Spartacus or William Wallace stopped being slaves when they armed themselves. Even though they gave their lives for it, they inspired a world of slaves to become free men. It was a choice of dying in slavery or freedom, they chose the latter. No one remembers a coward.

They also killed thousands and died horribly, I am not sure I see the correlation.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

And most european countries display a pronounced socialist bent as of late.

Slavery vs firearms is apples and oranges.

What does that have to do with anything? Socialism is a economic system not a political one. They are all democracies, and in fact, many of those countries enjoy a greater degree of civil liberty than we do.

Missileer

As MontyB said, not exactly the best examples you want to use, despite the aire of nobility in their cause they were both savages.
The real characters were not the romantic characters Charlton Heston and Mel Gibson played. Ghangis Khan was more gentle, as he at least gave his enemies a chance to surrender. Spartacus massacred every Roman he got his hands on civilian and military alike, and Wallace was so brutal after Falkirk he made a belt out of human skin from the English Commander.

If ever we needed proof that Gummint never relinquishes power unless compelled to do so:

The District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday that will allow residents to begin applying for handgun permits this week.

The council’s unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.

Errrr didn’t Scalia’s opinion deride just this as “unreasonable”?

Looks like it’s back to the lawyers.

Perhaps if a D.C. resident were to get hurt during a robbery, and it’s proved that the unreadiness of the gun was a contributing factor…

Why don't we place the same restrictions on DC Police? They can have firearms for home defense.

Or require them to carry them disassembled and of course, no magazines are allowed to be loaded on stand by either. In fact, the left has requested all trigger fingers be removed.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

The real characters were not the romantic characters Charlton Heston and Mel Gibson played. Ghangis Khan was more gentle, as he at least gave his enemies a chance to surrender. Spartacus massacred every Roman he got his hands on civilian and military alike, and Wallace was so brutal after Falkirk he made a belt out of human skin from the English Commander.

Yep, but since Genghis Kahn was Mongolian...

The Executive Director of Gun Owners of America denounced yesterday's action
of the D.C. City Council in response to the Supreme Court's Heller ruling
and predicted that its "emergency legislation" would be challenged and
overturned.GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt characterized the council's action by
saying: "It is no wonder that the District is awash with lawlessness. The
contempt for the law starts in the city council chambers."

The District's emergency action would keep the unconstitutional gun license
requirement; keep the unconstitutional semiautomatic ban; and impose new
unconstitutional ballistics, testing and fingerprint requirements on those
wishing to exercise their right to keep a firearm for self-defense.

But, even more flagrantly, the District would maintain the trigger lock and
unloaded gun requirements which were explicitly overturned by the High
Court.

"The District appears to be dutifully passing what the Brady folks drafted
for it," said Pratt. "But while interim D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles
fancies that they have crafted 'model' legislation, it is in fact a model
for litigative defeat and more court-administered humiliation."

Pratt predicted that the council's action would be challenged and
overturned. And he also called on Congress to exercise its constitutional
responsibility under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, to rein in the lawless
D.C. government.

"The District needs to be reined in for its lawless actions," Pratt said.
"It's about time that Congress takes its responsibility to do so seriously."

-GOA-