Topic: Gun Control
Weep for Washington D.C, Will We Be Next? If the citizens of DC were a nation, we would arm them for the purpose of protection. As U.S. citizens, we strip them of their protection.by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Friday, January 18, 2008
This week the Bush administration effectively launched an attack on Second Amendment Rights where it lives-DC. The Supreme Court is reviewing a case where the residents of D.C. are denied the right to own guns. If the Supreme Court allows the residents of D.C. to have their Second Amendment Rights restricted, would that not open the door for them to also be restricted for the rest of us?
U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement has stated that "gun rights are limited and subject to 'reasonable regulation'.
In submitting a "friend of the court" briefing, he made the following statement:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment."
Residents of the District of Columbia are not allowed to have any type of guns in their homes for protection. Not handguns, not shotguns, no rifles. How comfortable criminal must feel knowing their victims are not armed with guns.
If only the District of Columbia was a nation in the Middle East how differently they would be treated. Our government would arm them to the nth degree so that they would be able to protect themselves. Each time there was an assault on the people of the District, our Congress would allocate funds to aid them and train them to protect themselves.
Instead we strip them of their Constitutional Rights. It's for their own safety, we are told. How safe do you think the people of D.C. really feel?
Normally, you would expect this type of attack on the Second Amendment from the Democrats. But not any more. George Bush has spent more than a democratic president would, he has expanded social programs more than a democrat would have, and now his administration is attacking our Constitutional Rights as only a democrat could.
With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, January 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Can someone explain to me how every current member of the Supreme Court is not up for impeachment? First the Patriot Act now this? Why does nobody care?
I do have to say, Moosa is incorrect in his statement. While it is true we cannot legally own handguns, Washingtonians are allowed to legally own a long-guns, but they either have to have a gun lock on them or be disassembled.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.