The NRA's Cheap Gun Trick on Washington D.C. Voting Rights
Reader Comments
+gun control
england has gun control and took away peoples rite to own hand guns and the bobbies there say that they now have to wear protective vest and cary automatice weapons to control the crimanals i would say that proves that less gun in the hangs of good people doesnt make crime go away criminals will always get guns you wont stop them if you destroyed every gun owned by good people criminals would still get guns from other places like mexico so banning guns is not the answer what is i dont pretend to know but i shot and my children shot we dont hunt but we like shooting is that wrong i dont think so is it wrong for me to tell you you should own a gun if you are afraid of them i do think so so dont pretend to know what someone else should do or not do freedom is just that the rite to chose your's and mine
Max of DC
First let me state that I have no problem with voting rights for D.C. residents. The problem lies in the way it is being done. A law can not override the Constitution. It requires an Amendment or, possibly, annexation of D.C. into Maryland.
As for gun rights in the district, the law prohibiting the exercise of Second Amendment rights was struck down by Heller. The D.C. City Council is now simply trying to circumvent the ruling. BTW, D.C. became "the murder capital of the world for about a decade" in the 1980s, after the 1976 gun ban took effect. To state that the ban curbed any crime is irrational.
Anti-gun nuts, vegenazis, bunny-kissers and others
I also send my thanks for reminding me to send my contribution to GOA. My NRA membership for the next several years is current. I am thinking about the Tree of Liberty that needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It draws near, but I am not afraid. I am happy to know that I'm not alone in these thoughts. I have a large extended family who think the same way I do and they are not happy about the wannabe tyrants who now run things in DC. By the way, why are the places where "gun crime" is out of control, there is strong gun control? Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore? Can anyone tell me without lies?
James Madison wrote, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed; unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334, [C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )
George Washington wrote, "A free people ought ... to be armed ...." (George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790, in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790)
Samuel Adams wrote, "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
Finally, Thomas Paine wrote, "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)
Horrid mischief, indeed! That's why the law-abiding "We The People" won't stand for being disarmed by hoplophobes.
Rights for DC Residents
DC (what's left of it) was carved out of Maryland. So if DC residents must vote for Congress-critters, let them vote in Maryland. Better yet, use the Fed's right of eminent domain, buy up the land and throw them all out. The only people who should live in DC are elected politicians (all of whom come from a State and can vote there) and foreign diplomats (who shouldn't vote, even if the vote Democrat). Everyone else who works there can take the Metro or carpool in.
Thanks!
- Thanks for reminding me that I need to send a check to the NRA.
- Thanks for reminding me to do the same with Gun Owners of America.
- Thanks for confirming that the anti-gun nuts are alive and well and that I need to be vigilant in securing my rights.
- Thanks for mobilizing millions of law-abiding firearms owners in the war against anti-gun nuts.
- Thanks for validating my notion that limousine liberals have little to do but snoop around in my business.
- Thanks, Robert, and have a great day!
Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.
Nearly every police officer in the country uses a semi-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic firearms are some of the most commonly owned in the country.
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Ban the under-armed!
“and if they are unconstitutional, then under-armed D.C. citizens can gain redress through the courts.”
I’m cool with that. The Government should issue each voter an M-16, and demand that they maintain it and practice once a month.
Enforce the Militia Act.
Or even better: Buy an M-16 on your own dime, or lose your right to vote.
GUN LAWS & NRA COMMENT
Robert, you are a fool and by opening your mouth you let everyone know you are a fool. That doesn't feel right does it? Neither does you calling me a RADICAL GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE, just because I want to be "equal" to everyone, by being able to defend my family, myself, my neighbors and my property by legally owning any gun I choose to own. I've jumped through so many "legal" hoops that it makes me dizzy!
The proper laws are on the books. Just enforce them and stop letting criminals free!
USA Today and almost ALL the media in this country only knows one way to "Print the Truth". I do not understand how people who have NEVER served their country via the military, can tell me what's good for me or what's not good for me. You do NOT know me. I am NOT running scared. I was a police officer. I know that police officers are not there to prevent crime, but to respond to crime after it occurs. Rarely are they in the right place at the right time. Please give me the chance to defend myself. If you don't feel you need a gun to make yourself equal to other men, then don't have one, but leave me alone. Having less people who have less guns, stops nothing. It changes nothing, except to make "some people" more vulnerable to crime in their area that cannot be stopped by anyone but them at the time the crime occurs. God help us all when people such as yourself can tell me what I need to do or not to do. Please stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours.
Semi-automatic weapons
"[D.C. citizens] simply have to register them, and cannot have any of the semi-automatic variety. Only radical gun rights advocate suggest these are unconstitutional limitations—"
Wow. I don't mean to sound insulting, but do you know what a 'semi-automatic' weapon is? If so, do you really think there's a useful distinction to be drawn between semi-autos and revolvers, which can also fire multiple shots without reloading?
DC Voting Rights Are Not DC Gun Rights
So many people on this board are completely obsessed with the gun rights aspect of this debate. Let us put that aside for a moment: Yes, D.C. is specifically denied voting representation in Congress by the Constitution, but to simply restate this is to ignore the injustice of the issue. Jim Crow Segregation was THE LAW before it was overturned. It was overturned because people felt it was an injustice. So yes, DC voting rights advocates can simultaneously recognize the unconstitutionality of their efforts and say that this is an injustice that needs to be changed.
Is it an injustice? Of course. To those who disagree, I challenge you to justify the forced disenfranchisement of 600,000 people in America. Any group of people. No democracy in the world selectively discriminates against its capital's citizens. How would you feel if they decided to take the vote from a large county in Alabama? There would be outrage!
As we can change aspects of the Constitution that we do not feel apply to the times (for example, women couldn't vote in the original Constitution, so we amended it) certainly what opponents of D.C. voting rights must prove is that it is not a problem worth righting. To do that would seem to fly in the very face of the principles of the Revolution. Then, Americans were legally, but oppressively taxed without representation. Now, D.C. residents are taxed without representation. We wanted representation then, so we revolted. D.C. wants representation now, so they are trying to pass a law to change things. Surely this isn't a crazy notion. Surely it isn't "shredding the Constitution." Would you have told George Washington to just suck it up because that's the way it is, because that's what the law said.
The Founders likely wanted D.C. to remain neutral in political debate, which is why they structured its voting rights in the way they did. However, this was possible when D.C. was swampland with fewer than 10,000 people living in it, not when 600,000 hardworking, tax-paying individuals reside there. Further, the city not being represented doesn't change the fact that D.C. has a political leaning. It is a liberal city with a liberal city structure and liberal politicians run the city. No one is saying that we should run them out of town to appease the Founders' intent. Nothing about the political structure of D.C. would change except that it would have a hand in setting its own budget! If you have tolerated its current political influence, you have nothing to fear.
On the issue of handgun rights: D.C. is a violent city. A very violent city. It was the "murder capital of the world" for about a decade. The handgun ban helped to significantly reduce the amount of violent crime in the city. That aside, the citizens of D.C. overwhelmingly (to the tune of about 80%) support the ban. This is simply the conservative attempt to railroad D.C. voting rights bills because they know it would tip political balances.
