I guess the Republicans and the Democrats really are two distinct parties after all: The Democrats want the District of Columbia's gun laws relaxed, while the Republicans are for the most part sitting on their glutei maximi.
Incidentally, this is good work on the Democrats' part. I also think this (along with the Bush regime's support of D.C.'s rigid gun laws) shows how much easier it is for the Republicans to lapse into Allowed Cloud mode now that they at least have more power than they did 15 years ago.
A Democratic bill in the House would effectively end D.C.'s handgun control laws, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that such laws are unconstitutional. It has 48 Democratic cosponsors. Many folks had long believed that these laws were unconstitutional - but the Republicans never erased these laws in the many years that they controlled Congress from 1995 through 2006.
I'm all for local autonomy, and I'll be the first to say D.C. should be given statehood. But the Constitution's safeguards of individual rights take priority - regardless of whether you're in D.C. or one of the 50 states. That's what the concept of inalienable rights means. You can't have a law that's unconstitutional. And D.C. and the 50 states shouldn't be able to avoid remedying such unconstitutional laws after they were ruled as such.
At least the Democrats are backing bills to support gun rights. Everyone acts like it's a Republican issue, but I for one damn sure don't want to see the Second Amendment trampled - much as I don't want the First Amendment trampled either.
(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/04/AR2008080402260.html)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Democrats want D.C. gun laws relaxed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Now this is what I'm talking about. I for one have always been outraged when they try to push outrageous gun control laws.
ReplyDeleteAs a democrat who supports intelligent gun bearing, I am proud to see the rest of the democratic party supporting such an action. Even if it is a little out of character of their standard.
Are we ready to form a well regulated state militia yet? When we are allowed to form militias powerful enough to protect the people then I will agree that the second amendment is in force. Personal firearm permission is great but it seems like we are so distracted with it that we have neglected why the amendment was placed in the constitution at all. It was placed there as a last resort and it's function is to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing and oppressing it's people by possibly throwing it off and starting anew. Now, I am not suggesting we are near that point, but one day we might be and we will have no recourse as a people if we don't heed the second amendments warning. The second amendment is for our protection against invaders which could possibly include our own tyrannical government. Without the second amendment, someday we may not have a constitution at all.
ReplyDelete