Come on guys. Admit it. You've missed our political rants. As a disclaimer, most of my information has been collected from several sources, including Wikipedia, The Boston Globe, the LA Times, and www.disastercenter.com/crime/
The US Supreme Court is currently deciding whether or not a hand gun ban in Washington DC is legal. This is a fascinating case because the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court has a chance to rule on individual rights, rule on the government's ability to limit them (preferably reasonably), and lay some smack down on indignant law makers who believe that their situations allow them to ignore the Constitution.
The Mayor of DC said:
"This is a public safety case. We have long had a law in the District of Columbia that hand guns are banned in the city. Thirty years ago, as is the case today, hand guns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia; everything from robberies to homicide to rape. The fact that we have had a hand gun ban has significantly curtailed the amount of violent crime in the city as is evidenced by the fact that violent crime has significantly went down since the law was enacted. As mayor of the District of Columbia, I can attest that a majority of the residences of this city enthusiastically support the law that the council passed in the 70s, and want it to continue in order that crime continues to go down."
I have a couple of points I wish to make.
1) This is a case about the legality of the law DC passed, not about whether or not we think Washington DC needs to be a safer place.
2) So, if you have a hand gun ban, and hand guns still make up a disproportionate number of crimes just like thirty years ago, you think the law is working? So the criminals still have guns, but regular people don't anymore...
3) Oh wait though, we know that the law is working because violent crime is down significantly since it was enacted. I love when people confuse correlation and causation. We enacted this law and 30 years later, there is less reported violent crime. Just in case anyone is wondering, in 1976 (the year this law was enacted) there were 10,399 violent crimes. In 2006, there were 8,772 violent crimes. Sounds like it's working, right? Well, let's delve a little deeper. In 1976, there were 702,000 residents of Washington DC. In 2006 there were 581,530 residents. Which means, per capita, there were about 2% more violent crimes in 2006 than in 1976. Numbers don't lie, right? No, they just tell you what you want them to. Also, if you want an interesting perspective on why violent crime decreased (it hit its peak in the 90s in DC, 20 years after banning hand guns) read Freakonomics.
4) The DC Police Chief Cathy Lenier also made comments. She made sure to point out that handguns aren't completely banned. Police can have them. Retired police, federal law enforcement and security agencies too. So, there isn't a complete hand gun ban. Whew, I feel safer knowing that the government has guns. The criminals too.
4) Lots of people wanting something that's not legal doesn't make it legal. If they don't like it, change the Constitution. We have the mechanism to change the Constitution for a reason.
Please note, I do not own a gun. I don't know that I'll ever own a gun. I do not believe that people should have access to whatever guns they want and I think that mentally deranged people, violent criminals, and children should not have access to guns. I do believe that people need to respect the Constitution. We have rights which were thought out by far more intelligent (and dare I say, inspired) men than currently run our government. Let's not blow it.
8 comments:
We are so married for a reason (ok, for many). Excellent post.
I really do love your political rants. Makes me feel so well-informed. :)
Where is this "right to bear arms" in the Constitution? I couldn't find it in there anywhere...
It's like you're tempting me . . .
That darn Bill of Rights. I suppose it's not included in the original Constitution. You've got me there. Just to quote the second amendment (for those of you who might not be familiar with it): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And I welcome informed, well-constructed constructive criticism. This post is by no means definitive. It's my opinion at the time at which I wrote it. I think this case is quite interesting because it actually will (maybe) settle the debate on whether the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals. I attack the DC official's arguments because they're poorly reasoned. My biggest problem is that most people don't think it through. I think it's important to get someone to actually think through arguments instead of parroting ones that they've heard elsewhere, even if they disagree with me.
Nice post, I am in the same boat as far as the gun ownership / support of the Bill of Rights (aka Amended Constitution)
How about the 436 Laws added to Utah State citizens? I think the problem is too many freaking laws.
I heard a good idea the other day:
For every law that gets passed in order for it to pass there should be a requirement that the passing body has to remove two words from old law for every one word of the new law. This would make our laws less wordy, plus then they would only be able to pass new laws that are actually better than old laws.
Also having the state infringe on constitutional rights seems like it could be construed as a succession from the Union. Maybe we should strip their voting delegates? ;-)
We are living the day's foretold where the Constitution will "hang by a thread". The Bill of Rights were the first ammendments introduced to Congress in 1789 by James Madison. 10 of them were passed and became known as the Bill of Rights.
We now only have 2 rights remaining - the right to bear arms and the right to not be required to quarter troops.
With the passing of the Patriot Act, HR6166 and Patriot Act part II and other legislation, the other 8 have been laid to rest thanks to our current administration and Congress.
If you don't believe me, google away to your hearts delight. I also recommend the book The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf.
My thanks to Brett and his well thought comments on the subject.
With those cheery thoughts, have a good Easter weekend! :)
Sure it's been included in the original constitution, by amendment in fact. ;-)
Post a Comment