Just Say No

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting (thank God) delegate to the House for Washington D.C. wants people to just say no to “the gun culture”.

As registration of guns began today, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) called on residents to refuse to buy into the gun culture by just saying no. The Supreme Court has spoken, the District has acted and now it is up to citizens to do their part, she said. “If the great majority of residents, who supported our gun ban, meant it, now is the time to show it. I challenge every resident not to buy a gun. Don’t buy into the gun culture in our streets by bringing it into our homes with the gun you buy. It’s up to us now.”

I don’t think Norton has the first clue about the “gun culture”.  You see, I am from this culture, and so are many of the people I know.  Yet we are all good citizens.  What Norton is basically saying is that if you buy a gun you’ll either end up shot or end up a criminal.  She’s basically saying that DC residents are too irresponsible and criminal to own guns.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. What Color is the Constitution in Eleanor Norton’s World?
  2. Keep The Pressure On
  3. Norton Begging DHS and SS to Ban Guns Near Obama

10 thoughts on “Just Say No”

  1. I just have to wonder if they’re truly hoplophobes, or if they’re opposed to armed citizens, able to defend themselves. Because if a person was to exercise any reason and simply look at the facts, there’s no legitimate to deny a law abiding populace access to firearms.

    That quote attributed to Sarah Brady, “Our goal of establishing a socialist America”, etc. seems to have more and more truth to it…

  2. Well hey, more for the rest of us who aren’t ignorant like Miss Norton or any of the ilk that buy into her philosophy.

    I want a Kimber Warrior badly…can’t believe it’ll be 8 more months until I turn 21…

  4. Eric R. Shelton: in some cases, I gather the latter (“they’re opposed to armed citizens, able to defend themselves”).

    There’s a concept called anarcho-tyranny in which the government implements a tyranny that is in part enforced by creating anarchy in desired areas.

    Tony Blair has been *quite* explicit about his desire to destroy the rural … culture … or parts of the U.K. (can’t remember the quote, I should try to find it again), and we’ve seen what happened when his Labor government removed a large fraction of the police for those areas in a regime that he inherited where case law made self-defense per se effectively illegal and statue and administration almost entirely outlawed gun ownership, and I’m pretty sure legally useless for self-defense due to “lock up your safety” law (plus the case law that would require a criminal to also have a gun).

    The U.K. now has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world, and the murder rate is rising none too slowly.

    The above are well all documented hard facts. Something I heard when I lived in Arlington, VA for a dozen years is that if a part of D.C. voted the wrong way, they were denied police protection. (Note that e.g. the Congress has its own Capitol Police who guard their residences in D.C., and there are I’m sure other convenient exceptions; as Mr. Heller noted on the day of oral hearings, the Mayor certainly is well protected by the police.)

    In an environment where the use of a gun for self-defense was de jure illegal (although prosecutors wouldn’t always press charges and jury nullification certainly happened), this is quite an effective way to punish people. Certainly better than Singapore not maintaining your apartments….

    I’ve recently realized this is simply a variant on the old pattern of the ruling class allying themselves with the lower class against the middle. And in D.C. this alliance is often a bit more than implicit….

  6. According to an article in the Washington Post, there is only ONE FFL holder in Washington D.C. and he’s not selling any guns; he’s just doing the transfers if you happen to buy one from outside the District.

  7. According to an article in the Washington Post, there is only ONE FFL holder in Washington D.C. and he’s not selling any guns; he’s just doing the transfers if you happen to buy one from outside the District

    There are six FFLs that I’m aware of. It’s just that most of them, such as a BATFE office or the Violence Policy Center, are not willing to transfer firearms to law-abiding citizens.

    Sorry to nitpick.

  8. “She’s basically saying that DC residents are too irresponsible and criminal to own guns.”

    Well, if we’re talking about the DC residents that voted HER into office…I’d kinda have to agree.

  9. Cross posted this over at SayUncle:

    Just thought of something vis-a-vis NEW handguns…when such time arrives that an FFL will do a transfer:

    By DC law:

    You need to submit the gun for ballistic testing to get a registration.

    But to take delivery of a gun from an FFL, you need a completed/approved registration. (which you can’t get without the ballistic test!)

    The (il)logical conclusion is: There is no way to submit a new gun for ballistic testing, because you can’t take possession of the gun without an approved registration, which requires ballistic testing.

    It is legally IMPOSSIBLE to register a new gun in DC.

    The new DC laws do NOT comply with Heller.

Comments are closed.