Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:32 PM ET, 05/21/2010

Scaremongering over bid to repeal D.C.'s gun laws

By washingtonpost.com editors

By Chris Rories
Burke

It is ridiculous and dishonest to suggest that loosening gun laws in the District would create some sort of terrorism threat [“Homeland insecurity,” editorial, May 19]. The District’s draconian gun laws have never kept guns out of the hands of the city’s criminal element, only those of its law-abiding citizens. For the decades that these laws have been in effect, firearms have still been readily available to criminals on the black market, reflecting the obvious fact that being unable to legally purchase a gun is no obstacle to people who don’t care about breaking the law in the first place.

So who really believes that terrorists plotting to assassinate government officials are being held back by their inability to legally possess a pistol or rifle in the District? Would these terrorists try to legally register their weapons before carrying out their attack? Are we really to believe that they are rendered toothless by the same restrictions that have never managed to keep guns away from gang members and petty thugs with a few hundred dollars in their pockets?
How unfortunate that a valid debate over the role of Congress in D.C.’s government is being tainted with this sort of irresponsible and unrealistic scaremongering.

By washingtonpost.com editors  | May 21, 2010; 7:32 PM ET
Categories:  D.C., HotTopic, guns  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Georgetown's 10-year town-gown ritual
Next: The case of the vanished sword

Comments

chris youre right on about the rant"s of the anti 2nd amendment kooks they only like the parts of the bill of rights that can be used to support some of their agenda try telling them that the 1st" 4th"&5th amendment applies only to the federal govt & not the states

Posted by: crimson1 | May 21, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

chris youre right on about the rant"s of the anti 2nd amendment kooks they only like the parts of the bill of rights that can be used to support some of their agenda try telling them that the 1st" 4th"&5th amendment applies only to the federal govt & not the states

Posted by: crimson1 | May 21, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

lawful citizens should be allowed to obtain concealed permits...the criminals already carry concealed weapons

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | May 22, 2010 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Self defense is an unalienable unwritten right of ALL lifeforms.

Repeals D.C.'s B.S. laws. If Mayor Feinty has a problem with that, then tell him to forego his concealed carry license and armed security, and to walk undefended like the rest of us.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | May 24, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse


People fear tht their illusions will be destroyed. Now they do not bother to change us into a civil society - they blame guns. Once they would put a gun in prison for murder. Now we do much the same. We blame guns for our violence.

Illusions are in danger and people fight very hard to protect them.

Next illusions to go down: drug laws.

As if they do any good, too.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 24, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse


People fear tht their illusions will be destroyed. Now they do not bother to change us into a civil society - they blame guns. Once they would put a gun in prison for murder. Now we do much the same. We blame guns for our violence.

Illusions are in danger and people fight very hard to protect them.

Next illusions to go down: drug laws.

As if they do any good, too.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 24, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion the Constitution says (in so many words) "if you want a good militia, you need an armed population - so do not have any laws preventing people from owning arms."

But I hate people who say "I know what it really means." Then say one has to be a member of a militia to have arms.

I can read.

Don't be silly.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 24, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion the Constitution says (in so many words) "if you want a good militia, you need an armed population - so do not have any laws preventing people from owning arms."

But I hate people who say "I know what it really means." Then say one has to be a member of a militia to have arms.

I can read.

Don't be silly.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 24, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

There is scare-mongering on both sides. It's massive scare-mongering that allows the government to pass the Patriot Act, and most of America didn't even blink. The sky is not falling.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 24, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

But it would be nice if we could get the guns out of the hands of chilredn and young adults who only purpose in carrying them is to "look cool". In certain areas of the district you have a much high protential of being shot than in Helmand Province

Posted by: schnauzer2 | May 25, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company