thirty-two of the 34 senators who supported the NRA on each of four key gun control votes received money for their last election from the gun industry lobbying group.

And only two of the 38 senators who opposed the National Rifle Association on the same four votes received contributions from the group.

Campaign contributions from the NRA are proving to be an accurate barometer of how individual senators would vote on gun control.

It was a 51-50 vote to require background checks for firearms buyers at gun shows and pawn shops that clearly reflected the momentum toward tighter regulations in the aftermath of recent
school shootings. Only two of the 50 senators who supported that amendment received NRA money.

Ellen Miller, director of the advocacy group Public Campaign, decried the connection between NRA contributions and votes.

“There may be no better example than this one,” said Miller, whose group wants to change campaign finance laws. “You have the public clearly on one side, wanting strong gun control, and a resistant Congress in the pocket of the gun lobby.” more...

A more recent article about NRA targeting Obama last fall:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11452.html

NRA plans $40M fall blitz targeting Obama
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 6/30/08 6:43 PM EDT

NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group’s three magazines making the case against Obama.
Photo: AP

The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.

“Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, could be taken away from us in the future,” Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s political arm, told Politico. more...

[Pavulon]

30. Like banks and petro dollars, all our little whores take money..

ban the practice or stop complaining. At least the idiots who banned booze actually amended the constitution.

[Tim01]

32. Amit you made up stuff about the NRA in post 10. Things that are not true at all.

You are not educated about this topic. You are not educated about gun owners. You are not educated about the 2nd amendment.

Just admit all the stuff you said you just made up and called it true.


OR site sources.

Prove it.

[Euromutt]

131. You don't need a sarcasm tag, you need a "straw man" tag

Since the NRA most assuredly does not support any of the things you claim above to be "NRA arguments." Frankly, it amazes me how many people who demonize the NRA do not have a fucking clue what the NRA does or does not support. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. Just remember that the next time Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg or one of those clowns publishes their latest piece of fact-free vitriol about how evil "liberals" are, to hold them to the same standard of evidence as you hold yourself when it comes to gun rights activists.

[patriotvoice]

136. Everyone has the right, until his actions strip him of the privilege of its exercise.

The state cannot take away rights; but it can limit the legal exercise of those rights by legislation.

But, since the subtle semantics of 8th Grade civics are lost on most Americans, let's just keep it simple and say: no-one advocates that adjudicated criminals or insane folks be allowed to arm themselves.

[slackmaster]

40. Thank you for your deeply intellectual contribution to the discussion

:rofl:

[konnichi wa]

51. What a brilliant comment.

:eyes:

[proteus_lives]

55. You have the right to think that.

You also have the right not to own any firearms if you don't want to. I just think that your opinion doesn't give you the right to prevent me or millions of other gun-owners from carrying and owning their firearms.

[votingupstart]

151. truly an intellectual giant - with a post like that

i have no problem debating - you on the other hand cant handle the facts. you got owned - you threw a hissy fit - grow up - get over it - learn from your mistake and move on.

[safeinOhio]

13. The difference might be

there is no mention of a "well regulated" press.

[Recursion]

33. US statute defines the militia as all able-bodied males between 17 and 45

and all females in the National Guard and Reserve.

So if you really want to limit guns to the militia, you'll have to say only men can have guns, only if they're between 17 and 45.

[DeadEyeDyck]

36. you are a little late to the party

the highest court in the land affirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. Since all rights are individual, reading a right for a militia is inimical.

[slackmaster]

39. You should study the basics before commenting on this subject

Are these plaintiffs part of the militia? NO!

You are misinformed.

From the United States Code:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[TheWraith]

43. Uh, you just proved your own point wrong.

"The concept of a universal militia originated in England.<4><5><6> The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty<7><8><9><10> dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense."

In the US, the "unorganized militia" is defined as everybody. And there's a long history of legal precedent that establishes that fact, including very recent rulings backing up the fact that the Second carries an individual right not associated with militia service.

[24601]

85. Not universal, no girls allowed... n/t

[TheWraith]

113. Not the case.

Federally, all women in the National Guard pool are considered militia. Also, some states classify militia service as non-gender-specific: Oregon for instance, I think it is, qualifies the unorganized militia as all persons 18 to 50.

[beevul]

50. No. The second amendment PROVIDES nothing.

The second amendment is one in a list of restrictions that clearly spell out what GOVERNMENT may not do.

It even says so in the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed (by government), BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Not "if a well regulated militia is necessary...", or "when a well regulated militia is necessary...".


The operative part of the amendment is binding against the government.

Thats its purpose, its intent, and its reason for being written in the first place.


The collectivist interpretation is dead - rightfully so, and good riddance.

[rrneck]

120. Interesting

it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons

If your life is threatened by a "suspicious person" you've got about fifteen seconds to live. And the "regular army and police force" will be conspicuously absent.

[Statistical]

141. Sorry you are wrong

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Heller v. DC 2008

Until overturned by future court cases this is the law of the land.
You are a responsible law abiding citizen right?

We believe in a system of govt where the rights of minorities are protected against the tyranny of the majority.

The RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right, a "specific and enumerated right" no different that the right to assemble, or right to speech, or right to petition the govt.

Deal with it!

[Stump]

12. I don't really give a shit...

Because whatever the law may be, I'm packing fucking heat in D.C. Just like I always do when I visit. Nice and discreet, until I get mugged like I did last year.

But when the gang-bangers trying to rob my wife and I with knives looked down the barrel of my pistol...they said, "yo, it's all good bro." I replied, "no shit."

Guns do suck, especially when the criminals got them and you don't. Sad but true.

A handgun saved me some cash and maybe my family's life in D.C.

That little statistic never got reported...because I could have got my piece confiscated and possibly been arrested. Fucking silly.

[Tim01]

49. You are not alone in your thinking. But I'm sure you know that.

I choose not to take the risk, my luck is not good for that kind of stuff.

BUT, I was moving down a street one night in N.W. when I heard 2 sets of footfalls come out of the darkness and fall in behind me, started closing the distance.
I brought my keys out, and the 14 inch piece of logging chain they were attached to. The footfalls immediately crossed the street and went away. I guess I failed the interview process.

[-..__...]

19. Fuck'em!

They had their chance the first time around after the Heller decision was handed down,but Fenty and the DC city council had to be
stubborn, pig headed assholes about it.

Now it's time to let Congress take action and pass legislation that would repeal all of DC's gun control laws.

[Tim01]

23. w3rd nt

[Tim01]

22. I know people who live in D.C. who have wanted guns for a long time.

And the XD45 is a fine choice. I like mine.

I can't believe people are in favor of of trashing the constitution and leaving innocent people to be victims.

[wordpix]

35. and I know plenty of people who don't want other people walking around DC

with loaded guns.

Have you ever taught in a school? Many young people cannot control their emotions. It's just great that they can easily get hold of guns from parents or illegal sources. :sarcasm: Keep those automatic weapons coming! :sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

44. DC does not issue concealed-carry permits

So anyone who isn't a cop walking around with a loaded gun is probably doing so illegally.

[X_Digger]

46. And I know people who don't want 'those people' in their neighborhood..

.. yet discrimination is still unconstitutional. See, we have this thing, the constitution, that says that the majority doesn't get to decide when something's right or wrong without amending it. If a majority said that slavery should be legal, it would mean jack shit. We have a couple of amendments that say it isn't allowed. Repeal those, and you have a shot.

Go right ahead and try to justify infringing a constitutional right some more. Makes you look very progressive.

[Tim01]

47. Yes I have.

So your suggestion that I don't know about kids is not valid.

School kids are not old enough to legally have a gun. If they do they and the people who gave them the gun, are criminals.

"and I know plenty of people who don't want other people walking around with loaded guns."

Well they don't get what they want, just that simple. There are violent criminals walking around D.C. with guns right now. And knives, and bats, and all kinds of weapons. I even know some of them.
And the criminals of D.C. enjoy being surround by helpless victims, the people you know.

I don't want people to say hurtful things. And I want alcohol banned because anybody who drinks could kill somebody. But this is a free country and we have a constitution for a reason.

The person you want disarmed is the single mom who has never been in trouble, and has passed all the back ground checks, and paid all the fees, and the police have an up to date file about her and the gun she has at her house for self defense. MY friend in D.C. For when a criminal who spent most of his life in prison and just got released last week and just likes hurting people so much he can't stop himself. When he cuts her phone line then smashes in her door.
She is the one you want to disarm.

[wordpix]

48. no I don't want to disarm this person, I just want background checks

to be across the country, across the board and without loopholes.

I'm not stupid. I know criminals obtain guns, but why give them more chances and more access to obtain auto weapons? :shrug:

[X_Digger]

57. 'auto weapons'?

You do know that you can't just go to a gun show (or gun store or answer a classified ad, or..) and buy a full auto weapon, right?

You have to:
1) live in a state that allows NFA items (1934 law restricting full auto arms, silencers, grenades, etc..)
2) shell out $7,000+
3) fill out the paperwork for an FBI level background check
4) be fingerprinted
5) pay $200 for a tax stamp
6) get your local law enforcement to sign off on allowing you to have this item in your neighborhood
7) wait 4-6 months
8) submit to semi-random inspections by agents of the BATFE

[Tim01]

72. I think you understand the depth of what you don't understand.

Given what you have said, I believe that if you become educated in this area you are going to change your mind. Favoring enforcing laws to stop criminals from hurting innocents.And allowing innocents an opportunity to defend themselves. And favoring all of the constitution.

I used to be more republican, and a team player at that. Based on what I learned from people on this board about GLBT issues and labor unions and a few other things, I came to the conclusion I was picking sides based on bad info.
Now that I am more educated I fit the label 2nd amendment Democrat.

Have a good day.

[konnichi wa]

53. Just guessing here...knowledge isn't your forte'.

:eyes:

[hack89]

54. Heller was all about guns in someone's home.

It has nothing to do with concealed carry.

[wordpix]

58. yeah, but no one's checking at certain public places that I won't mention---Do YOU live in DC?

If you lived here, you'd know that opening up more guns for people to buy is NOT a good idea. I am not going to give this forum my firsthand knowledge of security holes in this city but there are more than a few major ones.

Anyone wanting to do major damage in this city could do it, and you don't have to be a jihadist to figure it out. We should be controlling guns, not allowing more.

Live here and see the holes in the security yourself, and then get back to me.

[TheWraith]

61. You know gun control doesn't reduce crime, right?

The gun laws in England and Australia are some of the tightest in the world, and they have violent crime rates two or three times ours per capita. Furthermore, the rate of legal gun owners committing crimes is extremely low, while most crime comes from the illegally owned guns which are completely unrestricted by law. You're reacting out of an emotional, faith-based set of ideas rather than ones that are tested against facts. You should read up on the Justice Department studies about gun ownership. They'll dispel a lot of your myths.

[wordpix]

63. you NRA supporters keep spouting your "truth" w/out any links, yet

when I make my statements, you demand links, which I then provide.

Double standard, anyone??? :crazy:

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Like the ones you 'forgot' to provide in post #10?

about "NRA arguments".

Just slipped your mind, one supposes, and you'll be providing them Real Soon Now.

Right?

[Euromutt]

142. Check out the ICVS

The International Crime Victims Survey. Here's the one from 2000, three years after both the UK and Australia tightened their gun laws: http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/Industr2000a.pdf

Note that I'm not asserting a causal link here; the bad performance overall of the UK (especially England & Wales) and Australia wasn't caused by the tightened gun laws. The point is that the gun laws didn't make the countries havens of peace and tranquility. That's because guns don't cause crime; crime attracts guns, and you can ban the guns, but that doesn't get rid of the crime.

[MicaelS]

69. They're turning to knives, which will be next thing banned.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6501720.ece

First 'anti-stab' knife to go on sale in Britain

The first “anti-stab” knife is to go on sale in Britain, designed to work as normal in the kitchen but to be ineffective as a weapon.

The knife has a rounded edge instead of a point and will snag on clothing and skin to make it more difficult to stab someone.

It was invented by industrial designer John Cornock, who was inspired by a documentary in which doctors advocated banning traditional knives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7508404.stm

The proposal came from three emergency medicine specialists, and it's a simple one: getting rid of the points on the ends of longer kitchen knives.

Drs Emma Hern, Will Glazebrook and Mike Beckett wrote an editorial in the British Medical Journal, suggesting that since "many assaults are impulsive", government action could "drastically reduce the availability" of a "potentially lethal weapon".

Dr Beckett puts it simply: if long pointed knives had become less available, we would have seen fewer deaths from knife injuries.

So they banned guns, the criminal turned to knives and swords. They banned swords. If they ban pointy knives, what will they have to ban next?

As the evil Redleg officer in the Outlaw Josey Wales stated: "Doin good ain't got no end."

[DainBramaged]

103. More horsehockey

[spin]

116. Horsehockey? Right now the Feds are trying to redefine...

common pocket knifes as switcbblades.

Customs And Border Protection Proposal Could Ban Many Pocketknives

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a proposed rule change that directly targets the importation of “assisted opening” folding knives. (Read the proposed rule here.)

The proposed regulations would designate all these knives as “switchblades” (despite the fact they do not fall under the federal definition of “switchblades”), and would make them illegal for import into the United States.

The proposed rule could affect all knives that can be opened with one hand, because it also includes changes in the interpretation of “gravity and inertia” opening knives in a way that could outlaw all knives that can be opened with a single hand.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/06/13/customs-and-border-protection-proposal-could-ban-many-pocketknives/

Note: The proposed rule can be found at: http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/CBPkniferuling.pdf

[rrneck]

122. Heh. It's fun to read about how easy it is to convert semi auto

weapons to full auto, then read about efforts to ban knives.

High tech machine tool to easily produce weapons for mass murder:



Low tech version:

[DainBramaged]

101. "England and Australia have violent crime rates two or three times ours "

I'd like to see proof of that spew before you get away with more NRA propaganda other than World Net Daily from 2001.

I am automatically suspect of any of your "data"


Posted: March 02, 2001

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

NICE try. PS Democrats don't read WND for ANY news.

PS according to WND, the lower the population the higher the crime rate, and that is because their survey is flawed.

Written by Jon E. Dougherty a Missouri-based writer and the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."

Paranoia to defend guns.

[DainBramaged]

102. Violent crime by country (per 1000 citizens)

1.1 Australia
1.2 Canada
1.3 New Zealand
1.4 United Kingdom
1.4.1 England and Wales
1.5 United States



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#Violent_Crime_by_Country

[TheWraith]

114. The only paranoid person here is you.

You try to attribute a WorldNutDaily article to me, then attack me for something YOU said? Check the official statistics compiled by the British and Australian governments. Here's the ones for AU.

"There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence …

There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/3DC2485395A1FAACCA25747300125594/$File/45100_2007.pdf

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/blogs/travel_blog/2008/02/is-australia-getting-more-violent.html

[hack89]

74. Since criminals don't seem to have any problems getting guns now

I don't really see your point. Since the DC gun control law was irrelevant as to whether criminals and terrorist were able to get weapons, restoring civil rights to responsible citizens seems to be a no brainer to me. After 8 years of Bush, any action to strengthen the Bill of Rights should be applauded.

[DainBramaged]

104. Why is it so easy for criminals and terrorists (sic) to get weapons?

do they import them from say Canada? japan? England? Mexico? Or are all guns stolen from gun owners? How do criminals get their weapons to commit the crimes everyone is so paranoid of?? 1.5 violent crimes per 1000 citizens in the US, and everyone should be armed??

Wonderful.

[hack89]

108. It's not becuase of responsible gun owners.

so let's not strip away their civil rights and find a better way. Legalizing drugs and ending the "war on drugs" would be a good start.

When you consider how much of our gun violence is associated with illegal drugs and you also consider that since the drug cartels have no problem smuggling tons of drugs into America so guns would not be an issue, explain to me again just how taking guns from responsible owners is nothing more than a feel good response.

As for your violent crime rate, how do you explain the fall in US violent crime rates over the last decade as gun ownership rates have skyrocketed? How is that possible?

[Jackson1999]

127. I DO LIVE IN DC!!-and I would like my 2A rights recognized, please n/t

[Jackson1999]

128. I DO live in DC (con't)

My guess is you live in Ward 3. I actually live not far from Dick Heller. A stones throw from his house is the site of a former public housing project that was so rife with crime they shut the whole thing down. Why would you want to deny him the right to defend himself in his own house?

[Caliman73]

154. There are "security holes" in EVERY city...

People who truly want to do damage will not be deterred without significant trampling of civil rights and even then acts of violence are not 100% preventable. The greatest predictor of success in a free society, for the rule of law, is the citizens' willingness to follow said laws. We are not being protected by the police. They deter crime in general by patrolling and by apprehending criminals. We are most protected by our fellow citizen who chooses to respect the laws and our personal space. There will always be those who do not follow the law and who do not respect others. The task of society is to mitigate the threat from those people while respecting the ability of citizens to exercise those rights protected under the Constitution.

I don't live in DC, but I spent the majority of my life in a large city that has its share of "security holes" and crime. The strict firearms laws in the state and the militant attitude of its police force have not prevented crime much like the laws in DC have done little to prevent it from being one of the most crime ridden cities in the country. The tools aren't the problem how people choose to use the tools is the problem.

[TheWraith]

59. Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.

First, you automatically assume that YOUR rights trump everybody else's rights. I'd rather not see anybody walking around smoking cigarettes, because I'm sensitive to the smoke, but I don't see it as my God-given right to ban anyone from having them anywhere.

Then, you Lovejoy the thread by irrationally bringing up kids having access to guns. To follow your logic, a baby can't chew a steak, therefore no one should ever be allowed to possess steak, because it's dangerous to children.

And lastly, you pull out the "automatic weapons" canard, like allowing people to keep guns in their home for self-defense has ANYTHING to do with automatic weapons.

[wordpix]

60. just keep DC loaded with guns and see how much security we have here

[TheWraith]

62. See post number 61. nt

[Euromutt]

135. How much security was there while the ban was in place?

At one point in the mid-1980s, DC had a higher violent death rate than Beirut, and at the time, that was saying something. That was with the ban on all handguns and operable long guns in place. Fat lot of good it did.

[DainBramaged]

123. Guns, the drug and religion of the Reich-wing and their Democratic stooges

Maybe you need to find something other than guns to be interested in.

Goodbye. Love your guns, they are all you have.

[Euromutt]

138. Such an amazing judge of character.

I suspect my wife and kid will be surprised to hear that my guns "are all I have," but hey, when it comes to gun owners, it's not only acceptable to spew fact-free vitriol to a degree that rivals any Coulter book on "liberals," it's actually morally wrong not to, right? After all, why use your reason and intellect when your emotions tell you so strongly that you're right?

Just remember that somewhere there's a social conservative who thinks you're a genocide-abetting commie dupe incapable of loving another human being because you're pro-choice. And you hate God because you don't want Creationism taught in public school science class.

And that conservative is just as right about you as you are about us.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Who is talking about walking around in DC carrying firearms?

[patriotvoice]

137. Yes, I have taught. Now, remember the scientific method:

You hypothesize that it's "easy" for children to "get hold of guns from parents or illegal sources". Test that hypothesis. Go out and acquire a weapon and ammunition using the same constraints a child has: little cash on hand, age restriction on purchases, purchase limits, etc. Report back with your assumptions, your method, your results, and your conclusions.

[proteus_lives]

56. Great!

I hope that the Constitution will have many more victories in the District!

[Hoopla Phil]

126. Agreed. n/t

[w4rma]

70. Who had all the power in feudal Japan? The samurai. Only Samurai were allowed to carry swords.

And many of them bullied the peasant class. We have enough gun control right now and don't need one iota more.

[spin]

147. And in medieval Europe, knights were the mafia of their day...

In medieval times there were no countries and few strong kings. Monks hid in fortress monasteries while marauding knights brutalized the peasants. Most medieval people lived out their short lifetimes within a radius of fifty miles of their birthplace. Ninety percent of the peasantry was stuck in a serfdom that offered few ways out. For the luckier warlords and knights, a precarious scheme of loyalties and duties held their operations and alliances together. The Catholic Church wholeheartedly participated in and oversaw the entire feudal enterprise.
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/32/goodfellas.html

The advent of firearms changed that. The common man had a excellent chance of taking on a knight and winning.

Firearms developed in intermittent bursts; each new innovation rendered the previous class of firearm obsolete. The medieval knight was unable to compete with the new technology, and in the course of a century faded into obsolescence, only to live in the hearts, minds, and literature of the people.
http://www.hsu.edu/uploadedFiles/Faculty/AFO/21/Schwope.pdf