« Count the errors.... | Main | Supreme Court turns down Bloomberg suit appeal »
"Gun rights and voting rights clash in DC"
Story here.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Constitutional legitimacy (and my personal distaste for amendments completely unrelated to the bill they're attached to) aside, here's my favorite lines from the story:
"dismantling the capital city's restrictions on rapid-fire, semi-automatic weapons"
What's the dictionary definition of "rapid-fire" anyway, and can that definition co-exist with "semi-automatic"?
"Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting delegate to the House, said the Senate-approved provision allowing people who live within blocks of the White House to own military-style sniper weapons "is so reckless and radical that it puts at risk everybody from the president down to the kids that the amendment would allow to possess weapons.""
Military-style sniper weapons, huh? You mean like the deer rifles that several million hunters all own, all across this great nation, who have managed to NOT kill anyone with them? Gotta love it.
Yea, military style sniper rifles in Washington DC would be terribly risky. Oh wait they've always been legal there and still are, and it hasn't been a problem. It must have been the trigger lock requirement. The murderers are apparently afraid to break the law by taking their trigger locks off.
Bottom line, D.C. is prohibited from having voting rights in Congress. No trades, trade-offs, incentives, or bribes makes it any more legal.
Have to live with Maryland laws ... the rights of Maryland residents are the 5th most infringed of all 50 states.
But it looks like they are coming to a compromise to repeal a bunch of the gun laws in DC, to "grant" DC a vote in the House, and then to eventually lose that vote via the courts.
Amendmend the constitution, or cede back all non-federal portions of DC to Maryland.
Actually, it might be a very good ide to allow folks to own assault rifles in close proximity to the Senate...the Senators might actually think twice about their responsiveness to the "sovereign people" of the United States rather than what's in it for their reelection committee budget when they're busy legislating!
I wonder, would the debate be the same over abortion rights, those rights from the emanations of the penumbra ... As opposed to an actual enumerated right spelled out in the Bill of Rights?
It is unconstitutional for DC to have voting right in Congress. It is unconstitutional for liberal to deny Washington citizen gun rights. I assume liberals can still read.
It is common knowledge that you cannot be liberal and rational at the same time.